[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47211-47217]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17094]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78323; File No. SR-MSRB-2016-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Establish the MSRB
Academic Historical Transaction Data Product

July 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'' or ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on June 30, 2016, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board (the ``MSRB'' or ``Board'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the MSRB. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The MSRB filed with the Commission a proposed rule change to the
MSRB's facility for the Real-Time Transaction Reporting System
(``RTRS'') to establish an historical data product to provide
institutions of higher education (``academic institutions'') with post-
trade municipal securities transaction data collected through RTRS
(``MSRB Academic Historical Transaction Data Product,'' hereafter
referred to as ``RTRS Academic Data Product'') for purchase (``proposed
rule change''). If approved by the Commission, the MSRB will announce
the effective date of the proposed rule change in a regulatory notice
to be published no later than 90 days following Commission approval.
The effective date will be no later than 270 days following publication
of the regulatory notice announcing Commission approval.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2016-Filings.aspx, at the MSRB's principal office, 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 MSRB 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 MSRB has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The MSRB is the federal regulatory entity with primary
responsibility under the Exchange Act for rulemaking for the municipal
securities market. Under the Exchange Act, the MSRB is charged with
adopting rules with respect to transactions in municipal securities
effected by brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers
(``dealers'') and the municipal advisory activities of municipal
advisors.
    In addition to developing its comprehensive body of rules governing
the activities of dealers and municipal advisors, the MSRB has
undertaken to create various market transparency products in
furtherance of its statutory duties and its mission, which is, in part,
to promote a fair and efficient municipal securities market through the
collection and dissemination of market information. Historically, the
MSRB has operated information systems to collect key disclosure
documents and transaction data to create a central warehouse of
information that made most of these documents and data available to the
market--the Electronic Municipal Market Access (``EMMA[supreg]'') \3\
Web site. The MSRB makes post-trade transaction data available to the
general public through the EMMA Web site at no cost, and to data
vendors, industry utilities and others on a subscription basis through
a real-time data feed and on a delayed basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EMMA[supreg] is a registered trademark of the MSRB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, requires dealers to
report all executed transactions in municipal securities to RTRS within
15 minutes of the time of trade, with limited exceptions.\4\ RTRS
serves the dual objectives of price transparency and market
surveillance. While a comprehensive database of transactions is needed
for the surveillance function of RTRS, the MSRB does not believe that
all information or transactions reported to RTRS are necessary to serve
the transparency objective of the system and, therefore, such
information does not qualify for public dissemination. Among other
information, the executing broker symbol, which provides the identity
of each dealer that executed a transaction reported to RTRS, is not
publicly disseminated. The information facility for RTRS serves to
outline the high-level parameters by which the MSRB operates the
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Transactions in securities without CUSIP numbers,
transactions in municipal fund securities and certain inter-dealer
securities movements not eligible for comparison through a clearing
agency are the only transactions exempt from the reporting
requirements of Rule G-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While currently used by researchers from academic institutions
(``academics''), through subscription services or in historical data
sets, the RTRS data available on the EMMA Web site do not include any
identifying information regarding the dealer reporting each
transaction. Thus, the information disseminated from RTRS would not
allow such an academic to attribute transactions to the dealers that
facilitated them--even anonymously. As a result, some academics have
asked whether the MSRB could make an enhanced version of RTRS trade
data available that includes dealer identifiers. Further, on July 15,
2014, the MSRB published a Report on Secondary Market Trading in the
Municipal Securities Market that utilized dealer identifiers to gain a
better understanding of secondary market trading practices in the
municipal securities market, including basic patterns of trading,
pricing differentials associated with trading patterns and the impact
of price transparency on pricing differentials. However, academics
wishing to replicate the methodology employed in this report are unable
to do so, as it relies, in part, on dealer identifiers.
    In July 2015, in response to these requests from academics, the
MSRB published a request for comment, proposing to create a new RTRS
Academic Data Product that would include anonymized dealer identifiers
(``draft proposal'').\5\ In response to the Request for Comment, the
MSRB received 13 comment letters, mostly supporting the draft
proposal.\6\ After carefully considering all of the comments received,
the MSRB determined to file this proposed rule change to the RTRS
facility to create the RTRS Academic Data Product, which would be made
available only to academic institutions and would include the same
transactions included in the current RTRS historical transaction data
sets, with the exclusion of list offering price and takedown
transactions, which can be used to identify primary market
transactions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ MSRB Notice 2015-10 (July 16, 2015) (``Request for
Comment'').
    \6\ See infra note 11.
    \7\ In addition, the MSRB intends to establish a fee for the
RTRS Academic Data Product prior to the effective date of the
proposed rule change. The fee will be established pursuant to a
separate rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the MSRB understands that anonymized dealer identifiers may
be highly useful to academic institutions in connection with their
research activities, the MSRB also recognizes that dealers may be
concerned with the potential for reverse engineering of anonymized
dealer identifiers to determine dealer identities. To address this
issue, in addition to anonymizing dealer identifiers, the MSRB would
take additional measures, including:
     Providing unique data sets with different anonymized
dealer identifiers to each academic;
     excluding list offering price and takedown transactions;
     explicitly requiring subscribers to agree that they will
not attempt to reverse engineer the identity of any dealer;
     prohibiting the redistribution of the data in the RTRS
Academic Data Product;
     requiring users to disclose each intended use of the data
(including a description of each study being performed and the names of
each individual who will have access to the data for the study);
     requiring users to ensure that any data presented in work
product be sufficiently aggregated so as to prevent reverse engineering
of any dealer or transaction;
     requiring that the data be returned or destroyed if the
agreement is terminated; and
     aging all the transactions included in the RTRS Academic
Data Product for no less than 36 months.
    The establishment of the RTRS Academic Data Product would add to
the MSRB's current offering of data products and further the MSRB's
mission to improve the transparency of the municipal securities market
by facilitating access to municipal market data for academic
institutions. While academic institutions currently have access to the
post-trade municipal securities transaction data disseminated from
RTRS, the RTRS Academic Data Product would improve the usefulness

of this data by enabling academics to distinguish transactions executed
by different dealers.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 15B(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \8\ provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2).

