[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1222-1228]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00116]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737; FRL-9945-02-OCSPP]

Trichloroethylene (TCE); Revision to the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final revision to the risk determination for the
trichloroethylene (TCE) risk evaluation issued under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The revision to the TCE risk
determination reflects the announced policy changes to ensure the
public is protected from unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way
that is supported by science and the law. EPA determined that TCE, as a
whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health when evaluated under its conditions of use. In addition, this
revised risk determination does not reflect an assumption that workers
always appropriately wear personal protective equipment (PPE). EPA
understands that there could be adequate occupational safety
protections in place at certain workplace locations; however, not
assuming use of PPE reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk
may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed
because they are not covered by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards, or their employers are out of
compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-
specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are
described by OSHA as being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring
protection of worker health,'' or because EPA finds unreasonable risk
for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements. This revision
supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk
determinations in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation and withdraws
the associated TSCA order included in the November 2020 TCE Risk
Evaluation.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0737, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person at the Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection
Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg.,
Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional instructions on visiting the
docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Katie McNamara, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing,
distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving
chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import),
process (including recycling), distribute in commerce, use or dispose
of TCE, including TCE in products. Since other entities may also be
interested in this revision to the risk determination, EPA has not
attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by
this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
(PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A).
TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and
minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions
that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo
evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the
timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation.
TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with
the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the
scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available

information. 15 U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to
revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983). Pursuant to
such authority, EPA has reconsidered and is now finalizing a revised
risk determination for TCE.

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the final revision to the
risk determination for the TCE risk evaluation issued under TSCA that
published in November 2020 (Ref. 1). In July 2022, EPA sought public
comment on the draft revisions (87 FR 40520, July 7, 2022). EPA
appreciates the public comments received on the draft revision to the
TCE risk determination. After review of these comments and
consideration of the specific circumstances of TCE, EPA concludes that
the Agency's risk determination for TCE is better characterized as a
whole chemical risk determination rather than condition-of-use-specific
risk determinations. Accordingly, EPA is revising and replacing Section
5 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) where the findings
of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the individual
conditions of use evaluated. EPA is also withdrawing the previously
issued TSCA section 6(i)(l) order for two conditions of use previously
determined not to present unreasonable risk which was included in
Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).
    This final revision to the TCE risk determination is consistent
with EPA's plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten TSCA
chemical risk evaluations to ensure that the risk evaluations better
align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment.
As a result of this revision, removing the assumption that workers
always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) does not alter the
conditions of use that drive the unreasonable risk determination for
TCE, though additional risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects
from inhalation and dermal exposures also drive the unreasonable risk
in many of those conditions of use (where previously those conditions
of use were identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic
non-cancer effects and cancer). However, EPA is not making condition-
of-use-specific risk determinations for those conditions of use, and
for purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is not issuing a final order
under TSCA section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of use that do not drive
the unreasonable risk, and does not consider the revised risk
determination to constitute a final agency action at this point in
time. Overall, 52 conditions of use out of 54 EPA evaluated drive the
TCE whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due to risks
identified for human health. The full list of the conditions of use
evaluated for the TCE TSCA risk evaluation is in Tables 4-59 and 4-60
of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the TCE risk
evaluation conducted under TSCA?

