[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6162-6166]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0301]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 6, 2015. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0301 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    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: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 23 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Jason P. Atwater

    Mr. Atwater, 42, has had optic nerve damage and neuropathy due to
meningitis in his right eye since 1993. The visual acuity in his right
eye is light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical
opinion, I believe that he has sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Atwater reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 160,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 4 years, accumulating 140,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Barry W. Borger

    Mr. Borger, 69, has had a retinal detachment and phthisical cornea
in his left eye since 2008. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``I believe that, in my opinion, Barry
Borger has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required of
him.'' Mr. Borger reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40
years, accumulating one million miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William W. Dugger

    Mr. Dugger, 49, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Therefore
in my professional opinion Mr. Dugger has tested and has found to have
sufficient vision to perform the tasks to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Dugger reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5
years, accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds a Class DB CDL from
Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven D. Ellsworth

    Mr. Ellsworth, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``It is my clinical opinion that his vision is stable from last
year and he is fit to continue his position as a fleet technician, as
well as his requirement to drive CMV vehicles as previously performed
as part of his job duties.'' Mr. Ellsworth reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 104,993 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Travis B. Giest

    Mr. Giest, 39, has macular and retinal scarring in his right eye
due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Giest
has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Giest
reported

that he has driven straight trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 27,300
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 3.5 years, accumulating
27,300 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Arlan T. Hrubes

    Mr. Hrubes, 66, has had central retinal artery obstruction and
subsequent laser surgeries resulting in macular scars in his right eye
since 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my professional opinion the loss of Mr. Hrubes central
vision of his right eye in no way restricts his ability to operate a
commercial vehicle or any other vehicle and this is in agreement with
scientific studies posing the question ``what advantage does a two eye
person have over a one eyed person.: The answer to that question is,
``very little''. A two eye person has a spare, whereas a one eyed
person does not.'' Mr. Hrubes reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 34 years, accumulating 170,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 26 years, accumulating 260,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Wyoming. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Abdalla M. Jalili

    Mr. Jalili, 45, has had amblyopia since childhood and a retinal
detachment since 2007, both in his left eye. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Based on my medical
opinion the patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Jalili reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 82,500 miles. He
holds a Class D CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

David M. Krause

    Mr. Krause, 57, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Krause possesses the necessary visual functioning
to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Krause reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 10,200 miles. He holds a
Class ABCDM CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Stephen C. Martin

    Mr. Martin, 39, has had a corneal scar and amblyopia in his left
eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion I certify that Stephen
Martin has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Martin reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 400,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 400,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Troy L. McCord

    Mr. McCord, 26, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Patient
have [sic] sufficient vision to operate commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
McCord reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years,
accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Texas.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald M. Metzger

    Mr. Metzger, 50, has had a conjunctional cyst and retinal
detachment in his left eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/125. Following an examination in
2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Based on todays [sic] exam, Pt
[sic] has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Metzger reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 2.3 million miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerald D. Milner, Jr.

    Mr. Milner, 47, has corneal scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``Dr [sic] Valenti certifies through the
examination and my medical opinion that Gerald Milner has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Milner reported that he has driven straight trucks for
28 years, accumulating 121,464 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ali Nimer

    Mr. Nimer, 53, has a corneal scar and iris scarring in his right
eye due to a traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in
his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion Mr. Nimer has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Nimer reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 37,080 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Richard A. Pierce

    Mr. Pierce, 44, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``After completion of my examination it is my professional
opinion that Mr. Pierce has sufficient vision to perform the tasks
needed to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Pierce reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 50,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Richard D. Pontious

    Mr. Pontious, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion, Richard D [sic] Pontious has sufficient vision to
perform the tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Pontious reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for
26 years, accumulating 1.95 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard P. Rebel

    Mr. Rebel, 75, has had complete loss of vision due to chorioretinal
scarring in his left eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Richard has sufficient
vision and driving experience to drive a commercial vehicle with a
license restricted to corrective lenses and outside mirrors.'' Mr.
Rebel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years,
accumulating 577,500 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from North Dakota.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kevin L. Riddle

