[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 211 (Monday, November 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67476-67480]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0070]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 36 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 2015. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0070 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: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The 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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 36 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Raymond H. Annis

    Mr. Annis, 72, has had pseudophakia and macular degeneration in his
right eye since 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and
in his left eye, 20/40. Following an examination in 2015, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``The above mentioned are the results of his
testing, Given these results, it is my medical opinion that he has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Annis reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 2 years, accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 29 years, accumulating 3.48 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph A. Basista

    Mr. Basista, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, Mr. Basista has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Basista reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 130,000 miles.
He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

James T. Bauer

    Mr. Bauer, 76, has had a retinal vein occlusion in his left eye
since 1994. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Bauer has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Bauer reported that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years,
accumulating 444,000 miles. He holds a Class BM CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Duane W. Brzuchalski

    Mr. Brzuchalski, 55, has had a chronic retinal detachment in his
left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in
2015, his optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Duane
Brzuchalski has sufficient vision and visual ability to safely operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brzuchalski reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 450,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 1.68 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

John D. Burns Jr.

    Mr. Burns, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, counting
fingers. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated,
``He has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Burns reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 660,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Stephen J. Calandrino

    Mr. Calandrino, 59, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in
his left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``He undoubtedly has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks needed to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Calandrino reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 300,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Randall S. Canedy

    Mr. Canedy, 63, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion when wearing his glasses Mr. Canedy has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Canedy reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
31 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rufus A. Dennis

    Mr. Dennis, 68, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident at birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/25, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``External examination of
Mr. Dennis' left eye revealed that the cornea in his left eye is
opacified, his pupil is irregular, miotic, and displaced infero-nasally
. . . Mr. Dennis stated that he has had a commercial drivers [sic]
license for at least 30-35 years with this condition. I see no reason
why he shouldn't be granted his health card at the present time.'' Mr.
Dennis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years,
accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

David Diamond

    Mr. Diamond, 44, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, David has sufficient vision to perform driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
    Mr. Diamond reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22
years, accumulating 77,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David D. Frey

    Mr. Frey, 71, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50,

and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, this patient has sufficient vision
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Frey reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1 million miles. He holds an
operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Jason T. Glaude

    Mr. Glaude, 41, has had a partial coloboma of optic nerve in his
left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and
in his left eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``Jason certainly satisfies the requirements to
legally drive and operate a commercial vehicle and his reduced acuity
in the left eye is stable and poses no risks.'' Mr. Glaude reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 750,000
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Maine. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Patrick Griffin

    Mr. Griffin, 39, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in
his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion he does have good enough vision, visual fields,
and visual sensory functioning to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Griffin reported that he has driven straight trucks for
18 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles. He holds an operator's
license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Roger J. Hansen

    Mr. Hansen, 60, has had a branch retinal artery occlusion in his
left eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and
in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2015, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``In the doctor's medical opinion, Mr. Hansen
has perfect vision and visual function in his right eye to drive safely
and he has been driving safely in the past 10 years with some deficit
in his left eye . . . If he has been granted to operate commercial
vehicles in the past, I do not see a reason to not grant him to do so
now.'' Mr. Hansen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14
years, accumulating 1.19 million miles. He holds an operator's license
from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one
crash, to which he did not contribute and for which he was not cited,
and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the
speed limit by 11 mph.

Elvin M. Hursh

    Mr. Hursh, 71, has had a prosthetic right eye since 1995. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion, Mr. Hursh has the acuity, visual field, and color
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hursh reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9
years, accumulating 27,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Tommy R. Jefferies

    Mr. Jefferies, 48, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Jefferies has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Jefferies reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years,
accumulating 741,000 miles. He holds a Class E CDL from Florida. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey A. Keefer

    Mr. Keefer, 53, has a corneal scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination
in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Keefer
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks associated with
driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Keefer reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 162,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 99,000 miles. He holds
a Class D CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dale R. Knuppel

    Mr. Knuppel, 60, has had macular edema in his right eye since 2004.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and in his left eye, 20/
30. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``I
hereby certify that in my medical opinion, the applicant has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to safely operate a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV).'' Mr. Knuppel reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 39 years, accumulating 1.76
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving
violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 14 mph.