    In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (``Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis'') and other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6),
EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical
substances, including TCE, to ensure that they meet the requirements of
TSCA, including conducting decision-making in a manner that is
consistent with the best available science.
    As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific
aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby
help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref.
7). Following a review of specific aspects of the November 2020 TCE
Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and after considering comments received on a
draft revised risk determination for TCE, EPA has determined that
making an unreasonable risk determination for TCE as a whole chemical
substance, rather than making unreasonable risk determinations
separately on each individual condition of use evaluated in the risk
evaluation, is the most appropriate approach for TCE under the statute
and implementing regulations. In addition, EPA's final risk
determination is explicit insofar as it does not rely on assumptions
regarding the use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination
under TSCA section 6, even though some facilities might be using PPE as
one means to reduce worker exposures; rather, the use of PPE as a means
of addressing unreasonable risk will be considered during risk
management, as appropriate.
    Separately, EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess risks
from the air and water pathways for several of the first 10 chemicals,
including this chemical. For TCE the exposure pathways that were or
could be regulated under another EPA-administered statute were excluded
from the final risk evaluation (see section 1.4.2 of the November 2020
TCE Risk Evaluation). This resulted in the ambient air and ambient
water pathways for TCE not being assessed. The goal of the recently-
developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and to
determine if there may be risks that were unaccounted for in the TCE
risk evaluation. The screening-level approach has gone through public
comment and independent external peer review through the SACC. The
Agency received the final peer review report on May 18, 2022, and has
reviewed public comments and SACC comments. EPA expects to describe its
findings regarding the chemical-specific application of this screening-
level approach in the forthcoming proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a)
for TCE.
    This action pertains only to the risk determination for TCE. While
EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar actions on
other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-specific
approach to reviewing these risk evaluations and is

incorporating new policy direction in a surgical manner, while being
mindful of Congressional direction on the need to complete risk
evaluations and move toward any associated risk management activities
in accordance with statutory deadlines.

B. What is a whole chemical view of the unreasonable risk determination
for the TCE risk evaluation?

    TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use.
Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should
receive: A single determination that is comprehensive for the chemical
substance after considering the conditions of use, referred to as a
whole-chemical determination; or multiple determinations, each of which
is specific to a condition of use, referred to as condition-of-use-
specific determinations.
    As explained in the Federal Register document announcing the
availability of the draft revised risk determination for TCE (87 FR
40522, July 7, 2022 (FRL-9945-01-OCSPP)), the proposed Risk Evaluation
Procedural Rule (Ref. 8) was premised on the whole chemical approach to
making unreasonable risk determinations. In that proposed rule, EPA
acknowledged a lack of specificity in statutory text that might lead to
different views about whether the statute compelled EPA's risk
evaluations to address all conditions of use of a chemical substance or
whether EPA had discretion to evaluate some subset of conditions of use
(i.e., to scope out some manufacturing, processing, distribution in
commerce, use, or disposal activities), but also stated that ``EPA
believes the word `the' [in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)] is best
interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of
use.'' The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that
unreasonable risk determinations would be for the chemical substance as
a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. See Ref. 8 at pages 7565-66
(``TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must
determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.'
The evaluation is on the chemical substance--not individual conditions
of use--and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this
context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for
evaluation that considers all conditions of use.''). In the proposed
regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under the conditions of use. (Ref. 8 at 7480.)
    The final Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule stated (82 FR 33726, July
20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38)) (Ref. 9): ``As part of the risk evaluation, EPA
will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of
uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single
decision document or in multiple decision documents'' (40 CFR 702.47).
For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk
evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated as part of each risk
evaluation document (i.e., the condition-of-use-specific approach to
risk determinations). That approach was based on one particular passage
in the preamble to the final Risk Evaluation Rule which stated that EPA
will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of use
identified in the scope. (Ref. 9 at 33744).
    In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final Risk
Evaluation Rule, the regulatory text itself and other statements in the
preamble reference a risk determination for the chemical substance
under its conditions of use, rather than separate risk determinations
for each of the conditions of use of a chemical substance. In the key
regulatory provision excerpted previously from 40 CFR 702.47, the text
explains that ``[a]s part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine
whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within
the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document
or in multiple decision documents'' (Ref. 9, emphasis added). Other
language reiterates this perspective. For example, 40 CFR 702.31(a)
states that the purpose of the rule is to establish the EPA process for
conducting a risk evaluation to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment as
required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B). Likewise, there are recurring
references to whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which
explains that the extent to which EPA will refine its evaluations for
one or more condition of use in any risk evaluation will vary as
necessary to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one preambular statement about
condition-of-use-specific risk determinations, the preamble to the
final rule also contains support for a risk determination on the
chemical substance as a whole. In discussing the identification of the
conditions of use of a chemical substance, the preamble notes that this
task inevitably involves the exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and
``as EPA interprets the statute, the Agency is to exercise that
discretion consistent with the objective of conducting a technically
sound, manageable evaluation to determine whether a chemical
substance--not just individual uses or activities--presents an
unreasonable risk'' (Ref. 9 at 33729).
    Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-
specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk
evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical
risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the
regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also
recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer
Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d. 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a
challenge about ``use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable
because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk
Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk
evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear'').
    EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical
substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of
the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-
by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's
ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual
chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under
TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
    With regard to the specific circumstances of TCE, EPA has
determined that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for TCE in
order to protect health and the environment. The whole chemical
approach is appropriate for TCE because there are benchmark exceedances
for a substantial number of conditions of use (spanning across most
aspects of the chemical lifecycle--from manufacturing (including
import), processing, industrial and commercial use, consumer use, and
disposal) for workers, occupational non-users, consumers, and
bystanders associated

