[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 80266]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32446]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-1057]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Annisquam River and Blynman
Canal, Gloucester, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Blynman (SR127) Bridge across the
Annisquam River and Blynman Canal at mile 0.0 at Gloucester, MA. The
deviation is necessary due to the inhabitability of the operator's
house associated with a settling of the adjacent seawall resulting in a
partial collapse of the house rendering the structure unsafe for
occupancy. This deviation allows the bridge to be opened with a two
hour advanced notice during the hours of 8 p.m. through 4 a.m. from
January 1, 2016 through April 30, 2016.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 p.m. on January 1, 2016
through 4 a.m. April 30, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-USCG-2015-1057] is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH''. Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Scott White, First Coast Guard
District Bridge Branch, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Blynman (SR 127) Bridge across the
Annisquam River and Blynman Canal, mile 0.0, at Gloucester,
Massachusetts, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 8.2
feet at mean high water and 16 feet at mean low water. The existing
bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.586.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the normal
operating schedule to open on signal after at least a two hour advance
notice is provided between the hours of 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. for the period
of January 1, 2016 through April 30, 2016.
    The waterways are transited primarily by seasonal recreation
vessels of various sizes. Historical records indicate infrequent
requests for openings occur during this timeframe. Vessels able to pass
through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The
bridge will not be able to open for emergencies however the northern
entrance to the Annisquam River can be used as an alternate route for
vessels unable to pass through the bridge in closed positions. The
Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our
Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating
schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their
transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 21, 2015.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-32446 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 53498-53499]
[DOCID:fr19oc09-55]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699; FRL-8969-1]

Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Availability of draft document for public review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: On or about October 1, 2009, the National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA) and the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) of EPA is making available for public review and
comment a draft document titled Integrated Review Plan for the Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards Review--External Review Draft.
    This document contains the plans for the new periodic review of the
air quality criteria for ozone (O3)-related effects on public health
and public welfare and the current O3 standards or any revised
standards that may result from the reconsideration of the 2008 O3
standards. This draft Integrated Review Plan (IRP) is being released
for the purpose of consulting with the Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) of EPA's Science Advisory Board 1 and
obtaining public comment on the Agency's plans. The final IRP will be
informed by comments received from the CASAC and the public. The draft
IRP will be posted on the Agency's Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_
index.html. The draft IRP may be accessed in the ``Documents from
Current Review'' section under ``Planning Documents.''

    \1\ For purposes of this review, the 7-member CASAC has been
supplemented by additional scientific experts collectively referred
to as the CASAC O3 NAAQS Review Panel.

DATES: Comments should be submitted on or before November 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0699, by one of the following methods:
    [squ] www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    [squ] E-mail: a-and-r-Docket(epa.gov).
    [squ] Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    [squ] Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Please include a total of two copies.
    Hand Delivery: Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0699. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov

(or e-mail). The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov. index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Certain other materials, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. 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
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any questions concerning the draft IRP
should be directed to Dr. David McKee at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone
919-541-5288.

General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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:
    [squ] Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
    [squ] 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. Explain why you agree
or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes.
    [squ] Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
    [squ] If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    [squ] Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    [squ] Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the Administrator identifies and lists certain pollutants which
``cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' The EPA then issues
air quality criteria for listed pollutants, which are commonly referred
to as ``criteria pollutants.'' The air quality criteria are to
``accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge useful in
indicating the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on public
health or welfare which may be expected from the presence of [a]
pollutant in the ambient air, in varying quantities.'' Under section
109 of the CAA, EPA establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for each listed pollutant, with the NAAQS based on the air
quality criteria, Section 109(d) of the CAA requires periodic review
and, if appropriate, revision of existing air quality criteria. The
revised air quality criteria reflect advances in scientific knowledge
about the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare. The EPA
is also required to periodically review and revise the NAAQS, if
appropriate, based on the revised criteria.
    Air quality criteria have been established for O3, and primary and
secondary O3 NAAQS have been set to provide protection against adverse
health and welfare effects, respectively. EPA is currently reviewing
the air quality criteria and NAAQS for O3, and the overall plan and
schedule for this review is presented in the Integrated Review Plan for
the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards--External Review
Draft.\2\ This draft of the integrated review plan is available for
public review and comment until November 6, 2009, and will be the
subject of a consultation with the CASAC on November 13, 2009. Comments
received from that consultation with CASAC and from the public will be
considered in finalizing the plan and in beginning the review of the
air quality criteria.

    \2\ EPA 452/D-09-001; September 2009; Available: http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/s_o3_index.html

    Dated: October 7, 2009.
Jennifer Noonan Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E9-24815 Filed 10-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12886-12889]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-
2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-
2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions of 152
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt
individuals from this rule if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
April 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-
2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-
2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312 using any
of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 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 or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal DocketManagement System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 2-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 2-year period. The 152 individuals listed
in this notice have recently become eligible for a renewed exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. The drivers remain in good
standing with the Agency, have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.

II. Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 152 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. These 152 drivers
remain in good standing with the Agency, have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period. Therefore, FMCSA has decided to extend each
exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each individual is
identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are renewed subject to the following conditions: (1)
That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each individual reports
within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe
hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage
diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse
event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an
episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual submit an annual
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) that each individual
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her
driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must
also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to
a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following groups of
drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of February and are
discussed below.
    As of February 1, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 10 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (72 FR 69280; 73 FR
6247):

Steven G. Boggs (KS)
Jessie L. Brock II (TX)
Challis J. Crismore (MT)
David J. Jansen (OH)
Lawrence A. Kibler (PA)
Arthur J. Medrano (CA)
Mark R. Perkins (NV)
Christopher C. Schuch (MA)
Timothy Short (PA)
Uve J. Witsch (CA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2007-29286. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 1, 2017, and will expire on
February 1, 2019.
    As of February 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 78271; 78 FR
7855):

Kathy L. Brown (IN)
John C. Evans (IL)
Thomas J. Ferry (NJ)
Jeffrey C. Hanson (TX)
Daniel V. Williamson (MN)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0349. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 4, 2017, and will expire on
February 4, 2019.
    As of February 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (71 FR 74986; 72 FR
5492):

Roy B. Carter (WV)
Bradley D. Case (IN)
Thomas D. Dyke (KS)
Anthony L. Gentry (CO)
Michael T. Hartley (KY)
David A. Heider (WI)
John A. Helm (IL)
John A. Herbert (NJ)
Lester H. Hughes (VA)
Christopher A. Knott (MN)
Jeffery C. Link (SC)
Joseph C. McMasters (IN)
Bradley S. Mowdy (CA)
Ronald W. Nelson (MN)
Kent E. Pelkey (ME)
Keith E. Petersen (ND)
Allen W. Quon (MD)
Shawn P. Wathley (CT)
Christopher T. Worsley (MA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26321. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 6, 2017, and will expire on
February 6, 2019.
    As of February 9, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 33 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (73 FR 75794; 74 FR
6451):

