                                                                     SUPPORTING STATEMENT                   FOR AN INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST (ICR)

1.	IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION                    1(a).	Title of the Information Collection                Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation       OMB Control No.:  2070-new  	EPA No.:  2451.01              1(b).	Short Characterization/Abstract

      EPA completed Reregistration Eligibility Decisions (REDs) for a group of soil fumigant chemicals in May 2008 after an extensive review and public participation process.  The Agency's decision takes into account the best available information on the potential risks and benefits of soil fumigant use.  EPA published the final decision documents for public comment, and issued final REDs in June 2009.  The Agency has determined that certain uses of these soil fumigants are eligible for reregistration, provided that the risk mitigation measures outlined in the REDs are adopted.  The required mitigation measures may result in a burden, applicable under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), to those participating in soil fumigant applications, those enforcing soil fumigant label requirements, and registrants of soil fumigant products.  These measures are designed to decrease the likelihood of exposures to these chemicals while maintaining their important benefits to U.S. agriculture.                Without the complete suite of measures, these chemicals do not meet the requirements to be eligible for reregistration under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).  The programs and activities represented in this ICR are the result of the Agency exercising the authority of section 3(c)(2)(B) or section 3(c)(5) of FIFRA, which authorizes EPA to require pesticide registrants to generate and submit data to the Agency, when such data are needed to maintain an existing registration of a pesticide.  Due to the high benefits to agriculture from these chemicals, there could be significant economic impact if soil fumigant products are no longer available to American farmers.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      2(a).	Need/Authority for the Collection

      EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), under the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, uses the information collected under this ICR to ensure that risk mitigation for certain soil fumigant chemicals necessary for reregistration eligibility are adequately implemented.  The programs and activities represented in this new ICR are the result of the Agency exercising the authority of section 3(c)(2)(B) (Attachment A) or section 3(c)(5) (Attachment B) of FIFRA, which authorizes EPA to require pesticide registrants to generate and submit data to the Agency, when such data are needed to maintain an existing registration of a pesticide.                Sections 3(a) and12(a)(1) of FIFRA require a person to register a pesticide product with the EPA before the pesticide product may be lawfully sold or distributed in the United States.  A pesticide registration is a license that allows a pesticide product to be sold and distributed for specific uses under specified terms and conditions such as use instructions and precautions.  The proponent of initial or continued registration always bears the burden of demonstrating that a pesticide product meets the statutory standard for registration.  A pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in section 3(c) (5) of FIFRA, which is as follows:

 Its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it.  Its labeling and other material required to be submitted comply with the 	requirements of this Act.              It will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.              When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment.         FIFRA section 2(bb) defines "unreasonable adverse effects on the environment'' as (1) "any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide, or (2) a human dietary risk from residues that result from a use of a pesticide in or on any food inconsistent with the standard under section 408 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.''

       Section 4 of FIFRA requires EPA to re-assess the health and safety data for all pesticide active ingredients registered before November 1, 1984, to determine whether these "older" pesticides meet the criteria for registration that would be expected of a pesticide being registered today for the first time.  Section 4 directs EPA to use section 3(c)(2)(B) authority to obtain the required data.  Section 4(g)(2)(A) of the FIFRAcalls for EPA to determine, after submission of relevant data concerning an active ingredient, whether pesticides containing the active ingredient are eligible for reregistration.  EPA completed REDs for a group of soil fumigant chemicals in May 2008 after an extensive review and public participation process.  The Agency's decision takes into account the best available information on the potential risks and benefits of soil fumigant use.  EPA published the final decision documents for public comment, and issued final REDs in June 2009.                  The chemicals included in this review are metam sodium/potassium, dazomet, chloropicrin, and methyl bromide.  The Agency completed a RED for another soil fumigant, 1,3-dichloropropene (Telone (R)), in 1998.  Additional soil fumigants, iodomethane and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) were registered in October 2007 and July 2010 respectively.  The EPA considered these soil fumigants as a group in order to ensure that similar risk assessment tools and methods were used for all, and risk management approaches were consistent.  Documents to support the reregistration or registration actions for this group of chemicals can be found in the public docket at www.regulations.gov under the following docket numbers: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123 (methyl bromide), EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0124 (1,3-dichloropropene), EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0125 (metam sodium/potassium), EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0128 (dazomet), EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0350 (chloropicrin), EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0252 (iodomethane), EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0092 (DMDS).  Attachment C lists these chemicals and the docket numbers.

      The Agency has determined that certain uses of these soil fumigants are eligible for reregistration, provided that the risk mitigation measures outlined in the REDs are adopted.  EPA is requiring a suite of complementary mitigation measures to protect handlers, reentry workers, and bystanders from risks resulting from exposure to the soil fumigant pesticides. While these measures are designed to work together to address all risks, the new mitigation measures have a specific focus on the acute human inhalation risks that have been identified in the revised risk assessments for these fumigants.  This ICR accounts for the additional risk mitigation activities outlined in the REDs that are applicable under the PRA, and documents the respondent burden and costs for these activities.              In addition, when new soil fumigants iodomethane and DMDS were registered, the conditions of the registration required products containing these active ingredients to include similar risk mitigation measures to those that were required in the REDs for the other chemicals.  Similarly, these measures are required to ensure handlers, reentry workers, and bystanders that may be exposed to soil fumigants are protected.                Without the complete suite of measures, these chemicals do not meet the requirements to be eligible for reregistration under FIFRA.  EPA may determine products containing these chemicals do not meet the 3(c)(5) standard for registration under FIFRA.  Due to the high benefits to agriculture from these chemicals, there could be significant economic impact if soil fumigant products are no longer available to American farmers.

      2(b).	Practical Utility/Uses of the Data

      Background on Soil Fumigants

      Soil fumigants are pesticides that, when applied to soil, form a gas to control pests that live in the soil and can disrupt plant growth and crop production.  The fumigants are either volatile chemicals that become gases at relatively low temperatures, around 40 degrees Fahrenheit, or they are chemicals that react to produce such a gas (e.g., dazomet and metam sodium converting to methyl isothiocyanate or MITC).  Soil fumigants are used on many highly value crops, including vegetables, fruits, nuts, forest seedlings, ornamentals, and nursery crops, to control a wide range of pests including nematodes, fungi, bacteria, insects, and weeds.  Benefits analyses indicate that fumigant use is important in a variety of crops, and that if these fumigants could not be used, there would likely be significant negative economic impacts.

      Because of the broad range of pests controlled, soil fumigants are used as part of the production of a wide variety of crops and provide high benefits for many growers. As gases, however, fumigants move from the soil to the air at the application site and may pose risks to handlers, re-entry workers, and bystanders. To reduce these exposures and address risks of concern, the Agency has required a number of mitigation measures designed to work together to address all risks, but focus on the acute human inhalation risks that have been identified in the revised risk assessments for these fumigants.              Bystanders, who are not involved in the fumigant application but who live, work, go to school, or are otherwise located in nearby areas, may be exposed to airborne fumigants that move off the application site. Bystanders include agricultural workers in nearby fields who are not involved with the fumigant application.

      Incidents of bystander exposure demonstrate that fumigants have the potential to move off site at concentrations that produce adverse health effects in humans, over periods of several hours to days after application. These health effects may range from mild and reversible eye irritation to more severe and irreversible effects, depending on the fumigant and the level of exposure.