    Mr. Riddle, 49, has had amblyopia with a retinal scar in his left
eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``Certifies that in his/her medial opinion, you
have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle. Yes, Patient Has Sufficient Vision to perform
Drving [sic] tasks.'' Mr. Riddle reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 6 years, accumulating 282,000 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Mustafa Shahadeh

    Mr. Shahadeh, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``He has a lifelong history of amblyopia and his vision was
consistent on all of his examinations . . . He easily exceeds the
standards for a non CDL driver's license and I see no reason he cannot
drive commercial vehicles safely.'' Mr. Shahadeh reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 128,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last
3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Charles P. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 66, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014,
his optometrist stated, ``Charles Smith has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 43 years,
accumulating 430,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 24
years, accumulating 2.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Timothy R. Tedford

    Mr. Tedford, 42, has corneal scarring in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand
motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014,
his optometrist stated, ``I certify that in my professional medical
opinion, Mr. Tedford has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Tedford reported that
he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 23 years, accumulating
345,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Sean E. Twohig

    Mr. Twohig, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
counting fingers. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Sean Twohig has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Twohig reported that he has driven straight trucks for
25 years, accumulating 2.5 million miles. He holds an operator's
license from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Melvin L. Vaughn

    Mr. Vaughn, 68, has had central retinal vein occlusion in his left
eye since 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``It is in my medical opinion that this gentleman has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vaughn reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating four million miles. He
holds an operator's license from Wisconsin. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Rick L. Wood

    Mr. Wood, 56, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, due to his stable ocular status and
good visual fields, he has sufficient vision to perform in his driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Wood reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 150,000
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

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

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2014-0301 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. . If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to

http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0301
in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document listed to review. If you do not
have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting
the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

    Issued on: January 28, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-02133 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20480-20482]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0160; Notice 2]

Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, Inc., Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Grant.

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

SUMMARY: North American Trucks (NAT) on behalf of Volvo Trucks North
America (VTN) and Mack Trucks, Inc. (MTI) \1\ has determined that
certain 2008 through 2010 Volvo VHD model, 2008 and 2009 Volvo VHL
model, 2008 and 2009 Volvo VNL model, 2008 Volvo VT model, and 2008
through 2010 Mack CHU, CXU and GU model trucks that were built with
certain Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (Meritor WABCO) ABS
Modulator valves fail to meet the requirements of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121, Air Brake
Systems. VTN and MTI filed appropriate reports pursuant to 49 CFR Part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports; the original
submissions were dated April 30, 2010, and corrected versions were
dated May 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Volvo Trucks North America and Mack Trucks, Inc., are both
United States corporations that import and manufacture motor
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), VTN and MTI have petitioned for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of VTN and MTI's petitions was published, with a
30-day public comment period, on December 8, 2010, in the Federal
Register (75 FR 76518). One comment was received from Meritor WABCO,
the equipment manufacturer who manufactured the component that is the
source of the subject noncompliance. Subsequent to receiving the
comment, the NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC)
requested, and NAT provided, information that supplements the data,
views and arguments included in the VTN and MTI petitions. To view the
petitions, comment and all supporting documents log onto the Federal
Docket Management System Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2010-0160.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision,
contact Mr. James Jones, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5294, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Summary OF VTN's and MTI's Petitions: VTN stated that the affected
Volvo VNL, VNM, and VHD model trucks were manufactured from March 1,
2007 through December 11, 2009. A total of 1,916 affected Volvo trucks
were manufactured of which 1,763 were sold in the U.S.
    MTI stated that the affected Mack CHU, CXU and GU model trucks were
manufactured from March 1, 2007, through December 11, 2009. A total
1,287 affected Mack trucks were manufactured of which 1,202 were sold
in the U.S.
    Only the trucks sold in the United States are the subject of their
petition.
    VTN and MTI state that the noncompliance is that the quick release
service brake function for brakes mounted on the vehicle front steer
axle may not activate properly during FMVSS No. 121 brake pressure
release certification testing due to an internal component variation in
certain Meritor WABCO ABS modulator valves installed on the subject
vehicles. As a result, certain vehicles may not comply with the FMVSS
No. 121 brake pressure release timing requirement as specified in
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a). However, VTN and MTI indicate that they do not believe
that this issue has any effect on the ABS performance of the brake
system.
    VTN and MTI also state that they have taken steps to correct the
noncompliance in future production.
    VTN and MTI rely on the test report submitted with the petition to
support their contention that the described FMVSS No. 121 noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    VTN and MTI believe that their petitions, to exempt them from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120, should be granted.