Robert S. Althouse (PA)
James G. Arnoldussen, Sr. (WI)
Thomas S. Benson (NC)
Dennis A. Boelens (IL)
Walter R. Braxton (VA)
Merle N. Cromwell (IL)
Trenn A. Davis (KS)
Stephen R. Ferrario (CA)
Kevin J. Fries (MT)
Fred Frisch (OH)
Daniel D. Greenwell (NY)
George H. Hayes, Jr. (VA)
John H. Hilliges (NE)
Paris J. Howell (TN)
John H. Kingsley (VA)
Gary J. Klostermann (IA)
Jason C. Lang (VT)
Kevin J. Lavoie (OR)
Robert H. McCann, III (MD)
Chris C. Northway (WI)
John D. Owens (IN)
Jody A. Peckels (OR)
James H. Pfeiffer, Jr. (IL)
Marc R. Pream (MN)
Travis W. Proctor (GA)
Ann M. Reinke (WI)
Vincent L. Rodriguez (NM)
Randy L. Schroeder (NY)
Michael W. Sharp (TX)
Gary E. Stone (PA)
Anthony A. Thomas (KY)
John R. Turcotte (ME)
Russell A. Williams (WI)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0341. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 9, 2017, and will expire on
February 9, 2019.
    As of February 10, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 80889; 76 FR
7625):

Charlie A. Barner (GA)
Christopher R. Everitt (OH)
Joseph A. Griffin (NY)
Michael A. Holy (MI)
Victor M. Lewis (TN)
William P. Miller, Jr. (KY)
David A. Wiltse (ND)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0414. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 10, 2017, and will expire on
February 10, 2019.
    As of February 22, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 1496; 76 FR
9867):

Neal S. Faulkner (VT)
Jason J. Hamilton (AZ)
Steven J. Lefebvre (NY)
Mitchell J. Moore (CO)
James R. Parker (NJ)
Charles C. Quast (IL)
James E. Steele (TN)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0427. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 22, 2017, and will expire on
February 22, 2019.
    As of February 24, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 3724; 80 FR
19732):

Bryan L. Anderson (WA)
Travis K. Archer (ME)
Michael R. Batham (CA)
Victor M. Beltran-Araujo (UT)
Charles A. Best (OH)
George E. Carle (CO)
Jamey S. Carney (IA)
Michael G. Cary (MN)
John G. Castilaw (MS)
Adam C. Cochran (GA)
Michael R. Cummings (VA)
David L. Dalheim (NY)
Brian Dick (MD)
Timothy B. Duelke (ID)
Cory A. Duncan (OR)
Terrance J. Dunne (NJ)
David L. Eklund (IL)
Yoshitsugu Endo (FL)
Barry K. Foster (TX)
John A. Georg (IA)
Francis J. Gernatt, Jr. (NY)
Mark A. Haines (WV)
Ivan G. Hanford (OR)
James L. Harman III (VA)
James R. Hoyle (TX)

John M. Ippolito (NY)
Allan L. Jameson (NE)
Erik D. Kemmer (MN)
Mark L. Knobel, Sr. (MD)
Joseph E. Knox, Sr. (MD)
Erik M. Lane (NY)
James D. Martin (IN)
Galen H. Martin (PA)
John M. McCabe (IL)
Kevin F. McGlade (PA)
Brett J. Mellor (ID)
Kenneth M. Merritt (CA)
Charles E. Morgan (LA)
John E. Sautkulis (NY)
Ronnie L. Schronce (NC)
William F. Smith (DE)
Robin W. Swasey (UT)
Michelle P. Thibeault (ME)
Michael L. Thrasher (AL)
Steven R. Vance (TX)
William D. VanReese (MN)
Ellis J. Vest, Jr. (WV)
Mark P. Zimmerman (NV)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0312. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 24, 2017, and will expire on
February 24, 2019.
    As of February 25, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 1927; 78 FR
12819):

Angel Bergendale (MA)
Sean P. Borsky (FL)
Uvena S. Brown (IN)
Spiro J. Jonovich (AZ)
Victor D. Mayberry (TN)
Barry C. McKay (CO)
Robert B. McKendry (IL)
William L. Phelps (IN)
Richard J. Rembisz (NY)
Richard L. Smith (GA)
Gary J. Tricarico (CT)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0351. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 25, 2017, and will expire on
February 25, 2019.
    As of February 26, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 1923; 78 FR
12821):

Shawn J. Ball (ID)
Ira S. Chamberlin (ME)
James K. Dowden (MN)
Myron P. Egbert (UT)
Michael T. Evans (OH)
Stephen P. Honen (OH)
Charles E. Johnston (MS)
Jack M. Sipich (IL)
Roger N. Stauffer (MI)
Tyrone Taylor (NC)
Michael E. Westley (FL)
Travis M. Whitt (CA)

    The drivers were included in Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0350. Their
exemptions are effective as of February 26, 2017, and will expire on
February 26, 2019.
    Each of the 152 drivers in the aforementioned groups qualifies for
a renewal of the exemption. They have maintained their required medical
monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous 2-
year exemption period.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of the
152 drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption. The drivers were
included in docket numbers FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-2007-29286; FMCSA-
2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-2012-0349; FMCSA-
2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312.

IV. Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by April 6, 2017.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed,
subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated
above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition
announcing its decision to exempt these 152 individuals from rule
prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). The final decision to grant an
exemption to each of these individuals was made on the merits of each
case and made only after careful consideration of the comments received
to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in
detail the medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from
rule prohibiting persons with ITDM from operating CMVs in interstate
commerce. That information is available by consulting the above cited
Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

V. Submitting Comments

    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 and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-
2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414; FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-
2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351; FMCSA-2014-0312 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. 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.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

VI. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number

FMCSA-2006-26321; FMCSA-2007-29286; FMCSA-2008-0341; FMCSA-2010-0414;
FMCSA-2010-0427; FMCSA-2012-0349; FMCSA-2012-0350; FMCSA-2012-0351;
FMCSA-2014-0312 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to this
notice.

    Issued on: February 28, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-04387 Filed 3-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 3, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32011-32012]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12791]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending May 3, 2014

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier

Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the
Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR
301.201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications,
or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application.
Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by
expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a
show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final
order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-1996-1023 and DOT-OST-1996-1071.
    Date Filed: April 28, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: May 19, 2014.
    Description: Application of Gulf & Caribbean Cargo, Inc. requesting
reissuance of its certificates of public convenience and necessity to
remove the restriction on the total number of large aircraft Gulf &
Caribbean is authorized to operate.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2013-0085.
    Date Filed: April 28, 2014.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: May 19, 2014.
    Description: Application of Empresa Publica TAME Linea Aerea del
Ecuador TAME EP (``TAME'') requesting that the Department amend its
foreign air carrier permit to enable it to engage in scheduled foreign
air transportation of persons, property, and mail between Quito,
Ecuador, on the one hand, and Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on the other
hand. TAME also requests exemption authority to the extent necessary so
that they may exercise the rights requested in this Application prior
to the issuance of the amended foreign air carrier permit.

 Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2014-12791 Filed 6-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46979-46984]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16973]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78317; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules To
Implement the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Plan To Implement a
Tick Size Pilot Program

July 13, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 29, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to adopt rules under Rule 3317 to implement
the quoting and trading provisions of the Plan to Implement a Tick Size
Pilot Program submitted to the Commission pursuant to Rule 608 of
Regulation NMS \3\ under the Act (the ``Plan'').\4\ The proposed rule
change is substantially similar to proposed rule changes recently
approved or published by the Commission by New York Stock Exchange LLC
to adopt NYSE Rules 67(a) and 67(c)-(e), which also implemented the
quoting and trading provisions of the Plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6,
2015), 80 FR 27513 (File No. 4-657) (``Tick Plan Approval Order'').
See also Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 76382 (November 6,
2015) (File No. 4-657), 80 FR 70284 (File No. 4-657) (November 13,
2015), which extended the pilot period commencement date from May 6,
2015 to October 3, 2016.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76229 (October 22,
2015), 80 FR 66065 (October 28, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-46), as amended
by Partial Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 to the Quoting & Trading Rules
Proposal. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77703 (April 25,
2016), 81 FR 25725 (April 29, 2016) (SR-NYSE-2015-46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish rules to require its member
organizations to comply with the requirements of the Plan, which is
designed to study and assess the impact of increment conventions on the
liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small capitalization
companies. The Exchange proposes changes to its rules for a two-year
pilot period that coincides with the pilot period for the Plan, which
is currently scheduled as a two year pilot to begin on October 3, 2016.
Background
    On August 25, 2014, NYSE Group, Inc., on behalf of Bats BZX
Exchange, Inc. (f/k/a BATS Exchange, Inc.), Bats BYX Exchange, Inc. (f/
k/a BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.), Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA
Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., the Exchange [sic], Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.,
NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, New York Stock Exchange LLC, the Exchange [sic]
and NYSE Arca, Inc., and the NYSE MKT LLC, (collectively,
``Participants''), filed with the Commission, pursuant to Section 11A
of the Act \6\ and Rule 608 of Regulation NMS thereunder, the Plan to
Implement a Tick Size Pilot Program.\7\ The Participants filed the Plan
to comply with an order issued by the Commission on June 24, 2014 (the
``June 2014 Order'').\8\ The Plan \9\ was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 7, 2014,\10\ and approved by the
Commission, as modified, on May 6, 2015.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \7\ See Letter from Brendon J. Weiss, Vice President,
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., to Secretary, Commission, dated
August 25, 2014.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72460 (June 24,
2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014).
    \9\ Unless otherwise specified, capitalized terms used in this
rule filing are based on the defined terms of the Plan.
    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 73511 (November
3, 2014), 79 FR 66423 (File No. 4-657) (Tick Plan Filing).
    \11\ See Tick Plan Approval Order, supra note 4. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77277 (March 3, 2016), 81 FR
12162 (March 8, 2016) (File No. 4-657), which amended the Plan to
add National Stock Exchange, Inc. as a Participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan is designed to allow the Commission, market participants,
and the public to study and assess the impact of increment conventions
on the liquidity and trading of the common stocks of small
capitalization companies. The Commission plans to use the Tick Size
Pilot Program to assess whether wider tick sizes enhance the market
quality of Pilot Securities for the benefit of issuers and investors.
Each Participant is required to comply with, and to enforce compliance
by its member organizations, as applicable, with the provisions of the
Plan.
    On October 9, 2015, the Operating Committee approved the Exchange's
[sic] proposed rules as model Participant rules that would require
compliance by a Participant's member organizations with the provisions
of the Plan, as applicable, and would establish written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and
trading requirements specified in the Plan.\12\ As described more fully
below, the proposed rules would require member organizations to comply
with the Plan and provide for the widening of quoting