with TCE exposures. Because these chemical-specific properties cut
across the conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a
substantial amount of the conditions of use drive the unreasonable
risk; therefore, it is appropriate for the Agency to make a
determination for TCE that the whole chemical presents an unreasonable
risk.
    As explained later in this document, the revisions to the
unreasonable risk determination (Section 5 of the November 2020 TCE
Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)) follow the issuance of a draft revision to
the TSCA TCE unreasonable risk determination (87 FR 40520, July 07,
2022) and the receipt of public comment. A response to comments
document is also being issued with the final revised unreasonable risk
determination for TCE (Ref. 10). The revisions to the unreasonable risk
determination are based on the existing risk characterization section
of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) (Section 4) and do
not involve additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion
of the issues in this Federal Register document and in the accompanying
final revised risk determination for TCE supersede any conflicting
statements in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the
earlier response to comments document (Ref. 11). EPA views the peer
reviewed hazard and exposure assessments and associated risk
characterization as robust and upholding the standards of best
available science and weight of the scientific evidence per TSCA
sections 26(h) and (i).
    For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a risk
determination on TCE as a whole chemical. Under the revised approach,
the ``whole chemical'' risk determination for TCE supersedes the no
unreasonable risk determinations for TCE that were premised on a
condition-of-use-specific approach to determining unreasonable risk and
also contains an order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in
Section 5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

C. What revision is EPA now making final about the use of PPE for the
TCE risk evaluation?

    In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as
part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several
conditions of use that workers were provided and always used PPE in a
manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for
respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal
protection. In support of this assumption, EPA used reasonably
available information such as public comments indicating that some
employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their
employees and follow established worker protection standards (e.g.,
OSHA requirements for protection of workers).
    For the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2), EPA assumed
that workers used PPE for 21 occupational conditions of use. In the
November 2020 TCE risk evaluation, EPA determined that there is
unreasonable risk to workers for all these conditions of use even with
this assumed PPE use.
    EPA is revising the assumption for TCE that workers always and
properly use PPE. However, this does not mean that EPA questions the
veracity of public comments which describe occupational safety
practices often followed by industry. EPA believes it is appropriate
when conducting risk evaluations under TSCA to evaluate the levels of
risk present in baseline scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used
by workers. This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers considers
the risk to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations of
workers who may not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed
individuals and public sector workers who are not covered by a State
Plan. It should be noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may
reflect certain mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in
instances where exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at
facilities that have engineering controls in place.
    In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels
of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements
(e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or
chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards),
as well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency.
Consistent with this approach, the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation
(Ref. 2) characterized risk to workers both with and without the use of
PPE. By characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect different
levels of mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform potential
risk management actions by providing information that could be used
during risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately to
address any unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that applicable
OSHA requirements or industry or sector best practices that address the
unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed and
susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).
    When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA
risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or
industry practice related to PPE use is consistently and always
properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk
evaluation (e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely
represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the
Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices
for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination (Ref. 12).
    Therefore, EPA is making a determination of unreasonable risk for
TCE from a baseline scenario that does not assume compliance with OSHA
standards, including any applicable exposure limits or requirements for
use of respiratory protection or other PPE. Making unreasonable risk
determinations based on the baseline scenario should not be viewed as
an indication that EPA believes there are no occupational safety
protections in place at any location, or that there is widespread non-
compliance with applicable OSHA standards. Rather, it reflects EPA's
recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for subpopulations of
workers that may be highly exposed because they are not covered by OSHA
standards, such as self-employed individuals and public sector workers
who are not covered by a State Plan, or because their employer is out
of compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-
specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are
described by OSHA as being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring
protection of worker health,'' (Ref. 13), or because the OSHA PEL alone
may be inadequate to protect human health, or because EPA finds
unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA
requirements.
    In accordance with this approach, EPA is finalizing the revision to
the TCE risk determination without relying on assumptions regarding the
occupational use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination
under TSCA section 6; rather, information on the use of PPE as a means
of mitigating risk (including public comments received from industry
respondents about occupational safety practices in use) will be
considered during the risk management phase, as appropriate. This
represents a change from the approach