    [T]he Board shall propose and adopt rules to effect the purposes
of this title with respect to transactions in municipal securities
effected by [dealers] and advice provided to or on behalf of
municipal entities or obligated persons by [dealers] and municipal
advisors with respect to municipal financial products, the issuance
of municipal securities, and solicitations of municipal entities or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
obligated persons undertaken by [dealers] and municipal advisors.

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act,\9\ provides that the
MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(C).

    be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect
to, and facilitating transactions in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal securities and
municipal financial products, and, in general, to protect investors,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
municipal entities, obligated persons, and the public interest.

    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Sections 15B(b)(2) and 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act because it
would prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, promote
just and equitable principles of trade, and remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in municipal
securities. Specifically, the RTRS Academic Data Product would enable
subscribers of the product to better understand the pricing of certain
transactions, as well as how such transactions were executed, which
should, in turn, facilitate higher quality research and analysis.
Overall, the proposed rule change would contribute to the MSRB's
continuing efforts to improve market transparency and to protect
investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public
interest.

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

    Section 15B(b)(2)(C) of the Exchange Act \10\ requires that MSRB
rules not be designed to impose any burden on competition not necessary
or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In
determining whether these standards have been met, the MSRB was guided
by the Board's Policy on the Use of Economic Analysis in MSRB
Rulemaking. In accordance with this policy, the Board has evaluated the
potential impacts on competition of the proposed rule change, including
in comparison to reasonable alternative regulatory approaches, relative
to the baseline. The MSRB also considered other economic impacts of the
proposed rule change and has addressed comments relevant to these
impacts in other sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB believes that the availability of this data may further
research, which could help the MSRB and other regulators: Prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; facilitate transactions
in municipal securities and municipal financial products; remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market in
municipal securities and municipal financial products; and protect
investors, municipal entities, obligated persons and the public
interest.
    The MSRB acknowledges the potential for reverse engineering of
anonymized dealer identifiers to determine dealer identities and has
taken a number of measures to reduce this risk and mitigate any
potential impact. Given these measures and the aforementioned benefits,
the MSRB does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
additional burdens on competition, relative to the baseline, that are
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The MSRB received 13 comment letters in response to the Request for
Comment.\11\ The comment letters are summarized below by topic, and the
MSRB's responses are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See letters from: Robert Doty, American Governmental
Financial Services (``AGFS''), dated August 24, 2015; Robert
Kravchuck, et al., Association for Budgeting and Financial
Management (``ABFM''), dated September 13, 2015; Michael Nicholas,
Chief Executive Officer, Bond Dealers of America (``BDA''), dated
August 24, 2015; Daniel Bergstresser (``Bergstresser''), Associate
Professor of Finance, Brandeis University, International Business
School, dated September 14, 2015; Chris Melton, Executive Vice
President, Coastal Securities (``Coastal'') dated August 5, 2015;
Patrick J. Cusatis (``Cusatis''), Associate Professor of Finance,
Penn State Harrisburg, School of Business Administration, dated
September 10, 2015; Jonathan L. Gifford (``Gifford''), Professor and
Director of Center for Transportation P3 Policy, George Mason
University, dated September 1, 2015; Andrew Glassberg
(``Glassberg''), dated August 17, 2015; Lawrence Harris
(``Harris''), Professor of Finance and Business Economics,
University of Southern California, Marshall School of Business,
dated September 6, 2015; John Mousseau (``Mousseau''), dated July
29, 2015; Norman White et al., New York University, Leonard N. Stern
School of Business (``NYU Stern''), dated September 16, 2015; James
R. Ramsey (``Ramsey''), President, University of Louisville, dated
September 4, 2015; Sean Davy, Managing Director, Capital Markets
Division, and David L. Cohen, Managing Director and Associate
General Counsel, Municipal Securities Division, Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated September 11,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Support for the Proposed Rule Change
    In response to the Request for Comment, several commenters
expressed strong general support for the creation of the RTRS Academic
Data Product. ABFM, AGFS, Bergstresser, Cusatis, Glassberg, NYU Stern
and Ramsey believe it would improve the quality of academic research
on, and contribute to enhanced transparency in, the municipal
securities market. Further, Gifford opined that the draft proposal
would allow for better cost-benefit analysis of public-private
partnership projects that access the municipal securities market, and
Coastal stated that trade data that would be made available by the
draft proposal would contribute to academic research of the municipal
securities market and that it should be supported. Finally, Harris
strongly supports the RTRS Academic Data Product and commented that the
draft proposal would ``allow the MSRB to better regulate markets for
the public good.''
Risk of Reverse Engineering Trade Data
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB recognized that dealers may be
concerned with the potential for reverse engineering of anonymized
dealer identifiers to determine dealer identities from the data
provided by the RTRS Academic Data Product, and it proposed several
measures to prevent and deter those that would try to reverse engineer
the trade data. Several commenters addressed this issue and proposed
modifications to the draft proposal for purposes of preventing reverse
engineering.
General Comments
    BDA expressed concern that the draft proposal would allow reverse
engineering of a dealer's trading/investment strategy and the
requirements of the subscription agreement would not sufficiently
protect dealers, thus, exposing them to an ``unnecessary business
risk.'' BDA further stated that data on municipal

