[Federal Register: April 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 77)]
[Notices]
[Page 21088-21092]
[DOCID:fr22ap10-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61936; File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the NYSE Amex Trades Service and
the NYSE Amex BBO Service and Related Fees

April 16, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 1, 2010, the NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or
``Exchange''), 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 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

    NYSE Amex proposes to introduce its NYSE Amex Trades and NYSE Amex
BBO services and to establish fees for those services. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://
www.nyse.com, on the Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov, at
NYSE Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    a. The Services.
    NYSE Amex Trades is a new NYSE Amex-only market data service. It
allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same last sale
information that NYSE Amex reports under the CTA Plan and ``Nasdaq/UTP
Plan'' \3\ for inclusion in those Plans' consolidated data streams and
certain other related data elements (``NYSE Amex Last Sale
Information''). NYSE Amex Last Sale Information would include last sale
information for all securities that are traded on the Exchange and for
which NYSE Amex reports quotes under the CTA Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan. In addition to the information that the Exchange provides under
the CTA Plan and the Nasdaq/UTP Plan, NYSE Amex Last Sale Information
will also include a unique sequence number that the Exchange assigns to
each trade. It allows an investor to track the context of the trade
through such other Exchange market data products as NYSE Amex
OpenBook[supreg]. NYSE Amex will make the NYSE Amex Trades service
available over a single datafeed, regardless of the markets on which
the securities are listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Formally referred to as ``the Reporting Plan for Nasdaq/
National Market System Securities Traded on an Exchange on an
Unlisted or Listed Basis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex BBO is a new NYSE Amex-only market data service that
allows a vendor to redistribute on a real-time basis the same best-bid-
and-offer information that NYSE Amex reports under the CQ Plan and the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan for inclusion in those Plans' consolidated quotation
information data streams (``NYSE Amex BBO Information''). NYSE Amex BBO
information would include the best bids and offers for all securities
that are traded on the Exchange and for which NYSE Amex reports quotes
under the CQ Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. NYSE Amex will make the NYSE
Amex BBO service available over a single datafeed, regardless of the
markets on which the securities are listed.
    Both services (collectively, the ``NYSE Amex Trade and BBO
Services'') would allow vendors, broker-dealers, private network
providers and other entities (``NYSE AMEX-Only Vendors'') to make
available NYSE Amex Last Sale Information and NYSE Amex BBO Information
(collectively, ``NYSE Amex Market Data'') on a real-time basis. NYSE
Amex-Only Vendors may distribute the NYSE Amex Trade and BBO Services
to both professional and nonprofessional subscribers.
    The Exchange would make NYSE Amex Last Sale Information available
through its new NYSE Amex Trades service no earlier than it provides
last sale information to the processors under the CTA Plan and the
Reporting Plan for Nasdaq/National Market System Securities Traded on
an Exchange on an Unlisted or Listed Basis (the ``Nasdaq/UTP Plan''),
as appropriate. It would make NYSE Amex BBO Information available
through its new NYSE Amex BBO service no earlier than it makes that
information available to the processors under the CQ Plan and the
Nasdaq/UTP Plan.
b. Fees
    i. Access Fee.
    For the receipt of access to the NYSE Amex Trades and NYSE Amex BBO
datafeeds, the Exchange proposes to charge $750 per month. One $750
monthly access fee entitles an NYSE Amex-Only Vendor to receive both
the NYSE Amex Trades datafeed as well as the NYSE Amex BBO datafeed.
The fee

