[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18199-18201]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06196]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97181; File No. SR-FINRA-2023-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rules To Address Duplicative
Requirements

March 21, 2023.
    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 March 10, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. 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

    FINRA is proposing, in light of member obligations relating to the
Consolidated Audit Trail (``CAT''), to amend FINRA Rule 4590
(Synchronization of Member Business Clocks), amend FINRA Rule 6250
(Quote and Order Access Requirements), eliminate FINRA Rule 6431
(Recording of Quotation Information), and amend FINRA Rule 6439
(Requirements for Member Inter-Dealer Quotation Systems).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's
website at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The National Market System Plan governing the Consolidated Audit
Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'') \3\ is intended to create, implement, and
maintain a consolidated audit trail that will capture in a single
consolidated data source customer and order event information for
orders in NMS securities \4\ and OTC equity securities,\5\ across all
markets, from the time of order inception through routing,
cancellation, modification, or execution.\6\ FINRA is filing the
proposed rule change to amend FINRA rules in light of the CAT NMS Plan
to eliminate duplicative requirements or otherwise clarify regulatory
obligations. Specifically, FINRA is proposing amendments to: (1)
clarify overlapping clock synchronization requirements for members; (2)
delete duplicative requirements relating to order and quote recording
and reporting requirements in connection with the alternative display
facility (``ADF''); (3) delete duplicative requirements relating to the
reporting of quotation information for OTC equity securities; and (4)
delete duplicative requirements relating to the submission of order-
level quotation information for OTC equity securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FINRA and the national securities exchanges filed the CAT
NMS Plan with the Commission pursuant to Section 11A of the Exchange
Act and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder, and it was approved
by the SEC on November 15, 2016. See Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 79318 (November 15, 2016), 81 FR 84696 (November 23, 2016)
(``CAT Approval Order'').
    \4\ See Rule 600(b)(54) of Regulation NMS.
    \5\ See FINRA Rule 6420(f).
    \6\ See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July
18, 2012), 77 FR 45722 (August 1, 2012).
    \7\ The proposed rule change would also update cross-references
in FINRA Rules 6220, 6275 and 6279, including updating citations to
Rule 600(b) of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Synchronization of Member Business Clocks
    FINRA Rule 4590 requires members to synchronize their business
clocks, including computer system clocks and mechanical time stamping
devices, that are used for purposes of recording the date and time of
any event that must be recorded pursuant to the FINRA By-Laws or other
FINRA rules. Rule 4590 further requires that business clocks, including
computer system clocks and manual time stamp machines, be synchronized
to within a one second tolerance of the National Institute of Standards
(NIST) atomic clock, except that computer system clocks that are used
to record events in NMS securities, including standardized options, and
OTC equity securities, must be synchronized to within a 50-millisecond
tolerance of the NIST clock. FINRA adopted Rule 4590 before the CAT NMS
Plan was approved and before FINRA adopted Rule 6820.
    FINRA Rule 6820 (Clock Synchronization) \8\ addresses clock
synchronization obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan and prescribes
the requirements for industry members in synchronizing their business
clocks. FINRA is therefore proposing amendments to clarify that Rule
4590 applies only where Rule 6820 does not. Therefore, Rule 6820,
rather than Rule 4590, would apply to business clocks used to record
events for NMS securities and OTC equity securities, but Rule 4590
would apply to business clocks that record events in debt securities.
This proposed rule change is intended solely to eliminate overlapping
rule requirements and promote clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Rule 6820 falls under the CAT Compliance Rule Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Display Facility Quote and Order Access Requirements
    FINRA Rule 6250 provides quoting and order access requirements for
members that utilize FINRA's ADF to display quotes in an ADF-eligible
security.\9\ Pursuant to Rule 6250, ADF Trading Centers \10\ must
record and report to FINRA on a daily basis specified order
information. Among other things, paragraph (b) of Rule 6250 requires an
ADF Trading Center to record and report orders originated,