securities transactions that are currently available to the public for
academic research ``include a sufficient level of detail to support
rigorous study.'' SIFMA also expressed concern that the proposed
anonymization of dealer identifiers would not effectively protect
dealer identities. Harris commented that use of the RTRS Academic Data
Product may result in some reverse engineering, which may cause some
level of harm to dealers, but he also stated that, while he believes
engaging in reverse engineering would be inappropriate, it may ``serve
the public interest'' by revealing ``price differentials (known as
markups by many) . . . to [dealers'] customers.'' ABFM commented that
the planned terms of the subscription agreement intended to prevent
reverse engineering would be a sufficient deterrent.
    Since the inception of this rulemaking initiative, the MSRB has
been acutely aware of the potential for reverse engineering the trade
data that would be included in the RTRS Academic Data Product. Indeed,
the MSRB acknowledges that the data provided in the RTRS Academic Data
Product could be reverse engineered. However, the MSRB believes that
the measures it would take--e.g., anonymizing dealer identifiers,
imposing liability on subscribers of the data for breaching the terms
of the subscription agreement (which would, among other things, include
a provision prohibiting reverse engineering), and limiting subscribers
to academic institutions--, on balance, sufficiently reduce the risk of
reverse engineering, and of harm resulting therefrom. Further, in
response to the concerns raised by commenters, the MSRB is now
proposing to: Increase the aging requirement for the trade data from 24
to 36 months prior to its release; provide unique data sets with
different anonymized dealer identifiers to each academic, which may
both help guard against coordinated efforts at attempting reverse
engineering dealer identities, as well as assist in identifying the
source of conduct that violates the subscription agreement; exclude
list offering price and take down transactions, which can be used to
identify primary market transactions; require users to ensure the
sufficient aggregation of any data presented in work product, which
would protect against reverse engineering by readers of published
works; and not include primary offering trades in the trade data.
Overall, the MSRB has proposed numerous measures that should mitigate
the risk of reverse engineering, and the residual risk is warranted by
the benefits to the municipal securities market that would result from
creation of the RTRS Academic Data Product and greater transparency of
dealer behavior. The MSRB may consider amending or discontinuing the
RTRS Academic Data Product, as currently proposed, if future experience
shows that anonymized dealer identifiers are reverse engineered by
researchers.
Aging Trade Data
    As noted above, as part of the MSRB's effort to prevent and deter
reverse engineering of dealer identities, the draft proposal required
that the trade data made available to subscribers of the RTRS Academic
Data Product would be for trades that were executed at least 24 months
prior to the date that they were provided to the subscriber. SIFMA
stated, in combination with other concerns about the draft proposal,
that 24 months is too short of a time period to adequately protect
against reverse engineering, and, instead, suggested that the MSRB age
the trade data for 48 months. In contrast, ABFM believed 12 months,
rather than 24, would be a sufficient time period to ensure that trades
could not be reverse engineered, and Ramsey also suggested 12 months
would be preferable to 24 months to ensure the data is timely. Harris
argued that 24 months would be more than sufficient for aging the data
to remove the usefulness of that data for the purpose of reverse
engineering, in part, because he believes dealer positions change in no
more than two months, and he also noted that as few as six or up to 12
months would be a better length of time because it would allay the
concerns of dealers and allow for the ``identifying [of] parasitic
trading strategies as quickly as possible.'' Coastal believes 12 months
would be too short a time period to sufficiently mitigate the reverse
engineering risk but that 24 months would be appropriate and would not
encumber research because, in its opinion, municipal securities market
practices and conditions are ``slow to evolve,'' making the data still
relevant to academics studying market behavior.
    Based on careful consideration of all of the diverse comments on
this issue, the MSRB believes, at this time, that a 36-month period is
appropriate to protect against, and mitigate the risk and potential
harm from, any reverse engineering, while still providing useful trade
data for academics to study.
Grouped Versus Individual Dealer Identifiers
    In the draft proposal, the MSRB proposed anonymizing identifiers
for each individual dealer for the trade data made available through
the RTRS Academic Data Product to protect against the potential of
subscribers reverse engineering the data to determine dealer
identities. A few commenters suggested alternative methods to anonymize
dealer identities. Specifically, BDA stated that grouping dealers by
size, as opposed to issuing individual anonymized identifiers, would
better protect the trade data from reverse engineering if the MSRB does
not plan on changing the dealer identifiers on a regular basis because,
without periodic changes, it would become easier to identify dealers
based on trading data over a long period of time. SIFMA similarly
supported making the trade data available through ``groupings of
comparable dealers,'' arguing that the MSRB and FINRA should ``adopt
the peer group criteria used in MSRB and FINRA report cards to
aggregate dealers into reportable groups.'' Further, Coastal stated
that, if dealers were not grouped by size, then reverse engineering
would likely occur, while grouping by size would not substantially
encumber research uses of the trade data. Coastal also argued that
contracting with subscribers to prevent reverse engineering would not
be effective, and BDA noted that any subscription agreement would not
extend to readers of studies produced by subscribers.
    In support of individual identifiers, Harris stated that the
``empirical work [of academics] requires high quality data that can
inform their analyses as to what dealers do. Dealer identities thus
need to be revealed, at a minimum in anonymized form, so that academics
can understand how dealer trading decisions relate to their previous
trading decisions.'' To this point, Harris stated that grouping dealers
would likely provide better trade data than is currently available to
academics, but that such grouped data would not provide academics with
the information needed to understand specific dealer behavior. He
stated, ``[D]ealer decisions to offer, not offer, and take liquidity
are made by individual dealers in response to their individual needs
and inventory conditions. Groups of dealers acting in concert do not
make these decisions. To better understand these decisions, you must
see who is making them.'' Additionally, Bergstresser argued that
grouping dealers by size would substantially hinder the purpose of the
RTRS Academic Data Product because it would reduce ``the information
content of the data [and] would negate the entire purpose of having
(anonymized) dealer identities, which is to be able to identify