	The Agency is requiring a number of mitigation measures (as described in Section 4 of this document) that may result in a burden to those participating in soil fumigant applications, those enforcing soil fumigant label requirements, and registrants of soil fumigant products.  These measures are designed to decrease the likelihood of exposures to these chemicals while maintaining their important benefits to U.S. agriculture.                For example, measures such as Fumigant Management Plans (FMPs) are designed to reduce workplace injuries and accidents by prescribing a series of operational requirements and criteria.  Training is required to ensure applicators across the country receive the same basic level of information prior to making an application.  Although there are some areas of the country where training is currently available from states or registrants, there is currently no consistent training standard across states and regions where soil fumigation is done.  For the most part people living and working near areas where fumigation is taking place do not have much knowledge about these types of applications.  In several incidents even emergency first responders who have responded to incidents involving soil fumigants do not understand the unique chemical properties of these chemicals and have in some cases increased the exposure of bystanders to these chemicals following an incident.

More information on the soil fumigants in general can be found through this website, including links to all of the public comments received during the reregistration process for this group of chemicals (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm).

   3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

		3(a). 	Non-duplication

      Respondents will not be asked to provide information that has been or is currently being collected by EPA, other federal or state agencies or proprietary sources.  The information collected is unique and is not duplicative of previous information collection requests.

      3(b).	Public Notice              Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d), EPA will publish a Federal Register (FR) Notice announcing this proposed information collection activity and provide a 60-day public comment period.  Any public comment received for this action will be posted at http://www.regulations.gov using the docket identifier EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036.

      3(c).	Consultation Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

      In addition to the public notice that EPA will publish in the Federal Register concerning the development of this ICR, the Agency has and will continue to consult with stakeholders and respondents who actively interact with the Agency.  For example, in developing the REDs the Agency used a thorough, multi-step, comprehensive process to elicit public comment, provide responses, and revise the decisions as appropriate.  Starting in 2004 EPA held a series of public meetings to discuss the proposed risk assessment methods which the Agency then used to develop draft risk assessments.  In 2005, EPA incorporated new modeling tools developed by industry and reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Panel into the risk assessments, presented the preliminary risk assessments at another public meeting, and opened the first public comment period soliciting comments on the Agency's assessment.  In 2007, EPA issued responses to public comments on the revised risk and benefits assessments, and issued risk mitigation proposals for public comment.  EPA then held a series of public meetings around the country to get input on the risk mitigation proposals.  Then in 2008 EPA published REDs for public comment.  The REDs showed label statements that would be used to mitigate risks and how the new measures would be implemented.  In 2009, EPA published amended REDs that were revised based on public comments on the 2008 REDs.  EPA continues to work closely with stakeholders to help ensure new label changes are implemented in a timely manner, and that users and enforcement personnel are prepared when these changes take effect.  EPA's fumigant webpage contains a number of implementation resources as well as background information on these decisions and can be found at this location:  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/soil_fumigants/index.htm.

      In addition, before sending this ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA staff will contact representatives from a cross-section of respondents to seek feedback on the burden estimates in the ICR, the clarity of instructions provided, and other questions pertaining to the requirements of the program. Their responses to EPA's consultation efforts will be summarized and made publicly available.

      3(d).	Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The Agency is not requiring regular reporting on the status of these tasks back to the Agency which will significantly reduce the burden on the respondents. Information is reported only when needed, and cannot be collected less frequently and still maintain necessary risk mitigation.

	3(e).	General Guidelines

      The information collection activities discussed in this ICR comply with all regulatory guidelines under 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).  Respondents will not be required to retain records for this program for more than 2 years.               3(f).	Confidentiality

      No information collected by EPA under this ICR comprises confidential business information.        3(g)	Sensitive Questions              The information collection activities discussed in this document do not involve any sensitive questions.

4.	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

      4(a).	Respondents/NAICS Codes

      Respondents affected by the collection activities under this ICR are soil fumigant users, specifically certified applicators and agriculture pesticide handlers (NAICS 111000  -  Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting); soil fumigant registrants (NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing); state and tribal lead agencies (NAICS 999200  -  State Government); and the U.S. EPA (999100  -  Federal Executive Branch).

      The users of soil fumigants containing the following active ingredients are subject to the collection activities specified in this ICR:

Table 1:  Active Ingredients Subject to this ICR Active Ingredient PC Code 1, 3-dichloropropene 029001 Chloropicrin 081501 Dazomet 035602 DMDS 000011 Iodomethane 029088 Metam sodium 039003 Metam potassium 039002 Methyl bromide 053201 Methyl isothiocyanate 068103

      4(b).	 Information CollectedThese users will need to engage in the following activities to assure compliance with new fumigant label requirements:

Table 2: User (applicators or handlers) Activities                                      Burden                                   Description Read the label

(applicator's responsibility) Read and understand revised product label(s) bearing new label language. Posting: Fill-in application information on signs and post buffer zones

(applicator or handler's responsibility) Obtain signs from product dealers (provided to dealers by registrants); fill in (1) product name, and (2) contact information for the fumigator; place signs at usual points of entry and along likely routes of approach unless a physical barrier (fence, wall) prevents access to the buffer. State Lead Agencies (SLAs): Check EPA website to determine if notice is required and provide notice of applications to applicable SLAs

(applicator's responsibility) Applicators must check the EPA fumigant website for a list of states that require notification. Provide to the SLA that require notification, the following:  contact information for the fumigator and owner/operator; location of the field to be treated; product name and registration number; and when the fumigation is expected to occur. Fumigant Management Plan (FMP): Prepare a FMP and a post-application summary

(applicator's responsibility) Prepare a written FMP for each fumigation to include the following:  information on the site, fumigator, and owner/operator; fumigation procedures; buffer determinations; information on worker protection; procedures for air monitoring, posting, communication among key parties; and record keeping; emergency response plans and procedures for addressing accidental fumigant releases.

Results of air monitoring for handlers, air monitoring results between buffers and bystanders, as well as any deviations from the FMP must be recorded in a post-application summary.

Both documents must be filed and retained by both the certified applicator and the property owner for at least 2 years, and available to disclose to enforcement personnel or handlers participating in the application if requested.   Applicator Training: Applicators must take registrant developed and EPA approved fumigant training

(applicator's responsibility) Applicators must attend a soil fumigant training program designed specifically to cover the following topics: how to correctly apply the fumigant, how to protect handlers and bystanders, how to determine buffer zone distances, how to develop an FMP and post-fumigation summary report, how to determine when unfavorable conditions exist, and how to comply with the required GAPs.

The applicators participation in the training must be documented in the FMP.   Handler Information: Handlers must receive fumigant specific information

(applicator and handler's responsibilities) Applicators are responsible to disseminate fumigant specific information prior to each fumigation to every handler participating in the application.

      EPA has included certain aspects of these requirements in the Data Call-In (DCI) notices that are being sent to the fumigant registrants.  The DCI is requiring registrants to submit proposals on how they are planning to address each of the reregistration requirements listed below.  The registrant's burden covered in the DCI ICR has not been duplicated here.  The burden and activities listed below fall outside of the scope of the DCI ICR.

Table 3:  Registrant Activities                                     Burden                                   Description Training: Develop and implement training for fumigators in charge of fumigations

Prepare training materials, develop channels for training fumigators, and design and implement mechanisms for tracking fumigators who successfully complete training. Update training materials periodically. Disseminate training materials (either electronic, paper, or in person)

Handler Information: Develop and disseminate safety information for handlers Prepare safety training materials for handlers and make them available to fumigators to provide to fumigant handlers under their supervision. Update safety information periodically. Disseminate training materials (either electronic or paper)

Community Outreach: Develop and implement community outreach and education programs Design and implement outreach programs to provide communities with information about soil fumigants, buffer zones, early signs of exposure, and what to do in case of an exposure, emergency, or incident. Update community outreach program periodically.