applies to receipt of NYSE Amex Market Data within the Vendor's
organization or outside of it.
    ii. Professional Subscriber Fees.
    For the receipt and use of NYSE Amex Trades Information, the
Exchange proposes to charge $10 per month per professional subscriber
device. Similarly, for the receipt and use of NYSE Amex BBO
Information, the Exchange proposes to charge $10 per month per
professional subscriber device.
    For each of the NYSE Amex Trades Information service and the NYSE
Amex BBO Information service, the Exchange proposes to offer an
alternative methodology to the traditional device fee. Instead of
charging $10 per month per device, it proposes to offer Vendors the
option of paying $10 per month per ``Subscriber Entitlement''. Each fee
entitles the end-user to receive and use NYSE Amex Market Data relating
to all securities traded on NYSE Amex, regardless of the market on
which a security is listed.
    For the purpose of calculating Subscriber Entitlements, the
Exchange proposes to adopt the unit-of-count methodology that the
Commission approved earlier this year for the proposed rule change that
the New York Stock Exchange, LLC (``NYSE'') submitted in respect of its
NYSE OpenBook[supreg] service (the ``Unit-of-Count Filing'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Release No. 34-59544; 74 Federal Register 11162 (March
16, 2009); File No. SR-NYSE-2008-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the unit-of-count methodology that the Commission approved in
the Unit-of-Count Filing, the Exchange would not define the Vendor-
subscriber relationship based on the manner in which a datafeed
recipient or subscriber receives data (i.e., through controlled
displays or through data feeds). Instead, the Exchange would adopt
billing criteria that are more objective. Those criteria would newly
define ``Vendors,'' ``Subscribers,'' ``Subscriber Entitlements'' and
``Subscriber Entitlement Controls'' as the basis for setting
professional subscriber fees. The Exchange believes that these changes
more closely align with current data consumption and will reduce costs
for the Exchange's customers.
    The following basic principles underlie this proposal.
    A. Vendors.
     ``Vendors'' are market data vendors, broker-dealers,
private network providers and other entities that control Subscribers'
access to data through Subscriber Entitlement Controls.
    B. Subscribers.
     ``Subscribers'' are unique individual persons or devices
to which a Vendor provides data. Any person or device that receives
data from a Vendor is a Subscriber, whether the person or device works
for or belongs to the Vendor, or works for or belongs to an entity
other than the Vendor.
     Only a Vendor may control Subscriber access to data.
     Subscribers may not redistribute data in any manner.
    C. Subscriber Entitlements.
     A Subscriber Entitlement is a Vendor's permissioning of a
Subscriber to receive access to data through an Exchange-approved
Subscriber Entitlement Control.
     A Vendor may not provide data access to a Subscriber
except through a unique Subscriber Entitlement.
     The Exchange will require each Vendor to provide a unique
Subscriber Entitlement to each unique Subscriber.
     At prescribed intervals (normally monthly), the Exchange
will require each Vendor to report each unique Subscriber Entitlement.
    D. Subscriber Entitlement Controls.
     A Subscriber Entitlement Control is the Vendor's process
of permissioning Subscribers' access to data.
     Prior to using any Subscriber Entitlement Control or
changing a previously approved Subscriber Entitlement Control, a Vendor
must provide the Exchange with a demonstration and a detailed written
description of the control or change and the Exchange must have
approved it in writing.
     The Exchange will approve a Subscriber Entitlement Control
if it allows only authorized, unique end-users or devices to access
data or monitors access to data by each unique end-user or device.
     Vendors must design Subscriber Entitlement Controls to
produce an audit report and make each audit report available to the
Exchange upon request. The audit report must identify:
    1. Each entitlement update to the Subscriber Entitlement Control;
    2. The status of the Subscriber Entitlement Control; and
    3. Any other changes to the Subscriber Entitlement Control over a
given period.
     Only the Vendor may have access to Subscriber Entitlement
Controls.
    Subject to the rules set forth below, the Exchange will require
NYSE Amex-Only Vendors to count every Subscriber Entitlement, whether
it be a person or a device. This means that the Vendor must include in
the count every person and device that has access to the data,
regardless of the purposes for which the person or device uses the
data. The Exchange will require Vendors to report and count all
entitlements in accordance with the following rules.
    A. The count shall be separate for the NYSE Amex Trades and NYSE
Amex BBO services. This means that a device that is entitled to receive
both NYSE Amex Last Sale Information and NYSE Amex BBO Information
would count as a Subscriber Entitlement for the purposes of the NYSE
Amex Trades service and as a separate Subscriber Entitlement for the
purposes of the NYSE Amex BBO service.
    B. In connection with a Vendor's external distribution of either
type of NYSE Amex Market Data (i.e., NYSE Amex Last Sale Information or
NYSE Amex BBO Information), the Vendor should count as one Subscriber
Entitlement each unique Subscriber that the Vendor has entitled to have
access to that type of Market Data. However, where a device is
dedicated specifically to a single person, the Vendor should count only
the person and need not count the device.
    C. In connection with a Vendor's internal distribution of a type of
NYSE Amex Market Data, the Vendor should count as one Subscriber
Entitlement each unique person (but not devices) that the Vendor has
entitled to have access to that type of Market Data.
    D. The Vendor should identify and report each unique Subscriber. If
a Subscriber uses the same unique Subscriber Entitlement to receive
multiple services, the Vendor should count that as one Subscriber
Entitlement. However, if a unique Subscriber uses multiple Subscriber
Entitlements to gain access to one or more services (e.g., a single
Subscriber has multiple passwords and user identifications), the Vendor
should report all of those Subscriber Entitlements.
    E. The Vendor should report each Subscriber device serving multiple
users individually as well as each person who may access the device. As
an example, for a single device to which the Vendor has granted two
people access, the Vendor should report three Subscriber Entitlements.
Only a single, unique device that is dedicated to a single, unique
person may be counted as one Subscriber Entitlement.
    F. Vendors should report each unique person who receives access
through multiple devices as one Subscriber Entitlement so long as each
device is dedicated specifically to that person.
    G. The Vendor should include in the count as one Subscriber
Entitlement devices serving no users.