James J. Kopesky

    Mr. Kopesky, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no
light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``I certify that in my professional opinion, Mr. James Kopesky
has sufficient vision to perfom [sic] the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kopesky reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1.875 million miles. He
holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Richard W. Korthanke

    Mr. Korthanke, 61, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye
since 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``Richard has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Korthanke reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 42,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 70,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

William E. Leimkuehler

    Mr. Leimkuehler, 63, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/1250. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``His vision is clear and sufficient to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Leimkuehler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years,
accumulating 1.4 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14
years, accumulating 980,000 miles. He holds a Class AM1

CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one
crash, to which he contributed to by unsafe starting, and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael R. Letson

    Mr. Letson, 54, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception,
and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2015, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``He has 130 degrees of vision in the left eye,
and it is my opinion that Mr. Letson has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Letson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years,
accumulating 96,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jose A. Marco

    Mr. Marco, 50, has had amblyopia secondary to a mild corneal
leukoma in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``He does have
amblyopia in his right eye which accounts for the visual loss secondary
to a mild corneal leukoma . . . This suggests he should not be denied a
commercial driver's license with the appropriate considerations listed
above.'' Mr. Marco reported that he has driven straight trucks for 29
years, accumulating 1.51 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations
for 29 years, accumulating 1.51 million miles, and buses for 15 years,
accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Cole W. McLaughlin

    Mr. McLaughlin, 27, has complications due to fibrovascular ingrowth
in his left eye due to a traumatic incident in 2011. The visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception.
Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my
opinion, I do believe he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. McLaughlin
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating
1,250 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating
40,000 miles, and buses for 5 years, accumulating 500 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Javier R. Morales

    Mr. Morales, 48, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my opinion he has sufficient vision to preform driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Morales reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 460,000
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from California. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Clarence L. Ogle

    Mr. Ogle, 63, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/300, and in his left
eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``It is my opinion that refractive amblyopia for Mr. Ogle does not
affect his ability to drive. I think he can perform the task of
operating a commercial vehicle without restriction.'' Mr. Ogle reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 562,500
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 1.26
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Roy A. Quesada

    Mr. Quesada, 43, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``Based on these findings and in my experience as a physician,
he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Quesada
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating
210,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years,
accumulating 210,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rafael Quintero

    Mr. Quintero, 51, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following
an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``He does perceive
light and balance through the eye and is capable of a binocular field
and should perform adequately as a truck driver.'' Mr. Quintero
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
15,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years,
accumulating 2.25 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction
for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10
percent or more.

Clark M. Robinson

    Mr. Robinson, 63, has had macular degeneration in his left eye
since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his
left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2015, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my opinion at this time, that Mr. Robinson
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Robinson reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 40 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 2 million
miles. He holds an operator's license from South Carolina. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Donald L. Schoendienst

    Mr. Schoendienst, 61, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated
that Mr. Schoendienst does have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a CMV. Mr. Schoendienst reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 165,000 miles.
He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Wesley C. Slattery

    Mr. Slattery, 49, has had anisotropic amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``I feel he does have sufficient vision to perform all driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Slattery reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 259,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years,

accumulating 308,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Kansas.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James J. Slemmer, Jr.

    Mr. Slemmer, 73, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2015, his optometrist stated, ``I, Lou Mastrian OD, certify that James
Slemmer has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle based on the findings from his examination
on May 7, 2015.'' Mr. Slemmer reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 54 years, accumulating 350,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffrey W. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 68, has had Best disease in the macula of his right eye
since 2002. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his
left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist
stated, ``It appears to be stable in both eyes at this time. It appears
he is doing fine at this time and would be able to drive a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven buses for 5 years,
accumulating 12,500 miles. He holds a Class C CDL from North Carolina.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Mark R. Stevens

    Mr. Stevens, 56, has aniridia, bullous keratopathy, aphakia, and
exotropia in his right eye due to a traumatic incident in childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left
eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Stevens has sufficient visual function to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Stevens reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations
for 30 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kevin A. Szafranski

    Mr. Szafranski, 33, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Kevin has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Szafranski reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 31,200 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerry W. Talbott

    Mr. Talbott, 53, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my medical opinion, Mr. Talbott has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Talbott
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating
3.5 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years,
accumulating 1.25 million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Raymond W. Teemer

    Mr. Teemer, 31, has hypertropia and exotropia in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in
2015, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In summary, this patient is a
monocular status patient, and has been operating a commercial vehicle
for five years without incident.'' Mr. Teemer reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 4.5 years, accumulating 42,750 miles. He
holds an operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2015-0070 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. . If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2015-0070 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: October 22, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-27882 Filed 10-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 203)]
[Notices]
[Page 61272-61273]
[DOCID:fr21oc05-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-4-000 and ER06-20-000]