and trading increments for Pilot Securities, consistent with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Operating Committee is required under Section III(C)(2)
of the Plan to ``monitor the procedures established pursuant to the
Plan and advise Participants with respect to any deficiencies,
problems, or recommendations as the Operating Committee may deem
appropriate.'' The Operating Committee is also required to
``establish specifications and procedures for the implementation and
operation of the Plan that are consistent with the provisions of the
Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan will include stocks of companies with $3 billion or less
in market capitalization, an average daily trading volume of one
million shares or less, and a volume weighted average price of at least
$2.00 for every trading day. The Plan will consist of a control group
of approximately 1,400 Pilot Securities and three test groups with 400
Pilot Securities in each selected by a stratified sampling.\13\ During
the pilot, Pilot Securities in the control group will be quoted at the
current tick size increment of $0.01 per share and will trade at the
currently permitted increments. Pilot Securities in the first test
group (``Test Group One'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments
but will continue to trade at any price increment that is currently
permitted.\14\ Pilot Securities in the second test group (``Test Group
Two'') will be quoted in $0.05 minimum increments and will trade at
$0.05 minimum increments subject to a midpoint exception, a retail
investor exception, and a negotiated trade exception.\15\ Pilot
Securities in the third test group (``Test Group Three'') will be
subject to the same terms as Test Group Two and also will be subject to
the ``Trade-at'' requirement to prevent price matching by a person not
displaying at a price of a Trading Center's ``Best Protected Bid'' or
``Best Protected Offer,'' unless an enumerated exception applies.\16\
In addition to the exceptions provided under Test Group Two, an
exception for Block Size orders and exceptions that closely resemble
those under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS \17\ will apply to the Trade-at
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Section V of the Plan for identification of Pilot
Securities, including criteria for selection and grouping.
    \14\ See Section VI(B) of the Plan. Pilot Securities in Test
Group One will be subject to a midpoint exception and a retail
investor exception.
    \15\ See Section VI(C) of the Plan.
    \16\ See Section VI(D) of the Plan.
    \17\ 17 CFR 242.611.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan also contains requirements for the collection and
transmission of data to the Commission and the public. A variety of
data generated during the Plan will be released publicly on an
aggregated basis to assist in analyzing the impact of wider tick sizes
on smaller capitalization stocks.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Section VII of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rules 3317(a) and (c)
    The Plan requires the Exchange to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply
with applicable quoting and trading requirements specified in the
Plan.\19\ Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing new Rule 3317(a) to
require its member organizations to comply with the quoting and trading
provisions of the Plan. The proposed Rules are also designed to ensure
the Exchange's compliance with the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange was also required by the Plan to develop
appropriate policies and procedures that provide for data collection
and reporting to the Commission of data described in Appendixes B
and C of the Plan. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77458
(March 28, 2016), 81 FR 18919 (April 1, 2016) (SR-Phlx-2016-39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of new Rule 3317 would establish the
following defined terms:
     ``Plan'' means the Tick Size Pilot Plan submitted to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 608(a)(3) of Regulation NMS under the Act.
     ``Pilot Test Groups'' means the three test groups
established under the Plan, consisting of 400 Pilot Securities each,
which satisfy the respective criteria established by the Plan for each
such test group.
     ``Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order'' \20\ would mean a
limit order for a Pilot Security that meets the following requirements:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The Plan defines a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order
(``ISO'') as a limit order for a Pilot Security that, when routed to
a Trading Center, is identified as an ISO, and simultaneous with the
routing of the limit order identified as an ISO, one or more
additional limit orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against
the full displayed size of any protected bid (in the case of a limit
order to sell) or the full displayed size of any protected offer (in
the case of a limit order to buy) for the Pilot Security with a
price that is equal to the limit price of the limit order identified
as an ISO. These additional routed orders also must be marked as
ISOs. See Plan, Section I(MM). Since the Plan allows (i) an order
that is identified as an ISO to be executed at the price of a
Protected Quotation (see Plan, Section VI(D)(8) and proposed Rule
3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)i.) and (ii) an order to execute at the price of a
Protected Quotation that ``is executed by a trading center that
simultaneously routed Trade-at ISO to execute against the full
displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was trade at'' (see
Plan, Section VI(D)(9) and proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)j.)), the
Exchange proposes to clarify the use of an ISO in connection with
the Trade-at requirement by adopting, as part of proposed Rule
3317(a)(1), a comprehensive definition of ``Trade-at ISO.'' As set
forth in the Plan and as noted above, the definition of a Trade-at
ISO used in the Plan does not distinguish ISOs that are compliant
with Rule 611 or Regulation NMS from ISOs that are compliant with
Trade-at. The Exchange therefore proposes the separate definition of
Trade-at ISO contained in proposed Rule 3317(a). The Exchange
believes that this proposed definition will further clarify to
recipients of ISOs in Test Group Three securities whether the ISO
satisfies the requirements of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or Trade-
at.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) When routed to a Trading Center, the limit order is identified
as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order; and
    (ii) Simultaneously with the routing of the limit order identified
as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order, one or more additional limit
orders, as necessary, are routed to execute against the full size of
any protected bid, in the case of a limit order to sell, or the full
displayed size of any protected offer, in the case of a limit order to
buy, for the Pilot Security with a price that is better than or equal
to the limit price of the limit order identified as a Trade-at
Intermarket Sweep Order. These additional routed orders also must be
marked as Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders.
     Paragraph (a)(1)(E) would provide that all capitalized
terms not otherwise defined in this rule shall have the meanings set
forth in the Plan, Regulation NMS under the Act, or Exchange rules, as
applicable.
    Proposed Paragraph (a)(2) would state that the Exchange is a
Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the
Plan; proposed Paragraph (a)(3) would require member organizations to
establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to comply with the applicable requirements of
the Plan, which would allow the Exchange to enforce compliance by its
member organizations with the provisions of the Plan, as required
pursuant to Section II(B) of the Plan.
    In addition, Paragraph (a)(4) would provide that Exchange systems
would not display, quote or trade in violation of the applicable
quoting and trading requirements for a Pilot Security specified in the
Plan and this proposed rule, unless such quotation or transaction is
specifically exempted under the Plan.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange is still evaluating its internal policies and
procedures to ensure compliance with the Plan, and plans to
separately propose rules that would address violations of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to add Rule 3317(a)(5) to provide for
the treatment of Pilot Securities that drop below a $1.00 value during
the Pilot Period.\22\ The Exchange proposes that if