First Responder Training: Develop and implement first responder training Identify communities in which fumigants are used which do not already have information or training on appropriate response to soil fumigant incidents, and develop and incorporate training for first responders into existing programs. Update first responder training periodically.

Table 4: State Activities                                     Burden                                   Description Notice to States State Lead Agencies (SLAs) have the option to either receive notice prior to fumigant applications or to update their state cooperative agreements in order to structure their compliance and enforcement activities around fumigation times.  SLAs will not be responsible for both these measures, but will have the choice. Since those states that chose to incorporate fumigant compliance and enforcement activities with their typical work will not be faced with an additional burden, the additional burden in the following tables assumes all states chose to receive notice prior to a fumigant application.

5.	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  -  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      5(a).	Agency Activities

      This ICR involves activities conducted by third parties. EPA does not collect any information under this ICR. Participating States are responsible for conducting voluntary training verification programs, such as state-specific fumigant applicator training, if desired.  EPA implements the soil fumigant mitigation measures.

Table 5: Agency Activities                                     Burden                                   Description EPA Review, Coordination, and Implementation Responsibilities EPA has the responsibility to implement the soil fumigant mitigation measures, review and approve materials that are submitted, and coordinate reviews among experienced professionals.

      5(b).	Collection Methodology and Management

      Not applicable.  This ICR involves activities conducted by third parties.  EPA does not conduct any activities under this ICR.  Participating States are responsible for implementing voluntary training verification programs, such as state-specific fumigant applicator training, if desired.               5(c).	Small Entity Flexibility

      The reregistration eligibility of the soil fumigants depend upon applicators receiving the various information and training required in the soil fumigant labels. These cannot be reduced for small establishments without seriously compromising the protections offered to applicators and bystanders.  As such, small entities are required to follow the same requirements as larger establishments.  To diminish the cost to individual registrants, there are six task forces that will be developing and disseminating the required materials.

      5(d).	Collection Schedule

      This ICR involves activities conducted by third parties. EPA does not conduct any activities or collect any information under this ICR. Participating States are responsible for implementing voluntary training verification programs, such as state-specific fumigant applicator training, if desired.  EPA periodically checks the fumigant mitigation measures as a part of the registration review program. 6. 	ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      6(a).	Estimating Respondent Burden                    The burden associated with this collection of information is described in detail in the following sections.  The respondents include certified applicators, pesticide handlers, fumigant registrants and states.  To estimate the respondent burden, the Agency used current information and statistics on the number of fumigant applications made annually, the number of certified applicators and pesticide handlers that apply or handle soil fumigants, and the number of fumigant registrants.                Certified applicators and pesticide handlers have paperwork burden associated with fumigant application activities, such as reading the label, posting treatment areas and the development of a fumigant management plan.  It is estimated that the burden associated with the first application will be highest, mostly due to the time necessary to develop the fumigant management plan (12 hours).  Each of the other paperwork related activities is estimated to take no more than an hour.  Total burden for the first application is estimated to be nearly 14 hours, while each subsequent application is estimated to take less than 3 hours.  The Agency estimates that more than 12,000 fumigant applications are made in the U.S. each year.

      Requirements currently exist to ensure that certified applicators and agricultural handlers possess general pesticide use and safety information.  Applicators must be determined to be competent to become certified, and to maintain their certification they must either receive training or be recertified by exam on a schedule determined by the state (Certification of Pesticide Applicators, 40 CFR 171).  That schedule ranges, depending on the state, from 1 to 5 years.  Under the agricultural Worker Protection Standard (40 CFR 170), agricultural handlers are required to receive general pesticide safety training at least once every 5 years.  Burdens from those requirements are included in currently-approved ICRs for those two rules, and are not included here.              The soil fumigant label revisions establish training requirements specific to soil fumigation for certified applicators and handlers on the safe and appropriate use of these products. Soil fumigant applicators are required to receive this fumigant-specific training every 3 years;  handlers involved in soil fumigant application must be provided with the specific safe handling information annually.  Burdens from these fumigant-specific requirements are included in this ICR and are separate and distinct from the requirements cited above under the Certification of Pesticide Applicators rule and the agricultural Worker Protection Standard. There are an estimated 4,458 certified applicators applying soil fumigants and 13,374 pesticide handlers of soil fumigants subject to these training requirements.

      Registrant burden is associated with the development and dissemination of fumigant application, handler safety and first responder training materials.  They must also develop and implement a community outreach program.  The majority of the burden associated with these activities is in the one-time development of the materials.  An estimated 320 hours will be spent by each registrant developing the fumigant training materials; 120 hours will be spent developing the handler safety materials; and 240 hours will be spent developing the first responder training and developing the community outreach program.  The annual dissemination of fumigant training and handler safety materials is estimated to take 12 hours per registrant for each activity, while the implementation of the community outreach program is estimated to take 120 hours per registrant annually, and the dissemination of first responder training is estimated to take 120 hours per registrant annually.  There are six task forces that will be developing and disseminating the required materials.              States are responsible for enforcement and compliance of the fumigant-related application requirements.  It is estimated that states will spend an average of 15 minutes per application on enforcement and compliance activities.  Given the more than 12,000 fumigant applications made per year, state activities amount to more than 3,000 hours per year.

      The detailed burden estimates and calculations are presented below for each respondent group, along with costs.  The burden for certified applicators and pesticide handlers is shown in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9; burden for registrants of soil fumigant products in Tables 10 and 11; and burden for states in Tables 12 and 13.

	6(b).	Methodology for Estimating Respondent Cost

	Respondent cost is based on the burden as described above and summarized below, and wages, benefits and overhead for all labor categories for affected industries, state government, and EPA employees.  This approach uses a transparent and consistent methodology and current publicly-available data to provide more accurate estimates and allow easy replication of the estimates of wages, benefits and overhead.

	Methodology:	The methodology uses data on each sector and labor type for an unloaded wage rate (hourly wage rate), and calculates the loaded wage rate (unloaded wage rate + benefits), and the fully loaded wage rate (loaded wage rate + overhead).

	Wage Rates:  Wages are estimated for occupations (management, technical, and clerical) within applicable sectors.  The Agency uses average unloaded wage data for the relevant sectors available in the National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.  For loaded wage rates, benefits represent 44% of unloaded wage rates, based on benefits for all civilian non-farm workers, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t01.htm.  Fully loaded wage rates include an additional 50% on top of the loaded wage rate to capture overhead costs (EPA guidelines 20-70%).  The data and calculations for wage rates used in this document are presented in Attachment E.

	Sectors: The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and website for each sector is included in that sector's wage rate table.  Within each sector, the wage data are provided by Standard Occupational Classification (SOC).  The SOC system is used by Federal statistical agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data (see http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_stru.htm ).   	 	There are three categories of respondents: certified applicators and handlers, registrants and states.  The cost associated with each is described in this section.