NHTSA Decision

Background

    FMVSS No. 121 establishes performance and equipment requirements
for motor vehicles equipped with air brake systems. Paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 121, requires in pertinent part that;

    With an initial service brake chamber air pressure of 95 psi,
the air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when measured from the
first movement of the service brake control, fall to 5 psi in not
more than 0.55 second in the case of trucks and buses; * * *

    To minimize excessive brake drag, the requirement limits the time
for pressurized air to exhaust from the service brake chamber after the
service brakes have been released. For vehicles equipped with
conventional S-cam foundation brakes, the brake linings release from
the drums as pressurized air exhausts from the service brake chambers.
Typically, heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers have met the requirement by
installing a quick release valve in the front (steer) axle control
line, between the left and right ABS modulator valves. The subject
Volvo and Mack trucks have ABS modulator valves which have an
integrated quick release function to allow rapid exhaustion of air
pressure from the front axle brake chambers. In faulty valves, the
quick release function does not operate as intended causing slow
exhaustion of pressurized air from the brake chambers and consequently
slow pneumatic release times. Pneumatic release timing test results
provided by NAT show that a tractor equipped with a faulty valve took
0.98s for pressurized air inside the brake chamber to fall from 95 psi
to 5 psi versus 0.55s as required.
    Poor pneumatic timing could affect brake performance. For example,
if a vehicle's wheels lock as the driver is attempting to stop, the
vehicle will skid. If the driver is to regain control of the vehicle,
immediate release of the brakes is necessary.\2\ Additionally, poor
pneumatic timing could cause the brakes to drag and cause premature
wear of the brake linings. Under certain conditions, excessive brake
drag could contribute to heat build-up within the foundation brake
assembly resulting in degradation of braking power, particularly in
cases in which the driver repeatedly applies the vehicle's brakes to
reduce speed while traveling down an extended slope.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 56 FR13785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to submitting the VTN and MTI petitions, NAT provided
test data and analyses \3\ to evaluate the effect of the faulty valves
on various aspects of the vehicle's braking performance. The tests and
analyses were performed by an independent test lab, Link Commercial
Vehicle Testing (Link) and Mr. Richard Radlinski. Based on the test
results, NAT has drawn the conclusion that there is no degradation of
the brake performance of subject noncompliant vehicles and no negative
impact on vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Requested by NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance
(OVSC) by letter dated June 6, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Problem--Faulty Meritor Wabco ABS Modulator Valve

    The noncompliance is caused by a faulty quick release service brake
function that may not activate properly to release air pressure from
the brake chamber in the time specified by FMVSS No. 121. The quick
release function is integral to Meritor WABCO's ABS modulator valve. In
brake system designs other than the subject vehicle's, a separate quick
release valve placed between the front steer axle's left and right ABS
modulator valves, performs the quick release function.
    According to NAT, when the modulator valve was retooled due to a
supplier sourcing change, the case surface was not adequately
controlled within tolerance. As a result, the required internal
pressure differential within the valve does not develop as quickly as
it should and air does not exhaust, or exhausts slowly, through the
valve's exhaust port. This leads to increased brake release times.
Brake actuation, however, is not adversely affected.