received, transmitted, modified, canceled, or executed by other broker-
dealers via direct or indirect access and paragraph (c) requires an ADF
Trading Center to record and report to FINRA certain information for
each order that is part of a displayed bid or offer on the ADF, or the
execution details, if any, of each order that is part of a displayed
bid or offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ FINRA Rule 6220(a)(2) defines an ``ADF-eligible security''
as an NMS stock as defined by SEC Regulation NMS.
    \10\ FINRA Rule 6220(a)(4) defines an ``ADF trading center'' as
a registered reporting ADF market maker, or a registered reporting
ADF electronic communications network that is a ``trading center,''
as defined by SEC Regulation NMS, and that is certified, pursuant to
Rule 6250, to display its quotations or orders through the ADF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA is proposing amendments to Rule 6250 to delete requirements
that are duplicative of requirements under the CAT NMS Plan or that are
otherwise unnecessary to oversee the ADF. Specifically, FINRA Rule 6830
(Industry Member Data Reporting) \11\ requires members, including
members meeting the definition of an ADF Trading Center, to comply with
the reporting requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Pursuant to Rule
6830(a), Industry Members must report to the CAT Central Repository
information with respect to orders originated, received, transmitted,
modified, canceled, or executed by other broker-dealers, which is
duplicative of the requirements currently specified in Rule 6250(b) and
(c). Accordingly, FINRA is proposing to delete Rule 6250(b) and 6250(c)
in their entirety to avoid unnecessary or duplicative regulatory
requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Rule 6830 falls under the CAT Compliance Rule Series.
    \12\ FINRA proposes to renumber Rules 6250(d), 6250(e), 6250(f),
6250(g) and 6250(h) as Rules 6250(b), 6250(c), 6250(d), 6250(e), and
6250(f) in light of the proposed deletion of Rules 6250(b) and
6250(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has confirmed that the information required to be submitted
by members pursuant to Rule 6830(a) is sufficient for FINRA oversight
of the ADF. Specifically, the following items proposed to be deleted
under Rule 6250(b)(1) are available in CAT data: unique order
identifier; order entry firm; order side; order quantity; symbol; order
price; time in force; order date; order time; minimal acceptable
quantity; and ADF trading center. In addition, the following items
proposed to be deleted under Rule 6250(b)(2) are available in CAT data:
unique order identifier; order response time; quantity; and price. The
following items proposed to be deleted under Rule 6250(c)(1) are
available in CAT data: symbol; side; price; quantity; order date and
time of receipt; order instructions; firm identifiers and capacity
information; quote identifier; quote price; and quote time. Order
response, which is proposed to be deleted under Rule 6250(b)(1), is
derivable from CAT data, as CAT tracks all related events in the
lifecycle of an order, such as cancellations, modifications, and order
or route acceptances. FINRA notes that every order submitted to the CAT
Central Repository is assigned a unique order identifier, which FINRA
believes obviates the need for a separate internal order identifier as
is currently required under Rule 6250(c)(1). FINRA also has access to
information in the CAT Central Repository regarding whether an order is
marked short sale exempt.\13\ With respect to the recordkeeping
requirements of Rule 6250(b), FINRA notes that Rule 6890
(Recordkeeping) requires industry members to maintain and preserve
records of the information required to be recorded under the CAT
Compliance Rule Series for the period of time and accessibility
specified in SEA Rule 17a-4(b) and SEA Rule 17a-4(f), obviating the
need for the separate recordkeeping provisions of Rule 6250(b).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Rule 6250(c)(1) also requires members to submit to FINRA
the reason for any short sale exemption as well as the identity of
the clearing member. Neither of these items of information are
currently available in the CAT Central Repository; however,
obtaining this information through daily submissions is not
necessary for FINRA to effectively oversee ADF activity. Should the
facts and circumstances of any particular matter warrant obtaining
additional insight into the reasons for a short sale exemption or
the identity of a clearing member, FINRA would contact the relevant
member to request the relevant information.
    \14\ See Rule 6800 Series (Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance
Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recording of Quotation Information in OTC Equity Securities
    FINRA Rule 6431 was implemented in 2003 to provide FINRA with
access to quotation data for ``OTC equity securities,'' as defined
under FINRA Rule 6420 (Definitions),\15\ to facilitate FINRA's
oversight of members and, when necessary, reconstruct market
activity.\16\ Rule 6431 generally requires OTC Market Makers \17\ that
display quotations on a non-FINRA- or non-member-operated inter-dealer
quotation system (``IDQS'') to record information about their
quotations and to report the information to FINRA upon request,
including, e.g., trade date, time the quotation is displayed, security
name and symbol. Rule 6431 does not require such information to be
recorded or reported by the IDQSs themselves. Due to changes in the
marketplace, members have not reported quotation data to FINRA pursuant
to Rule 6431 for several years since the IDQS that previously was not a
FINRA member became a FINRA member. Because Rule 6431 only applies to
quotation activity occurring on a non-FINRA- or non-member-operated
IDQS, members were not required to report quotation data that occurred
on a member system pursuant to Rule 6431. Today, FINRA has access to
quotation information occurring on an IDQS necessary to conduct its
oversight functions because member IDQSs are subject to the CAT NMS
Plan, which requires members to, among other things, report specified
order and quote information to the CAT Central Repository. Accordingly,
FINRA is proposing to delete Rule 6431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Rule 6420.
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47587 (March 27,
2003), 68 FR 16328 (April 3, 2003) (Order Approving File No. SR-
NASD-2000-042). See also Notice to Members 03-28 (June 2003).
    \17\ FINRA Rule 6420(g) generally defines ``OTC Market Maker''
as a member of FINRA that holds itself out as a market maker by
entering proprietary quotations or indications of interest for a
particular OTC equity security in any IDQS, including any system
that the SEC has qualified pursuant to Section 17B of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requirements for Member Inter-Dealer Quotation Systems
    FINRA adopted Rule 6439 to, among other things, expand and enhance
the obligations of member IDQSs that permit quotation updates on a
real-time basis in OTC equity securities.\18\ Pursuant to Rule 6439(d),
covered IDQSs must submit to FINRA on a monthly basis specified
aggregate and order-level information for orders in OTC equity
securities. FINRA is proposing to delete paragraph (d)(1)(B) of Rule
6439, which was adopted before comparable information for OTC equity
securities was being reported to CAT. Rule 6439(d)(2) specifically
provides that member IDQSs are not required to report to FINRA any of
the items of information specified in Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) if, at a
minimum, the items specified in Rule 6439 (d)(1)(B)(i) through (xi) are
subject to reporting to the CAT under Rule 6830. The information
specified in Rule 6439 (d)(1)(B)(i) through (xi) became subject to CAT
reporting on December 31, 2021 and therefore Rule 6439(d)(1)(B), by its
terms, does not apply to any FINRA members in light of CAT obligations.
Therefore, FINRA is proposing to delete Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) because
members currently are required to report comparable data pursuant to
the CAT NMS Plan. Specifically, the following items proposed to be
deleted under Rule 6439(d)(1)(B) are required to be reported to the CAT
Central Repository: buy/sell; security symbol; price; size, all or none
indicator; order entry firm identifier; order receipt time; time in
force; and executed quantity. Response time and order response are
derivable through CAT data, as CAT tracks all related events in the
lifecycle of an order, such