      (1) Certified Applicators and Pesticide Handlers        The estimated costs of paperwork activities for certified applicators and pesticide handlers is shown in Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, along with burden.  Tables 6 and 7 list the estimated costs associated with paperwork for user application activities, while Tables 8 and 9 list the costs associated with training activities.  Wage rates are based on NAICS code 111000 - Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry and Hunting.  They are loaded to account for some benefits paid by the employer.  The wage rate for certified applicators is based on the scientist/technician labor category, while the pesticide handler wage is based on an average of the wage for the scientist/technician and agriculture worker labor categories, reflecting a higher skilled worker. 	 		(1a) User Application Activities       Table 6 summarizes the burden and cost for paperwork activities per soil fumigant application for certified applicators and pesticide handlers.  Table 7 summarizes the burden and cost per year.  The annual burden and cost is based on the number of applications made per year.  EPA estimates that more than 12,000 applications are made per year by certified applicators and pesticide handlers based on historical pesticide usage data for the soil fumigants.

Table 6.  Certified Applicator and Pesticide Handler Burden and Cost for User Application Activities per Application, By Activity Category Activity Frequency Certified Applicator Hours Cost (@$33.24/hr)[1] Pesticide Handler Hours Cost (@$23.32/hr)[1] Total Hours Cost[2] Read the label Learn Requirements Annual 0.50 $16.62 0 $0 0.50 $16.62 Posting Fill in Information Per Application 0.13 $4.32 0 $0 0.13 $4.32

Post Signs Per Application 0 $0 0.50 $11.66 0.50 $11.66 Notice to SLA Prepare information in Notice Per Application 0.17 $5.65 0 $0 0.17 $5.65

Send Notice Per Application 0.05 $1.66 0 $0 0.05 $1.66 Fumigant Management Plan Prepare Initial Plan Per Initial Application 12.00 $398.88 0 $0 12.00 $398.88

Prepare Subsequent Plan Per Subsequent Application 1.00 $33.24 0 $0 1.00 $33.24

Create Post Fumigation Report Per Application 1.00 $33.24 0 $0 1.00 $33.24

File and Disclose Plan Per Application 0.05 $1.66 0 $0 0.05 $1.66 Total Burden and Cost Per Initial and Subsequent Application[3]

Initial Application 13.90 $462.04 0.50 $11.66 14.40 $473.70

Subsequent Application 2.90 $96.40 0.50 $11.66 3.40 $108.06 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the hours times the wage rate ($/hr). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of certified applicator and pesticide handler hours and cost.  3  -  Initial Application is equal to the sum of each activity less prepare subsequent plan.  Subsequent application hours and cost is equal to the sum of each activity less prepare initial application.

Table 7.  Total Annual Certified Applicator and Pesticide Handler Burden and Cost for User Application Activities Year Certified Applicator Hours Cost[1] Pesticide Handler Hours Cost[1] Total Hours Cost[2] Year 1 175,849 $5,845,217 6,326 $147,511 182,174 $5,992,728 Year 2 175,849 $5,845,217 6,326 $147,511 182,174 $5,992,728 Year 3 106,268 $3,532,362 6,326 $147,511 112,594 $3,679,872 3 Year Annual Average 152,655 $5,074,265 6,326 $147,511 158,981 $5,221,776 3 Year Total 457,966 $15,222,796 18,977 $442,532 476,943 $15,665,328 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the total hours and cost for the initial and subsequent application as listed in rows 11 and 12 of Table 6 multiplied times the number of applications.  EPA assumes that fumigations occur once every two years, and that 100% of fumigations in year 1 and 2 are first time fumigation, and 50% of fumigations are first time fumigations starting in year 3. The estimated number of applications per year is as follows:  			Initial Applications	Subsequent Applications Year 1			12,651			0 Year 2			12,651			0 Year 3			6,326			6,326 3 Year Average		10,543			2,109 3 Year Total		31,628			6,326 For Example: For certified applicators in Year 3 the hours are equal to following: Certified applicator: (13.90 hours/application x 6,326 applications) + (2.90 hours/application x 6,326 applications) 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of certified applicator and pesticide handler hours and cost.

      (1b)  Training Activities       Table 8 summarizes the burden and cost for certified applicators and pesticide handlers for training activities per trainee, while Table 9 summarizes the burden and cost per year of training activities.  The annual burden and cost is based on the number of certified applicators and pesticide handlers involved with soil fumigant applications.  EPA estimates that there are 4,458 applicable certified applicators and 12,374 handlers. This is based on data submitted to EPA on the number of certified applicators and the assumption of three pesticide handlers per certified applicator.

Table 8.  Certified Applicator and Pesticide Handler Burden and Cost for Training Activities per Applicator, By Activity Category Activity Frequency Certified Applicator Hours and Cost (@$33.24/hr)[1] Pesticide Handler Hours and Cost (@$23.32/hr)[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Applicator Fumigant Training Mandatory Training Once Every 3 Years 8.00 $265.92 0 $0 8.00 $265.92

Retain Training Documentation Once Every 3 Years 0.05 $1.66 0 $0 0.05 $1.66 Handler Safety Information Annual Handler Safety Training Annual 0.08 $2.66 1.00 $23.32 1.08 $25.98

Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the hours times the wage rate ($/hr). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of certified applicator and pesticide handler hours and cost.

Table 9.  Total Annual Certified Applicator and Pesticide Handler Burden and Cost for Training Activities Year Certified Applicator Hours and Cost[1] Pesticide Handler Hours and Cost[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Year 1 36,244 $1,204,735 13,374 $311,882 49,618 $1,516,617 Year 2 357 $11,855 13,374 $311,882 13,731 $323,736 Year 3 357 $11,855 13,374 $311,882 13,731 $323,736 3 Year Annual Average 12,319 $409,482 13,374 $311,882 25,693 $721,363 3 Year Total 36,957 $1,228,445 40,122 $935,645 77,079 $2,164,090 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the total hours and costs as listed Table 8 times the number of certified applicators and pesticide handlers that apply or handle soil fumigants.  EPA estimates an applicable 4,458 certified applicators and 13,374 pesticide handlers.   For Example: For certified applicators in Year 1 the hours are equal to following: Certified applicator:  (8.00 hours/applicator  + 0.05 hours/applicators + 0.08 hours/applicator)  x (4,458 applicators) 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of certified applicator and pesticide handler hours and cost.

      (2) Registrants of Soil Fumigant Products       The estimated paperwork costs for soil fumigant registrants is shown in Tables 10 and 11.  Wage rates are for NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing and are fully loaded to account for benefits and overhead.  EPA estimates that there are 6 registrant task forces that will develop and distribute the required materials based on correspondence with these task forces.  Table 10 shows the estimates of burden and cost per registrant task force to develop and distribute training materials; prepare and distribute safety information; design and implement community outreach; and develop and distribute first responder training materials.  Table 11 shows the annual cost across all registrants of the activities taking into account the frequency of the activity.

Table 10.  Soil Fumigant Registrant Burden and Cost, By Activity Category Activities Frequency Management Hours and Cost (@$120.28/ hr)[1] Technical Hours and Cost (@$60.85/ hr)[1] Clerical Hours and Cost (@$37.11/ hr)[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Fumigant Training Develop Training Materials One Time 80.00 $9,622.40 160.00 $9,736.00 80.00 $2,968.80 320.00 $22,327

Distribute Training Materials Annually 0 $0 0 $0 12.00 $445.32 12.00 $445 Handler Safety Information Prepare Information One Time 40.00 $4,811.20 40.00 $2,434.00 40.00 $1,484.40 120.00 $8,730

Distribute Training Materials Annually 0 $0 0 $0 12.00 $445.32 12.00 $445 Community Outreach Program Design Program One Time 80.00 $9,622.40 80.00 $4,868.00 80.00 $2,968.80 240.00 $17,459

Implement Program in High Use  Areas Annually 40.00 $4,811.20 40.00 $2,434.00 40.00 $1,484.40 120.00 $8,730 First Responder Training Develop Training Materials One Time 80.00 $9,622.40 80.00 $4,868.00 80.00 $2,968.80 240.00 $17,459

Distribute Material in High Use  Areas Annually 0 $0 0 $0 120.00 $4,453.20 120.00 $4,453 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the hours times the wage rate ($/hr). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial, technical and clerical hours and cost.