taken in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). As a general
matter, when undertaking risk management actions, EPA intends to strive
for consistency with applicable OSHA requirements and industry best
practices, including appropriate application of the hierarchy of
controls, to the extent that applying those measures would address the
identified unreasonable risk, including unreasonable risk to
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with TSCA
section 9(d), EPA will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with OSHA
and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving the
maximum applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of
duplicative requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and
information gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management
process, the Agency might propose rules that require risk management
practices that may be already common practice in many or most
facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will
foster compliance across all facilities (ensuring a level playing
field) and assure protections for all affected workers, especially in
cases where current OSHA standards may not apply or be sufficient to
address the unreasonable risk.
    Removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for TCE does not
result in additional conditions of use to the original 52 conditions of
use that drive the unreasonable risk, though EPA identifies additional
risks for acute non-cancer and cancer effects from inhalation and
dermal exposures as driving the unreasonable risk within many of those
conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer
effects and cancer due to assumed use of PPE). The finalized revision
to the TCE risk determination clarifies that EPA does not rely on the
assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination for the whole
substance; rather, the use of PPE as a means of addressing unreasonable
risk will be considered during risk management, as appropriate.

D. What is TCE?

    TCE is a colorless liquid with a pleasant, sweet odor resembling
that of chloroform. It is considered a volatile organic compound and
has a wide range of uses in consumer and commercial products and in
industry. An estimated 84% of TCE's annual production volume is used as
an intermediate in the manufacture of the hydrofluorocarbon, HFC-134a,
an alternative to the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon, CFC-12. Another
15% of TCE production volume is used as a degreasing solvent, leaving
approximately 1% for other uses. The total aggregate production volume
decreased from 220.5 to 171.9 million pounds between 2012 and 2015.

E. What conclusions is EPA finalizing today in the revised TSCA risk
evaluation based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the
use of PPE?