as cancellations, modifications, and order or route acceptances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92105 (June 3,
2021); 86 FR 30663 (June 9, 2021) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2020-031).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\19\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, and Section 15A(b)(9) of the Act,\20\ which requires
that FINRA rules not impose any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change
will eliminate overlapping, duplicative or otherwise unnecessary rule
requirements and promote clarity and consistency regarding member
obligations under FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions
of the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist FINRA and its Industry
Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan.
In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC noted that the CAT NMS Plan ``is
necessary and 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 mechanism of a national market system,
or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \21\ To
the extent that the proposed rule change implements, interprets or
clarifies the CAT NMS Plan and applies specific requirements to
Industry Members, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change furthers
the objectives of the CAT NMS Plan, as identified by the SEC, and is
therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See CAT Approval Order, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change brings
clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on
firms.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on this
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \22\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a self-regulatory
organization to give the Commission written notice of its intent to
file the proposed rule change at least five business days prior to
the date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time
as designated by the Commission. FINRA has satisfied this
requirement. 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2023-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2023-003. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2023-003 and should be submitted
on or before April 17, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06196 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


III. Allometric Plots with Triclopyr and 2,4 D From studies on triclopyr [ also an organic acid], there is good evidence for a high affinity, lowcapacity active secretory process that was saturated by low plasma triclopyr concentrations. As plasma triclopyr concentrations increased, tubular reabsorption begins to exceed secretion, resulting in decreased renal clearance. In comparisons among several species, the volume of distribution, normalized for body weight, was constant across all species. While clearance and half life could be allometrically scaled to body weight for the rat, monkey, and human, the dog had a much slower clearance and longer half life for triclopyr elimination than predicted allometrically. The data demonstrate that the pharmacokinetics of triclopyr in the dog are markedly different than the rat, monkey, and human.