Link/Radlinski Test Data

A. Release Timing Tests
    Link conducted timing tests to illustrate the difference between
release times of noncompliant and compliant systems with and without
ABS operational. The static timing tests were conducted on a 4x2 Volvo
tractor's front steer axle equipped with a properly functioning ABS
modulator valve (i.e., fast valve). To achieve the noncompliant system,
Link replaced the good valve with a faulty one (i.e., slow valve).
    To simulate braking conditions without ABS operational, Link
followed OVSC compliance test procedure (OVSC TP) protocol. To simulate
braking conditions with ABS operational, Link first filled the air
brake chamber to 95 psi. Then, Link manually activated the ABS
modulator solenoid valve (ABS control system was disconnected) to the
``open'' position and measured how long it took for the air to exhaust
down to 5 psi through exhaust ports controlled by the modulator valve.
    Without ABS operational, the compliant system had average release
times of 0.36s and 0.37s, for left and right brake chambers
respectively, comfortably below the FMVSS No. 121 requirement of 0.55s.
However for the noncompliant system, the release times were much higher
and well above the FMVSS No. 121 requirement at 0.91s and 0.98s, for
left and right brake chambers, respectively.
    With ABS operational, release times were all below 0.20s for both
compliant and non-compliant systems. As noted by Link, these results
may not fully represent actual release times that would occur during a
real ABS braking event because the electronic control unit's (ECU)
activation of the ABS modulator valve was bypassed.
B. Road Tests
    Link conducted four different road tests on two Volvo tractors to
illustrate differences in the dynamic braking performance of
noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant vehicles. One tractor
was equipped with a single rear axle (i.e., 2009 Volvo VNM 4x2) and the
other with a dual rear axle and lift axle (i.e., 2007 Volvo VT 8x4). To
simulate the noncompliant system configuration, Link lengthened the
brake control line from the brake pedal to the front axle's modulator
valves.
    1. Fully Loaded Vehicle--60 mph stopping distance tests (ABS
operational).
    These tests generally followed OVSC TP protocol. Both tractors,
loaded to gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) using an un-braked control
trailer, were stopped on dry pavement from an initial speed of 60 mph.
There was no significant difference in the average stopping distances
of noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant vehicles.
    2. Unloaded Vehicle (Bobtail)--500 ft., wet Jennite (low friction
surface), 30 mph, Braking-in-a-curve tests (ABS operational).
    These tests also generally followed OVSC TP protocol. Additionally,
Link measured the stopping distances during each run. The results show
that the differences in performance between noncompliant and compliant
configurations were insignificant.
    3. Repeated brake Snubs--Simulated heat build-up tests (ABS
operational).
    The results show no significant rise in brake lining temperatures
for the noncompliant configuration when compared to the compliant
configuration.

    4. Unloaded and Fully Loaded--500 ft., wet Jennite, 30 mph,
Braking-in-a-curve tests (ABS Failure Modes).
    The results were inconclusive. Noncompliant configurations
performed better than compliant configurations during some stops and
not as good as compliant configurations during other stops. Link
attributed the confounding results to variability in the friction level
of the wet Jennite surface during the tests.

Summary and Conclusion

    The vehicle manufacturer installed faulty ABS modulator valves on
the front steer axle of subject vehicles. The faulty valves were not
manufactured within engineering specifications and do not rapidly
release pressurized air from brake chambers as required. Laboratory
test data results and analyses submitted by the vehicle manufacturer
demonstrate the following:
    1. When simulating severe braking events which require ABS
activation, noncompliant vehicles would meet the pneumatic time
requirement because pressurized air in the brake chamber quickly
exhausts through the valve via ports controlled by ABS modulators.
    2. There is no significant difference in stopping distances of
noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant vehicles during 60 mph
panic stops.
    3. There is no significant difference in stopping distances or
vehicle stability of noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant
vehicles during 30 mph braking-in-a-curve tests.
    4. There is no significant rise in brake lining temperatures of
noncompliant vehicles when compared to compliant vehicles during
repeated brake stops at 30-70 psi application pressures.
    NHTSA has concluded that the test data results and analyses are
sufficient to grant the petition for the specific conditions that cause
the subject vehicles to be out of compliance with the standard's
pneumatic release time requirement.
    NHTSA emphasizes that in the case of the subject vehicles, only the
failure of the release timing to meet the exact timing requirement for
the brakes mounted on the steer axles of the subject truck tractors is
at issue. The release timing requirements for the drive axles and for
the trailer brake control line output coupling of the subject vehicles
were not affected by this noncompliance and were not considered under
this grant. NHTSA considers brake release timing to be an important
element of FMVSS No. 121 requirements, because in the event a non-ABS
trailer is being towed, the driver is able to quickly release the
brakes of any locked wheels to restore vehicle control and maintain yaw
stability. Also, the release timing requirements ensure that brakes on
certain axles of a vehicle combination (steer, drive, or trailer) do
not excessively drag such that during repeated brake applications they
become overly heated. The subject petition is granted solely on the
demonstration by petitioner, comparing compliant and noncompliant
vehicles, that the noncompliance in the subject vehicles does not
create a significant safety risk. It is important that all other
vehicles subject to these requirements continue to meet them.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA concludes that VTN and MTI
have provided sufficient information to indicate that the subject FMVSS
No. 121 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, VTN and MTI's petition is granted and the petitioner is
exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a remedy
for, the subject noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that VTN and MTI no longer
controlled at the time that they determined that a noncompliance
existed in the subject vehicles.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: Delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: March 28, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-8000 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: October 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 52994-52995]
[DOCID:fr15oc09-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60801; File No. SR-ISE-2009-70]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Payment for Order Flow Fees