    By way of examples, if a Subscriber's device has no users or
multiple users, the Vendor should count that device as one Subscriber
Entitlement. If a Vendor entitles five individuals to use one of a
Subscriber's devices, the Vendor should count five individual
entitlements and one device entitlement, for a total of six Subscriber
Entitlements. If a Vendor entitles an individual to receive a type of
NYSE Amex Market Data over a Subscriber device that is dedicated to
that individual, the Vendor should count that as one Subscriber
Entitlement, not two.
    iii. No Program Classification Fee.
    The Exchange does not propose to impose any program classification
charges for the use of NYSE Amex Last Sale Information or NYSE Amex BBO
information. The Exchange recognizes that each Vendor and Subscriber
will use NYSE Amex Market Data differently and that the Exchange is one
of many markets with whom Vendors and Subscribers may enter into
arrangements for the receipt and use of data. In recognition of that,
the Exchange's proposed unit-of-count methodology does not restrict how
Vendors may use NYSE Amex Market Data in their display services and
encourages Vendors to create and promote innovative uses of NYSE Amex
Market Data. For instance, a Vendor may use NYSE Amex BBO information
to create derived information displays, such as displays that aggregate
NYSE Amex BBO information with quotation information from other
markets.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In the case of derived displays, the Vendor is required to:
A. Pay the Exchange's device fees (described below); b. include
derived displays in its reports of NYSE Amex Market Data usage; and
c. use reasonable efforts to assure that any person viewing a
display of derived data understands what the display represents and
the manner in which it was derived.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    iv. Nonprofessional Subscriber Fee.
    The Exchange proposes to charge each NYSE Amex-Only Vendor $5.00
per month for each nonprofessional subscriber to whom it provides NYSE
Amex BBO Information. The Exchange proposes to impose the charge on the
NYSE Amex-Only Vendor, rather than on the nonprofessional Subscriber.
At this time, the Exchange does not propose to establish a
nonprofessional subscriber fee for NYSE Amex Last Sale Information
because the Commission recently approved an inexpensive alternative to
that product, the NYSE Amex Realtime Reference Prices service.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Release No. 34-61403; 75 Federal Register 4598 (January
28, 2010); File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2009-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes to establish as an alternative
to the fixed $5.00 monthly fee a fee of $.005 for each response that a
NYSE Amex-Only Vendor disseminates to a nonprofessional Subscriber's
inquiry for a best bid or offer under the NYSE Amex BBO service. The
Exchange proposes to limit a NYSE Amex-Only Vendor's exposure under
this alternative fee. It proposes to set at $5.00 per month, the same
amount as the proposed fixed monthly nonprofessional Subscriber flat
fee, as the maximum fee that a NYSE Amex-Only Vendor would have to pay
in respect of each nonprofessional Subscriber for the receipt of the
NYSE Amex BBO service in any calendar month.
    In order to take advantage of the per-query fee, a NYSE Amex-Only
Vendor must document in its Exhibit A that it has the ability to
measure accurately the number of queries from each nonprofessional
Subscriber and must have the ability to report aggregate query
quantities on a monthly basis.
    The Exchange will impose the per-query fee only on the
dissemination of best bids and offers to nonprofessional Subscribers.