round-trip transactions.'' Similarly, Ramsey stated that anonymizing
dealer identifiers would be reasonable if it allowed tracking unique
trades, which groupings by size or volume would not, and ABFM commented
that the potential beneficial research that could result from the RTRS
Academic Data Product with individual dealer identifiers would likely
be much greater than if ``the dealer identifier is less precise (e.g.,
a categorical identifier based on dealer size or average daily trading
volume).''
    The MSRB believes, at this time, that it would better further the
principal purpose of creating the RTRS Academic Data Product--namely,
to foster detailed research and analysis of municipal securities
trading--if the trade data identifies dealers individually rather than
by group. The MSRB believes that grouping dealers would result in too
great a reduction in the usefulness of the RTRS Academic Data Product,
and, as previously mentioned, that the protections incorporated in the
proposed rule change, including, but not limited to, the 36-month aging
of the data, and terms planned to be included in the subscription
agreement will, on balance, adequately mitigate the risk of reverse
engineering without the grouping of dealers.
Primary Offering Data
    As proposed in the Request for Comment, the RTRS Academic Data
Product would make trade data available from transactions in both the
primary and secondary markets. SIFMA believes that the potential for
reverse engineering primary market trade data is particularly acute
because, in its view, the currently available public data that does not
have dealer identifiers is already subject to reverse engineering.
SIFMA recommended that, if made available on a dealer-by-dealer basis,
the data provided by the RTRS Academic Data Product exclude primary
trades from the data set and periodically scramble dealer identifiers.
    The MSRB agrees with SIFMA regarding primary market trades, in
light of trade data products currently offered by the MSRB to provide
academics and other interested parties with information about the
primary market for municipal securities. Therefore, the RTRS Academic
Data Product would not include list offering price and takedown
transactions, which can be used to identify primary market
transactions.
Release of Full Trade Sizes in RTRS Academic Data Product
    Harris commented that the RTRS Academic Data Product should provide
full trade sizes and that the utility of the RTRS Academic Data Product
would be reduced if the trade data did not reveal the sizes of the
largest trades.
    The MSRB understands the potential issues academic researchers
could encounter if the full size of trades is not included in the trade
data, and, therefore, the proposed rule change would provide the full
size of each trade that is included in the RTRS Academic Data Product.
Limiting RTRS Academic Data Product to Academic Institutions
    As proposed in the Request for Comment, the RTRS Academic Data
Product would only be made available to academics in connection with
their research activities. Commenters had differing views as to whether
or not the subscriber base should be larger. First, Bergstresser
suggested that the MSRB broaden the set of individuals who could have
access to the RTRS Academic Data Product to include, for example,
researchers associated with the Federal Reserve Board, individual
Federal Reserve Banks, and other institutions such as the Brookings
Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Urban
Institute. Bergstresser stated further that excluding researchers from
such institutions would be ``inappropriate and would hamper the
progress of research on the municipal bond market.'' Second, Harris
stated that ``[i]t would not be fair or in the public interest if
interested industry groups could not replicate academic studies or
produce their own'' and that the RTRS Academic Data Product should be
available to anyone. Harris added that the trade data needs to be made
widely available so that academics can have a reasonable expectation
that others will replicate, and potentially challenge, the research
they conduct on the trade data. In contrast, Coastal argued that the
availability of the RTRS Academic Data Product should be limited to
academics to provide additional protection against reverse engineering
of the trade data. ABFM affirmatively stated that it took no position
on whether the data product should be limited to, or expanded beyond,
academics, but stated that the MSRB should not base access to the RTRS
Academic Data Product on the content, or results, of the requesting
researcher's previously published works. Similarly, Harris also stated
that access to the RTRS Academic Data Product should not be made
contingent on the resulting research produced. Finally, SIFMA stated
that the RTRS Academic Data Product should be available to ``[a]ny not-
for-profit that has a separately identifiable Research Department and
regularly publishes research reports'' on the same terms that it would
be available to academics, but only if other modifications suggested by
SIFMA were made, such as anonymizing dealer identities by group and
aging the data for 48 months.
    The establishment of the RTRS Academic Data Product was conceived
as a means of advancing a goal of the MSRB's Long-Range Plan for Market
Transparency Products \12\ by facilitating access to municipal market
data for academics to conduct research on the municipal securities
market. The MSRB believes that limiting the availability of the RTRS
Academic Data Product to academic institutions will facilitate
transparency, while not exposing the trade data to institutions or
organizations that could have a more direct incentive to use the trade
data for commercial purposes. The MSRB is committed to increasing
market transparency and, in the future, after the use of the RTRS
Academic Data Product has been observed, the MSRB may reconsider
providing access to the data to a larger group of researchers. However,
at this time, the MSRB believes that limiting the RTRS Academic Data
Product to academic institutions helps address the concerns of dealers
about the use of the data, while advancing the purpose of the product
to foster academic research on the municipal securities market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ MSRB Long-Range Plan for Market Transparency Products
(January 27, 2012), available at: http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/pdfs/Long-Range-Plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pricing of the RTRS Academic Data Product
    As proposed in the Request for Comment, the RTRS Academic Data
Product would be made available for a fee of $500 per calendar-year
data set (with a one-time initial set-up fee of $500).\13\ Harris
commented that academics should either pay a reduced rate, when
compared to the fee charged to industry participants and their various
organizations and consultants, or be given access for free because, in
his opinion, academics are often not paid to conduct their research
while the

