[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14984-14986]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05234]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88348; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Its Rules Related to the Complex Order Auction

March 10, 2020.
    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 March 6, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to amend its rules related to the Complex Order Auction. The text of
the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rule related to the Complex
Order Auction (``COA'') to (1) to add rule text that was
unintentionally omitted from the post-migration Rulebook and (2)
increase the maximum Response Time Interval period.
    By way of background, On October 7, 2019, Cboe Options migrated its
trading platform to the same system used by its affiliated exchanges
\3\ (the ``migration''). In connection with this technology migration,
Cboe Options updated and reorganized its entire Rulebook (the ``post-
migration Rulebook''), including rules related to COA,\4\ which became
effective upon the technology migration. Current Subparagraph (3) of
Rule 5.33(d) governs the Response Time Interval, which is the period of
time during which Users may submit responses to a COA auction message
(``COA Responses''). Rule 5.33(d)(3) currently provides that ``the
Exchange determines the duration of the Response Time Interval, which
may not exceed 500 milliseconds.'' The Exchange notes that the
corresponding rule that was in place just prior to migration, Rule
6.53C(d)(iii)(2), provided that the Exchange ``will determine the
length of the Response Time Interval on a class-by-class basis;
provided, however, that the duration shall not exceed three (3)
seconds''.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of this rule filing, the Exchange's affiliated
exchanges are Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2''), acquired Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or
``EDGX Options''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or ``BZX
Options''), and Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'' and, together with
Cboe Options, C2, EDGX, EDGA, and BZX, the ``Cboe Affiliated
Exchanges'').
    \4\ Current Rule 5.33(d) describes the COA process for COA-
eligible orders. Orders in all classes are eligible to participate
in COA. Upon receipt of a COA-eligible order, the System initiates
the COA process by sending a COA auction message to all subscribers
to the Exchange's data feeds that deliver COA auction messages.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87015 (September 19,
2019), 84 FR 50504 (September 25, 2019)(SR-CBOE-2019-060).

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

    The Exchange first proposes to clarify and explicitly provide in
current Rule 5.33(d)(3) that the Exchange determines the duration of
the Response Time Interval on a ``class-by-class basis''. As indicated
above, the proposed clarification is consistent with the Exchange's
rule governing Response Time Intervals that was in place prior to the
technology migration on October 7, 2019. When the Exchange proposed
Rule 5.33(d) and incorporated it into the post-migration Rulebook, it
inadvertently did not include the ``class-by-class basis'' language,
which the Exchange now proposes to include.\6\ The Exchange believes it
is appropriate to add clarity back in the rules to avoid potential
confusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to amend the maximum duration of the
Response Time Interval. As indicated above, the Response Time Interval
cannot currently exceed 500 milliseconds. Also as mentioned above, pre-
migration, the Exchange's rule provided for a maximum Response Time
Interval of 3 seconds. The Exchange believes that it is in TPHs' best
interest to minimize the response timer to a time frame that continues
to allow adequate time for the TPHs to respond to a COA auction
message, as both the order being exposed and the TPHs responding are
subject to market risk during the response timer period. Indeed, the
Exchange had reduced the maximum time period from 3 seconds to 500
milliseconds as the Exchange's timer was (and currently still is) set
at 100 milliseconds, and the Exchange therefore didn't believe it was
necessary to maintain a maximum of 3 seconds.\7\ After further
evaluation however, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to
reinstate the 3 second maximum. For example, during times of extreme
market volatility, there may be increased message traffic, which could
potentially result in a delay of processing of COA responses. In such
instances, the Exchange believes a response timer of 500 milliseconds
may be inadequate. As such, to ensure participants can respond to, and
the system can process, COA responses in a sufficient amount of time,
the Exchange proposes to reinstate the maximum Response Time Interval
period to 3 seconds (i.e., 3000 milliseconds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change to add rule text that was inadvertently
omitted from the post-migration Rulebook is designed to protect
investors by ensuring that its rule relating to COA accurately
references and reflects the current, post-migration Rules in place,
thereby mitigating any potential investor confusion. The Exchange
believes this change will have no impact on trading on the Exchange, as
it is merely clarifying that the Exchange can determine the duration of
a Response Time Interval on a class-by-class basis, notwithstanding its
inadvertent omission to carry over such language in the relocated COA
rules post-migration. Indeed, the proposed rule change provides clarity
and transparency in the rules, which may alleviate potential confusion,
thereby protecting investors by removing impediments to and perfecting
the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system.
    The Exchange believes the proposal to reinstate the Response Time
Interval maximum period to 3 seconds promotes just and equitable
principles of trade and removes impediments to a free and open market
because it allows the Exchange to provide increased time for Trading
Permit Holders participating in a COA to submit COA responses and have
such responses processed by the Exchange in a timely manner, and could
encourage competition among participants, thereby enhancing the
potential for price improvement for complex orders in the COA to the
benefit of investors and public interest. The Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory because it
establishes a maximum Response Time Interval period applicable to all
Exchange participants participating in a COA. The Exchange also notes
the proposed maximum timer is the same as the timer previously allowed
by the Exchange premigration, just six months ago.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87015 (September
19, 2019), 84 FR 50504 (September 25, 2019)(SR-CBOE-2019-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 rule change is
not intended as a competitive filing. Rather, the proposed rule change
to clarify that the Response Time Interval may be set on a class-by-
class basis is corrective in nature and merely updates a rule to add
language it inadvertently omitted in connection with its migration-
related rulebook change. The proposed change to reinstate the pre-
migration maximum Response Time Interval period is also not designed to
address any aspect of competition, but instead would continue to
provide market participants with sufficient time to respond, compete,
and provide price improvement for orders entered into COA. The proposed
rule change merely reinstates the pre-migration maximum to provide the
Exchange further flexibility to ensure Trading Permit Holders have
sufficient time to submit, and the Exchange has sufficient time to
process, COA responses. The proposed rule change also offers the same
response timer period to all TPHs and would not impose a competitive
burden on any particular participant.