The per-query charge is imposed on NYSE Amex-Only Vendors, not end-
users, and is payable on a monthly basis. NYSE Amex-Only Vendors may
elect to disseminate the NYSE Amex BBO service pursuant to the per-
query fee rather than the fixed monthly fee.
    In establishing nonprofessional Subscriber fees for the NYSE Amex
BBO service, the Exchange proposes to apply the same criteria for
qualification as a ``nonprofessional subscriber'' as the CTA and CQ
Plan Participants use. As is true under the CTA and CQ Plans,
classification as a nonprofessional subscriber is subject to Exchange
review and requires the subscriber to attest to his or her
nonprofessional subscriber status. A ``nonprofessional subscriber'' is
a natural person who uses the data solely for his personal, non-
business use and who is neither:
    A. Registered or qualified with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, (``SEC''), the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, any
state securities agency, any securities exchange or association, or any
commodities or futures contract market or association,
    B. Engaged as an ``investment adviser'' as that term is defined in
Section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (whether or
not registered or qualified under that act), nor
    C. Employed by a bank or other organization exempt from
registration under Federal and/or State securities laws to perform
functions that would require him/her to be so registered or qualified
if he/she were to perform such function for an organization not so
exempt.
    c. Justification of Fees.
    The proposed monthly access fee, professional subscriber fees and
nonprofessional subscriber fees for the NYSE Amex Trade service and
NYSE Amex BBO service enable NYSE Amex-Only Vendors and their
subscribers to contribute to the Exchange's operating costs in a manner
that is appropriate for the distribution of NYSE Amex Market Data in
the form taken by the proposed services.
    In setting the level of the proposed fees, the Exchange took into
consideration several factors, including:
    (i) NYSE Amex's expectation that the NYSE Amex Trades and BBO
Services are likely to be premium services, taken by investors most
concerned with receiving NYSE Amex Market Data on a low latency basis;
    (ii) the fees that the CTA and CQ Plan Participants, the Nasdaq/UTP
Plan Participants, Nasdaq, NYSE and NYSE Arca are charging for similar
services (or that NYSE Amex anticipates they will soon propose to
charge);
    (iii) consultation with some of the entities that the Exchange
anticipates will be the most likely to take advantage of the proposed
service;
    (iv) the contribution of market data revenues that the Exchange
believes is appropriate for entities that are most likely to take
advantage of the proposed service;
    (v) the contribution that revenues accruing from the proposed fee
will make to meet the overall costs of the Exchange's operations;
    (vi) the savings in administrative and reporting costs that the
NYSE Amex Trades and BBO Services will provide to NYSE Amex-Only
Vendors (relative to counterpart services under the CTA, CQ and Nasdaq/
UTP Plans); and
    (vii) the fact that the proposed fees provide alternatives to
existing fees under the CTA, CQ and Nasdaq/UTP Plans, alternatives that
vendors will purchase only if they determine that the perceived
benefits outweigh the cost.
    The Exchange believes that the levels of the fees are consistent
with the approach set forth in the order by which the Commission
approved ArcaBook fees for NYSE Arca.\7\ In the ArcaBook Approval
Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance on
competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to

assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\8\ It noted that if significant competitive forces apply to a
proposal, the Commission would approve it unless a substantial
countervailing basis exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Release No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770
(December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (the ``ArcaBook Approval
Order'').
    \8\ Id. at 74771.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Amex Market Data constitutes ``non-core data.'' The Exchange
does not require a central processor to consolidate and distribute the
product to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans. Rather, the Exchange
distributes the product voluntarily.
    In the case of both the NYSE Amex Trades service and the NYSE Amex
BBO service, both of the two types of competitive forces that the
Commission described in the ArcaBook Approval Order are present: The
Exchange has a compelling need to attract order flow and the product
competes with a number of alternative products.
    The Exchange must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its
share of trading volume. This requires the Exchange to act reasonably
in setting market data fees for non-core products such as the NYSE Amex
Trades and BBO Services. The Exchange hopes that the proposed NYSE Amex
Trades and BBO Services will enable vendors to distribute NYSE Amex
Market Data widely among investors, and thereby provide a means for
promoting the Exchange's visibility in the marketplace.
    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to the NYSE Amex Trades and BBO Services significantly
constrain the prices at which the Exchange can market those services.
All national securities exchanges, the several Trade Reporting
Facilities of FINRA, and ECNs that produce proprietary data, as well as
the core data feeds under the CTA, CQ and Nasdaq/UTP Plans, are all
sources of competition for the NYSE Amex BBO service. Currently:
    (i) the Nasdaq Stock Market offers its last sale information and
best-bid-and-offer information under services that would provide an
alternative to the proposed NYSE Amex services;
    (ii) NYSE and NYSE Arca offer last sale information in services
that are substantially similar to the NYSE Amex Trades Service; and
    (iii) the Exchange anticipates that NYSE and NYSE Arca will soon
propose to provide best-bid-and-offer services that are substantially
similar to the NYSE Amex BBO Service.
    As an alternative, investors can receive NYSE Amex BBO Information
from NYSE Amex OpenBook. The information available in the NYSE Amex
Trades and BBO Services is also included in the calculation of the
consolidated last sale price information and best-bid-and-offer
calculations under the CTA, CQ and Nasdaq/UTP Plans, which comprise
core datafeeds. Investors may select the NYSE Amex Trade service or the
NYSE Amex BBO service as less expensive alternatives to the CTA and CQ
Plan's consolidated data streams for certain purposes. (Rule 603(c) of
Regulation NMS requires vendors to make the consolidated, core
datafeeds available to customers when trading and order-routing
decisions can be implemented.)
    d. Administrative Requirements.
    The Exchange will require each Vendor to enter into the form of
``vendor'' agreement into which the CTA and CQ Plans require recipients
of the Network A datafeeds to enter (the ``Consolidated Vendor Form'').
That agreement will authorize the Vendor to provide its NYSE Amex
Market Data service to its customers or to distribute the data
internally.
    In addition, the Exchange will require each professional end-user
that receives NYSE Amex Market Data from a vendor or broker-dealer to
enter into the form of professional subscriber agreement into which the
CTA and CQ Plans require end users of Network A data to enter. It will
also require Vendors to subject nonprofessional subscribers to the same
contract requirements as the CTA and CQ Plan Participants require of
Network A nonprofessional subscribers. The Network A Participants
submitted the Consolidated Vendor Form and the professional subscriber
form to the Commission for comment and notice.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-22851 (January
31, 1986), 34-28407 (September 10, 1990), 34-49185 (February 4,
2004), and 34-22851 (January 31, 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The bases under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change are the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
\10\ that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members
and other persons using its facilities and the requirements under
Section 6(b)(5) \11\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade and not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating
their prompt access to real-time last sale information and best-bid-
and-offer information contained in the NYSE Amex Trades and BBO
Services and by providing a modern methodology alternative for counting
fee-liable units. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed
fee would allow entities that are most likely to take advantage of the
proposed service to make an appropriate contribution towards meeting
the overall costs of the Exchange's operations.
    The Exchange notes that Nasdaq, NYSE and NYSE Arca already impose
charges for services that are similar to the NYSE Amex Trades service
and Nasdaq already imposes charges for services that are similar to the
NYSE Amex BBO service. NYSE Amex anticipates NYSE and NYSE Arca will
soon propose to establish fees for best-bid-and-offer services that are
substantially similar to the NYSE Amex BBO service. Thus, the
Exchange's proposed fees offer any vendor that wishes to provide its
customers with a single market's last sale information or best-bid-and-
offer information (as opposed to a more expensive consolidated last
sale or quotation information service) an alternative to Nasdaq, NYSE
and NYSE Arca.

