[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 62 (Monday, April 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12317-12319]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0028]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from nine individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0028 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0028), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0028, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0028, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The nine individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications
of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will
achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical
Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the Agency has
published additional notices granting requests from individuals for
exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Darcy D. Baker

    Mr. Baker is a 47-year-old driver in Ohio. He has a history of a
seizure disorder and has been seizure free since October 2007. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since May 2008. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Baker receiving an exemption.

Kenneth R. Boglia

    Mr. Boglia is a 40-year-old class C driver in North Carolina. He
has a history of partial seizures and has been seizure free since 2010.
He takes anti-

seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since August 2010. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Boglia receiving an exemption.

David Consiglio

    Mr. Consiglio is a 30-year-old class D CDL holder in New York. He
has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 2009. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since August 2011. His physician states that he is supportive
of Mr. Consiglio receiving an exemption.

Gary Cox

    Mr. Cox is a 45-year-old class A CDL holder in Oregon. He has a
history of seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1999. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Cox receiving an exemption.

Jim A. Hughes

    Mr. Hughes is a 49-year-old driver in Washington. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since 1999. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 1990. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Hughes receiving an exemption.

Brent L. Mapes

    Mr. Mapes is a 53-year-old class AM CDL holder in Illinois. He has
a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free since 1999. He takes
anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the
same since 1999. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr.
Mapes receiving an exemption.

Enrico G. Mucci

    Mr. Mucci is a 21-year-old driver in Pennsylvania. He has a history
of a seizure disorder and has been seizure free since December 2010. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since December 2010. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Mucci receiving an exemption.

Charles R. Skelton

    Mr. Skelton is a 52-year-old class DM driver in Alabama. He has a
history of complex partial seizures and has been seizure free since
2006. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2016. His physician states that he is
supportive of Mr. Skelton receiving an exemption.

Rick E. Stookey

    Mr. Stookey is a 68-year-old driver in Colorado. He has a history
of complex partial seizures and has been seizure free since 1979. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 1980. His physician states that she is supportive of Mr.
Stookey receiving an exemption.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates
section of the notice.

    Issued on: March 22, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-06245 Filed 3-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


° Applying sprays with rights of way sprayers for commercial applicators ( scenario 7), the assessment is based on the worker applying 1000 gallons of liquid with a rightsof way sprayer. The Agency has received information indicating that workers typically use 4.8  6.4 lbs ai/ A. Higher application rates are used on less than 10 percent of the acreage and are limited to difficult to treat areas where longer residual control is necessary. In addition, the Agency has concluded that the estimate of applying 1000 gallons of product per day with 30 days of exposure per year to be a high estimate that would not reflect actual exposure to workers. Typically, the truck where the applicator rides has the controls for operating the sprayer inside the cab. With the windows closed, the driver of the truck would not be required to wear any PPE. However, an applicator outside the truck operating the spray equipment, would be required to wear maximum PPE. EPA has concluded that with the addition of maximum PPE, this scenario would not require additional risk mitigation.

° Applying sprays for high pressure handwand application for commercial applicators ( scenario 8), the assessment is based on the worker applying 1000 gallons of liquid with a high pressure handwand. The Agency has received information about high pressure handwand use. The information indicates that most non crop applications would be made by a truck mounted boom. The high pressure handwand would be used only around fence or sign posts or other areas that are not accessible with the truck mounted boom. It is estimated that the high pressure handwand is used in less than 10 percent of rights of way treatment. Therefore, the Agency has determined that the estimate of applying 1000 gallons of product per day with 30 days of exposure per year to be a high estimate that would not reflect actual exposure to workers and would not require additional risk mitigation beyond maximum PPE.