October 8, 2009.
    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 September 29, 2009, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 self-regulatory organization. The Exchange has designated this
proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to amend its payment for order flow program. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently has a payment-for-order-flow (``PFOF'')
program that helps its market makers establish PFOF arrangements with
an EAM in exchange for that EAM preferencing some or all of its order
flow to that market maker. This program is funded through a fee paid by
Exchange market makers for each customer contract they execute, and is
administered by both Primary Market Makers (``PMM'') \5\ and
Competitive Market Makers (``CMM''),\6\ depending on who the order is
preferenced to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43833 (January 10,
2001), 66 FR 7822 (January 25, 2001).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53127 (January 13,
2006), 71 FR 3582 (January 23, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to adopt an administrative fee to offset
its costs in administering the PFOF program. Specifically, ISE proposes
to assess an

administrative fee of 0.45% of the total amount of funds collected each
month. ISE will closely monitor the amount of funds raised by this
administrative fee and amend the fee in the future if necessary, so
that the fee provides sufficient funds to adequately offset ISE's costs
in administering the PFOF program. The Chicago Board Options Exchange
currently assesses a similar fee to administer its PFOF program. ISE
proposes to implement this fee beginning on October 1, 2009. ISE is not
making any other changes to its PFOF program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the proposed fee change will allow the
Exchange to offset its costs of administering its PFOF program.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose 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 not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. 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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2009-70 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-70. 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 inspection and
copying 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2009-70 and should be
submitted on or before November 5, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-24790 Filed 10-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54628-54631]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-
2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22727;
FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161;
FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0159;
FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002;
FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010;
FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0345;
FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-2016-0028;
FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2018-0008; FMCSA-2018-0011;
FMCSA-2018-0012; FMCSA-2018-0017]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 55
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before October
2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006, Docket No. FMCSA-
2002-11714, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12294, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-17984,
Docket No. FMCSA-2004-18885, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21711, Docket No.
FMCSA-2005-22727, Docket No. FMCSA-2006-24783, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-
0021, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0106, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0231, Docket
No. FMCSA-2008-0266, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0082, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-
0114, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0161, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0187, Docket
No. FMCSA-2011-0380, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0104, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-
0159, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0215, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0167, Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0174, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0002, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0004, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0006, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0007, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0010, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0011, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0296, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0070, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0345, Docket
No. FMCSA-2015-0347, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0350, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-
0024, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0028, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0029, Docket
No. FMCSA-2016-0206, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0008, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-
0011, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0012, or Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0017 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2002-12294;
FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22727;
FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0231;
FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2010-0161;
FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0159;
FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002;
FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010;
FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-2015-0345;
FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-2016-0028;
FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2018-0008; FMCSA-2018-0011;
FMCSA-2018-0012; FMCSA-2018-0017), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-2002-
12294; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-
2005-22727; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-
2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-
2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-
2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-
2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-
2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-
2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-
2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2018-0008; FMCSA-
2018-0011; FMCSA-2018-0012; FMCSA-2018-0017, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box on the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-18885; FMCSA-2005-21711;
FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114;
FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2011-0380; FMCSA-2012-0104;
FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-2012-0215; FMCSA-2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174;
FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007;
FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0011; FMCSA-2014-0296; FMCSA-2015-0070;
FMCSA-2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024;
FMCSA-2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2018-0008;
FMCSA-2018-0011; FMCSA-2018-0012; FMCSA-2018-0017, in the keyword box,
and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Docket Operations
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.
    The 55 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable 2-year period.

III. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 55
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision standard (see 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR
15662; 67 FR 37907; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 26206;
69 FR 33997; 69 FR 51346; 69 FR 52741; 69 FR 53493; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR
62742; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 26602;
71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 53489; 71 FR 55820; 71 FR 62148; 73 FR
5259; 73 FR 15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 27018; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35199;
73 FR 36955; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51336; 73 FR 51689; 73 FR
54888; 73 FR 61925; 73 FR 63047; 73 FR 65009; 75 FR 1451; 75 FR 19674;
75 FR 25918; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR
39729; 75 FR 44051; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 52062; 75 FR 52063;
75 FR 57105; 75 FR 59327; 75 FR 61833; 75 FR 61883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR
64396; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27845; 77 FR 27847;
77 FR 36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR
46153; 77 FR 46795; 77 FR 52381; 77 FR 52388; 77 FR 52389; 77 FR 56262;
77 FR 60010; 77 FR 64582; 77 FR 64583; 77 FR 64841; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR
78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2748; 79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 18392;
79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR 29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35218; 79 FR
35220; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 45868; 79 FR 46153; 79 FR 46300;
79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51642; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR 56097; 79 FR
56099; 79 FR 56104; 79 FR 56117; 79 FR 58856; 79 FR 64001; 79 FR 70928;
79 FR 72754; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR
14190; 81 FR 15404; 81 FR 20433; 81 FR 21655; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 39100;
81 FR 39320; 81 FR 42054; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 48493; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR
66718; 81 FR 66720; 81 FR 66722; 81 FR 71173; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 81230;
81 FR 90050; 81 FR 91239; 81 FR 96196; 83 FR 6922; 83 FR 15195; 83 FR
15216; 83 FR 24146; 83 FR 24585; 83 FR 28320; 83 FR 28323; 83 FR 28325;
83 FR 28332; 83 FR 34661; 83 FR 34677; 83 FR 45749; 83 FR 45750; 83 FR
56137; 83 FR 56902). They have submitted evidence showing that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at
Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In
addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the
respective vision deficiencies over the past 2 years indicates each
applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements. These
factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability
to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA
concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a
period of 2 years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of October
and are discussed below. As of October 1, 2020, and in accordance with
49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following 37 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (65 FR
20245; 65 FR 57230; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57266; 67 FR 57267; 69 FR 51346;
69 FR 52741; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632; 71 FR 53489; 73 FR 5259; 73 FR
15567; 73 FR 27015; 73 FR 35195; 73 FR 35199; 73 FR 48275; 73 FR 51336;
75 FR 1451; 75 FR 19674; 75 FR 25918; 75 FR 34212; 75 FR 39729; 75 FR
44051; 75 FR 47888; 75 FR 52062; 77 FR 545; 77 FR 23797; 77 FR 27847;
77 FR 36336; 77 FR 36338; 77 FR 38386; 77 FR 40945; 77 FR 46153; 77 FR
46795; 77 FR 52389; 78 FR 64271; 78 FR 78475; 79 FR 1908; 79 FR 2748;
79 FR 10606; 79 FR 14333; 79 FR 18392; 79 FR 22003; 79 FR 23797; 79 FR
29498; 79 FR 35212; 79 FR 35220; 79 FR 38659; 79 FR 38661; 79 FR 45868;
79 FR 46153; 79 FR 46300; 79 FR 47175; 79 FR 51643; 79 FR 53514; 79 FR
64001; 80 FR 67476; 80 FR 79414; 80 FR 80443; 81 FR 1474; 81 FR 14190;
81 FR 15404; 81 FR 2043381 FR 21655; 81 FR 28138; 81 FR 39100; 81 FR
39320; 81 FR 42054; 81 FR 44680; 81 FR 48493; 81 FR 60115; 81 FR 66718;
81 FR 66720; 81 FR 66722; 81 FR 72642; 81 FR 81230; 81 FR 90050; 81 FR
91239; 81 FR 96196; 83 FR 6922; 83 FR 15195; 83 FR 15216; 83 FR 24146;
83 FR 24585; 83 FR 28320; 83 FR 28323; 83 FR 28325; 83 FR 28332; 83 FR
34661; 83 FR 34677; 83 FR 45749; 83 FR 56902):