    EPA determined that TCE presents an unreasonable risk to health
under the conditions of use. EPA's unreasonable risk determination for
TCE as a chemical substance is driven by risks associated with the
following conditions of use, considered singularly or in combination
with other exposures:
     Manufacturing: domestic manufacture;
     Manufacturing: import;
     Processing: processing as a reactant/intermediate;
     Processing: incorporation into a formulation, mixture or
reaction product;
     Processing: incorporation into articles;
     Processing: repackaging;
     Processing: recycling;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for open-top
batch vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for closed-loop
batch vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for in-line
conveyorized vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for in-line web
cleaner vapor degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for cold
cleaning;
     Industrial and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol
spray degreaser/cleaner and mold release;
     Industrial and commercial use as a lubricant and grease in
tap and die fluid;
     Industrial and commercial use as a lubricant and grease in
penetrating lubricant;
     Industrial and commercial use as an adhesive and sealant
in solvent-based adhesives and sealants; tire repair cement/sealer;
mirror edge sealant;
     Industrial and commercial use as a functional fluid in
heat exchange fluid;
     Industrial and commercial use in paints and coatings as a
diluent in solvent-based paints and coatings;
     Industrial and commercial use in cleaning and furniture
care products in carpet cleaner and wipe cleaning;
     Industrial and commercial use in laundry and dishwashing
products in spot remover;
     Industrial and commercial use in arts, crafts, and hobby
materials in fixatives and finishing spray coatings;
     Industrial and commercial use in corrosion inhibitors and
anti-scaling agents;
     Industrial and commercial use in processing aids in
process solvent used in battery manufacture; process solvent used in
polymer fabric spinning, fluoroelastomer manufacture and Alcantara
manufacture; extraction solvent used in caprolactam manufacture;
precipitant used in beta-cyclodextrin manufacture;
     Industrial and commercial use as ink, toner and colorant
products in toner aid;
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
in brake and parts cleaner;
     Industrial and commercial use in apparel and footwear care
products in shoe polish;
     Industrial and commercial use in hoof polish; gun
scrubber; pepper spray; other miscellaneous industrial and commercial
uses;
     Consumer use as a solvent in brake and parts cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol electronic degreaser/
cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in liquid electronic degreaser/
cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol spray degreaser/
cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in liquid degreaser/cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol gun scrubber;
     Consumer use as a solvent in liquid gun scrubber;
     Consumer use as a solvent in mold release;
     Consumer use as a solvent in aerosol tire cleaner;
     Consumer use as a solvent in liquid tire cleaner;
     Consumer use as a lubricant and grease in tap and die
fluid;
     Consumer use as a lubricant and grease in penetrating
lubricant;
     Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in solvent-based
adhesives and sealants;
     Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in mirror edge
sealant;
     Consumer use as an adhesive and sealant in tire repair
cement/sealer;
     Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture care product in
carpet cleaner;
     Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture care product in
aerosol spot remover;
     Consumer use as a cleaning and furniture case product in
liquid spot remover;

     Consumer use in arts, crafts, and hobby materials in
fixative and finishing spray coatings;
     Consumer use in apparel and footwear products in shoe
polish;
     Consumer use in fabric spray;
     Consumer use in film cleaner;
     Consumer use in hoof polish;
     Consumer use in toner aid; and
     Disposal.
    The following conditions of use do not drive EPA's unreasonable
risk determination for TCE:
     Consumer use in pepper spray; and
     Distribution in commerce.
    EPA is not making condition of use-specific risk determinations for
these conditions of use, is not issuing a final order under TSCA
section 6(i)(1) for the conditions of use that do not drive the
unreasonable risk and does not consider the revised risk determination
for TCE to constitute a final agency action at this point in time.
    Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a),
EPA will propose a risk management regulatory action to the extent
necessary so that TCE no longer presents an unreasonable risk. EPA
expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions of use
that drive the unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted that,
under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the specific
activities found to drive unreasonable risk and may select from among a
suite of risk management requirements in section 6(a) related to
manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce,
commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory options to
address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may regulate
upstream activities (e.g., processing, distribution in commerce) to
address downstream activities (e.g., consumer uses) driving
unreasonable risk, even if the upstream activities do not drive the
unreasonable risk.

III. Summary of Public Comments

    EPA received a total of 15 public comments on the July 7, 2022,
draft revised risk determination for TCE during the comment period that
ended August 8, 2022. Commenters included trade organizations, industry
stakeholders, environmental groups, and non-governmental health
advocacy organizations. A separate document that summarizes all
comments submitted and EPA's responses to those comments has been
prepared and is available in the docket for this notice (Ref. 10).

IV. Revision of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA revising the risk determination for the TCE risk
evaluation?

    EPA is finalizing the revised risk determination for the TCE risk
evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent with Executive
Order 13990, (``Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and other
Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). EPA is revising
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk
evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align
with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the
TCE risk evaluation, this includes: (1) Making the risk determination
in this instance based on the whole chemical substance instead of by
individual conditions of use and (2) Emphasizing that EPA does not rely
on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination.