To illustrate, a comparison of triclopyr volume of distribution [ Vd], clearance [ Cl], and half life vs body weight [ W] for rat, monkey, dog, human, and mouse is shown below. The volume of distribution for triclopyr was well described for all species by the equation V d = 0.08 W1.09 [ Figure 7A]. The relationship between clearance [ mL/ hr] and body weight for the rat, monkey, and human was well described by the equation Cl = 86 W0.78 [ Figure 7B]. The clearance of triclopyr in the dog was clearly lower than in rat, monkey, and human and was not adequately described by scaling to other species. Similarly, analysis of elimination half life vs body weight indicated that the dog was an outlier [ Figure 7C]. The relationship between half life and body weight for the other species was described by the equation t 1/ 2 = 4.68 W0.06. ATTACHMENT A 51 Figure . Triclopyr allometric relationship between body weight and ( A) volume of distribution Vd ( all species); ( B) renal clearance Clr ( excluding dog); and ( C) elimination half life t1/ 2 ( excluding dog). This figure was adapted from Timchalk and Nolan ( 1997).

Similarly, a comparison of 2,4 D volume of distribution [ V d], clearance [ Cl], and half life vs body weight [ W] for rat, dog, human, pig, calf, and mouse is shown below.

The volume of distribution for 2,4 D was well described for all species by the equation Vd = 0.12W1.11 [ Figure 2A]. In all species, the Vd was relatively small and equivalent to the volume of blood and extracellular water. The relationship between renal clearance ( mL hr 1) and body water for mice, rats, pigs, calves, and humans was well described by the equation Clr = 37 W0.86] [ Figure 2B]. The clearance of 2,4 D in the dog was clearly lower than in all other species and was not adequately described by scaling. Likewise, analysis of elimination half life vs body weight indicated that the dog was an outlier. If the dog was excluded, the relationship for the other species was described by the equation t 1/ 2 = 2.14 W0.27 [ Figure 2C]. ATTACHMENT A 52 Figure 2. 2,4 D allometric relationship between body weight and ( A) volume of distribution Vd ( all species); ( B) renal clearance Clr ( excluding dog); and ( C) elimination half life t1/ 2 ( excluding dog). Note: for rat and dog there were 3 data sets. Rat: 3 sets at 5 mg/ kg; Dog: 2 sets at 5 and 1 at 1 mg/ kg.

IV. Conclusion.

The decreased relative capacity of the dog to eliminate organic acids results in higher blood levels in the dog relative to those found in the rat and consequently, effects are seen at lower dose levels in the dog than in the rat. Although the precise mechanism for this difference is not known, an evaluation of the data on the organic acid triclopyr suggests increased reabsorption by the dog. For 2,4 D, the most likely mechanism [ according to the registrant] is a low capacity to actively secrete 2,4 D from the kidney, although reabsorption of 2,4 D cannot be excluded as a potential mechanism. While there is definitely substantial evidence that the dog has a lower clearance capacity for organic acids than what is predicted using allometric scaling, although the mechanism to explain the difference is not clear, it is not considered an unique, species specific, mechanism and therefore, the data on the dog cannot be ruled out. However, the difference in the elimination pattern among dogs and other mammalian species persuaded HIARC that the rat was a better predictor than the dog of the potential toxicity of 2,4 D to man. ATTACHMENT A 53 Additional information considered:

( 1) Both the dog and human excrete 2,4 D conjugate in addition to 2,4 D acid, whereas the rat excretes only 2,4 D acid.

( 2) Variation in excretion of 2,4 D observed among human subjects [ males] may be due to decreased capacity to excrete organic acids and/ or differences in reabsorption from the tubular filtrate.