LG&E Energy LLC and Louisville Gas and Electric Company et al.;
Notice of Filing

October 14, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 7, 2005, LG&E Energy LLC, on behalf of
its public utility operating company subsidiaries Louisville Gas and
Electric Company and Kentucky Utilities Company (collectively,
Applicants) pursuant to section 203 and 205 of the Federal Power Act
and Parts 33 and 35 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the
Commission's regulations, hereby tender for filing Commission's
approval to change Applicants' method of: (1) Complying with Order Nos.
888 and 889, and certain conditions imposed by the Commission in the
context of Applicants' prior mergers; and (2) achieving the goals of
Order No. 2000.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be
filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on November 15, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5808 Filed 10-20-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 249 (Monday, December 30, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72015-72017]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28087]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87834; File No. SR-FICC-2019-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Include a New Foreign Legal Opinion Fee Applicable to Non-U.S.
Membership Applicants, and Delete a Requirement for Direct Non-U.S.
Members Relating to Annual Opinion Updates

December 20, 2019.
    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 December 16, 2019, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rules 19b-4(f)(2) and (f)(4) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2) and (f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of a proposal to amend the FICC
Government Securities Division (``GSD'') Rulebook (``GSD Rules'') and
the FICC Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD'') Clearing Rules
(``MBSD Rules'') \5\ to: (i) Include a new foreign legal opinion fee in
the GSD Fee Structure, and the MBSD Schedule of Charges Broker Account
Group and MBSD Schedule of Charges Dealer Account Group (with the GSD
Fee Structure, collectively referred to as the ``FICC Fee Schedules'')
applicable to non-U.S. Netting Member and non-U.S. Clearing Member
membership applicants,\6\ and (ii) delete the requirement for direct
non-U.S. members to submit, on an annual basis, an updated opinion on
home country law (and if applicable, other non-domestic law), or a
letter from their outside counsel indicating that there have been no
material changes in home country law (or other applicable non-domestic
law) since the date of issuance of the most recent opinion submitted to
FICC (hereinafter referred to as the ``bring-down opinion'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD
Rules and MBSD Rules, available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/rules-and-procedures.
    \6\ The proposed fee would also be applicable to applicants that
are U.S. branches and agencies of non-U.S. banks because such
applicants are also required to submit a foreign legal opinion as
part of their application.
    \7\ The annual bring-down opinion requirement does not apply to
non-U.S. members participating through U.S. branches or agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the GSD Rules
and the MBSD Rules to: (i) Include a new foreign legal opinion fee in
the FICC Fee Schedules applicable to non-U.S. membership applicants,\8\
and (ii) delete the requirement for direct non-U.S. members to submit a
bring-down opinion on an annual basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    Under FICC's current process applicable to both GSD and MBSD, a
non-U.S. foreign applicant, including an applicant that is a U.S.
branch or agency of a non-U.S. bank, provides an extensive legal
opinion addressing complex issues such as netting, bankruptcy, and
choice of law issues under the law of the applicant's home jurisdiction
(the ``foreign insolvency and netting opinion'').\9\ The foreign
insolvency and netting opinion is provided by outside counsel hired by
the applicant. The opinion is then reviewed (and negotiated with the
applicant's counsel, as needed) by FICC and FICC's outside U.S.
counsel. As such, in this current process, both the applicant and FICC
are incurring duplicative legal costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Section 5 of GSD Rule 2A and Section 3 of MBSD Rule 2A
reference opinions as one of the possible required documents in the
application submission. See GSD Rule 2A and MBSD Rule 2A, supra note
5. The application requirements sheet provided to potential GSD and
MBSD members outlines the types of opinions required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, GSD and MBSD currently require direct non-U.S. members
(i.e., those not participating through a U.S. branch or agency) to
provide bring-down opinions annually. Again, FICC hires its own outside
U.S. counsel to review the bring-down opinions.
Proposed Process
    In order to address the legal costs for the review of the non-U.S.
legal opinions for non-U.S. membership applicants, FICC proposes to
modify the current process for obtaining non-U.S. legal opinions and
implement a new foreign legal opinion fee (``Foreign Legal Opinion
Fee''). Such fee would be non-refundable regardless of the outcome of
the application process.
Proposed Rule Changes
    Pursuant to the proposed rule changes, FICC would select outside
counsel to provide a foreign insolvency and netting opinion
satisfactory to FICC regarding the laws of the applicable non-U.S.
jurisdiction. This would alleviate the burden from membership
applicants of having to hire their own outside counsel to prepare the
opinion. Also pursuant to this proposal, the FICC Fee Schedules would
be amended to provide that the initial non-U.S. membership applicant
(including one participating through a U.S. branch or agency) from a
given jurisdiction would be advised of a ``Maximum Estimated Charge''
based on the estimated amount provided to FICC by FICC's outside
counsel with respect to obtaining the foreign insolvency and netting
opinion for that jurisdiction. The estimate would be prepared on an as-
needed basis and would not be based on a pre-existing schedule. FICC
would advise the non-U.S. applicant of the Maximum Estimated Charge in
writing.
    The amount of the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee charged to the
applicant would be the lesser of a Maximum Estimated Charge and the
actual costs charged to FICC by outside counsel providing a legal
opinion in form and substance satisfactory to FICC regarding the laws
of the non-U.S. jurisdiction. If within five (5) business days after
FICC advises the non-U.S. membership applicant of the Maximum Estimated
Charge, as described above, the non-U.S. applicant notifies FICC in
writing that it will terminate its application, the non-U.S. applicant
will not be charged the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee. If the application
is terminated, the Maximum Estimated Charge would no longer