B. What are the revisions?

    EPA is now finalizing the revised risk determination for the
November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) pursuant to TSCA section
6(b). Under the revised determination (Ref. 1), EPA concludes that TCE,
as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a whole, presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated under its
conditions of use. This revision replaces the previous unreasonable
risk determinations made for TCE by individual conditions of use,
supersedes the determinations (and withdraws the associated order) of
no unreasonable risk for the conditions of use identified in the TSCA
section 6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order, and clarifies the lack of
reliance on assumed use of PPE as part of the risk determination.
    These revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical or
scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and as
such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are not
changed, except to statements about PPE assumptions in Section
<IP_ADDRESS>.5 (Dermal Exposure Modeling) and Section 4.2.2 (Risk Estimation
for Occupational Exposures), Table 4-9 (Inhalation Exposure Data
Summary and PPE Use Determination). The discussion of the issues in
this Notice and in the accompanying final revision to the risk
determination supersede any conflicting statements in the prior
executive summary, and Section <IP_ADDRESS>.5 and Section 4.2.2 (Table 4-9)
from the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the response to
comments document (Ref. 11).
    The revised unreasonable risk determination for TCE includes
additional explanation of how the risk evaluation characterizes the
applicable OSHA requirements, or industry or sector best practices, and
also clarifies that no additional analysis was done, and the risk
determination is based on the risk characterization (Section 4) of the
November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

C. Will the revised risk determination be peer reviewed?

    The risk determination (Section 5 of the November 2020 TCE Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2)) was not part of the scope of the Science Advisory
Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review of the TCE risk evaluation.
Thus, consistent with that approach, EPA did not conduct peer review of
the final revised unreasonable risk determination for the TCE risk
evaluation because no technical or scientific changes were made to the
hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization.

V. Order Withdrawing Previous Order Regarding Unreasonable Risk
Determinations for Certain Conditions of Use

    EPA is also issuing a new order to withdraw the TSCA Section
6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the
November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). This final revised risk
determination supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable
risk determinations in the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).
The order contained in Section 5.5 of the revised risk determination
(Ref. 1) withdraws the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order contained in Section
5.4.1 of the November 2020 TCE Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). Consistent
with the statutory requirements of section 6(a), the Agency will
propose risk management action to address the unreasonable risk
determined in the TCE risk evaluation.

VI. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult

the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Unreasonable Risk Determination for Trichloroethylene (TCE).
December 2022.
2. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Trichloroethylene. November 2020. EPA
Document #740-R-18-008. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0500-0113.
3. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.
Federal Register. 86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021.
4. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register. 86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021.
5. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register. 86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021.
6. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register. 86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021.
7. EPA. Press Release; EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluations.
8. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
7562, January 19, 2017 (FRL-9957-75).
9. EPA. Final Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register. 82 FR
33726, July 20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38).
10. EPA. Response to Public Comments to the Revised Unreasonable
Risk Determination; Trichloroethylene (TCE). December 2022.
11. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for Trichloroethylene (TCE). November 2020. Available
at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0500-0114.
12. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Top 10
Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2021 (October 1,
2020, to September 30, 2021). Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/top10citedstandards.
13. OSHA. Permissible Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables. Accessed
June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: January 3, 2023.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2023-00116 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42350-42352]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17421]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67422; File No. SR-BYX-2012-013]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.