Table 11.  Total Annual Registrant Burden and Cost  Year Managerial Hours and Cost[1] Technical Hours and Cost[1] Clerical Hours and Cost[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Year 1 1,920 $230.938 2,400 $146,640 2,784 $104,177 7,104 $480,292 Year 2 240 $28,867 240 $14,604 1,104 $40,969 1,584 $84,441 Year 3 240 $28,867 240 $14,604 1,104 $40,969 1,584 $84,441 3 Year Annual Average 800 $96,224 960 $58,416 1,664 $61,751 3,424 $216,391 3 Year Total 2,400 $288,672 2,880 $175,248 4,992 $185,253 10,272 $649,173 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the total hours and cost in Table 10 multiplied times the estimated number of registrant task forces (6).  For Example: The Year 1 number of managerial hours is equal to the hours per registrant for each of the activities times 6:  (80 hours/registrant+0 hours/registrant+40 hours/registrant+0 hours/registrant+80 hours/registrant+40 hours/registrant+80 hours/registrant+0 hours/registrant) x (6 registrants) 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial, technical and clerical hours and cost.

      (3) States       The burden for states per application for compliance and enforcement activities is shown in Table 12.  Wage rates are for NAICS 999200  -  State Government and are fully loaded to account for benefits and overhead.  EPA's requirements are for only those states with high fumigant use, and currently, EPA estimates that there are 15 states that account for the majority of fumigant use and are considered high use: California, Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Colorado, and North Dakota.  This is based on an EPA analysis of fumigant pesticide usage and U.S. crop acreage grown which showed that a majority of soil fumigant usage occurred in 15 states.    Costs are measured on a per application basis.  Annual burden, assuming more than 12,000 fumigant applications per year, is shown in Table 13.  The Agency estimates that all of the paperwork burden for responding to this ICR will be conducted by clerical (or administrative) staff.

Table 12.  State Burden and Cost per Application Category Activities Frequency Clerical Hours and Cost (@$39.20/hr)[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] State Compliance and Enforcement Paperwork for Compliance and Enforcement in High Use Areas Annually 0.25 $9.80 0.25 $9.80 Numbers may not add due to rounding.  State management and technical staff are not estimated to be impacted by this ICR. 1 - Cost is equal to the hours times the wage rate ($/hr). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial, technical and clerical hours and cost.  Since only clerical staff is impacted, the total hours and cost are equal to the clerical hours and cost.

Table 13.  Total Annual State Burden and Cost Year Clerical Hours and Cost[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Year 1 3,163 $123,980 3,163 $123,980 Year 2 3,163 $123,980 3,163 $123,980 Year 3 3,163 $123,980 3,163 $123,980 3 Year Annual Average 3,163 $123,980 3,163 $123,980 3 Year Total 9,488 $371,939 9,488 $371,939 Numbers may not add due to rounding.  State management and technical staff are not estimated to be impacted by this ICR. 1 - Cost is equal to the total hours and cost per application as listed in Table 7 multiplied times the number of applications.  EPA assumes that fumigations occur once every two years, and that 100% of fumigations in year 1 and 2 are first time fumigation, and 50% of fumigations are first time fumigations starting in year 3. The estimated number of applications per year as follows:  			Initial Applications	Subsequent Applications Year 1			12,651			0 Year 2			12,651			0 Year 3			6,326			6,326 3 Year Average		10,543			2,109 3 Year Total		31,628			6,326 For Example: For states in Year 1, the hours are equal to the following: (0.25 hours/application x 12,651 applications) 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial, technical and clerical hours and cost.  Since only clerical staff is impacted, the total hours and cost are equal to the clerical hours and cost.

      6(c).	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost       Agency burden is shown in Tables 14 and 15.  To determine Agency costs, the Agency used the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates of labor rates for the North American Industry Classification System code for the Federal Executive Branch (NAICS 999100).  Wage rates are fully loaded to account for benefits and overhead.  Table 14 shows the burden and cost per activity for the Agency, while Table 15 is the annual burden and cost across all activities.  Agency costs are based on managerial and technical hours spent on compliance and enforcement activities.

Table 14.  Agency Burden and Cost Category Activities Frequency Management Hours and  Cost (@$119.85/hr)[1] Technical Hours and Cost (@$71.58/hr)[1] Total Hours and Cost[2] Federal Compliance and Enforcement Review Registrant Training Materials One Time 80.00 $9,588.00 1,092.00 $78,165.36 1,172 $87,753

Develop User Tools and Templates One Time 40.00 $4,794.00 1,092.00 $78,165.36 1,132 $82,959

Review Labels and Materials One Time 40.00 $4,794.00 2,184.00 $156,330.72 2,224 $161,125

Compliance Training and Stakeholder Engagement Annually 104.00 $12,464.40 1,092.00 $78,165.36 1,196 $90,630 Numbers may not add due to rounding.  Agency clerical staff are not impacted by this ICR. 1 - Cost is equal to the hours times the wage rate ($/hr). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial, technical hours and cost.

Table 15.  Total Annual Agency Burden and Cost  Year Managerial Hours/Cost[1] Technical Hours/Cost[1] Total Hours/Cost[2] Year 1 264 $31,640 5,460 $390,827 5,724 $422,467 Year 2 104 $12,464 1,092 $78,165 1,196 $90,630 Year 3 104 $12,464 1,092 $78,165 1,196 $90,630 3 Year Annual Average 157 $18,856 2,548 $182,386 2,705 $201,242 3 Year Total 472 $56,569 7,644 $547,158 8,116 $603,727 Numbers may not add due to rounding. 1 - Cost is equal to the total hours and cost across activities based on frequency from Table 14.  For example: The Year 1 number of managerial hours is equal to the sum of the hours for each activity:  80 hours + 40 hours + 40 hours + 104 hours.  Years 2 and 3 only include the activities incurred annually (104 hours). 2 - Total hours and cost are the sum of managerial and technical hours and cost.

      6(d).	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables       Tables 16 and 17 summarize the total annual respondent and Agency burden, respectively.

Table 16.  Annual Respondent Burden and Cost Year Total Hours[1] Total Cost[1] Year 1 242,059 $8,113,617 Year 2 200,652 $6,524,885 Year 3 131,071 $4,212,029 3 Year Annual Average 191,261 $6,283,510 3 Year Total 573,782 $18,850,531 1  -  Total hours and cost are a sum of total hours and cost for each respondent.  See Tables 2, 4, 6, and 8.

Table 17.  Annual Agency Burden and Cost Year Total Hours[1] Total Cost[1] Year 1 5,724 $422,467 Year 2 1,196 $90,630 Year 3 1,196 $90,630 3 Year Annual Average 2,705 $201,242 3 Year Total 8,116 $603,727 1  -  Total hours and cost are a sum of total hours and cost for the Agency.  See Table 10.

      6(e).	Reasons for Change in Burden

      This is a new ICR.