public obtains a benefit from the research being conducted. ABFM
believes the fee is reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The MSRB notes that the Request for Comment proposed the
availability of the RTRS Academic Data Product in calendar-year data
sets, but, as it does with other data products and as described
above, the MSRB would make the RTRS Academic Data Product available
on a rolling basis in one-year data sets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the MSRB intends to establish a fee for the RTRS
Academic Data Product prior to the effective date of the proposed rule
change. The fee will be established pursuant to a separate rule filing
in which Harris' comment will be addressed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscription Agreement
    As part of the Request for Comment, the MSRB included a draft
description of the subscription agreement into which recipients of the
RTRS Academic Data Product (``Recipients'') would be required to enter
with the MSRB before access to the data would be granted (``Draft
Agreement''). Some commenters requested clarification of, and others
raised concerns about potential issues that could arise from, the terms
of the Draft Agreement.
Liability for Breach of Draft Agreement
    The MSRB included a liability provision in the Draft Agreement to,
in part, deter and prevent reverse engineering and/or other misuse of
the trade data provided by the RTRS Academic Data Product. Several
commenters expressed concern regarding this provision that would hold
Recipients ``liable to the MSRB for any breach of the [Draft Agreement]
resulting from the action/inaction of Recipient's internal users or any
other individual or entity that accesses the [RTRS Academic Data
Product] via Recipient or to whom Recipient provides any derivative
works.'' In particular, ABFM commented that the inclusion of the
provision would be overly burdensome for academic institutions and may
preclude some from subscribing. ABFM further suggested, as an
alternative, that liability be limited to two times the price paid by
the Recipient for the data and that holding a Recipient liable to the
extent described by the Draft Agreement would be unreasonable.
Bergstresser, Cusatis and Ramsey expressed similar views, and each
stated that the liability exposure could prevent an academic
institution from signing the Draft Agreement and using the RTRS
Academic Data Product. In contrast, Harris stated that the terms of the
Draft Agreement generally were sufficient and not unduly restrictive.
Publication of Works Based on Data
    In the Request for Comment, the MSRB asked whether academics would
be opposed to including, as a term of the agreement, a requirement that
a copy of all derivative works that rely on the RTRS Academic Data
Product be provided to the MSRB upon publication. In response, Harris
requested that the MSRB provide more specifics regarding what is meant
by the term ``publication'' because, in his view, academics may have
differing understandings of when works of research are considered
``published.'' Harris further stated that, if academics are required to
send published works to the MSRB, they should only be required to do so
after the work is no longer described by its author as a ``Working
Draft--Not for Quotation--Subject to Change'' and can be found via an
internet search. ABFM stated that it believes that academics would not
be opposed to providing the MSRB with all published works relying on
the data from the RTRS Academic Data Product, so long as the MSRB did
not require the academic to share authorship of the work or the
copyright of such works.
Permissible Use and Security of the Trade Data
    SIFMA commented that the draft proposal did not state who at
academic institutions would be able to access the trade data and
requested that the MSRB modify the draft proposal to include
``parameters around who may be considered an `Internal User' or
`Recipient/Licensee.' '' In addition, SIFMA also suggested that the
MSRB further limit ``Authorized Use'' to serve the purpose of research
and to exclude any commercial use of the trade data. Overall, SIFMA
expressed a concern that the creation of the RTRS Academic Data Product
would lead to an inevitable data breach, revealing dealer trading and
distribution strategies, which could have a negative impact on market
liquidity. Similarly, BDA noted that nothing in the Draft Agreement
would require academic institutions to have a minimum level of data
security protections in place, making the data susceptible to theft.
    The MSRB understands and appreciates the comments provided in
response to the terms of the Draft Agreement presented in the Request
for Comment. The MSRB included those terms and solicited comment on
them primarily to determine whether to establish the RTRS Academic Data
Product, and the subscription agreement into which academics and/or
academic institutions would be required to enter (``Final Agreement''),
and the terms thereof, have yet to be finalized. If the RTRS Academic
Data Product is approved, the MSRB will, as it does for all of its
subscription service agreements, conduct a thorough legal and risk
analysis to ensure that it is adequately protected from possible
breaches of the agreement, as well as consider the potential burdens
placed on all parties to the agreement in light of the intended
benefits. In performing this analysis, the MSRB will take all of the
above comments into consideration.
    As noted above, given the potential risk of the trade data included
in the RTRS Academic Data Product being reverse engineered, the MSRB
believes the subscription agreement will be an important complement to
the measures included in the proposal to mitigate that risk. As such,
the MSRB expects that the Final Agreement will include a liability
provision substantially similar to the one included in the Draft
Agreement to deter and prevent reverse engineering and other potential
breaches of the agreement. The MSRB also expects that the Final
Agreement will include a definition of ``publication'' to provide
clarity to academics on what work product to provide to the MSRB and
when, and will not require any form of joint authorship with the MSRB.
Finally, the MSRB expects that the Final Agreement will define
``Internal User'' to clarify to whom access to the data may be provided
and require reasonable security measures to protect the data from
unauthorized access by controlling how they are used, accessed,
processed, stored and/or transmitted.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period of up to 90 days (i) as
the Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2016-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2016-09. 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 the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the MSRB. 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-MSRB-2016-09 and should be
submitted on or before August 10, 2016.

    For the Commission, pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2016-17094 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11712-11713]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04405]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-D-1317]

Appeal Options Available to Mammography Facilities Concerning
Adverse Accreditation Decisions, Suspension/Revocation of Certificates,
or Patient and Physician Notification Orders; Guidance for Industry and
Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance entitled ``Appeal Options
Available to Mammography Facilities Concerning Adverse Accreditation
Decisions, Suspension/Revocation of Certificates, or Patient and
Physician Notification Orders.'' This guidance document describes the
processes available to mammography facilities to request additional
review of an adverse appeals decision on a facility's accreditation,
and/or a suspension or revocation of certificate, and/or a patient and
physician notification order. This guidance supersedes section 4.5 of
the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Appeals Processes
guidance document dated July 2, 2019.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on March 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidance at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2020-D-1317 for ``Appeal Options Available to Mammography
Facilities Concerning Adverse Accreditation Decisions, Suspension/
Revocation of Certificates, or Patient and Physician Notification
Orders.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for
download from the internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written
requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled
``Appeal Options Available to Mammography Facilities Concerning Adverse
Accreditation

Decisions, Suspension/Revocation of Certificates, or Patient and
Physician Notification Orders'' to the Office of the Center Director,
Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed
adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abiy Desta, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 4282, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (42 U.S.C. 263b), all
mammography facilities, except facilities of the Department of Veteran
Affairs, must be accredited by an approved accreditation body and
certified by FDA (or an approved State certification agency) to provide
mammography services (42 U.S.C. 263b(b)(1) and (d)(1)(iv)). For a
facility to be certified it must meet certain requirements including:
(1) Be accredited by an FDA-approved accreditation body; (2) undergo
periodic review of its clinical images by its accreditation body; (3)
have an annual survey by a medical physicist; (4) meet federally
developed quality standards for personnel qualifications, equipment,
radiation dose, quality assurance programs, recordkeeping, and
reporting; and (5) undergo periodic inspection to assure it meets the
federally developed quality standards.
    This guidance document describes the processes available to
mammography facilities to request additional review of an adverse
appeals decision on a facility's accreditation and/or a suspension or
revocation of certificate, and/or a patient and physician notification
order. It provides general information about each process, as well as
guidance on how to submit related requests to the Division of
Mammography Quality Standards and FDA. This guidance supersedes section
4.5 of the CDRH Appeals Processes guidance document dated July 2, 2019
(https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/center-devices-and-radiological-health-cdrh-appeals-processes).
    A notice of availability of the draft guidance appeared in the
Federal Register of July 21, 2020 (85 FR 44097). FDA received no
comments and no substantive changes have been made in the final
guidance.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Appeal Options Available to Mammography
Facilities Concerning Adverse Accreditation Decisions, Suspension/
Revocation of Certificates, or Patient and Physician Notification
Orders.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and is not
binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability
for all CDRH guidance documents is available at https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/guidance-documents-medical-devices-and-radiation-emitting-products.
This guidance document is also available at https://www.regulations.gov
and https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of ``Appeal
Options Available to Mammography Facilities Concerning Adverse
Accreditation Decisions, Suspension/Revocation of Certificates, or
Patient and Physician Notification Orders'' may send an email request
to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the
document. Please use the document number 19004 and complete title to
identify the guidance you are requesting.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does
refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore,
clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not
required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of
information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections
of information in the following FDA regulation and guidance have been
approved by OMB as listed in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            OMB control
      21 CFR part or guidance               Topic               No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Guidance for Industry and Food    Appeals Process.....       0910-0738
 and Drug Administration Staff;
 Center for Devices and
 Radiological Health Appeals
 Processes''.
900...............................  Mammography                0910-0309
                                     Facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: February 25, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-04405 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 61747]
[DOCID:fr06oc10-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2780-000]