July 12, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 8, 2012, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fee schedule applicable to
Members \3\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BYX Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
will be effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to: (i)
Accommodate an additional venue as part of the Exchange's ``TRIM''
routing strategy; and (ii) commence charging for logical ports used to
enter orders into Exchange systems and to receive data from the
Exchange. Each of these proposed changes is described in further detail
below.
(i) TRIM Routing Strategy
    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule in order to
accommodate an additional venue as part of the Exchange's ``TRIM''
routing strategy. As defined in BYX Rule 11.13(a)(3)(G), TRIM is a
routing option under which an order checks the System \4\ for available
shares and then is sent to destinations on the System routing table.
The TRIM routing strategy is focused on seeking execution of orders
while minimizing execution costs by routing to certain low cost
execution venues on the Exchange's routing table. Accordingly, the
Exchange's current TRIM routing strategy will check the Exchange's
order book and then route to various venues on the Exchange's routing
table, including NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``NASDAQ BX''), EDGA EXCHANGE,
Inc. (``EDGA''), the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), BATS
Exchange, Inc. (``BZX Exchange'') and certain alternative trading
systems available through the Exchange's ``DRT'' strategy (``DRT
Venues'').\5\ As of July 2, 2012, the Exchange plans to add an
additional execution venue, NASDAQ OMX PSX (``NASDAQ PSX''), to the
TRIM routing strategy. The TRIM routing strategy generally passes the
same execution fee assessed by the applicable market center back to
Exchange Users.\6\ In order to add NASDAQ PSX to the TRIM routing
strategy, the Exchange is proposing to adopt pricing for executions
through the TRIM routing strategy of orders routed to NASDAQ PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in BYX Rule 1.5(aa), the System is the electronic
communications and trading facility designated by the Board through
which securities orders of Users are consolidated for ranking,
execution and, when applicable, routing away.
    \5\ As set forth in BYX Rule 11.13(a)(3)(E), DRT is a routing
option in which the entering firm instructs the System to route to
alternative trading systems included in the System routing table.
Unless otherwise specified, DRT can be combined with and function
consistent with all other routing options.
    \6\ As defined in BYX Rule 1.5(cc), a User is any Member or
Sponsored Participant who is authorized to obtain access to the
System pursuant to Rule 11.3. A Sponsored Participant is a firm that
is sponsored by a Member of the Exchange to access the Exchange and
that meets the criteria of Exchange Rule 11.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on a recently filed proposal, as of July 2, 2012, NASDAQ PSX
does not assess any charge to remove liquidity from its order book for
participants that reach certain volume tiers.\7\ Because the Exchange
anticipates being able to reach such tiers based on its routing
practices, the Exchange proposes neither to assess any fee nor to
provide any rebate for TRIM orders that remove liquidity from NASDAQ
PSX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See SR-Phlx-2012-87 (June 27, 2012). This proposal was
recently filed and will become operative on July 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(ii) Logical Port Fees
    The Exchange also proposes to commence charging fees to Members and
non-members for logical ports used to enter orders into Exchange
systems and to receive data from the Exchange. A logical port is also
commonly referred to as a TCP/IP port, and represents a port
established by the Exchange within the Exchange's system for trading
and billing purposes. Each logical port