( 3) Data indicate that there is a sex dependent difference in the deposition of 2,4 D in Sprague Dawley rats [ male rats demonstrate a greater ability to clear 2,4 D relative to females] and the human pharmacokinetic data available on 2,4 D are for males only.

( 4) In the recently submitted study, rats and dogs of both sexes were administered either 5 or 50 mg/ kg [ orally] in side by side comparison of the pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and excretion of 2,4 D. The pharmacokinetics of 2,4 D in dogs were essentially proportional in relation to dose level, which may indicate that the clearance mechanism is saturated at both dose levels. In the rat, the pharmacokinetics were not proportional. There was a disproportional increase in the area under the curve [ AUC] in the rat with respect to the increase in dose level [ a 10 fold increase in dose resulted in up to a 59 fold increase in AUC and

19 fold increase in the C max in plasma], suggesting that the clearance mechanism was saturated at the high dose level [ 50 mg/ kg] in the rat.

( 5) In the rat, effects are observed at dose levels greater than 50 mg/ kg, or when the clearance mechanism has been saturated, which also occurs in the dog but at a lower dose level [ 5 mg/ kg].

( 6) The Task Force's opinion that the RfD decision on triclopyr is a precedent for not utilizing the dog data in risk assessment is in error.

In a letter dated 2/ 4/ 03, the Industry Task Force II on 2,4 D Research Data concludes that the use of the rat in preference to the dog " is not without precedent within the Agency for other renallyexcreted organic acid herbicides." Reference is made to the October 21, 1996 RfD Committee memo on triclopyr and their reconsideration of the Reference Dose [ HED Document No. 012093]. The Committee concluded that " the biological/ toxicological significance of the kidney effects in the one year dog study is questionable and they appear to be the result of physiological adaptation and may not be of toxicological significance." [ emphasis added]. It was also concluded by the Committee that the dog is not the appropriate animal model for kidney toxicity testing of triclopyr, although no specific explanation was offered for this latter conclusion. It appears that since the effects observed in the dog were considered adaptative [ not toxic], the study/ dog was not considered appropriate.

The effects observed in the triclopyr dog study were increases in serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen. It appears that physiological adaptation was the reason for concluding the dog to be ATTACHMENT A 54 inappropriate for use in setting the RfD, not an unique sensitivity or lower capacity to excrete organic acids, which is the argument presented by the Task Force for 2,4 D.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40877-40878]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13213]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97732; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-028]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To List and Trade Shares of the ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF Under
BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares

June 15, 2023.
    On April 25, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the ARK 21Shares
Bitcoin ETF under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), Commodity-Based Trust Shares.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 15, 2023.\3\ The Commission has received no comments on
the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97461 (May 9, 2023),
88 FR 31045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is June 29, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time

to consider the proposed rule change and the issues raised therein.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates August 13, 2023, as the date by which the Commission
shall either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
CboeBZX-2023-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13213 Filed 6-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49384-49386]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18944]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92792; File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-29, SR-EMERALD-2021-22,
SR-PEARL-2021-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC, MIAX Emerald, LLC, and MIAX PEARL, LLC; Suspension of
and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or
Disapprove Proposed Rule Changes To Amend Fees for Purge Ports

August 27, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On July 1, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX''), MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald), and MIAX PEARL, LLC
(``MIAX Pearl'') (each an ``Exchange;'' collectively, the
``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to increase fees for purge ports. Each proposed
rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ The proposed rule
changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on July 15,
2021.\4\ The Commission has received comment on the proposals.\5\
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\6\ the Commission is
hereby: (1) Temporarily suspending File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-29, SR-
EMERALD-2021-22, and SR-PEARL-2021-30; and (2) instituting proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-
29, SR-EMERALD-2021-22, and SR-PEARL-2021-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 92364 (July 9,
2021), 86 FR 37364 (July 15, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2021-29) (``MIAX
Notice''); 92360 (July 9, 2021), 86 FR 37373 (July 15, 2021) (SR-
EMERALD-2021-22) (``MIAX Emerald Notice''); 92363 (July 9, 2021), 86
FR 37376 (July 15, 2021) (SR-PEARL-2021-30) (``MIAX Pearl Notice'').
For ease of reference, citations to statements generally applicable
to all three notices are to the MIAX Notice.
    \5\ Comment on the proposed rule changes can be found at:
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2021-29/srmiax202129.htm;
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-emerald-2021-22/sremerald202122.htm;
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-pearl-2021-30/srpearl202130.htm.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes

    Each Exchange currently provides certain of its members the option
to purchase purge ports to assist in their quoting activity.\7\ Purge
ports provide the ability to send quote purge messages to an Exchange's
system.\8\ Each Exchange offers purge ports as a package; a member has
the option to receive up to two purge ports per matching engine to
which it connects.\9\ MIAX has 24 matching engines, and thus a member
may receive up to 48 purge ports on MIAX.\10\ MIAX Emerald and MIAX
Pearl each have 12 matching engines, and thus a member may receive up
to 24 purge ports on these Exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, e.g., MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365.
    \8\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii), footnote
30; MIAX Emerald Options Fee Schedule, Section (5)(d)(ii); MIAX
Pearl Options Fee Schedule, Definitions Section.
    \9\ See, e.g., MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365.
    \10\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365.
    \11\ See MIAX Emerald Notice, supra note 4, at 37374; MIAX Pearl
Notice, supra note 4, at 37377.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX and MIAX Emerald previously charged a flat fee of $1,500 per
month for purge ports, and MIAX Pearl previously charged a flat fee of
$750 per month for purge ports, regardless of the number of matching
engines to which a member connected and consequently regardless of the
number of purge ports allocated to the member. Each Exchange proposes
to increase the flat monthly fee to $7,500.

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Changes

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\12\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of an immediately effective proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\13\ the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-
regulatory organization (``SRO'') 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. As described below, the Commission believes a temporary
suspension of the proposed rule changes is necessary and appropriate to
allow for additional analysis of the proposed rule changes' consistency
with the Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an exchange files a proposed rule change with the Commission,
including fee filings, it is required to provide a statement supporting
the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to the exchange.\14\ The instructions to Form
19b-4, on which exchanges file their proposed rule changes, specify
that such statement ``should be sufficiently detailed and specific to
support a finding that the proposed rule change is consistent with
[those] requirements.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (General Instructions for Form 19b-4--
Information to be Included in the Complete Form--Item 3 entitled
``Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8),
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange: (1)
Provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members,
issuers, and other persons using the exchange's facilities; \16\ (2) be
designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system and to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \17\ and (3) not impose any
burden on competition

not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In support of their proposals, the Exchanges state that the use of
purge ports is completely optional, and no options market participant
is required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to use them.\19\
The Exchanges explain that members can use other protocols to purge or
cancel messages, and that purge ports were designed as an optional
service to enable firms to manage their quoting risk and meet their
heightened quoting obligations.\20\ The Exchanges state that they are
not aware of any reason why a market participant could not simply drop
its purge ports if the Exchanges were to establish unreasonable prices
for purge ports that, in the determination of such market participant,
did not make business or economic sense for such participant.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365-66.
    \20\ See id. at 37366.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges also state that they operate in a highly competitive
environment, and if an exchange sets non-transaction fees that are too
high for its relevant marketplace, market participants can choose to no
longer access that particular exchange.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See id. at 37365-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges further state that the increased monthly flat fee for
purge ports is competitive with fees charged by other exchanges that
offer comparable purge port services.\23\ The Exchanges state that they
have historically undercharged for purge ports as compared to other
exchanges, and that the proposed monthly fee increase would bring the
Exchanges' fees more in line with that of other options exchanges.\24\
The Exchanges argue that, when calculated on a per purge port basis,
other exchanges charge higher monthly fees. MIAX states that, assuming
a member receives 48 purge ports (two per each of its 24 matching
engines), this results in a cost of $156.25 per purge port ($7,500
divided by 48).\25\ MIAX Emerald and MIAX Pearl state that, assuming a
member receives 24 purge ports (two per each of their 12 matching
engines), this results in a cost of $312.50 per purge port ($7,500
divided by 24).\26\ The Exchanges state that Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX''), Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe''), and Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'') charge higher monthly per
purge port fees of $750, $750, $850, and $1,250, respectively.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See id. at 37365.
    \24\ See id.
    \25\ See MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365.
    \26\ See MIAX Emerald Notice, supra note 4, at 37374; MIAX Pearl
Notice, supra note 4, at 37377.
    \27\ See, e.g., MIAX Notice, supra note 4, at 37365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The one comment letter received to date challenges several of the
Exchanges' assertions.\28\ The commenter states that the Exchanges'
argument that the proposed $7,500 monthly fee is lower on a per purge
port basis than the fees assessed by other exchanges (BZX, EDGX, Cboe,
GEMX) is disingenuous, because each of these other exchanges has one
matching engine, and thus market participants require only two purge
ports on each of these exchanges, resulting in significantly lower fees
when calculated on a monthly basis.\29\ The commenter also states that
the Exchanges' argument that purge ports are optional functionality,
which members are free to drop if priced too high, is without
merit.\30\ The commenter asserts that the Exchanges know that market
makers have no choice but to absorb these fees so as not to imperil
their business with stale quotes.\31\ The commenter further states that
the Exchanges did not provide any justification for the fee increase
itself; and that the Exchanges likely cannot assert that the cost of
maintaining purge ports has increased at all, let alone five-fold.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See letter from Brian Sopinsky, General Counsel,
Susquehanna International Group, LLP, dated August 5, 2021 (``SIG
Letter'').
    \29\ See SIG Letter, supra note 28, at 2.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
    \32\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchanges' proposed rule changes, the
Commission intends to further consider whether the proposed purge port
fees are consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a
national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the
Commission will consider whether the proposed rule changes satisfy the
standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other
things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; are designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and to protect investors and the
public interest, and are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule changes.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
changes, the Commission has considered the proposed rules' impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Changes