 Union Leader Corporation; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

September 22, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Union Leader Corporation's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 12, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-25074 Filed 10-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 56410]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19860]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0164; FRL-10206-01-OCSPP]

SRC, Inc.; Transfer of Data (August 2022)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces that pesticide related information
submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information
that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
by the submitter, will be transferred to SRC, Inc. in accordance with
the CBI regulations. SRC, Inc. has been awarded a contract to perform
work for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), and
access to this information will enable SRC, Inc. to fulfill the
obligations of the contract.

DATES: SRC, Inc. will be given access to this information on or before
September 19, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Northern, Information
Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0164, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. 68HERH19D0022, Task Order 68HERH19F0230, SRC
will review data submitted to OPP under FIFRA for use in risk
evaluations that are being developed by OPPT under the Toxic Substance
Control Act. The task order ends on June 20, 2024.
    This contract involves consultants, but they will not be handling
FIFRA CBI under this task.
    OPP has determined that the contract described in this document
involves work that is being conducted in connection with FIFRA in that
pesticide chemicals will be the subject of certain evaluations to be
made under this contract. These evaluations may be used in subsequent
regulatory decisions under FIFRA.
    Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment.
The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6,
and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.
    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(3), the
contract with SRC, Inc. prohibits use of the information for any
purpose not specified in this contract; prohibits disclosure of the
information to a third party without prior written approval from the
Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor
sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release
and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security
Manual. In addition, SRC, Inc. is required to submit for EPA approval a
security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against
unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to
SRC, Inc. until the requirements in this document have been fully
satisfied. Records of information provided to SRC, Inc. will be
maintained by EPA project officers for this contract. All information
supplied to SRC, Inc. by EPA for use in connection with the contract
will be returned to EPA when SRC, Inc. has completed its work.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: September 8, 2022.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2022-19860 Filed 9-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76421-76424]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29817]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73848; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-62]

Self-Regulatory Organizations: Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC To Amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule

December 16, 2014.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on December 10, 2014, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange.\3\ 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\ MIAX initially filed a similar proposal for only SPY options
on November 25, 2014, and indicated in its filing that it would
implement the new fee on December 1, 2014. See File No. SR-MIAX-
2014-59. On December 10, 2014, MIAX withdrew that filing and
submitted this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its marketing fee. The marketing fee
is assessed on certain transactions of all Market Makers.\4\ The funds
collected via this marketing fee are then put into pools controlled by
Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs'') and LMMs. The PLMM or LMM
controlling a certain pool of funds can then determine the Electronic
Exchange Member(s) (``EEM'') to which the funds should be directed in
order to encourage such EEM(s) to send orders to the Exchange. In
accordance with Exchange Rule 514, an EEM can designate an order
(``Directed Order'') to a specific LMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See MIAX Options Fee Schedule, Section (1)(b), entitled
Marketing Fee for more detail regarding the marketing fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Section 1(b) of the Fee Schedule, provides that the
Exchange will assess a Marketing Fee to all Market Makers for
contracts, including mini options, they execute in their assigned
classes when the contra-party to the execution is a Priority Customer.
MIAX will not assess a Marketing Fee to Market Makers for contracts
executed as a PRIME Agency Order, Contra-side Order, or a PRIME AOC
Response in the PRIME Auction; unless, it executes against an unrelated
order.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Marketing Fee in order to add an
additional incentive for order flow providers to post additional
Priority Customer orders on the Exchange's Book. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to assess an additional $0.12 per contract Posted
Liquidity Marketing Fee to all Market Makers for any standard options
overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY that Market Makers execute in
their assigned class (e.g., SPY) when the contra-party to the execution
is a Priority Customer and the Priority Customer order was posted on
the Book at the time of the execution. MIAX will not assess the
additional Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee to Market Makers for
contracts executed as a PRIME Agency Order, Contra-side Order, or a
PRIME AOC Response in the PRIME Auction. MIAX will also not