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

    The NYSE Amex Trades and BBO Services propose to provide an
alternative to existing services that the Participants make available
under the CTA, CQ and Nasdaq/UTP Plans. The proposed fees do not alter
or rescind any existing fees. In addition, it amounts to a competitive
response to the products that Nasdaq, NYSE and NYSE Arca make available
or will soon make available. For those reasons, the Exchange does not
believe that this proposed rule change will result in any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has discussed this proposed rules change with those
entities that the Exchange believes would be the most likely to take
advantage of the proposed NYSE Amex Trades and BBO Services by becoming
NYSE Amex-Only Vendors. While those entities have not submitted formal,
written comments on the proposal, the Exchange has incorporated some of
their ideas into the proposal and this proposed rule change reflects
their

input. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments
from members or other interested parties.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAmex-2010-35. 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-
NYSEAmex-2010-35 and should be submitted on or before May 13, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-9361 Filed 4-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54403-54405]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22387]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0954; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model
PIAGGIO P-180 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Some lock sleeves (part number (P/N) 114146681), which were
installed in some Main Landing Gear (MLG) actuators, had been
incorrectly manufactured.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to failure to
lock the MLG actuator or to its unlock from the correct position,
with subsequent possible damage to the aeroplane and injuries to
occupants during landing.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 17,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A Airworthiness Office; Via Luigi Cibrario,
4-16154 Genova-Italy; telephone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>;
E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,
901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No.

FAA-2011-0954; Directorate Identifier 2011-CE-028-AD'' at the beginning
of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2011-0133, dated July 12, 2011 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Some lock sleeves (part number (P/N) 114146681), which were
installed in some Main Landing Gear (MLG) actuators, had been
incorrectly manufactured.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to failure to
lock the MLG actuator or to its unlock from the correct position,
with subsequent possible damage to the aeroplane and injuries to
occupants during landing.
    This AD requires replacing defective MLG actuators with
serviceable ones.
    Defective actuators can be repaired by the manufacturer and
identified with the ``P180-32-29'' marking on the name plate.

Relevant Service Information

    Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A. has issued Mandatory Service
Bulletin No. 80-0304, dated July 9, 2010. The actions described in this
service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 102 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about .5 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $0 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $4,335, or $42.50 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $64,822, for a cost
of $65,417 per product. There are a maximum of 17 actuators that are
identified by the manufacturer that will be required to be replace. We
have no way of determining the number of affected airplanes on the U.S.
registry that may have these actuators that may have to be replaced by
these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.
    There is a warranty expiration date for the replacement of the
actuators. The FAA recommends owners/operators that have affected main
landing gear actuators contact the manufacturer immediately and replace
the actuators under warranty.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A: Docket No. FAA-2011-0954; Directorate
Identifier 2011-CE-028-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 17, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to PIAGGIO AERO INDUSTRIES S.p.A Model
PIAGGIO P-180 airplanes, all serial numbers, that are:
    (1) Certificated in any category; and
    (2) have installed any of the following main landing gear (MLG)
actuators:
    (i) Messier-Dowty Part Number (P/N) 114346003 (left hand side):
with serial number (S/N) SA0706275, SA0706276, SA0706726, SA0706727,
SA0706728, SA0706729, SA0706738, SA0706739,SA0707243, SA0707864, or
SA0708072; or
    (ii) Messier-Dowty P/N 114346004 (right hand side): with S/N
SA0703800, SA0703801, SA0705520, SA0706219, SA0706960, or SA0706961.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 32: Landing
Gear.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    Some lock sleeves (part number (P/N) 114146681), which were
installed in some Main Landing Gear (MLG) actuators, had been
incorrectly manufactured.
    If left uncorrected, this condition could lead to failure to
lock the MLG actuator or to its unlock from the correct position,
with subsequent possible damage to the aeroplane and injuries to
occupants during landing.
    This AD requires replacing defective MLG actuators with
serviceable ones.
    Defective actuators can be repaired by the manufacturer and
identified with the ``P180-32-29'' marking on the name plate.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 25 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective
date of this AD, inspect both installed MLG actuators to determine
if an affected P/N and S/N actuator is installed.
    (2) If any affected P/N and S/N actuator is identified with the
``P180-32-29'' marking on the name plate, no further action is
required by this AD on that actuator.
    (3) If one or both affected MLG actuators are not identified
with the ``P180-32-29'' marking on the name plate, before reaching a
total of 3,000 hours TIS on the actuator or within the next 150
hours TIS after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later, replace the affected actuator(s) with serviceable parts
following Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Piaggio Aero
Industries S.p.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0304, dated July
9, 2010.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install any MLG
actuator having an affected P/N and S/N, unless it is identified
with the ``P180-32-29'' marking on the name plate.