the price of a Pilot Security drops below $1.00 during regular trading
on any given business day, such Pilot Security would continue to be
subject to the Plan and the requirements described below that
necessitate member organizations to comply with the specific quoting
and trading obligations for each respective Pilot Test Group under the
Plan, and would continue to trade in accordance with the proposed rules
below as if the price of the Pilot Security had not dropped below
$1.00. However, if the Closing Price of a Pilot Security on any given
business day is below $1.00, such Pilot Security would be moved out of
its respective Pilot Test Group into the control group (which consists
of Pilot Securities not placed into a Pilot Test Group), and may then
be quoted and traded at any price increment that is currently permitted
by Exchange rules for the remainder of the Pilot Period.
Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the contrary, the Exchange
proposes that, at all times during the Pilot Period, Pilot Securities
(whether in the control group or any Pilot Test Group) would continue
to be subject to the data collection rules, which are enumerated in
Rule 3317(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ New York Stock Exchange LLC, on behalf of the Participants,
submitted a letter to Commission requesting exemption from certain
provisions of the Plan related to quoting and trading. See letter
from Elizabeth K. King, NYSE, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated October 14, 2015 (the ``October Exemption
Request''). FINRA, also on behalf of the Plan Participants,
submitted a separate letter to Commission requesting additional
exemptions from certain provisions of the Plan related to quoting
and trading. See letter from Marcia E. Asquith, Senior Vice
President and Corporate Secretary, FINRA, to Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary, Commission, dated February 23, 2016 (the
``February Exemption Request,'' and together with the October
Exemption Request, the ``Exemption Request Letters''). The
Commission, pursuant to its authority under Rule 608(e) of
Regulation NMS, granted New York Stock Exchange LLC a limited
exemption from the requirement to comply with certain provisions of
the Plan as specified in the Exemption Request Letters and noted
herein. See letter from David Shillman, Associate Director, Division
of Trading and Markets, Commission to Sherry Sandler, Associate
General Counsel, New York Stock Exchange LLC, dated April 25, 2016
(the ``Exemption Letter''). The Exchange is seeking the same
exemptions as requested in the Exemption Request Letters, including
without limitation, an exemption relating to proposed Rule
3317(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes Rules 3317(c)(1)-(3), which would require
member organizations to comply with the specific quoting and trading
obligations for each Pilot Test Group under the Plan. With regard to
Pilot Securities in Test Group One, proposed Rule 3317(c)(1) would
provide that no member organization may display, rank, or accept from
any person any displayable or non-displayable bids or offers, orders,
or indications of interest in increments other than $0.05. However,
orders priced to trade at the midpoint of the National Best Bid and
National Best Offer (``NBBO'') or Best Protected Bid and Best Protected
Offer (``PBBO'') and orders entered in a Participant-operated retail
liquidity program \23\ may be ranked and accepted in increments of less
than $0.05. Pilot Securities in Test Group One may continue to trade at
any price increment that is currently permitted by Rule 3301(k).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Exchange notes that it does not currently operate a
retail liquidity program, but has elected to include rule text taken
from the plan concerning such programs and Retail Investor Orders
under Rule 3317(c) to keep the rule text consistent with the Plan.
    \24\ Rule 3301(k) describes the minimum price variation for
quoting and entry of orders in equity securities listed on the
Exchange or a national securities exchange other than the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Pilot Securities in Test Group Two, proposed Rule
3317(c)(2)(A) would provide that such Pilot Securities would be subject
to all of the same quoting requirements as described above for Pilot
Securities in Test Group One, along with the applicable quoting
exceptions. In addition, proposed Rule 3317(c)(2)(B) would provide
that, absent one of the listed exceptions in proposed 3317(c)(2)(C)
enumerated below, no member organization may execute orders in any
Pilot Security in Test Group Two in price increments other than $0.05.
The $0.05 trading increment would apply to all trades, including
Brokered Cross Trades.
    Paragraph (2)(C) would set forth further requirements for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Two. Specifically, member organizations
trading Pilot Securities in Test Group Two would be allowed to trade in
increments less than $0.05 under the following circumstances: \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Under the Plan [sic], there is a fourth circumstance under
which a security may trade in increments less than $0.05, which
applies to trading Pilot Securities in Test Groups Two and Three.
The fourth circumstance allows the execution of a customer order to
comply with the member's Manning obligation, such as required by
FINRA Rule 5320, following the execution of a proprietary trade by
the member at an increment other than $0.05, where such proprietary
trade was permissible pursuant to an exception under the Plan. FINRA
Rule 5320 states:
    (a) Except as provided herein, a member that accepts and holds
an order in an equity security from its own customer or a customer
of another broker-dealer without immediately executing the order is
prohibited from trading that security on the same side of the market
for its own account at a price that would satisfy the customer
order, unless it immediately thereafter executes the customer order
up to the size and at the same or better price at which it traded
for its own account.
    (b) A member must have a written methodology in place governing
the execution and priority of all pending orders that is consistent
with the requirements of this Rule and Rule 5310. A member also must
ensure that this methodology is consistently applied.
     The Exchange does not currently have a Manning rule analogous
to FINRA Rule 5320, but will adopt such a rule in the near future.
Once approved, the Exchange will amend Rules 3317(c)(2)(C)(iv) and
(c)(3)(C)(iv), which are currently held in reserve, to reflect the
availability of this additional circumstance by which a trade in
increments less than $0.05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Trading may occur at the midpoint between the NBBO or PBBO;
    (ii) Retail Investor Orders may be provided with price improvement
that is at least $0.005 better than the PBBO; and
    (iii) Negotiated Trades may trade in increments less than $0.05.
    Paragraph (3)(A)-(3)(C) would set forth the requirements for Pilot
Securities in Test Group Three. Member organizations quoting or trading
such Pilot Securities would be subject to all of the same quoting and
trading requirements as described above for Pilot Securities in Test
Group Two, including the quoting and trading exceptions applicable to
Pilot Securities in Test Group Two. In addition, proposed Paragraph
(3)(D) would provide for an additional prohibition on Pilot Securities
in Test Group Three referred to as the ``Trade-at Prohibition.'' \26\
Paragraph (3)(D)(ii) would provide that, absent one of the listed
exceptions in proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii) enumerated below, no
member organization may execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order
for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the price of a Protected
Offer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Proposed 3317(c)(3)(D)(i) would define the ``Trade-at
Prohibition'' to mean the prohibition against executions by a
Trading Center of a sell order for a Pilot Security at the price of
a Protected Bid or the execution of a buy order for a Pilot Security
at the price of a Protected Offer during regular trading hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii) would allow member organizations
to execute a sell order for a Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the
price of a Protected Bid or execute a buy order for a Pilot Security in
Test Group Three at the price of a Protected Offer if any of the
following circumstances exist:
    a. The order is executed as agent or riskless principal by an
independent trading unit, as defined under Rule 200(f) of Regulation
SHO,\27\ of a Trading Center within a member organization that has a
displayed quotation as agent or riskless principal, via either a
processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price equal to the traded-at
Protected Quotation, that was displayed before the order was
received,\28\ but only up to the