Dominic A. Berube (MA)
Mark F. Besco (IA)
Lester E. Burnes (NM)
Antonio A. Calixto (MN)
Walter O. Connelly (WA)
Tommy J. Cross, Jr. (TN)
Donald R. Date, Jr. (MD)
Jacob Dehoyos (NM)
David Diamond (IL)
Timothy C. Dotson (MO)
Michael Giagnacova (PA)
Joshua D. Giles (NC)
Esteban G. Gonzalez (TX)
Jimmy G. Hall (NC)
Ricky P. Hastings (TX)
Kevin L. Jones (SC)
Keith A. Kelley (ME)
William J. Krysinski (MN)
Melvin L. Lester (MS)
William L. Martin (OR)
Michael P. Mazza (WA)
Duane A. McCord (IL)
Richard L. Miller (IN)
Philip L. Neff (PA)
Michael Pace (TX)
Aaron L. Paustian (IA)
Markus Perkins (LA)
Kent A. Perry (WY)
Mario A. Quezada (TX)
Carroll G. Quisenberry (KY)
Ruel W. Reed (IA)
Guadalupe Reyes (FL)
Ivan Romero (IL)
Jess C. Sanchez (TX)
Robert Schick (PA)
Michael D. Singleton (IN)
Ricky W. Witt (IA)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2005-22727; FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-
2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114; FMCSA-2012-0104; FMCSA-2012-0159; FMCSA-
2013-0167; FMCSA-2013-0174; FMCSA-2014-0002; FMCSA-2014-0004; FMCSA-
2014-0006; FMCSA-2014-0007; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2015-0070; FMCSA-
2015-0345; FMCSA-2015-0347; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0024; FMCSA-
2016-0028; FMCSA-2016-0029; FMCSA-2016-0206; FMCSA-2018-0008; FMCSA-
2018-0011; FMCSA-2018-0012. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 1, 2020, and will expire on October 1, 2022.
    As of October 6, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following six individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (67 FR 15662; 67 FR 37907; 69 FR
26206; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 71 FR 26602; 71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310;
73 FR 27018; 73 FR 36955; 75 FR 36778; 75 FR 36779; 75 FR 39725; 75 FR
61833; 77 FR 17109; 77 FR 27845; 77 FR 38384; 77 FR 56262; 79 FR 23797;
79 FR 35218; 79 FR 51642; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902):

John E. Breslin (NV)
Ronald M. Green (OH)
David W. Grooms (IN)
Ralph E. Holmes (MD)
Daniel W. Johnson (NY)
Charles E. Stokes (FL)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2002-11714; FMCSA-
2005-21711; FMCSA-2006-24783; FMCSA-2010-0161; FMCSA-2011-0380. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 6, 2020, and will expire on
October 6, 2022.
    As of October 11, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual has

satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (83 FR
45750; 83 FR 56137):

Thomas J. Knapp (WA)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2018-0017. The
exemption is applicable as of October 11, 2020, and will expire on
October 11, 2022.
    As of October 15, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 71 FR
55820; 73 FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 73 FR 65009; 75 FR 52063; 75 FR 57105;
77 FR 52388; 77 FR 60010; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902):

William C. Ball (NC) and Kevin C. Palmer (OR)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2004-17984;
FMCSA-2008-0231. Their exemptions are applicable as of October 15,
2020, and will expire on October 15, 2022.
    As of October 21, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 56099; 79 FR 70928; 81 FR
71173; 83 FR 56902):

Raymond Holt (CA)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0011. The
exemption is applicable as of October 21, 2020, and will expire on
October 21, 2022.
    As of October 22, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (73 FR 51689; 73 FR 63047; 75 FR
39725; 75 FR 47883; 75 FR 61883; 75 FR 63257; 75 FR 64396; 77 FR 64582;
79 FR 56104; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902):