    Note 1: There is a warranty expiration date for the replacement
of the actuators. The FAA recommends owners/operators that have
affected main landing gear actuators contact the manufacturer
immediately and replace the actuators under warranty.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: The compliance times of the MCAI are presented in flight
cycles (landings). When doing the conversion for these airplanes
from flight cycles to hours TIS, the FAA has estimated that 1 flight
cycle is equal to 1 hour TIS based on the utility of this class of
airplane. Since operators of aircraft of U.S. registry are required
to keep track of hours TIS, the compliance time of this AD is in
hours TIS.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to Attn: Mike Kiesov, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2011-0133, dated July 12, 2011; and Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A.
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 80-0304, dated July 9, 2010, for
related information. For service information related to this AD,
contact Piaggio Aero Industries S.p.A Airworthiness Office; Via
Luigi Cibrario, 4-16154 Genova-Italy; telephone: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax: +39<PHONE_NUMBER>; E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may
review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 26, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-22387 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 196)]
[Notices]
[Page 57931-57932]
[DOCID:fr11oc07-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 618-161]

Alabama Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

October 3, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Request for Temporary Variance of Minimum Flow
Requirement.
    b. Project No.: 618-161.
    c. Date Filed: September 26, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Alabama Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Jordan Dam.
    f. Location: On the Coosa River, in Elmore, Chilton, and Coosa
Counties, Alabama.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Barry K. Lovett, Alabama Power Company, 600
N. 18th Street, P.O. Box 2641, Birmingham, AL 35291,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Peter Yarrington<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6129.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
October 19, 2007.

    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: The Alabama Power Company (APC) is
requesting a temporary variance of the minimum flow requirement of the
project license in order to resume a study of the effects of minimum
flow reductions on aquatic resources, including the federally
endangered Tulotoma snail, Tulotoma magnifica. Flow reductions are
being studied because of a worsening drought in the Coosa Basin, rated
``exceptional,'' the most severe category recognized by the U.S.
Drought Monitoring Program.
    The project license requires a flow release of 2,000 cfs July 1
through March 31. Study flow reductions were originally approved in a
July 18, 2007 Commission order. The July 18, 2007 approval allowed a
reduction to 1,000 cfs, made in 250-cfs increments. The licensee and
resource agencies would assess habitat conditions downstream of Jordan
Dam at each flow increment. However, in mid-August, when study flows
were 1,600 cfs, high water temperatures caused concerns for the
Tulotoma snail, and the study was suspended.
    With seasonal water temperatures decreasing, the licensee now
proposes to resume the study, based on resource agency consultations
and written concurrences. Flow releases would be reduced over a period
of 6 days, to 1,600 cfs, by October 1. A target flow of 1,600 cfs,
within +/-5 percent, would be maintained until December 1, 2007, unless
a 7-day inflow of at least 2,000 cfs occurs, in which case flow
releases would be increased to 2,000 cfs. The licensee would hold
weekly teleconferences with the resource agencies regarding the study
and flows, and would produce aerial photographs of the downstream area
at the reduced flow rate.
    l. Locations of the Application: The filing is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(I)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-20021 Filed 10-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59718-59723]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0219]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 37 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0219 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 Federal Docket Management 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: 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 W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 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 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.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 37 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by
statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Scott G. Barr

    Mr. Barr, 47, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barr understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barr meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds an operator's license from Florida.