° Loading/ applying granulars for belly grinder applications for commercial applicators ( scenario 18), the application rate used in the assessment is 87.1 lbs ai/ A, much higher than any product labels currently on the market. The highest application rate on a marketed label is 12 lbs ai/ A. The registrant has agreed to limit the application rates for non crop uses to 12 lbs ai/ A. In addition, the registrant has agreed to limit the percent active ingredient in all granular products to no more than 8 %. The 98 Agency has received information about belly grinder use; this information indicates that most non crop applications would be applied by a truck mounted boom. The belly grinder would mostly be used around fence or sign posts or other areas that are not accessible with the truck mounted boom. In this type of treatment, the applicator typically applies 7.2 lb ai/ A. In a typical day an applicator would apply diuron on eight to twelve small sites equaling approximately two acres. Therefore, the Agency has concluded that the estimate of applying diuron at the high application rate to be a high estimate that would not reflect actual exposure to workers. No additional risk mitigation is required beyond maximum PPE.

( 2) Post application Risk Mitigation The Restricted Entry Interval ( REI) represents the amount of time required for residues to dissipate in treated areas prior to beginning a job or task in that area such that the resulting exposures do not exceed the Agency's level of risk concern. In order to determine the REI for a crop, EPA calculates the number of days that must elapse after pesticide application until residues dissipate and risk to a worker falls below the target risk level. For a specific crop/ pesticide combination, the duration required to achieve the target risk estimate can vary depending on the activity assessed.

Only the crops whose foliage can be sprayed without damage were assessed for postapplication exposure. The crops that can be sprayed without foliage damage are oats, wheat, birdsfoot trefoil, clover, grass grown for seed, alfalfa, asparagus, pineapple and sugarcane.

In general, the Agency is concerned when postapplication occupational cancer risk estimates exceed 1 x10 4. Postapplication cancer risks for commercial and private farm workers were calculated at the typical application rate only for each crop that received foliar applications. All cancer risks to commercial and private farm workers were less than 1 x 10 4 on the day of treatment and not of concern. Therefore, no additional risk mitigation is necessary, the REI for diuron labels will remain at 12 hours with the following early entry PPE required: coveralls over long sleeved shirt and long pants, waterproof gloves, chemical resistant footwear plus socks, protective eye wear and chemical resistant headgear for overhead exposures.

2. Environmental Risk Mitigation EPA's ecological risk assessment shows minimal exceedance of the levels of concern for acute risk to birds. Chronic risk to birds could not be calculated due to a lack of chronic avian toxicity data; these data are required. Chronic RQs for very small mammals ( 15 grams) range from 0.1 to 9.2; all other mammalian RQs are below levels of concern. Acute RQs for freshwater fish and invertebrates are relatively low ranging from 0.03 to 2.6; however, limited incident data suggest that diuron may pose an acute risk to fish. Chronic RQs for freshwater fish range from 0.3 to 9. Acute and chronic risk quotients for estuarine and marine fish and invertebrates are low, with the highest RQ of 1.3 for chronic risk to marine invertebrates, based on the 12 lb. application rate to rights of way. Of greatest concern is the potential acute risk to non target plants, with RQs for 99 terrestrial plants ranging from 1 to 77 and RQs for endangered terrestrial plants ranging from 5 to over 300. Acute RQs for aquatic non vascular plants range from 10 to 172. RQs for aquatic vascular and endangered aquatic vascular plants could not be calculated because no toxicity data were available; these data are required. Acute risk to non target plants is further supported by available incident data.

Many of the mitigation measure mentioned earlier in this section will also serve to decrease risk to non target species. These include:

° Eliminate aerial applications except for rights of way, alfalfa, cotton, winter barley, winter wheat, sugarcane, and grass seed crops ( in the pacific northwestern U. S. only).

° Reducing applications rates and increasing interval between applications for numerous crops as shown in Table 25;

° Implementing labeling with best management practices to reduce spray drift; and ° Reducing application rates on walnuts, filbert, and peaches to address risk to endangered salmon and steelhead in California and the Pacific northwest.