    In addition to temporarily suspending the proposal, the Commission
also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
\35\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \36\ to determine whether the
Exchanges' proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved.
Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has
reached any conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved.
Rather, the Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to
provide additional comment on the proposed rule changes to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \36\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\37\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B). Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act also
provides that proceedings to determine whether to disapprove a
proposed rule change must be concluded within 180 days of the date
of publication of notice of the filing of the proposed rule change.
See id. The time for conclusion of the proceedings may be extended
for up to 60 days if the Commission finds good cause for such
extension and publishes its reasons for so finding, or if the
exchange consents to the longer period. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities''; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires,
among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to ``perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market

system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers''; \39\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Whether the Exchanges have demonstrated how the proposed
fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires
that the rules of a national securities exchange ``not impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of [the Act].'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in Section III above, the Exchanges made various
arguments in support of the proposal, and the Commission received
comment disputing the Exchanges' arguments and expressing concerns
regarding the proposal.\41\ In particular, the commenter argues that
the Exchanges did not provide sufficient information to establish that
the proposed fees are consistent with the Act and the rules
thereunder.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See SIG Letter, supra note 28.
    \42\ See id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \43\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\44\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 201.700(b)(3).
    \44\ See id.
    \45\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, and specifically, with
its requirements that the rules of a national securities exchange
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; are designed to perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the
public interest; are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and do not impose a
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act; \46\ as well as any other provision of the
Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by September 23, 2021.
Rebuttal comments should be submitted by October 7, 2021. Although
there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or
disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views,
data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule
19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchanges' statements in support of the proposals, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule changes.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule changes, including whether the
proposed rule changes are 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 Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-29, SR-EMERALD-2021-22, and SR-PEARL-2021-30 on
the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-29, SR-EMERALD-
2021-22, and SR-PEARL-2021-30. These file numbers should be included on
the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and
review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The
Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website
(http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all
subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the
proposed rule changes that are filed with the Commission, and all
written communications relating to the proposed rule changes between
the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld
from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will
be available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the Exchanges. All comments received will be
posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that
we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Nos. SR-MIAX-
2021-29, SR-EMERALD-2021-22, and SR-PEARL-2021-30 and should be
submitted on or before September 23, 2021. Rebuttal comments should be
submitted by October 7, 2021.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\48\ that File Nos. SR-MIAX-2021-29, SR-EMERALD-2021-22, and SR-
PEARL-2021-30 be, and hereby are, temporarily suspended. In addition,
the Commission is instituting proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule changes should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \49\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57) and (58).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\49\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18944 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:	July 17, 2009

SUBJECT:	Summary of June 23, 2009 Teleconference with the Technical
Subcommittee for the Small Business Ombudsman/Small Business
Environmental Assistance Programs (SBO/SBEAP)

FROM:	Bradley Nelson, EC/R Inc.