      6(f).	Burden Statement

      The total estimated average annual respondent paperwork burden to comply with this information collection activity is 191,261 hours.  This estimate includes the time needed for certified applicators, pesticide handlers, registrants and states to conduct fumigant application related paperwork activities (see section 6(a) and 6 (d)).  An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9, and included on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

    To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036, which is available for online viewing at http://www.regulations.gov.  Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

	Comments may be submitted to EPA electronically (our preferred method) through http://www.regulations.gov, or by mail addressed to OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code:  28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.  To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.htm. You can also send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA.  Please include the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036 and OMB Control No. 2070-NEW in any correspondence.

                    Attachments to the Supporting Statement    Attachments to the supporting statement are available in the public docket established for this ICR under docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1036.  These attachments are available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov or otherwise accessed as described in section 6(f) of the supporting statement.    Attachment A:	7 U.S.C. 136a - FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(b). Available online at the House of Representatives' US Code Website      Attachment B:	7 U.S.C. 136a - FIFRA Section 3(c)(5). Available online at the House of Representatives' US Code Website      Attachment C:	Fumigant Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and Supporting Documents, available at www.regulations.gov.    Attachment D:	Placeholder for Record of Consultations Between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Respondents to the Information Collection Request: "Soil Fumigant Risk Mitigation"    Attachment E:	Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Industry, State and EPA Labor Costs


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41453-41455]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16532]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69933; File No. SR-BATS-2013-040]

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

July 3, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 28, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this
proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become
operative on July 1, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to begin charging a
monthly fee for the Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port and GRP Port, each
of which are logical ports \6\ used to receive data from the
Exchange.\7\ Currently, the Exchange charges a monthly fee for all
other port types used to enter orders in the Exchange's system and to
receive data from the Exchange; \8\ however, for both BATS Equities and
BATS Options,\9\ the Exchange provides 32 primary Multicast PITCH Spin
Server Ports free of charge (32 ports currently makes a complete set of
Spin Server Ports) and, if such ports are used, one free primary GRP
Port. In addition, all redundant Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and
GRP Ports are provided free of charge.\10\ Currently, the Exchange
charges $400 per month per additional set of primary Multicast PITCH
Spin Server Ports and $400 per month per additional primary GRP Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A logical port is 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. Logical
port fees are limited to logical ports in the Exchange's primary
data center and no logical port fees are assessed for redundant
secondary data center ports.
    \7\ BATS FIX ports are the only ports that may be used to send
orders and related instructions to the Exchange. All other port
types, including the Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port and GRP Port,
permit Members and non-members to receive information from the
Exchange.
    \8\ The Exchange currently charges a monthly fee for all other
Exchange FIX, FIXDROP, BOE, DROP, TCP PITCH, and TOP ports.
    \9\ BATS Equities is the Exchange's platform for trading cash
equity securities whereas BATS Options is the Exchange's platform
for trading equity options.
    \10\ Exchange Multicast PITCH data feed for both BATS Equities
and BATS Options is currently offered through two primary feeds,
identified as the ``A feed'' and the ``C feed'', which contain the
same information but differ only in the way such feeds are received.
The Exchange offers for free the ports necessary to receive the
Exchange's redundant Multicast ``B feed'' and ``D feed'', as well as
all ports made available in the Exchange's secondary data center.
Accordingly, this proposal only applies to ports used to receive an
Exchange primary Multicast Feed at the Exchange's primary data
center.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beginning July 1, 2013, the Exchange proposes to charge $400 per
month per set of primary Multicast PITCH Spin Server Ports and $400 per
month per primary GRP Port for BATS Equities and BATS Options. The
Exchange is also proposing to eliminate the reference to the exact
number of ports that makes a complete set of Multicast Spin Server
Ports, as this number has changed in the past and could again change in
the future. A complete set of Multicast Spin Server Ports is the number
of ports necessary to get one full set of information from the Exchange
based on load balancing by the Exchange.\11\ The Exchange believes that
this concept is clearly understood amongst recipients of Multicast
data, and, therefore, does not believe that eliminating the fee
schedule reference to the exact number of ports necessary to receive
Exchange PITCH data via Multicast will cause

confusion amongst recipients of Multicast data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange load balances information regarding securities
traded on the Exchange across multiple channels (today 32) with each
channel requiring a separate Multicast PITCH Spin Server Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
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.\12\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer connectivity services as a means to facilitate the
trading activities of members and other participants. Accordingly, fees
charged for connectivity are constrained by the active competition for
the order flow of such participants as well as demand for market data
from the Exchange. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for
connectivity, affected members will opt to terminate their connectivity
arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including routing to the applicable exchange
through another participant or market center or taking that exchange's
data indirectly. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees
would stand to lose not only connectivity revenues but also revenues
associated with the execution of orders routed to it by affected
members, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The
Exchange believes that this competitive dynamic imposes powerful
restraints on the ability of any exchange to charge unreasonable fees
for connectivity.
    The Exchange believes that its proposed changes to logical port
fees are reasonable in light of the benefits to Exchange participants
of direct market access and receipt of data.\14\ In addition, the
Exchange believes that its fees are equitably allocated among Exchange
constituents based upon the number of access ports that they require to
receive data from the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that its
fees are not unreasonably discriminatory because all market
participants are charged standard fees for port usage. The Exchange
notes that it believes its prior fee structure, under which ports
necessary for receipt of Multicast data were provided free of charge,
was reasonable, equitably allocated and not unreasonably discriminatory
because it was available to all market participants and was intended to
encourage the use of Multicast PITCH. However, by moving towards a more
uniform approach to ports billing, the Exchange believes that its fees
are even more equitably allocated and nondiscriminatory. The Exchange
also believes that its fees for access services will enable it to
better cover its infrastructure costs and to improve its market
technology and services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Through a different filing, beginning July 1, 2013, the
Exchange has proposed to implement fees for the BATS Equities PITCH
(including both TCP PITCH and Multicast PITCH) and TOP data
products, and to revise the fee for the Last Sale Feed data product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. As discussed above, the
Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the
robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange
markets. Further, excessive fees for connectivity, including logical
port fees, would serve to impair an exchange's ability to compete for
order flow rather than burdening competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\16\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-BATS-2013-040 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-BATS-2013-040. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-

2013-040 and should be submitted on or before July 31, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-16532 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

				WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

Office Of

Prevention, Pesticides

And Toxic Substances

MEMORANDUM

Date:  	May 9, 2006

Subject:	Carbaryl:  Data Evaluation Record For MRID 464482-01; Determination of Dermal and 				Inhalation Exposure to Workers during Application of a Liquid Pesticide Product by 				Open Cab Airblast Application to Orchard Crops; PC Code 056801; DP Barcode 316628

From:		Jeffrey L. Dawson, Chemist

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (MC 7509C)

Through:	Whang Phang, Ph.D., Branch Senior Scientist

		Reregistration Branch 1

		Health Effects Division (MC 7509C)

To:		Christina Scheltema

		Chemical Review Manager

		Special Review & Reregistration Division

This document serves as the data evaluation record for the Agricultural Handlers Exposure Task Force study conducted using open cab tractors and airblast sprayers with carbaryl.  The intent of this study was to quantify exposures to applicators who wore typical work clothing (i.e., long pants, shoes, socks, long-sleeved shirt), chemical resistant gloves, no respirators, and either a "SouWester" hat or hooded tyvek jacket.  The review of this study was conducted jointly between the U.S EPA, Health Canada, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR).  A secondary review document was completed by Health Canada which contains the unit exposure values that were agreed upon jointly by the three regulatory Agencies (Appendix A).  The primary reviews and attached calculations, upon which the secondary review was based, were completed by the U.S. EPA and DPR.  These are contained in Appendices B through D.  No significant technical flaws were identified with the study that would prohibit its use for risk assessment purposes.