assess the additional Posted Liquidity Marketing Fee to Market Makers
for contracts executed pursuant to a Liquidity Refresh Pause, route
timer, or during the Opening Process. The Post [sic] Liquidity
Marketing Fee will be in addition to the current Marketing Fee of $0.25
per contract for standard options overlying SPY \5\ that Market Makers
execute in their assigned class (e.g., SPY) when the contra-party to
the execution is a Priority Customer. The new proposed Post [sic]
Liquidity Marketing Fee will otherwise operate in a similar manner as
the standard Marketing Fee, with the additional $0.12 per contract
going into the broader Marketing Fee ``pool'' for the Directed LMM or
the PLMM in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ or SPY, respectively.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that MIAX's proposal also covers
standard options overlying EEM, GLD, IWM, and QQQ.
    \6\ The Commission notes that the symbols MIAX lists in this
sentence refer to the respective overlying options class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the additional marketing fee is to further encourage
Members to post additional Priority Customer orders on the Exchange's
Book in these high volume symbols. Increased Priority Customer orders
on the Exchange's Book will provide for greater liquidity, which
benefits all market participants on the Exchange. The practice of
incentivizing increased retail customer order flow in order to attract
professional liquidity providers (Market-Makers) is, and has been,
commonly practiced in the options markets. As such, marketing fee
programs,\7\ and customer posting incentive programs,\8\ are based on
attracting public customer order flow. The practice of providing
additional incentives to increase order flow in high volume symbols is,
and has been, commonly practiced in the options markets.\9\ The
proposed marketing fee similarly intends to attract Priority Customer
order flow, which will increase liquidity, thereby providing greater
trading opportunities and tighter spreads for other market participants
and causing a corresponding increase in order flow from such other
market participants in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY.\10\ Increasing the
number of orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter and
more liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MIAX Fee Schedule, Section 1(b); CBOE, Fee Schedule, p.
4; NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule, p. 6.
    \8\ See NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule, page 4 (section titled
``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and Qualifications for
Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
    \9\ See International Securities Exchange, LLC, Schedule of
Fees, p. 6 (providing reduced fee rates for order flow in Select
Symbols); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Pricing Schedule, Section I (providing a
rebate for adding liquidity in SPY); NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule,
page 4 (section titled ``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
    \10\ The Commission notes that the symbols MIAX lists in this
sentence refer to the respective overlying options class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At this time, the Exchange does not propose a Post [sic] Liquidity
Marketing Fee for mini options. Mini options in [sic] are not traded in
significant volume across the industry and, as such, MIAX, in
consultation with its market makers, does not seek to incentivize order
routers to send such orders to MIAX by extending the new marketing fee
to posted Priority Customer orders in mini options on SPY and GLD.\11\
In addition, because of the lack of significant volume and limited
demand in the industry to trade mini options, the Exchange believes
that having a marketing fee for mini options that is in some cases
lower than the fees for standard contracts, is appropriate, not
unreasonable, not unfairly discriminatory and not burdensome on
competition between participants, or between the Exchange and other
exchanges in the listed options marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that mini options are currently listed
on SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOGL, and AMZN. If the Exchange were to extend
the new Marketing Fee to mini options, since there are no mini
options on EEM, IWM, and QQQ, the Exchange would not be able to
assess an additional marketing fee for mini options in such symbols,
but instead would be limited to assessing the additional fee on SPY
and GLD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \13\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed changes are designed to incentivize order flow
providers to post additional Priority Customer orders in EEM, GLD, IWM,
QQQ, and SPY options on the Exchange's Book. The proposed marketing fee
rate is reasonable in that although it results in a marketing fee that
is slightly higher than similar marketing fee programs, it is still in
the range of marketing fee programs on other competing exchanges which
charge lower marketing fees for Penny Pilot options classes versus non-
Penny Pilot options classes.\14\ The proposed rebate program is fair,
equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory because it will apply
equally to all Market Makers that execute against Priority Customer
orders in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY options posted on the Exchange's
Book. All similarly situated Market Makers that execute against
Priority Customer orders in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY options that
are posted to the Exchange's Book are subject to the same marketing
fee, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory. In addition, the proposal is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because, while only posted Priority Customer
order flow qualifies for the additional marketing fee, an increase in
Priority Customer orders posted to the Exchange's Book will bring
greater volume and liquidity as market participants compete to trade
with the additional Priority Customer order flow, which benefit all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order
flow. To the extent the posting of Priority Customer orders on the
Exchange's Book is increased by the proposal, market participants will
increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on the Exchange
including sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized
quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order
flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit non-
Market Makers that do not pay the proposed fee and do not qualify for
the marketing fee program at all, by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads as market participants increasingly
compete by sending more orders and providing narrower and larger sized
quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority Customer order
flow. In addition, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is designed to allow LMMs to encourage
greater order flow to be sent to the Exchange. The Exchange believes it
is equitable to assess marketing fees on Market Makers and not non-
Market Makers because the benefits of the marketing fee program flow to
PLMM and Directed LMMs that can use the marketing fee funds to attract
additional flow to the exchange, which benefits Market Makers. A LMM
could be able to amass a greater pool of funds with which to use to
incent order flow providers to send order flow to the Exchange. This
increased order flow would benefit all market participants on the
Exchange as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See CBOE, Fee Schedule, p. 4; NYSE Amex Options Fee
Schedule, p. 6.

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

    The Exchange believes that specifying that PRIME Order executions,
Liquidity Reference Pause, route timer, and Opening Process executions
are not subject to the proposed marketing fee is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange is seeking to encourage
the posting of additional Priority Customer orders to the Exchange's
Book and these four excluded functionalities involve RFR messages that
are related to encouraging additional trading interest from within the
market participants on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
charging additional marketing fees from Market Makers in these
situations may discourage participation in responding to RFR messages.
The exclusion of PRIME Order executions, Liquidity Reference Pause,
route timer, and Opening Process executions from the additional
marketing fee will continue to encourage as many participants as
possible to respond; which the Exchange believes will help the RFR
message processes to continue to lead to greater opportunities for
price improvement for all orders subject to PRIME, the Liquidity
Refresh Pause, route timer, or Opening Process not just those entered
on behalf of customers. In addition, the Exchange designed the new fee
to encourage the posting of additional Priority Customer orders during
regular trading hours; which is exclusive of the Opening Process. Thus,
for these reasons, the Exchange believes that excluding PRIME Order
executions, Liquidity Reference Pause, route timer, and Opening Process
executions from the proposed marketing fees is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to assess the additional
marketing fee for transaction fees in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY
options, and not other options classes, is consistent with other
options markets that provide additional incentives to increase order
flow in high volume symbols including assessing different marketing
fees for Penny Pilot options classes as compared to non-Penny Pilot
options classes.\15\ The Exchange believes that establishing different
pricing for EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY options and Penny Pilot options
is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because EEM,
GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY options are more liquid options as compared to
other Penny Pilot options and the Exchange wants to incentivize order
flow providers to send such orders to MIAX in order to increase trading
opportunities and overall volume executed on the Exchange. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposal to assess to an additional
marketing fee for standard transactions and not mini options is
reasonable because of the lack of significant volume and limited demand
in the industry to trade mini options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See CBOE, Fee Schedule, p. 4; NYSE Amex Options Fee
Schedule, p. 6; International Securities Exchange, LLC, Schedule of
Fees, p. 6 (providing reduced fee rates for order flow in Select
Symbols); NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Pricing Schedule, Section I (providing a
rebate for adding liquidity in SPY); NYSE Arca, Inc. Fees Schedule,
page 4 (section titled ``Customer Monthly Posting Credit Tiers and
Qualifications for Executions in Penny Pilot Issues'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The proposal is designed to
encourage an increase in Priority Customer orders in EEM, GLD, IWM,
QQQ, and SPY options posted to the Exchange's Book in order to bring
greater volume and liquidity, which benefit all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. To the extent
the posting of Priority Customer orders in EEM, GLD, IWM, QQQ, and SPY
options on the Exchange's Book is increased by the proposal, market
participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to trade on
the Exchange including sending more orders and providing narrower and
larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such Priority
Customer order flow. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will
benefit non-Market Makers that do not pay the proposed fee and do not
qualify for the marketing fee program at all, by providing more trading
opportunities and tighter spreads. To the extent that there is
additional competitive burden on market participants that are not
Priority Customers or Market Makers or trading in other symbols, the
Exchange believes that this is appropriate because the proposal should
incent Members to direct additional order flow to the Exchange and thus
provide additional liquidity that enhances the quality of its markets
and increases the volume of contracts traded here. To the extent that
this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should
benefit from the improved market liquidity. Enhanced market quality and
increased transaction volume that results from the anticipated increase
in order flow directed to the Exchange will benefit all market
participants and improve competition on the Exchange. The Exchange
notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the
Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with
other exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive
environment because it establishes a fee structure in a manner that
encourages market participants to direct their order flow, to provide
liquidity, and to attract additional transaction volume to the
Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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)(ii) of the Act.\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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2014-62 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2014-62. 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-MIAX-2014-62 and should be
submitted on or before January 12, 2015.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29817 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33550-33552]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13492]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014; FRL-9911-36]