TO:	Melissa Payne, EPA/OAQPS/RDPAG

I.  Purpose of Meeting

The purpose of this teleconference was to discuss the proposed Paints
and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP.

II.  Attendees

Melissa Payne, EPA	Todd Nein, OH

Jan King, EPA	Barbara Johnson, KS

Paula Zampieri, EPA	Jeremy Duis, KS

Bradley Nelson, EC/R 	Linda Sadler, TN

Renee Bashel, WI	Sarah Walls, NCAP

Leslie Churilla, GA	Tony Pendola, NC

Jackie Sims, IL	Charlie Adams, TX

Kim Grosenheider, MN	Joni Canterbury, CO

Joan Meitl, ID	Deanna Moultrie-Jackson

Rick Carleski, OH	Lester Facey

III. Summary of Meeting

Melissa Payne began the meeting by presenting a brief summary of the
proposed area source Paints and Allied Products Manufacturing NESHAP.
The summary included a brief introduction of the source category, a
description of the manufacturing process and emission points, and a
discussion of the proposed rule requirements.  A copy of the
presentation is provided in Attachment 1.  It was noted that a public
hearing was held on June 16, 2009, which meant that the comment period
had been extended until July, 16, 2009.

Melissa then opened the floor to questions from the group.  A member of
the group asked if the rule applied to home improvement stores like Home
Depot or Lowes, where small amounts of pigments are added to the paint
to obtain the proper paint color.  Melissa responded by saying that was
not the intention of the proposed rule.  The rule is intended to
regulate the larger companies that manufacture the paint or allied
products.  Another member asked if the rule was intended to cover refill
ink cartridges for printers.  Again, Melissa responded by saying that
was not the intention of the proposed rule, but if the reseller produces
the ink from raw materials then they may be covered.

A member of the small business group asked what would sources within the
source category need to do if they do not use any of the listed HAP
(cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, benzene, methylene chloride).  Melissa
responded that these sources would be required to submit a one time
notification that they are not affected by the rule.  Another group
member stated that the proposed monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements appear to be similar to Title V requirements and are
onerous and time consuming.  Another group member believes that the
requirement to do Method 9 testing for compliance is expensive and may
have a high margin of error due to the low visible emission from the
particulate control device.  In addition, Method 9 requires the visible
emission reader to be certified, which also increases expenses to the
facility.  A different group member suggested that Method 22 could be
used as a substitute for Method 9.

Melissa stated that EPA was still hoping to obtain additional
information on the paint and allied products manufacturing category
through the request for information as written in the proposal.

ATTACHMENT A

Paint and Allied Products Manufacturing Area Source NESHAP Presentation

E C/R Incorporated	Providing Environmental Technical Support Since 1989

6330 Quadrangle Drive, Suite 325  (  Chapel Hill, North Carolina  27517

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>  (  Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>


Date:
May 3, 2022
To:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0747
From:
Angie Carey, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD
Subject:
Meeting Record for September 9, 2021, meeting between Representatives of ACA and Representatives of OAQPS (U.S. EPA)

      On September 9, 2021, representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participated in a phone meeting with representatives of the American Coatings Association (ACA). The names and affiliations of the participants are included in Attachment 1. The purpose of the call was to discuss the Miscellaneous Coating Manufacturing (MCM): National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) technology review proposal. The meeting was to clarify questions regarding the proposal.

                                 Attachment 1
Participants in September 9, 2021 EPA/ACA Meeting

ACA Representatives
David Darling
Michael Corcoran (PPG)
Drew Howard (Parker)
Edward Bochenek (Sherwin Williams)
Jeff Metzger (3M)
Jeff Lee (Davis Paint)
Marty Gudmundson (Polynt)
Noel Pacheco (PPG)
Peter Saxton (Henkel)
Sharon Levkus (Parker)
Scott Porterfield (Sheboygan Paint)
Steven Travis (Sherwin Williams)
Todd Thomas (Altana)

U.S. EPA Representatives
Angie Carey
Brenda Shine