3. Other Labeling Requirements In order to be eligible for reregistration, various use and safety information must also be placed on the labeling of all end use products containing diuron. For the specific labeling statements, refer to Section V of this document.

a. Endangered Species Statement The Agency has developed the Endangered Species Protection Program to identify pesticides whose use may cause adverse impacts on endangered and threatened species, and to implement mitigation measures that address these impacts. EPA is not requiring specific label language at the present time relative to threatened and endangered species. The general risk mitigation required through this RED will serve to protect listed species of potential concern until such time as the agency refines its risk assessment for birds, mammals, aquatic species and plants from the uses of diuron. If in the future, specific measures are necessary for the protection of listed species, the Agency will implement them through the Endangered Species Protection Program.

The Endangered Species Protection Program as described in a Federal Register notice ( 54 FR 27984 28008, July 3, 1989) is currently being implemented on an interim basis. As part of the interim program, the Agency has developed County Specific Pamphlets that articulate many of the specific measures outlined in the Biological Opinions issued to date. The Pamphlets are available for voluntary use by pesticide applicators on EPA's website at www. epa. gov/ espp. A final Endangered Species Protection Program, which may be altered from the interim program, was proposed for public comment in the Federal Register December 2, 2002. b. Spray Drift Management 100 The Agency has been working closely with stakeholders to develop improved approaches for mitigating risks to human health and the environment from pesticide spray and dust drift. As part of the reregistration process, we will continue to work with all interested parties on this important issue.

From its assessment of diuron, as summarized in this document, the Agency concludes that certain measures are needed to address the potential for off target drift from use of diuron products. Label statements implementing these measures are listed in the " spray drift management" section of the label table, which will be issued separately. In the future, diuron product labels may need to be revised to include additional or different drift label statements.

The following label language is required to address the risks from off target drift for diuron products.

For non WPS products:

" Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons either directly or through drift."

For all diuron products applied as a liquid ( including non WPS products):

" Requirements for reducing spray drift for diuron ground and aerial applications"

" Use best practices to avoid drift to all other crops and non target areas. Do not apply when conditions favor drift from target areas. The interaction of many equipment and weather related factors determine the potential for spray drift. Avoiding spray drift at the application site is the responsibility of the applicator. The applicator must follow the most restrictive precautions to avoid drift, including those found in this labeling as well as applicable state and local regulations and ordinances."

" Do not make aerial or ground applications when the wind speed exceeds 10 miles per hour."

" Do not make aerial or ground applications into temperature inversions."

" Apply as a medium or coarser spray ( according to ASAE standard 572) for standard nozzles."

Additional requirements for ground applications:

" When applying to crops, apply with nozzle height no more than 6 feet above the ground or crop canopy. When applying to non crop areas, use lowest nozzle height consistent with safety and efficacy. Direct spray into target vegetation." 101 Additional requirements for aerial applications:

" The boom length must not exceed 75% of the wingspan or 90% of rotor blade diameter."

" When aerial applications are made with cross wind, the swath will be displaced downwind. The applicator must compensate for this displacement at the downwind edge of the application area by adjusting the path of the aircraft upwind."

" When applying to crops, do not release spray at a height greater than 6 to 10 feet above the ground or crop canopy. When applying to non crop areas, apply at a minimum safe altitude above the area being treated."

" Release spray at the lowest height consistent with efficacy and flight safety."

" Do not apply by air if drift can occur to sensitive non target crops or plants that are within 100 feet of the application site."

V. What Registrants Need to Do The Agency has determined that diuron is eligible for reregistration provide that: ( i) additional data that the Agency intends to require confirm this interim decision; and ( ii) the risk mitigation measures outlined in this document are adopted, and label amendments are made to reflect these measures. To implement the risk mitigation measures, the registrants must amend their product labeling to incorporate the label statements set forth in the Label Summary Table in Section D below. The additional data requirements that the Agency intends to obtain will include, among other things, submission of the following:

A. For diuron technical grade active ingredient products, the registrant needs to submit the following items.

Within 90 days from receipt of the generic data call in ( DCI):

( 1) completed response forms to the generic DCI ( i. e., DCI response form and requirements status and registrant's response form); and ( 2) submit any time extension and/ or waiver requests with a full written justification.