full displayed size of that independent trading unit's previously
displayed quote; \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Exchange is proposing that, for proposed Rules
3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)a. and c.[sic], a Trading Center operated by a
broker-dealer would mean an independent trading unit, as defined
under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, within such broker-dealer. See
17 CFR 242.200.
     Independent trading unit aggregation is available if traders in
an aggregation unit pursue only the particular trading objective(s)
or strategy(s) of that aggregation unit and do not coordinate that
strategy with any other aggregation unit. Therefore, a Trading
Center cannot rely on quotations displayed by that broker dealer
from a different independent trading unit. As an example, an agency
desk of a broker-dealer cannot rely on the quotation of a
proprietary desk in a separate independent trading unit at that same
broker-dealer.
    \28\ The Exchange is proposing to adopt this limitation to
ensure that a Trading Center does not display a quotation after the
time of order receipt solely for the purpose of trading at the price
of a protected quotation without routing to that protected
quotation.
    \29\ This proposed exception to Trade-at would allow a Trading
Center to execute an order at the Protected Quotation in the same
capacity in which it has displayed a quotation at a price equal to
the Protected Quotation and up to the displayed size of such
displayed quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The order is executed by an independent trading unit, as defined
under Rule 200(f) of Regulation SHO, of a Trading Center within a
member organization that has a displayed quotation for the account of
that Trading Center on a principal (excluding riskless principal \30\)
basis, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, at a price
equal to the traded-at Protected Quotation, that was displayed before
the order was received, but only up to the full displayed size of that
independent unit's previously displayed quote; \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ As described above, proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)a.
would establish the circumstances in which a Trading Center
displaying an order as riskless principal would be permitted to
Trade-at the Protected Quotation. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes
that proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)b. would exclude such
circumstances.
    \31\ The display exceptions to Trade-at set forth in proposed
Rules 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)a. and b. would not permit a broker-dealer
to trade on the basis of interest it is not responsible for
displaying. In particular, a broker-dealer that matches orders in
the over-the-counter market shall be deemed to have ``executed''
such orders as a Trading Center for purposes of proposed Rule 3317.
Accordingly, if a broker-dealer is not displaying a quotation at a
price equal to the Protected Quotation, it could not submit matched
trades to an alternative trading center (``ATS'') that was
displaying on an agency basis the quotation of another ATS
subscriber. However, a broker-dealer that is displaying, as
principal, via either a processor or an SRO Quotation Feed, a buy
order at the protected bid, could internalize a customer sell order
up to its displayed size. The display exceptions would not permit a
non-displayed Trading Center to submit matched trades to an ATS that
was displaying on an agency basis the quotation of another ATS
subscriber and confirmed that a broker-dealer would not be permitted
to trade on the basis of interest that it is not responsible for
displaying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. The order is of Block Size \32\ at the time of origin and may
not be:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ ``Block Size'' is defined in the Plan as an order (1) of at
least 5,000 shares or (2) for a quantity of stock having a market
value of at least $100,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. An aggregation of non-block orders;
    B. broken into orders smaller than Block Size prior to submitting
the order to a Trading Center for execution; or
    C. executed on multiple Trading Centers; \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Once a Block Size order or portion of such Block Size order
is routed from one Trading Center to another Trading Center in
compliance with Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the Block Size order
would not lose the Trade-at exemption provided under proposed Rule
3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)c. For example, if an exchange has a Protected Bid
of 3,000 shares, with 2,000 shares in reserve, and receives a 5,000
share order to sell, the exchange would be able to execute the
entire 5,000 share order without having to route to an away market
at any other Protected Bid at the same price. If, however, that
exchange only has 1,000 shares in reserve, the entire order would
not be able to be executed on that exchange, and the exchange would
only be able to execute 3,000 shares and route the rest to away
markets at other Protected Bids at the same price, before executing
the 1,000 shares in reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    d. The order is a Retail Investor Order executed with at least
$0.005 price improvement;
    e. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded at was experiencing a failure,
material delay, or malfunction of its systems or equipment;
    f. The order is executed as part of a transaction that was not a
``regular way'' contract;
    g. The order is executed as part of a single-priced opening,
reopening, or closing transaction on the Exchange;
    h. The order is executed when a Protected Bid was priced higher
than a Protected Offer in the Pilot Security in Test Group Three;
    i. The order is identified as a Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Order;
\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ In connection with the definition of a Trade-at ISO
proposed in Rule 3317(a)(1)(D), this exception refers to the ISO
that is received by a Trading Center.
     The Exchange proposed an exemption to the Trade-at Prohibition
for Trade-at ISOs to clarify that an ISO that is received by a
Trading Center (and which could form the basis of an execution at
the price of a Protected Quotation pursuant to Section VI(D)(8) of
the Plan), is identified as a Trade-at ISO. Depending on whether
Rule 611 of Regulation NMS or the Trade-at requirement applies, an
ISO may mean that the sender of the ISO has swept better-priced
Protected Quotations, so that the recipient of that ISO may trade
through the price of the Protected Quotation (Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS), or it could mean that the sender of the ISO has swept
Protected Quotations at the same price that it wishes to execute at
(in addition to any better-priced quotations), so the recipient of
that ISO may trade at the price of the Protected Quotation (Trade-
at). Given that the meaning of an ISO may differ under Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS and Trade-at, the Exchange proposed an exemption to
the Trade-at Prohibition for Trade-at ISOs so that the recipient of
an ISO in a Test Group Three security would know, upon receipt of
that ISO, that the Trading Center that sent the ISO had already
executed against the full size of displayed quotations at that
price, e.g., the recipient of that ISO could permissibly trade at
the price of the Protected Quotation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    j. The order is executed by a Trading Center that simultaneously
routed Trade-at Intermarket Sweep Orders to execute against the full
displayed size of the Protected Quotation that was traded at; \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ In connection with the definition of a Trade-at ISO
proposed in Rule 3317(a)(1)(D), this exception refers to the Trading
Center that routed the ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    k. The order is executed as part of a Negotiated Trade;
    l. The order is executed when the Trading Center displaying the
Protected Quotation that was traded at had displayed, within one second
prior to execution of the transaction that constituted the Trade-at, a
Best Protected Bid or Best Protected Offer, as applicable, for the
Pilot Security in Test Group Three with a price that was inferior to
the price of the Trade-at transaction;
    m. The order is executed by a Trading Center which, at the time of
order receipt, the Trading Center had guaranteed an execution at no
worse than a specified price (a ``stopped order''), where:
    A. The stopped order was for the account of a customer;
    B. The customer agreed to the specified price on an order-by-order
basis; and
    C. The price of the Trade-at transaction was, for a stopped buy
order, equal to or less than the National Best Bid in the Pilot
Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution or, for a stopped
sell order, equal to or greater than the National Best Offer in the
Pilot Security in Test Group Three at the time of execution, as long as
such order is priced at an acceptable increment; \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The stopped order exemption in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS
applies where ``[t]he price of the trade-through transaction was,
for a stopped buy order, lower than the national best bid in the NMS
stock at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order, higher
than the national best offer in the NMS stock at the time of
execution'' (see 17 CFR 242.611(b)(9)). The Trade-at stopped order
exception applies where ``the price of the Trade-at transaction was,
for a stopped buy order, equal to the national best bid in the Pilot
Security at the time of execution or, for a stopped sell order,
equal to the national best offer in the Pilot Security at the time
of execution'' (see Plan, Section VI(D)(12)).
    To illustrate the application of the stopped order exemption as
it currently operates under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and as it is
currently proposed for Trade-at, assume the National Best Bid is
$10.00 and another protected quote is at $9.95. Under Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS, a stopped order to buy can be filled at $9.95 and
the firm does not have to send an ISO to access the protected quote
at $10.00 since the price of the stopped order must be lower than
the National Best Bid. For the stopped order to also be executed at
$9.95 and satisfy the Trade-at requirements, the Trade-at exception
would have to be revised to allow an order to execute at the price
of a protected quote which, in this case, could be $9.95.
    Based on the fact that a stopped order would be treated
differently under the Rule 611 of Regulation NMS exception than
under the Trade-at exception in the Plan, the Exchange believes that
it is appropriate to amend the Trade-at stopped order exception in
the Plan to ensure that the application of this exception would
produce a consistent result under both Regulation NMS and the Plan.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes in this proposed Rule
3317(c)(3)(D)(iii)m. to allow a transaction to satisfy the Trade-at
requirement if the stopped order price, for a stopped buy order, is
equal to or less than the National Best Bid, and for a stopped sell
order, is equal to or greater than the National Best Offer, as long
as such order is priced at an acceptable increment. The Commission
granted New York Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c)
related to this provision. See Exemption Letter, supra note 22. The
Exchange is seeking the same exemptions as requested in the
Exemption Request Letters.