Notice of Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests
by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
EPA intends to grant these requests at the close of the comment period
for this announcement unless the Agency receives substantive comments
within the comment period that would merit its further review of the
requests, or unless the registrants withdraw their requests. If these
requests are granted, any sale, distribution, or use of products listed
in this notice will be permitted after the registration has been
cancelled only if such sale, distribution, or use is consistent with
the terms as described in the final order.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0014, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
    Submit written withdrawal request by mail to: Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. ATTN: John W. Pates, Jr.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John W. Pates, Jr., Pesticide Re-
Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces receipt by the Agency of requests from
registrants to cancel 15 pesticide products registered under FIFRA
section 3 or 24(c). These registrations are listed in sequence by
registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in Table 1 of
this unit.
    Unless the Agency determines that there are substantive comments
that warrant further review of the requests or the registrants withdraw
their requests, EPA intends to issue an order in the Federal Register
canceling all of the affected registrations.

                          Table 1--Registrations With Pending Requests for Cancellation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Registration No.               Product name                           Chemical name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
060061-00139....................  Kop-Coat Copper Treat  Copper carbonate, basic.
                                   80.
071711-00022....................  AC 801,757 Miticide-   Tebufenpyrad.
                                   Insecticide.
071711-00023....................  AC 801,757 3EC         Tebufenpyrad.
                                   Miticide-Insecticide.
CA-050009.......................  Deadline Bullets.....  Metaldehyde.
CA-890001.......................  Durham Metaldehyde     Metaldehyde.
                                   Granules 7.5.
KY-100002.......................  Dual Magnum Herbicide  S-Metolachlor.
KY-110032.......................  Ridomil Gold SL......  Metalaxyl-M.
MI-100003.......................  Scholar SC...........  Fludioxonil.
OR-030002.......................  Warrior Insecticide    Lambda-cyhalothrin.
                                   with Zeon Technology.
OR-060010.......................  Mocap EC Nematicide--  Ethoprop.
                                   Insecticide.
OR-060024.......................  Mocap EC Nematicide--  Ethoprop.
                                   Insecticide.
OR-080027.......................  Axiom DF Herbicide...  Metribuzin and Flufenacet.
OR-090003.......................  Mocap EC Nematicide--  Ethoprop.
                                   Insecticide.
WA-000037.......................  Wakil XL.............  Fludioxonil, Metalaxyl-M and Cymoxanil.
WA-100007.......................  Graduate SC..........  Fludioxonil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed in this unit.

         Table 2--Registrants Requesting Voluntary Cancellation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPA company No.                  Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
60061..................................  Kop-Coat, Inc., 3020 William
                                          Pitt Way, Pittsburgh, PA
                                          15238.
71711..................................  Nichino America, Inc., 4550 New
                                          Linden Hill Road, Suite 501,
                                          Wilmington, DE 19808.
CA-050009 and CA-890001................  Amvac Chemical Corporation,
                                          4695 MacArthur Court, Suite
                                          1200, Newport Beach, CA 92660-
                                          1706.
KY-100002, KY-110032, MI-100003, OR-     Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
 030002, WA-000037, WA-100007.            410 Swing Road, P.O. Box
                                          18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-
                                          8300.
OR-060010, OR-060024, OR-080027, OR-     Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W.
 090003.                                  Alexander Drive, P.O. Box
                                          12014, Research Triangle Park,
                                          NC 27709.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request,
EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal
Register.
    Section 6(f)(1)(B) of FIFRA requires that before acting on a
request for voluntary cancellation, EPA must provide a 30-day public
comment period on the request for voluntary cancellation or use
termination. In addition, FIFRA section 6(f)(1)(C) requires that EPA
provide a 180-day comment period on a request for voluntary
cancellation or termination of any minor agricultural use before
granting the request, unless:
    1. The registrants request a waiver of the comment period, or
    2. The EPA Administrator determines that continued use of the
pesticide would pose an unreasonable adverse effect on the environment.
    The registrants in Table 2 of Unit II. have not requested that EPA
waive the 180-day comment period. Accordingly, EPA will provide a 180-
day comment period on the proposed requests.

IV. Procedures for Withdrawal of Request

    Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation
should submit such withdrawal in writing to the

person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. If the products
have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date
of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation
action are controlling.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
that are currently in the United States and that were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
cancellation action. Because the Agency has identified no significant
potential risk concerns associated with these pesticide products, upon
cancellation of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II., EPA
anticipates allowing registrants to sell and distribute existing stocks
of these products for 1 year after publication of the Cancellation
Order in the Federal Register. Thereafter, registrants will be
prohibited from selling or distributing the pesticides identified in
Table 1 of Unit II., except for export consistent with FIFRA section 17
or for proper disposal. Persons other than registrants will generally
be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such
stocks are exhausted, provided that such sale, distribution, or use is
consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or
that accompanied, the canceled products.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 2, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-13492 Filed 6-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P