Within the time limit specified in the generic DCI:

( 1) cite any existing generic data which address data requirements or submit new generic data responding to the DCI. 102 Please contact Diane Isbell at ( 703) 308 8154 with questions regarding generic reregistration.

By US mail: By express or courier service: Document Processing Desk ( DCI/ SRRD) Document Processing Desk ( DCI/ SRRD) Diane Isbell Diane Isbell US EPA ( 7508C) Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7508C) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 266A, Crystal Mall 2 Washington, DC 20460 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 B. For products containing the active ingredient diuron, the registrant needs to submit the following items for each product.

Within 90 days from the receipt of the product specific data call in ( PDCI):

( 1) completed response forms to the PDCI ( i. e., PDCI response form and requirements status and registrant's response form); and ( 2) submit any time extension or waiver requests with a full written justification.

Within eight months from the receipt of the PDCI:

( 1) two copies of the confidential statement of formula ( EPA Form 8570 4);

( 2) a completed original application for reregistration ( EPA Form 8570 1). Indicate on the form that it is an " application for reregistration"; ( 3) five copies of the draft label incorporating all label amendments outlined in Table 39 of this document; ( 4) a completed for certifying compliance with data compensation requirements ( EPA Form 8570 34); ( 5) if applicable, a completed for certifying compliance with cost share offer requirements ( EPA Form 8570 32); and ( 6) the product specific data responding to the PDCI.

Please contact Barbara Briscoe at ( 703) 308 8178 with questions regarding product reregistration and/ or the PDCI. All materials submitted in response to the PDCI should be addressed as follows: 103 By US mail: By express or courier service: Document Processing Desk ( PDCI/ PRB) Document Processing Desk ( PDCI/ PRB) Barbara Briscoe Barbara Briscoe US EPA ( 7508C) Office of Pesticide Programs ( 7508C) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Room 266A, Crystal Mall 2 Washington, DC 20460 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, VA 22202 A. Manufacturing Use Products 1. Additional Generic Data Requirements The generic data base supporting the reregistration of diuron for the above eligible uses has been reviewed and determined to be substantially complete. However, the following data requirements are necessary to confirm the reregistration eligibility decision documented in this RED.

Toxicology Data:

° 28 day inhalation study Product and Residue Chemistry Data:

° New confidential statements of formula reflecting preliminary analyses of current products together with discussions of formation of impurities ° UV/ Visible absorption data/ spectra ° Independent lab validation for analytical method ° Multiresidue methods for diuron and metabolites in plants and livestock ° Magnitude of residue field trial data for: globe artichoke; barley hay; cotton gin byproducts; field corn aspirated grain fractions, forage and stover; sweet corn, stover; sweet corn, forage; filbert; grass forage, hay, seed screenings, and straw; pear; oat forage, hay; olive; field pea vines and hay; sorghum aspirated grain, fractions, stover, and forage; and wheat forage and hay. ° Processing data for field corn and olives ° Metabolism study in fish Occupational Exposure Data:

° Exposure study of mixing/ loading/ applying dry flowable with low pressure handwand ° Worker exposure resulting from contact with treated soil and soil dissipation study ° Exposure study for mechanical harvesting alfalfa and asparagus 104 Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data:

° Avian reproduction study  diuron ° Freshwater aquatic invertebrate life cycle toxicity study  diuron ° Estuarine/ marine fish early life cycle toxicity study  diuron ° Nontarget aquatic plant toxicity study  diuron ° Upgrade of leaching adsorption desorption study  diuron ° Hydrolysis of MCPDMU ° Aerobic Soil Metabolism of MCPDMU ° Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of MCPDMU ° Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of MCPCMU ° Leaching Adsorption Desorption of MCPDMU 2. Labeling for Manufacturing Use Products To ensure compliance with FIFRA, manufacturing use product ( MUP) labeling should be revised to comply with all current EPA regulations, PR Notices and applicable policies. The MUP labeling should bear the labeling contained in the labeling table, which will be issued separately.