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

    n. The order is for a fractional share of a Pilot Security in Test
Group Three, provided that such fractional share order was not the
result of breaking an order for one or more whole shares of a Pilot
Security in Test Group Three into orders for fractional shares or was
not otherwise effected to evade the requirements of the Trade-at
Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan; or
    o. The order is to correct a bona fide error, which is recorded by
the Trading Center in its error account.\37\ A bona fide error is
defined as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ The exceptions to the Trade-at requirement set forth in the
Plan and in the Exchange's proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iii) are, in
part, based on the exceptions to the trade-through requirement set
forth in Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, including exceptions for an
order that is executed as part of a transaction that was not a
``regular way'' contract, and an order that is executed as part of a
single-priced opening, reopening, or closing transaction by the
Trading Center (see 17 CFR 242.611(b)(2) and (b)(3)). Following the
adoption of Rule 611 of Regulation NMS and its exceptions, the
Commission issued exemptive relief that created exceptions from Rule
611 of Regulation NMS for certain error correction transactions. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8, 2007), 72 FR
32926 (June 14, 2007); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55883
(June 8, 2007), 72 FR 32927 (June 14, 2007). The Exchange has
determined that it is appropriate to incorporate this additional
exception to the Trade-at Prohibition, as this exception is equally
applicable in the Trade-at context.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to exempt certain
transactions to correct bona fide errors in the execution of
customer orders from the Trade-at Prohibition, subject to the
conditions set forth by the SEC's order exempting these transactions
from Rule 611 of Regulation NMS. The Commission granted New York
Stock Exchange LLC an exemption from Rule 608(c) related to this
provision. See Exemption Letter, supra note 22. The Exchange is
seeking the same exemptions as requested in the Exemption Request
Letters.
    As with the corresponding exception under Rule 611 of Regulation
NMS, the bona fide error would have to be evidenced by objective
facts and circumstances, the Trading Center would have to maintain
documentation of such facts and circumstances and record the
transaction in its error account. To avail itself of the exemption,
the Trading Center would have to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to address the
occurrence of errors and, in the event of an error, the use and
terms of a transaction to correct the error in compliance with this
exemption. Finally, the Trading Center would have to regularly
surveil to ascertain the effectiveness of its policies and
procedures to address errors and transactions to correct errors and
take prompt action to remedy deficiencies in such policies and
procedures. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55884 (June 8,
2007), 72 FR 32926 (June 14, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A. The inaccurate conveyance or execution of any term of an order
including, but not limited to, price, number of shares or other unit of
trading; identification of the security; identification of the account
for which securities are purchased or sold; lost or otherwise misplaced
order tickets; short sales that were instead sold long or vice versa;
or the execution of an order on the wrong side of a market;
    B. The unauthorized or unintended purchase, sale, or allocation of
securities, or the failure to follow specific client instructions;
    C. The incorrect entry of data into relevant systems, including
reliance on incorrect cash positions, withdrawals, or securities
positions reflected in an account; or
    D. A delay, outage, or failure of a communication system used to
transmit market data prices or to facilitate the delivery or execution
of an order.
    Finally, proposed Rule 3317(c)(3)(D)(iv) would prevent member
organizations from breaking an order into smaller orders or otherwise
effecting or executing an order to evade the requirements of the Trade-
at Prohibition or any other provisions of the Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\38\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\39\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act because it ensures that the Exchange and its member organizations
would be in compliance with a Plan approved by the Commission pursuant
to an order issued by the Commission in reliance on Section 11A of the
Act.\40\ Such approved Plan gives the Exchange authority to establish,
maintain, and enforce written policies and procedures that are
reasonably designed to comply with applicable quoting and trading
requirements specified in the Plan. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the authority granted to it by
the Plan to establish specifications and procedures for the
implementation and operation of the Plan that are consistent with the
provisions of the Plan. Likewise, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change provides interpretations of the Plan that are
consistent with the Act, in general, and furthers the objectives of the
Act, in particular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange is a Participant under the Plan and
subject, itself, to the provisions of the Plan. The proposed rule
change ensures that the Exchange's systems would not display or execute
trading interests outside the requirements specified in such Plan. The
proposal would also help allow market participants to continue to trade
NMS Stocks within quoting and trading requirements that are in
compliance with the Plan, with certainty on how certain orders and
trading interests would be treated. This, in turn, will help encourage
market participants to continue to provide liquidity in the
marketplace.
    Because the Plan supports further examination and analysis on the
impact of tick sizes on the trading and liquidity of the securities of
small capitalization companies, and the Commission believes that
altering tick sizes could result in significant market-wide benefits
and improvements to liquidity and capital formation, adopting rules
that enforce compliance by its member organizations with the provisions
of the Plan would help promote liquidity in the marketplace and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes are
being made to establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the trading and
quoting requirements specified in the Plan, of which other equities
exchanges are also Participants. Other competing national securities
exchanges are subject to the same trading and quoting requirements
specified in the Plan. Therefore, the proposed changes would not impose
any burden on competition, while providing certainty of treatment and
execution of trading interests on the Exchange to market participants
in NMS Stocks that are acting in compliance with the requirements
specified in the Plan.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \41\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(iii).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-73 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-73. 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 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-Phlx-2016-73, and should be
submitted on or before August 9, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16973 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES August 29, 2005 MEMORANDUM:

SUBJECT: Dicofol. Revised Refined Post Application Exposure Estimates ( Hops, Mint, Strawberries).

FROM: Robert Travaglini, Chemist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

THRU: Steven Weiss, Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 3 Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

TO: Mika Hunter, Chemical Review Manager Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

DP Barcode: D 321185 PC Code: 010501 This memorandum addresses the error correction response dated August 17, 2005 from Dow Agrosciences pertaining to the HED document of June 9, 2005 which concerned postapplication exposures and risk estimates for the insecticide/ miticide dicofol on hops, mints and strawberries. A memorandum which addresses the Dow Agrosciences comments is attached.

This document reflects current HED policy. This memorandum examines post application exposures and risk estimates for the insecticide/ miticide dicofol, in continuation of the reregistration ( RED) process for this pesticide. On May 27, 2005 Special Review and Reregistration Division ( SRRD) requested that HED provide for inclusion in an addendum to the Dicofol RED, the re entry Interval ( REI) and postapplication dermal exposure estimates for three additional crops not previously assessed. These crops are: hops, mint and strawberries.

Background & Summary In November, 1999 HED issued a revised Occupational Exposure Assessment for the miticide dicofol ( D260940). A short term NOAEL of 75 mg/ kg/ day and intermediate term NOAEL of 3 mg/ kg/ day were used as the endpoints in the assessment. Since these endpoints were taken from dermal studies, a dermal absorption factor of 100% was utilized. The target MOE for dermal exposures is 100. Subsequent to the 1999 RED, SRRD has requested and HED has provided post application dermal exposure estimates for various crop uses that are being supported in the RED process. Post application dermal exposure estimates have recently been provided to SRRD for the following crops: apples, apricots, beans ( dry, string), cotton, cucurbits, grapefruit, grapes, oranges, peaches, pecans, peppers ( bell & chili), oranges, & treated sod. Generally in these assessments, the short term post application MOEs for all exposure scenarios were not of concern and were exceeded usually within 2 days after the dicofol treatment. However, the intermediate term REIs for many potential post application exposure activities were between 20 and 30 days and in some cases ( i. e. hand harvesting oranges) were as long as 87 days, exceeding existing label re entry language by several weeks.

Where possible in these assessments, HED used chemical specific dislodgeable foliar residue ( DFR) data to estimate the post application dermal exposure for the various treated crops. However, for the remaining crops and for the crops assessed in this document, HED relied on default DFR calculations using the HED Exposure SAC SOP# 3 " Agricultural transfer Coefficients" to determine REIs.