It is recommended that the values presented in Appendix A, Tables 9 and 10 be used for risk assessment purposes in the United States as the values represent unit exposure levels based on the pounds of active ingredient handled.  These include:

Scenario	N	Unit Exposures (µg/lb ai handled)

Dermal	Inhalation

"SouWester" Hat	15	70.31	3.08

Hooded Tyvek Jacket	10	53.41	1.22

Unit exposures are arithmetic means.  Inhalation values based on 16.7 Lpm inhalation rate.

D316628

Appendix A

D316628

Appendix B

D316628

Appendix C

D316628

Appendix D

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 170 (Friday, September 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 54232]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4640-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Kansas; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4640-DR), dated February 17, 2022, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on August 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrew P.
Meyer, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of DuWayne Tewes as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-19045 Filed 9-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 4463]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02500]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP19-639-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2019-02-06 Encana to
be effective 2/6/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/6/19.
    Accession Number: 20190206-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1219-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Progress Report and Petition for Waiver of Commission
Regulations of Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-640-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Feb2019 Negotiated Rates
Cleanup Filing to be effective 3/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190207-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/19/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 8, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-02500 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50655-50657]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17641]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95470]

Order Determining That the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority Conditionally May Access Certain Security-Based Swap Data
Obtained by Security-Based Swap Data Repositories

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Data access determination order.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 13(n)(5)(G)(v) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act''), and rule 13n-4(b)(9)(x) thereunder, the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is issuing an order
determining that it would be appropriate to require security-based swap
data repositories to make security-based swap data available to
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').

DATES: This data access determination order is effective September 16,
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol McGee, Associate Director,
Office of Derivatives Policy and Trading Practices, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Exchange Act Data Access Framework

    Two entities currently are registered with the Commission as
security-based swap data repositories (``SDRs'').\1\ Among other
responsibilities, SDRs are required to make security-based swap data
available to certain recipients upon request.\2\ Recipients may include
certain specified entities,\3\ as well as ``[a]ny other person that the
Commission determines to be appropriate, conditionally or
unconditionally, by order'' (including foreign authorities).\4\ Access
further is conditioned on there being in effect an arrangement between
the Commission and the entity seeking access to address the
confidentiality of the security-based swap data made available,\5\ and
on the Commission being notified of the request.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Exchange Act Release No. 91798, (May 7, 2021), 86 FR
26115, 26116 n.14 (May 12, 2021) (approving registration application
of DTCC Data Repository (U.S.), LLC; Exchange Act Release No. 92189
(Jun. 16, 2021), 86 FR 32703 (Jun. 22, 2021) (approving registration
application of ICE Trade Vault, LLC).
    \2\ Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(G); 17 CFR 240.13n-4(b)(9).
Those provisions in part require that the SBSDR provide notice of
the data request to the Commission, and specifies that access be
``on a confidential basis pursuant to [Exchange Act] section 24.''
Exchange Act section 24, 15 U.S.C. 78x, generally addresses
disclosures of information by the Commission and its personnel. In
relevant part section 24 provides that the Commission may, ``in its
discretion and upon a showing that such information is needed,''
provide all records and other information ``to such persons, both
domestic and foreign, as the Commission by rule deems appropriate if
the person receiving such records or information provides such
assurances of confidentiality as the Commission deems appropriate.''
See Exchange Act section 24(c); see also 17 CFR 240.24c-1(b)
(providing that the Commission may, upon ``such assurances of
confidentiality as the Commission deems appropriate,'' provide non-
public information to persons such as domestic and foreign
governments or their political subdivisions, authorities, agencies
or instrumentalities, self-regulatory organizations and foreign
financial authorities).
    \3\ The following entities may access security-based swap data
without the need for an additional Commission order: (i) the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (``Board'') and any
Federal Reserve Bank; (ii) the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency; (iii) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; (iv) the
Farm Credit Administration; (v) the Federal Housing Finance Agency;
(vi) the Financial Stability Oversight Council (``FSOC''); (vii) the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC''); (viii) the
Department of Justice (``DOJ''); and (ix) the Office of Financial
Research (``OFR''). See 17 CFR 240. 13n-4(b)(9); see also Exchange
Act section 13(n)(5)(G)(v) (in part identifying ``each appropriate
prudential regulator'' as well as FSOC, CFTC and DOJ). For those
entities, data access still is predicated on other conditions,
including the required confidentiality arrangement.
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.13n-4(b)(9)(x); see also Exchange Act section
13(n)(5)(G)(v).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.13n-4(b)(10) (also stating that the arrangement
shall be deemed to satisfy the Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(H)
requirement that the SBSDR receive a written agreement from the
entity stating that the entity shall abide with the section 24
confidentiality requirements relating to the security-based swap
information provided).
    \6\ Exchange Act section 13(n)(5)(G); 17 CFR 240. 13-4(b)(9). 17
CFR 240.13nc-4(d) further provides that the SBSDR shall satisfy the
notification requirement by informing the Commission of its receipt
of the first request for security-based swap data from a particular
entity, and to maintain records of all information related to the
initial and subsequent requests for data access from that entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to this data access framework, FINRA has requested that
the Commission issue an order determining that it would be appropriate
to require SDRs to make security-based swap data available to FINRA.\7\
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is issuing the order.
In connection with this order, the Commission and FINRA also are
entering into an arrangement addressing the parameters of FINRA's
access to security-based swap data held by SDRs, and the protections
afforded to the data.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter from Stephanie Dumont, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman,
Secretary, Commission, dated August 11, 2022 (``FINRA request'').
    \8\ See Confidentiality Arrangement Between the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority Concerning Access to Security-Based Swap Data Obtained by
Registered Security-Based Swap Data Repositories, dated August 11,
2022 (available at [URL]) (``Confidentiality Arrangement'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Criteria for Making Access Determinations

    The Commission has stated that it expects to consider a variety of
factors in making access determinations, and that it may impose
conditions in connection with those determinations. Relevant factors
include whether the data provided ``would be subject to robust
confidentiality safeguards, such as safeguards set forth in the
relevant jurisdiction's statutes, rules or regulations with regard to
disclosure of confidential information by an authority or its
personnel, and/or safeguards set forth in the authority's internal
policies and procedures.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Exchange Act Release No. 78716 (Aug. 29, 2016), 81 FR 60585
(Sep. 2, 2016) (adopting relevant amendments to 17 CFR 240.13n-4)
(``Adopting Release''). The Commission also noted that it expected
to consider whether there is a memorandum of understanding or other
arrangement between the Commission and the relevant authority
designed to protect the confidentiality of the security-based swap
data provided to the authority (further noting that such a
memorandum of understanding or other arrangement also would satisfy
the statutory requirement that a security-based swap data repository
obtain a confidentiality agreement from the authority). See id. at
60589 & n.60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also may consider ``the relevant authority's
interest in access to security-based swap data based on the relevant
authority's regulatory mandate or legal responsibility or authority.''
\10\ In addition, the Commission may take into account ``any other
factors that are appropriate to the determination, including whether
such a determination would be in the public interest, and whether the
relevant authority agrees to provide the Commission and other U.S.
authorities with reciprocal assistance in matters within their
jurisdiction.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Accordingly, determination orders ``typically would
incorporate conditions that specify the scope of a relevant
authority's access to data, and that limit this access in a manner
that reflects the relevant authority's regulatory mandate or legal
responsibility or authority,'' including conditions that address
factors such as the domiciles of the counterparties to the security-
based swap or of the underlying reference entities. Limiting access
to information in this manner ``should be expected to help minimize
the risk of unauthorized disclosure, misappropriation or misuse of
security-based swap data, as each relevant authority will only have
access to information within its regulatory mandate, or legal
responsibility or authority.'' Id. at 60589. The Commission
separately stated that the confidentiality arrangement between the
Commission and the authority also may ``incorporate conditions that
specify the scope of the relevant authority's access to data, and
that limit this access in a manner that reflects the relevant
authority's regulatory mandate or legal responsibility or
authority.'' Id. at 60592.
    \11\ Id. at 60589.