apply and FICC would obtain a new Maximum Estimated Charge from FICC's
outside counsel if it receives a subsequent application from that
jurisdiction. If the initial non-U.S. membership applicant does not
terminate its application within five (5) business days of FICC
advising it of the Maximum Estimated Charge, then the non-U.S.
applicant would be billed for the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee in the
amount that would be determined as described above. Promptly after
FICC's outside counsel has provided to FICC a final invoice stating the
actual amount to be charged to FICC for the foreign legal opinion, FICC
would send an invoice to the applicant. Payment by the non-U.S.
membership applicant would be due within ten (10) business days of the
non-U.S. applicant's receipt of an invoice, including payment
instructions, from FICC.
    The FICC Fee Schedules would not expressly include an absolute
maximum amount for the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee because, based on
FICC's experience in reviewing foreign legal opinions, the level of
review required for FICC to gain comfort that the law of the
applicant's jurisdiction does not provide material impediments to
enforcement of the GSD Rules and MBSD Rules, as applicable, can vary
significantly by jurisdiction, resulting in significant variance in
counsel costs to FICC. The FICC Fee Schedules would not include an
absolute minimum amount for the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee because FICC
would not charge an applicant a Foreign Legal Opinion Fee that is in an
amount that is higher than the actual amount billed by FICC's outside
counsel to provide the applicable foreign insolvency and netting
opinion.
    Each subsequent non-U.S. membership applicant (``Subsequent Non-
U.S. Applicant'') from the same jurisdiction would be charged a Foreign
Legal Opinion Fee in an amount equal to the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee
charged to the first non-U.S. membership applicant from the same
jurisdiction that was charged a Foreign Legal Opinion Fee. FICC would
notify each Subsequent Non-U.S. Applicant in writing of the amount of
the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee that was determined as described above.
If within five (5) business days after FICC advises the Subsequent Non-
U.S. Participant Applicant of the applicable Foreign Legal Opinion Fee,
the applicant notifies FICC in writing that it will terminate its
membership application, the applicant would not be charged a Foreign
Legal Opinion Fee. If the Subsequent Non-U.S. Applicant does not
terminate its application within five (5) business days of FICC
advising it of the amount of the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee, then the
applicant would be billed accordingly. Payment by the Non-U.S.
Participant Applicant of the full amount of the Foreign Legal Opinion
Fee would be due within ten (10) business days of the applicant's
receipt of an invoice, including payment instructions, from FICC.
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, FICC would delete from GSD
Rule 3, Section 2 and MBSD Rule 3, Section 2 the requirement for direct
foreign members to submit the annual bring-down opinions. FICC will
instead periodically monitor to identify any significant changes in
relevant non-U.S. jurisdictions that may be of interest to FICC. FICC
would not charge members for this monitoring service.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires that the GSD Rules and
MBSD Rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its participants.\10\ FICC believes the
proposed Foreign Legal Opinion Fee would be equitably allocated because
in accordance with the amendment to the FICC Fee Schedules as described
above, a Foreign Legal Opinion Fee in the same amount would be charged
to all subsequent applicants domiciled in the jurisdiction for which an
applicable foreign legal opinion was obtained. In addition, FICC
believes that the proposed Foreign Legal Opinion Fee would be
reasonable because (i) it would be capped in the amount of the Maximum
Estimated Charge, as described above, (ii) the amount of a Foreign
Legal Opinion Fee charged to an applicant would not be greater than the
costs FICC may incur in connection with obtaining the applicable
foreign legal opinion, as described above, and (iii) it would eliminate
the cost to FICC associated with the review of foreign legal opinions.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed rule change would provide
for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its participants,
and is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act, requires, inter alia, that the GSD
Rules and MBSD Rules are not designed to permit unfair discrimination
in the admission of participants in the use of the clearing agency.\12\
FICC believes the proposed rule changes are consistent with this
provision because the proposal for FICC to obtain a single foreign
netting and insolvency opinion from FICC outside counsel for all new
non-U.S. membership applicants domiciled within a jurisdiction, rather
than requiring each applicant to obtain an opinion from its own outside
counsel in its jurisdiction, would provide for enhanced consistency in
the review performed by FICC by eliminating the need for it to review
multiple legal opinions submitted by each applicant individually.
Similarly, FICC believes that removing the annual bring-down opinion
requirement would provide for enhanced consistency in FICC's review of
material changes in applicable non-U.S. law and would eliminate the
situation whereby multiple direct foreign members from the same
jurisdiction are each submitting separate bring-down opinions/letters.
Therefore, FICC believes that the proposed rule change would not permit
unfair discrimination in the admission of members in the use of FICC,
and is consistent with the provisions of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18) under the Act requires that FICC establish,
implement, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures
reasonably designed to establish objective, risk-based, and publicly
disclosed criteria for participation, which permit fair and open access
by direct and, where relevant, indirect participants and other
financial market utilities, require participants to have sufficient
financial resources and robust operational capacity to meet obligations
arising from participation in the clearing agency, and monitor
compliance with such participation requirements on an ongoing
basis.\14\ FICC believes that the proposed rule changes regarding the
Foreign Legal Opinion Fee and elimination of the annual bring-down
requirement have been designed to meet the applicable provisions of
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(18). This is because the netting and insolvency opinion
requirement for non-U.S. applicants, which is a risk-based requirement
in that it allows FICC to learn and address any potential legal risk
arising from a non-U.S. jurisdiction's laws, would remain under the
proposed rule changes. The proposed rule change would not adversely
affect fair and open access because the requirement for such legal
opinion exists today in that non-U.S. applicants must procure and pay
for their own opinion currently. Moreover, the Foreign Legal Opinion
Fee would constitute a publicly disclosed requirement for applying as a
non-U.S.