For short term post application dermal exposures to the assessed crops treated with dicofol, MOEs exceeded 100 at 0  1 days after treatment ( DAT) for all post application exposure activities.

For intermediate term post application dermal exposures to dicofol treated hops, mint and strawberries, MOES exceeded 100 for low exposure activities: 0 DAT ( hops), 1 DAT ( mint), and, 19 DAT ( strawberries). For medium exposure activities, MOEs exceeded 100 on 25 DAT ( hops) and 27 DAT ( mint). For high exposure activities MOES exceeded 100 on 30 DAT ( hops), 31 DAT ( strawberries) and 32 DAT ( mint).

Attachments for this document are the appendices for the short and intermediate term post application re entry interval ( REI) calculations, which include data inputs and tables.

This document reflects current HED policy. Page 3 of 9 Table 1. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Short term Exposure: Hops Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol  hops Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) ( 2) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Bunch / bundle Hops 1.16 N/ A 0 0 0 N/ A Table 2. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Intermediate term Exposure: Hops Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol  hops Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Bunch / bundle Hops 1.16 N/ A 0 25 29 N/ A Footnote:

1. Crop groupings and transfer coefficients from Science Advisory Council for Exposure: Policy Memo # 003.1 ' Agricultural Transfer Coefficients', August 17, 2000.

2. Maximum label rates from end use product labels.

3. DAT = Days after treatment; DAT0 = On the day of treatment, after sprays have dried; assumed approximately 12 hours.

4. MOE = Dermal toxicity endpoint ( mg/ kg day)/ absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg d) where the absorbed dose = DFR ( ug/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x conversion factor ( 1 mg/ 1,000 ug) x exposure time ( hrs) x dermal absorption / body weight ( kg).

Chemical: dicofol  hops Date: 6 8 05 Assessor: travaglini Transfer Coefficient Group: Bunch / bundle Specific Crop Considered: Hops Application Rate of Crop ( lb ai/ A): 1.16 DFR Data Summary Page 4 of 9 No study data was used for this crop's assessment.

Exposure Inputs Summary Exposure Potential Transfer Coefficients ( cm2/ hr) ( 1) Activities ( 1)

Used for RA Range Very Low N/ A N/ A N/ A Low 100 TBD Irrigation, Weeding ( hand), Scouting, Thinning Medium 1300 1,346  2,308 Irrigation, Scouting High 2000 1,346  2,308 Harvest ( hand), Harvest ( mechanical),

Stripping, Training, Pruning ( hand), Thinning,

Topping, Weeding ( hand)

Very High N/ A N/ A N/ A Page 5 of 9 Table 3. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Short term Exposure: Mint Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol  mint @ 1.25 Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) ( 2) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Field / row crops, low /

medium Mint 1.25 N/ A 0 0 1 N/ A Table 4. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Intermediate term Exposure: Mint Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol  mint @ 1.25 Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Field / row crops, low /

medium Mint 1.25 N/ A 1 27 32 N/ A Footnote:

1. Crop groupings and transfer coefficients from Science Advisory Council for Exposure: Policy Memo # 003.1 ' Agricultural Transfer Coefficients', August 17, 2000.

2. Maximum label rates from end use product labels.

3. DAT = Days after treatment; DAT0 = On the day of treatment, after sprays have dried; assumed approximately 12 hours.

4. MOE = Dermal toxicity endpoint ( mg/ kg day)/ absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg d) where the absorbed dose = DFR ( ug/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x conversion factor ( 1 mg/ 1,000 ug) x exposure time ( hrs) x dermal absorption / body weight ( kg).

Chemical: dicofol  mint @ 1.25 Date: 6 8 05 Assessor: travaglini Transfer Coefficient Group: Field / row crops, low / medium Specific Crop Considered: Mint Application Rate of Crop ( lb ai/ A): 1.25 DFR Data Summary No study data was used for this crop's assessment. Page 6 of 9 Exposure Inputs Summary Exposure Potential Transfer Coefficients ( cm2/ hr) ( 1) Activities ( 1)

Used for RA Range Very Low N/ A N/ A N/ A Low 100 TBD Irrigation, Scouting, Weeding ( hand), Thinning Medium 1500 486  2,760 Irrigation, Scouting, Weeding ( hand)

High 2500 486  2,760 Harvest ( hand)

Very High N/ A N/ A N/ A Page 7 of 9 Table 5. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Short term Exposure: Strawberries Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol strawberries@ 2 .0 Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) ( 2) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Berry, low Strawberries 2 N/ A 0 N/ A 1 N/ A Table 6. Summary of ' Days After Treatment' to Reach the Target MOE for Intermediate term Exposure: Strawberries Crop Grouping ( 1) dicofol strawberries@ 2 .0 Specific Crops ( 2) Max Foliar Rate ( lb ai/ acre) Days After Treatment Target MOE Achieved ( Target MOE = 100)

Exposure Activity Levels ( 3,4)

Very Low Low Medium High Very High Berry, low Strawberries 2 N/ A 19 N/ A 31 N/ A Footnote:

1. Crop groupings and transfer coefficients from Science Advisory Council for Exposure: Policy Memo # 003.1 ' Agricultural Transfer Coefficients', August 17, 2000.

2. Maximum label rates from end use product labels.

3. DAT = Days after treatment; DAT0 = On the day of treatment, after sprays have dried; assumed approximately 12 hours.

4. MOE = Dermal toxicity endpoint ( mg/ kg day)/ absorbed dermal dose ( mg/ kg d) where the absorbed dose = DFR ( ug/ cm2) x TC ( cm2/ hr) x conversion factor ( 1 mg/ 1,000 ug) x exposure time ( hrs) x dermal absorption / body weight ( kg).

DFR/ TTR Data Defaults:

Initial Percent of Rate as DFR (%): 20 Dissipation Rate per day (%): 10 Initial Percent of Rate as TTR (%): 5 Dissipation Rate per day (%): 10 Chemical: dicofol strawberries@ 2.0 Date: 6 7 05 Assessor: travaglini Transfer Coefficient Group: Berry, low Specific Crop Considered: Strawberries Page 8 of 9 Application Rate of Crop ( lb ai/ A): 2 DFR Data Summary No study data was used for this crop's assessment.

Exposure Inputs Summary Exposure Potential Transfer Coefficients ( cm2/ hr) ( 1) Activities ( 1)

Used for RA Range Very Low N/ A N/ A N/ A Low 400 400  1,800 Scouting, Weeding ( hand), Irrigation, Pruning ( hand), Thinning, Harvest ( hand) ( raking),

Pruning ( hand) ( shears), Mulching Medium N/ A N/ A N/ A High 1500 400  1,800 Harvest ( hand), Pruning ( hand), Pinching,

Training Very High N/ A N/ A N/ A Page 9 of 9