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

C. Additional Aspects to the Determinations

    The Commission has explained that it may take various approaches in
deciding whether to impose additional conditions in connection with
determination orders, such as issuing orders of limited duration.\12\
The Commission also has stated that it may revoke a determination at
any time (such as if an authority fails to maintain the confidentiality
of the security-based swap data it has been provided), and that, even
absent a revocation, an authority's access to data would cease upon the
termination of the arrangements used to satisfy the confidentiality
condition.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has expressed the expectation that SDRs would
provide relevant authorities with access to security-based swap data in
accordance with the determination orders, and that the Commission
generally does not expect to be involved in reviewing, signing-off on
or otherwise approving relevant authorities' requests for security-
based swap data from repositories that are made in accordance with a
determination order.\14\ The Commission also has stated that it has not
prescribed any specific processes to govern a repository's treatment of
requests for access.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. FINRA'S Data Access Request

    FINRA is a self-regulatory organization that is registered with the
Commission as a national securities association pursuant to Exchange
Act section 15A. As such, the Exchange Act in part requires that FINRA
be organized and have the capacity to enforce the compliance of member
firms (and of persons associated with members) with requirements under
the Exchange Act and with FINRA's own rules.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Exchange Act section 15A(b)(2); see also section
19(g)(1)(B) (in part requiring securities associations' compliance
with Exchange Act requirements and association rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Use of the Data

    FINRA states that access to security-based swap data will enhance
its ability to conduct effective reviews, examinations and
investigations into potential violations of rules by FINRA members with
respect to their security-based swap activities. Access would allow
FINRA to incorporate security-based swap data into cross-market and
cross-product surveillance, which would enhance FINRA's ability to
detect practices such as manipulation and insider trading.\17\ FINRA
also anticipates using the security-based swap data in additional ways,
including monitoring of member firms' compliance with financial
responsibility requirements.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FINRA request at 4-5.
    \18\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Confidentiality Considerations

    FINRA's request describes policies and procedures governing data
privacy and data security that promote the appropriate safeguarding of
data. Those include policies and procedures related to data
classification guidelines, end-user practices and procedures for
safeguarding data, reporting loss, and ensuring that only authorize
users gain access. Those also include data security policies
establishing technical security controls for systems and
applications.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of those privacy policies and procedures, FINRA states
that it will treat the security-based swap data as ``Restricted
Confidential Information,'' and that FINRA will implement special
handling guidelines that will address access to the data and its use,
handling and storage.\20\ The confidentiality arrangement that the
Commission is entering into with FINRA incorporates related
safeguards.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id.
    \21\ As noted above, see note 8, supra, and accompanying text,
the Commission is entering into a confidentiality arrangement with
FINRA, addressing the parameters of FINRA's access to security-based
swap data maintained by SDRs, as well as the confidentiality
protections that FINRA will afford to the security-based swap data.
These include provisions stating that FINRA will afford security-
based swap data the highest level of protection under its policy
framework for confidentiality procedures, and that, to the maximum
extent practicable, FINRA will afford the security-based swap data
confidentiality protections that are not less rigorous than
applicable confidentiality protections afforded to Consolidated
Audit Trail data. Confidentiality Arrangement para. 19. The
Confidentiality Arrangement further provides that FINRA may disclose
security-based swap information as required by FINRA rules related
to disciplinary complaints or disciplinary decisions, and actions
related to statutory disqualifications, suspensions, cancellations,
expulsions or bars, subject to prior written consent by the
Commission. Confidentiality Arrangement para. 20. In addition, FINRA
conducts surveillance and exercises regulatory services on behalf of
other self-regulatory organizations pursuant to Regulatory Services
Agreements (``RSAs''). The Confidentiality Arrangement provides that
FINRA may share confidential information pursuant to an RSA only if
the client itself has entered into a separate confidentiality
arrangement with the Commission, in connection with access to the
information, that specifically provides that FINRA may share the
information with the client. Confidentiality Arrangement para. 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Determination and Associated Terms and Conditions

    The Commission concludes that it is appropriate to require SDRs to
make security-based swap data available to FINRA, subject to there
being in effect a confidentiality arrangement between FINRA and the
Commission. In reaching this conclusion, the Commission recognizes that
FINRA plays an important role in promoting member firms' (and their
associated persons') compliance with the federal securities laws, and
the Commission concludes that access to security-based swap data will
facilitate effective cross-market surveillance involving security-based
swap activity.\22\ FINRA's confidentiality framework and the
confidentiality arrangement between the Commission and FINRA further
will help ensure that FINRA will afford the security-based swap data
appropriate protections--once FINRA has implemented special handling
guidelines for the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In reaching this conclusion, the Commission has considered
the possibility of using more focused scopes of access, such as by
limiting FINRA's access to data involving security-based swaps in
which a member firm or associated person is a counterparty,
guarantor or underlier to a security-based swaps. The Commission
concludes, however, that this type of more limited access to
security-based swap data would not sufficiently facilitate cross-
market surveillance of improper activities such as insider trading
and front-running, particularly given the possibility that
wrongdoers may seek to avoid surveillance by using third-parties to
engage in transactions in the security-based swap market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Taking these factors as a whole, the Commission concludes that such
a determination is in the public interest. By virtue of this order, the
Exchange Act places an affirmative obligation upon SBSDRs to provide
FINRA with access to security-based swap data consistent with the scope
of the order, subject to the applicable terms and conditions, including
a confidentiality arrangement between the Commission and FINRA being in
effect, and FINRA implementing special handling guidelines, following
consultation with Commission staff, to address access to the data and
its use, handling and storage.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Commission anticipates providing notice to SDRs in the
event the relevant confidentiality arrangement no longer is in
effect. Consistent with 17 CFR 240.13n-4(b)(10), this would
terminate the SDRs' obligation to provide data access pursuant to
the arrangement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons discussed above, the Commission determines that it
would be appropriate to require security-based swap data repositories
to make security-based swap data available to FINRA.
    It is hereby ordered, pursuant to Exchange Act section
13(n)(5)(G)(v) and

Exchange Act rule 13n-4(b)(9)(x), that FINRA may access security-based
swap data obtained by security-based swap data repositories. Such
access is conditioned on there being in effect an arrangement between
the Commission and FINRA to address the confidentiality of the
security-based swap information made available to FINRA. Such access
further is conditioned on FINRA developing and implementing special
handling guidelines as described above, following consultation with
Commission staff, to promote the confidentiality afforded to the
security-based swap data, prior to FINRA accessing the data.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: August 11, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17641 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P