B. End Use Products 1. Additional Product Specific Data Requirements Section 4( g)( 2)( B) of FIFRA calls for the Agency to obtain any needed product specific data regarding the pesticide after a determination of eligibility has been made. The Registrant must review previous data submissions to ensure that they meet current EPA acceptance criteria and if not, commit to conduct new studies. If a registrant believes that previously submitted data meet current testing standards, then the study MRID numbers should be cited according to the instructions in the Requirement Status and Registrants Response Form provided for each product.

A product specific data call in, outlining specific data requirements, accompanies this RED.

2. Labeling for End Use Products Labeling changes are necessary to implement measures outlined in Section IV above. Specific language to incorporate these changes is specified in Table 26.

C. Existing Stocks Registrants may generally distribute and sell products bearing old labels/ labeling for 12 months from the date of the issuance of this Reregistration Eligibility Decision document. Persons other than the registrant may generally distribute or sell such products for 24 months from the date of the issuance of this RED. However, existing stocks time frames will be established case by case, 105 depending on the number of products involved, the number of label changes, and other factors. Refer to " Existing Stocks of Pesticide Products; Statement of Policy"; Federal Register, Volume 56, No. 123, June 26, 1991.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75841-75843]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017]

QAI Laboratories, LTD.: Grant of Recognition as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to grant
recognition to QAI Laboratories, LTD., as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: Recognition as an NRTL becomes effective on December 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Acting Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination
Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's Web
page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Many of OSHA's workplace standards require that an NRTL test and
certify certain types of equipment as safe for use in the workplace.
NRTLs are independent laboratories that meet OSHA's requirements for
performing safety testing and certification of products used in the
workplace. To obtain and retain OSHA recognition, NRTLs must meet the
requirements in the NRTL Program regulations at 29 CFR 1910.7. More
specifically, to be recognized by OSHA, an organization must: (1) Have
the appropriate capability to test, evaluate, and approve products to
assure their safe use in the workplace; (2) be completely independent
of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and

manufacturers and vendors of products for which OSHA requires
certification; (3) have internal programs that ensure proper control of
the testing and certification process; and (4) have effective reporting
and complaint handling procedures. Recognition is an acknowledgement by
OSHA that the NRTL has the capability to perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within the
NRTL's scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of
government authority. Recognition of an NRTL by OSHA also allows
employers to use products certified by that NRTL to meet those OSHA
standards that require product testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications for initial recognition following
requirements in Appendix A of 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
OSHA to publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an
application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application,
provides its preliminary finding, and solicits comments on its
preliminary findings. In the second notice, the Agency provides its
final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's
scope of recognition.

II. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the Agency's decision to grant
recognition to QAI Laboratories, LTD. (QAI), as an NRTL. According to
public information (see http://qai.org/about-us/), QAI states that it
was founded in 1994 by a group of certification and testing experts,
and it is an independent third-party testing, inspection and
certification organization which serves the building industry,
government and individuals with solutions through its in-house
capabilities/services, and a world-wide network of qualified
affiliates. In its application, QAI lists the current address of its
headquarters as: QAI Laboratories, LTD., #16--211 Schoolhouse Street,
Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada V3K 4X9.
    Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1) The type
of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that have the
technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-
certification activities for the applicable test standards within the
NRTL's scope of recognition; and (3) the supplemental program(s) that
the NRTL may use, each of which allows the NRTL to rely on other
parties to perform activities necessary for testing and certification.
QAI applied for initial recognition as an NRTL on May 28, 2013. In its
application, QAI requested recognition for three test standards, two
sites, and one supplemental program (OSHA--2013-0017-0002, Exhibit 14-
1--QAI Initial Application for Recognition). OSHA published the
preliminary notice announcing QAI's application for recognition in the
Federal Register on August 29, 2014 (79 FR 51621). The Agency requested
comments by September 29, 2014.
    OSHA received one anonymous comment in response to this notice
(OSHA-2013-0017-0003). The comment (OSHA-2013-0017-0003) asked how OSHA
ensures the applicant maintains its technical qualifications as well as
the financial resources necessary to ensure only compliant products are
certified. OSHA's NRTL regulations (29 CFR 1910.7(b)(1)) require OSHA
to verify that the applicant ``has the capability (including proper
testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing
procedures, and calibration and quality control programs)'' to perform
testing and certification activities. As part of the application
process, OSHA reviewed QAI's procedures and conducted on-site
assessments at both of its sites. OSHA determined that QAI had the
necessary capabilities and resources to perform testing and
certification activities. OSHA will conduct periodic on-site
assessments, just as it does with all NRTLs, to ensure that QAI
maintains the capability to perform testing and certification
activities in accordance with OSHA NRTL regulations and policies.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
QAI's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket
Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC
20210. Docket No. OSHA-2013-0017 contains all materials in the record
concerning QAI's recognition.

III. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of QAI's application
packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA staff also
performed comprehensive on-site assessments of QAI's testing facilities
from February 24, 2014 through February 26, 2014. Based on its review
of this evidence, OSHA finds that QAI meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7 for recognition as an NRTL, subject to the limitations and
conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final
notice to grant recognition to QAI as an NRTL. The following sections
set forth the scope of recognition included in QAI's grant of
recognition.

A. Standards Requested for Recognition

    OSHA limits QAI's scope of recognition to testing and certification
of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards
listed in Table 1 below.

 Table 1--List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in QAI's NRTL
                          Scope of Recognition
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Test  standard                     Test standard title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UL 10B............................  Fire Tests of Door Assemblies.
UL 10C............................  Positive Pressure Fire Tests of Door
                                     Assemblies.
UL 1598...........................  Luminaires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is
limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require
third-party testing and certification before using them in the
workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

B. Sites Requested for Recognition

    OSHA limits QAI's scope of recognition to include the sites at:
    1. QAI Coquitlam, #16--211 Schoolhouse Street, Coquitlam, British
Columbia, CANADA V3K 4X9; and
    2. QAI Los Angeles, 8385 White Oak Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga,
California 91730.
    OSHA's recognition of these sites limits QAI to performing product
testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the
site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in
QAI's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the
recognition that OSHA grants

to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

C. Supplemental Programs

    OSHA limits QAI's scope of recognition to include the following
supplemental program:
    Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation
performed by subcontractors or agents (for calibration services only).
A. Conditions
    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
QAI also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. QAI must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. QAI must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. QAI must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on QAI's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby grants
recognition to QAI as an NRTL, subject to the limitations and
conditions specified above.

IV. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25,
2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 15, 2014.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2014-29731 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1767-1770]
[FR Doc No: 2016-32040]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79717; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-123]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE MKT
Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Modify
the Fees Related to Four Bundles of Co-Location Services in Connection
With the Exchange's Co-Location Services