established is specific to a Member or non-member and grants that
Member or non-member the ability to operate a specific application,
such as FIX order entry or Multicast PITCH data receipt.
    In contrast to its affiliate, BZX Exchange, and most of its
competitors, the Exchange currently provides logical ports free of
charge to Members and non-members that have access to or receive data
from the Exchange. Pursuant to the proposed rule change, the Exchange
will begin charging a monthly fee for ports used to enter orders in the
Exchange's trading system and to receive data from the Exchange. The
Exchange proposes to charge $400.00 per month per pair \8\ of any port
type other than a Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port or a GRP Port. Thus,
this proposed charge will apply to all Exchange FIX, FIXDROP, BOE,
DROP, TCP PITCH, and TOP ports. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
provide all Exchange constituents that receive the Exchange's Multicast
PITCH Feed with 32 Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports free of charge
and, if such ports are used, one free pair of GRP Ports. The Exchange
proposes to charge such customers $400.00 per month per additional pair
of GRP Ports or additional set of 32 Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports.
The Exchange's proposal to provide certain ports free of charge to
Multicast Pitch customers is designed to encourage use of the
Exchange's Multicast PITCH Feed because the Exchange believes that the
feed is its most efficient feed, and thus, will reduce infrastructure
costs for both the Exchange and those who utilize the feed. Any Member
or non-member that has entered into the appropriate agreements with the
Exchange is permitted to receive Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and
GRP Ports from the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Each pair of ports will consist of one port at the
Exchange's primary data center and one port at the Exchange's
secondary data center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the proposal, the change applies to Members that obtain
ports for direct access to the Exchange, Sponsored Participants
sponsored by Members to receive direct access to the Exchange, non-
member service bureaus that act as a conduit for orders entered by
Exchange Members that are their customers, and market data recipients.
The Exchange has previously provided ports free of charge to all
Members and non-members that use such ports for order entry to the
Exchange or for receipt of market data. However, over time, the
Exchange's infrastructure costs have increased. In addition, the
Exchange believes that providing ports free of charge has not
encouraged Members and non-members to reserve and maintain ports
efficiently, but rather, has led to a significant number of ports that
are reserved and enabled by such market participants but are never used
or are under used. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the
imposition of port fees will help the Exchange to continue to maintain
and improve its infrastructure, while also encouraging Exchange
customers to request and enable only the ports that are necessary for
their operations related to the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that
its affiliated national securities exchange, BZX Exchange, charges for
ports to access its cash equity securities platform on exactly the same
terms as are proposed herein.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\9\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. The Exchange also notes that with
respect to the routing changes proposed in this filing, although
routing options are available to all Users, Users are not required to
use the Exchange's routing services, but instead, the Exchange's
routing services are completely optional. Members can manage their own
routing to different venues or can utilize a myriad of other routing
solutions that are available to market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee for executions at
NASDAQ PSX under the TRIM routing option is reasonable in that it is
the same fee as the fee charged directly by NASDAQ PSX, as described
above. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed routing fee is
competitive, fair and reasonable, and non-discriminatory in that it is
generally designed to mirror the fee applicable to the execution if
such routed orders were executed directly by the Member at NASDAQ PSX.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees for the TRIM routing
strategy are fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory in
that they apply equally to all Exchange Users.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed logical port fees are
reasonable in light of the benefits to Members of direct market access
and receipt of data, which data, other than the proposed logical port
fee, is currently provided free of charge. In addition, the Exchange
believes that its fees are equitably allocated among its constituents
based upon the number of access ports that they require to submit
orders to the Exchange or receive data from the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that its fees for access services will enable it to better
cover its infrastructure costs and to improve its technology and
services.
    The Exchange also believes that providing financial incentives to
use Exchange technology that the Exchange believes is the most
technologically efficient for the Exchange and its constituents is a
fair and equitable approach to pricing. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that promotion of its Multicast PITCH data feed through the
offering of free logical ports is fair and equitable. The Multicast
PITCH data feed is available to all Members, and as such, all Members
have the ability to receive applicable Multicast PITCH ports free of
charge. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed
pricing structure for logical ports is not unreasonably discriminatory.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
will not assess any routing fee for orders routed to NASDAQ PSX,
consistent with NASDAQ PSX pricing. The Exchange also notes that Users
may choose to mark their orders as ineligible for routing to avoid
incurring routing fees.\11\ With respect to port fees, fees for access
to the Exchange will be a component of the overall fees charged by the
Exchange to execute and route orders through the Exchange. As the
Commission has

recognized, the market for execution and routing services is extremely
competitive.\12\ Market participants that choose not to connect
directly to the Exchange can readily access liquidity available on the
Exchange by directing their order flow to other venues that, under
Regulation NMS, must route to the Exchange if it has posted the best
price. Accordingly, the Exchange must set its fees, including access
service fees, at a level that will not deter market participants from
connecting to the Exchange; otherwise, potential users of the
Exchange's services will simply direct order flow to the Exchange's
multiple competitors. In addition, the Exchange believes that the
proposed port fees are consistent with or less than the port fees
charged by its competitors. With respect to market data, the Exchange
does not currently charge any fees for such data. Although it will now
begin imposing a fee related to access to such data, for market
participants that receive such data directly from the Exchange, the
Exchange believes that its free provision of data justifies such market
participants paying some amount in order to help the Exchange offset
the infrastructure costs of providing such data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., BYX Rule 11.9(c)(4) (describing ``BATS Only''
orders) and BYX Rule 11.13(a)(2) (describing the routing process,
which is dependent on User instruction).
    \12\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\14\ the Exchange has designated this proposal as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge applicable to the
Exchange's Members and non-members, which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2012-013 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2012-013. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2012-013 and should be
submitted on or before August 8, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17421 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P