applicant to GSD and MBSD. Finally, while the proposal would eliminate
the bring-down opinion requirement, FICC would continue to periodically
monitor in order to identify any significant changes in relevant non-
U.S. jurisdictions that may be of interest to FICC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC believes that the proposed changes to the FICC Fee Schedules
to impose the Foreign Legal Opinion Fee could impose a burden on
competition because it would implement a new fee payable by a non-U.S.
applicant in connection with a membership application to FICC, which
currently does not exist in the FICC Fee Schedules. FICC does not
believe that any burden on competition imposed by the changes to the
FICC Fee Schedules would be significant because the Foreign Legal
Opinion Fee is unlikely to cause a material impact to a non-U.S.
membership applicant's overall cost of applying for FICC membership due
to the fact that, absent the proposal, these applicants would have
incurred the cost of obtaining the foreign legal opinion themselves.
FICC believes that any burden on competition that is created by the
proposed changes to the FICC Fee Schedules would be necessary in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act \15\ in order to cover costs to
FICC associated with obtaining the foreign legal opinion that is
necessary for FICC to determine whether it would face legal risks in
connection with admitting a foreign membership applicant. FICC also
believes that any burden that is created by the Foreign Legal Opinion
Fee would be appropriate in furtherance of the Act \16\ because it
would be capped at the Maximum Estimated Charge and would not be
greater than the costs FICC may incur in connection with obtaining the
applicable foreign legal opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FICC believes that the elimination of the annual bring-down
requirement could promote competition because it would eliminate the
cost of obtaining the bring-down opinion/letter currently incurred by
direct foreign members, potentially lowering their operating costs.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule changes have not
been solicited or received. FICC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2019-006 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2019-006. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of FICC and on DTCC's website
(http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All comments received
will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2019-006 and should be submitted on
or before January 21, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-28087 Filed 12-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P