December 30, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on December 19, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE MKT Equities Price List
(``Price List'') and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee
Schedule'') to modify the fees related to four bundles of co-location
services (``Partial Cabinet Solution bundles'') in connection with the
Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange proposes to implement the
fee changes effective January 1, 2017. The proposed change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Price List and Fee
Schedule to modify the fees related to Partial Cabinet Solution bundles
in connection with the Exchange's co-location services.\4\ Currently,
the Exchange offers Users \5\ that purchase a Partial Cabinet Solution
bundle on or before December 31, 2016 a 50% reduction in the monthly
recurring charges (``MRC'') for the first 12 months.\6\ The Exchange
now proposes to extend that 50% reduction until December 31, 2017. The
Exchange proposes to implement the fee changes effective January 1,
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62961 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59299 (September 27, 2010) (SR-
NYSEAmex-2010-80) (the ``Original Co-location Filing''). The
Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah, New Jersey (the ``data
center'') from which it provides co-location services to Users.
    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76009 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60213
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-67). As specified in the Price
List and Fee Schedule, a User that incurs co-location fees for a
particular co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject
to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the
Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE LLC'') and
NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' and, together with NYSE LLC, the
``Affiliate SROs''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70176
(August 13, 2013), 78 FR 50471 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEMKT-2013-
67).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77071 (Feb. 5,
2016), 81 FR 7382 (Feb. 11, 2016) (SR-NYSEMKT-2015-89).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange offers the four Partial Cabinet Solution bundles in
order to attract smaller Users, including those with minimal power or
cabinet space demands or those for which the costs attendant with
having a dedicated

cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are too burdensome.\7\
Under the proposed change, such smaller Users will be able to avail
themselves of the reduction until December 31, 2017. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to modify its Price List and Fee Schedule so that
they read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id at 7384.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Type of service            Description        Amount of charge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partial Cabinet Solution        Option A: 1 kW     $7,500 initial charge
 bundles.                        partial cabinet,   per bundle plus
Note: A User and its             1 LCN connection   monthly charge per
 Affiliates are limited to one   (1 Gb), 1 IP       bundle as follows:
 Partial Cabinet Solution        network            For Users
 bundle at a time. A User and    connection (1      that order on or
 its Affiliates must have an     Gb), 2 fiber       before December 31,
 Aggregate Cabinet Footprint     cross              2017: $3,000 monthly
 of 2 kW or less to qualify      connections and    for first 12 months
 for a Partial Cabinet           either the         of service, and
 Solution bundle. See Note 2     Network Time       $6,000 monthly
 under ``General Notes''.        Protocol Feed or   thereafter.
                                 Precision Timing   For Users
                                 Protocol.          that order after
                                Option B: 2 kW      December 31, 2017:
                                 partial cabinet,   $6,000 monthly.
                                 1 LCN connection  $7,500 initial charge
                                 (1 Gb), 1 IP       per bundle plus
                                 network            monthly charge per
                                 connection (1      bundle as follows:
                                 Gb), 2 fiber       For Users
                                 cross              that order on or
                                 connections and    before December 31,
                                 either the         2017: $3,500 monthly
                                 Network Time       for first 12 months
                                 Protocol Feed or   of service, and
                                 Precision Timing   $7,000 monthly
                                 Protocol.          thereafter.
                                                    For Users
                                                    that order after
                                                    December 31, 2017:
                                                    $7,000 monthly.
                                Option C: 1 kW     $10,000 initial
                                 partial cabinet,   charge per bundle
                                 1 LCN connection   plus monthly charge
                                 (10 Gb), 1 IP      per bundle as
                                 network            follows:
                                 connection (10     For Users
                                 Gb), 2 fiber       that order on or
                                 cross              before December 31,
                                 connections and    2017: $7,000 monthly
                                 either the         for first 12 months
                                 Network Time       of service, and
                                 Protocol Feed or   $14,000 monthly
                                 Precision Timing   thereafter.
                                 Protocol.          For Users
                                                    that order after
                                                    December 31, 2017:
                                                    $14,000 monthly.
                                Option D: 2 kW     $10,000 initial
                                 partial cabinet,   charge per bundle
                                 1 LCN connection   plus monthly charge
                                 (10 Gb), 1 IP      per bundle as
                                 network            follows:
                                 connection (10     For Users
                                 Gb), 2 fiber       that order on or
                                 cross              before December 31,
                                 connections and    2017: $7,500 monthly
                                 either the         for first 12 months
                                 Network Time       of service, and
                                 Protocol Feed or   $15,000 monthly
                                 Precision Timing   thereafter.
                                 Protocol.          For Users
                                                    that order after
                                                    December 31, 2017:
                                                    $15,000 monthly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the Partial
Cabinet Solution bundles other than this proposed extension of the 50%
reduction in the MRC. Users that purchase a Partial Cabinet Solution
bundle would still be subject to a 90-day minimum commitment, after
which period they are subject to a 60-day rolling time period.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \9\ and (iii)
a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange and one or both of its
affiliates.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \10\ See SR-NYSEMKT-2013-67, supra note 5, at 50471. The
Exchange's affiliates have also submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2016-91 and SR-NYSEArca-2016-168.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because
it is 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 securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities, and
are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers, because the Exchange proposes to offer
the 50% reduction in the MRC to all Users equally. As is currently the
case, the purchase of any colocation service (including Partial Cabinet
Solution bundles) is completely voluntary. All Users that order a
bundle on or before December 31, 2017 would have their MRC reduced by
50% for the first 12 months.
    The Exchange believes that extending the 50% reduction in the MRC
for Partial Cabinet Solution bundles is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers because
the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles would continue to offer four
different Partial Cabinet Solution bundles with options with respect to
cabinet footprint and network connections. Users that require