John L. Bauers

    Mr. Bauers, 56, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bauers understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bauers meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Nebraska.

Robert J. Borgese

    Mr. Borgese, 68, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Borgese understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Borgese meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.

Rodger L. Bratton

    Mr. Bratton, 68, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting

in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person,
or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without
warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe
hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. Bratton understands diabetes management and
monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is
able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bratton meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Louisiana.

John T. Brecken

    Mr. Brecken, 66, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brecken understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brecken meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a CDL from Michigan.

Ross L. Christenson

    Mr. Christenson, 72, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Christenson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Christenson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Daniel B. Cox

    Mr. Cox, 50, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cox understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cox meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Raymond Davila, Jr.

    Mr. Davila, 42, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davila understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davila meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New
Jersey.

Craig W. Dennis

    Mr. Dennis, 57, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dennis understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dennis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Minnesota.

Lawrence M. Duffy, III

    Mr. Duffy, 68, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Duffy understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Duffy meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from New York.

Douglas Endicott

    Mr. Endicott, 71, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Endicott understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Endicott meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Carmine Ferraro

    Mr. Ferraro, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ferraro understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ferraro meets the
requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Connecticut.

Thomas P. Fogerty

    Mr. Fogerty, 58, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fogerty understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fogerty meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Massachusetts.

M.A. Gandolfo, Jr.

    Mr. Gandolfo, 43, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gandolfo understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gandolfo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Merlyn C. Gerdes

    Mr. Gerdes, 58, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gerdes understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gerdes meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Iowa.

Fabian Guerrero-Rodriguez

    Mr. Guerrero-Rodriguez, 29, has had ITDM since 2014. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Guerrero-Rodriguez
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Guerrero-Rodriguez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Nevada.

Loren T. Hall

    Mr. Hall, 49, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hall understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hall meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds an operator's license from New York.

Mark A. Hersh

    Mr. Hersh, 50, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hersh understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hersh meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

James C. Holcomb

    Mr. Holcomb, 43, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holcomb understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holcomb meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Louisiana.

Eric E. Humphrey

    Mr. Humphrey, 54, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Humphrey understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Humphrey meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Massachusetts.

Troy M. Keller

    Mr. Keller, 46, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the

past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic
episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr.
Keller understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Keller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

Ronald C. Kolb

    Mr. Kolb, 63, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kolb understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kolb meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2016 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class B CDL from Montana.

Robert J. Lockwood

    Mr. Lockwood, 55, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lockwood understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lockwood meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Connecticut.

Kenneth R. Logan, Sr.

    Mr. Logan, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Logan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Logan meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Illinois.

Adam W. Martin

    Mr. Martin, 29, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Martin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martin meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Michigan.

Michael L. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell, 43, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mitchell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mitchell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
Iowa.

Clarence H. Mitchell 3rd

    Mr. Mitchell, 52, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mitchell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mitchell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Connecticut.

Lucas J. Preston

    Mr. Preston, 23, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Preston understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Preston meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from North Dakota.

William B. L. Robinson

    Mr. Robinson, 28, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Robinson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robinson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that

he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Arkansas.

Michael T. Salsedo

    Mr. Salsedo, 60, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Salsedo understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Salsedo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Hawaii.

F. Marino M. Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 53, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanchez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanchez meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New
York.

Andrew D. Sanford

    Mr. Sanford, 51, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanford understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanford meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Tennessee.

Jeffery J. Stricherz

    Mr. Stricherz, 57, has had ITDM since 1973. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stricherz understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stricherz meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Michael A. Taylor

    Mr. Taylor, 60, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Taylor understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Taylor meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut.

Jerry W. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 65, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Ray E. Vaughan

    Mr. Vaughan, 77, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Vaughan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vaughan meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2016 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Minnesota.

Ronald L. Yeager

    Mr. Yeager, 73, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2016 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Yeager understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Yeager meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

III. Request for Comments

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

    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C.. 31136
(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

IV. 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 number FMCSA-2016-0219 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.

V. 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-2016-0219 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: August 19, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-20777 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P