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

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

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 \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \13\ 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 Commission has waived the five-day prefiling requirement in this
case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \14\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that
the proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange represents that waiver of the operative delay would add
rule text that was omitted from the post-migration Rulebook and
reinstate a maximum Response Time Interval that was in place pre-
migration. The Exchange states that in times of extreme market
volatility, there may be increased message traffic which could
potentially result in a delay of processing of COA responses, and the
proposed change would help ensure that participants can respond to (and
the exchange's systems can process) COA responses in a sufficient
amount of time. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change does
not present any unique or novel regulatory issues. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-CBOE-2020-016 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-CBOE-2020-016. 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 the Exchange. 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-CBOE-2020-016 and should be submitted on
or before April 6, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05234 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9008-9009]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61550; File No. SR-CBOE-2010-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the CBOE Stock Exchange Fees Schedule To
Increase the Maker Rebate for Transactions in Securities Priced Less
Than $1 to 0.25% of the Dollar Value of the Transaction

February 19, 2010.
    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 February 12, 2010, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II 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 amend the Fees Schedule for the CBOE Stock
Exchange (``CBSX'') to increase the Maker rebate for transactions in
securities priced less than $1 to 0.25% of the dollar value of the
transaction. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, at the Commission's Web site (http://
www.sec.gov), and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    CBSX proposes to amend its Fees Schedule to increase the Maker
rebate for transactions in securities priced less than $1 to 0.25% of
the dollar value of the transaction. This increase would serve to
attract trading activity to CBSX and match the rebate offered by other
stock exchanges, including NASDAQ OMX BX.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ OMX BX Price List--Trading & Connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \4\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements
that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. Specifically, increasing the Maker
rebate encourages investment and trading activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The proposed rule change is designated by the Exchange as
establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge, thereby
qualifying for effectiveness on filing pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) \7\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
\8\ thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2010-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2010-017 and should be
submitted on or before March 19, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3945 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60743-60744]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0058]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 42 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on June 6, 2015. The exemptions
expire on June 6, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/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.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On May 6, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 42 individuals and requested
comments from the public (80 FR 26133). The public comment period
closed on June 5, 2015, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 42 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 42 applicants have had ITDM over a range of one to 30 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the May 6, 2015, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
addressed below.
    Miguel Morales stated that he is in favor of granting the Federal
diabetes exemptions to the drivers.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from

the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(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 provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; 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.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 42 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR
391.64(b)):
Robert L. Adams (GA)
Steven D. Beale (WA)
Kevin N. Bigham (PA)
Eric B. Bratanich (WI)
Jeffry L. Bromby (CA)
Nicole E. Brown (VA)
Joel R. Currie (MN)
Vladimir Desyatnik (MA)
George C. Druzak (PA)
William L. Duncan (FL)
Colin K. Featherston (IN)
Leland R. Frazier, Jr. (GA)
Robert C. George (TX)
Louis E. Graves (MS)
Jeremiah D. Herbst (MD)
Loren G. Howard (AK)
John A. Irwin (IL)
Gregory M. Johnson (TX)
Calvin Jones (NC)
Marvin T. Kruse (SD)
Richard L. Langdon (NY)
William L. Marshall (FL)
William Martin (NY)
Phillip K. Miles (PA)
Mark R. Miller (IA)
Miguel A. Morales (NY)
David S. Navarro (MD)
Kevin L. Novotny (MN)
Michael D. Parsons (IN)
Amanda K. Perez-Littleton (NM)
Jerry L. Perry (OH)
Michael J. Peterson (MN)
John S. Pitfield (NC)
Manuel H. Plascencia (IL)
Thomas E. Ringstaff, Jr. (OH)
Edwin Rivera (NY)
Milton E. Sullivan (VA)
Patrick A. Tucker (CA)
John E. Vee (IA)
Russell A. Wilkins (VA)
William D. Willis (GA)
David A. Wolff (NY)
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Dated: September 29, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-25503 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P