other sizes or combinations of cabinets, network connections and cross
connects could still request them.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that its proposal would remove
impediments to, and perfects the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protects investors and
the public interest because the proposed extension of the 50% reduction
in MRC would continue to make it more cost effective for Users to
utilize co-location by creating a convenient way to create a colocation
environment, through four Partial Cabinet Solution bundles with options
with respect to cabinet footprint and network connections. The Exchange
expects that such Users would include those with minimal power or
cabinet space demands and Users for which the costs attendant with
having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection bandwidth are
too burdensome.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable that Users that order a
Partial Cabinet Solution bundle on or before December 31, 2017 would
have their MRC reduced by 50% for the first 12 months because it is
reasonable to continue to offer such reduction as an incentive to Users
to utilize the service. As noted above, the Exchange anticipates that
Users of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundles would include those with
minimum power or cabinet space demands and Users for which the costs
attendant with having a dedicated cabinet or greater network connection
bandwidth are too burdensome. The Exchange believes that it is
reasonable to continue to have a reduced minimum commitment period for
the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle to further reduce the cost
commitment for such Users as a continued incentive to Users to utilize
the new service.
    For the reasons above, the proposed changes do not unfairly
discriminate between or among market participants that are otherwise
capable of satisfying any applicable co-location fees, requirements,
terms and conditions established from time to time by the Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\14\ 26 the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the proposed services being
completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on an equal basis
(i.e. the same products and services are available to all Users, and
the extension of the 50% reduction for the MRC for the Partial Cabinet
Solution bundles would apply to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that extending the 50% reduction in the MRC
will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such
access will continue to satisfy User demand for cost effective options
for smaller Users that choose to utilize co-location. All Users that
order a bundle on or before December 31, 2017 would have their MRC
reduced by 50% for the first 12 months. Providing entities with the
additional option of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will allow
them to select the relationship and type of service that better
corresponds to their needs and resources.
    The proposed changes will also enhance competition by making it
more cost effective for Users that purchase a Partial Cabinet Solution
bundle to utilize co-location by creating a convenient way to create a
colocation environment, through Partial Cabinet Solution bundles with
options with respect to cabinet footprint and network connections at a
reduced MRC for the first 12 months. Such Users may choose to pass on
such cost savings to their customers.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading and other market activities of those market participants who
believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations.
Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by
the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from,
such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive
fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to
terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt
a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their
servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data
center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies
less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency
associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which
could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue
of the affected exchange. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its services and related
fees and credits to remain competitive with other exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \16\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-123 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-123. 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 No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-123, and should be
submitted on or before January 27, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-32040 Filed 1-5-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P