Randall J. Benson (MN)
James D. Drabek, Jr. (IL)
Delone W. Dudley (MD)
Jeromy W. Leatherman (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0266; FMCSA-
2010-0161; FMCSA-2010-0187. Their exemptions are applicable as of
October 22, 2020, and will expire on October 22, 2022.
    As of October 23, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (77 FR 52381; 77 FR 64841; 79 FR
56097; 81 FR 71173; 83 FR 56902):

James T. Stalker (OH)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0215. The
exemption is applicable as of October 23, 2020, and will expire on
October 23, 2022.
    As of October 27, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following two individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (69 FR 53493; 69 FR 62742; 71 FR
62148; 73 FR 61925; 75 FR 59327; 77 FR 64583; 79 FR 56117; 81 FR 71173;
83 FR 56902):

David W. Brown (TN) and Zbigniew P. Pietranik (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2004-18885. Their
exemptions are applicable as of October 27, 2020, and will expire on
October 27, 2022.
    As of October 31, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual has satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (79 FR 58856; 79 FR 72754; 81 FR
71173; 83 FR 56902):

Henry L. Chrestensen (IA)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0296. The
exemption is applicable as of October 31, 2020, and will expire on
October 31, 2022.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified medical examiner (ME), as defined by Sec.
390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified
under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the
annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of
the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The exemption
will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 55 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19356 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 29690-29692]
[DOCID:fr23my06-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53805; File No. SR-CBOE-2006-31]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change to Extend Until June 5, 2007, a Pilot Program for
Listing Options on Selected Stocks Trading Below $20 at One-Point
Intervals

May 15, 2006.
    Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 27, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' 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 CBOE.
CBOE filed the proposal pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend Commentary .01 to CBOE Rule 5.5, ``Series of
Option Contracts Open for Trading,'' to extend until June 5, 2007, its
pilot program for listing options series on selected stocks trading
below $20 at one-point intervals (``Pilot Program''). The text of the
proposed rule change is available on CBOE's Web site (http://www.cboe.com
), at CBOE's principal office, 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, CBOE included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. CBOE has prepared

summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the Pilot
Program for an additional year (``Third Pilot Extension Notice'').\5\
The Pilot Program allows CBOE to select a total of five individual
stocks on which option series may be listed at $1 strike price
intervals.\6\ To be eligible for inclusion in the Pilot Program, the
underlying stock must close below $20 on its primary market on the
previous trading day. If selected for the Pilot Program, the Exchange
may list strike prices at $1 intervals from $3 to $20, but no $1 strike
price may be listed that is greater than $5 away from the underlying
stock's closing price on its primary market on the previous day. The
Exchange also may list $1 strikes on any other options class designated
by another options exchange that employs a similar pilot program under
its rules. Under the terms of the Pilot Program, the Exchange may not
list long-term option series (``LEAPS''[supreg]) at $1 strike price
intervals for any class selected for the Pilot Program. The Exchange
also is restricted from listing any series that would result in strike
prices being $0.50 apart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission approved the Pilot Program on June 5, 2003.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47991 (June 5, 2003), 68 FR
35243 (June 12, 2003) (order approving File No. SR-CBOE-2001-60)
(``Pilot Approval Order''). The Pilot Program was extended through
June 5, 2005 and again through June 5, 2006. See Securities Exchange
Act Release Nos. 49799 (June 3, 2004), 69 FR 32642 (June 10, 2004)
(notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-
2004-34) (``First Pilot Extension Notice'') and 51771 (May 31,
2005), 70 FR 33228 (June 7, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate
effectiveness of File No. SR-CBOE-2005-37) (``Second Pilot Extension
Notice'') (collectively, ``Pilot Extension Notices''). Under
Interpretation and Policy .01(a) to CBOE Rule 5.5, the Pilot Program
is scheduled to expire on June 5, 2006.
    \6\ The Pilot Program generally allows CBOE to select a total of
five individual stocks on which option series may be listed at $1
strike price intervals. However, the Pilot Program was recently
amended to provide that CBOE can designate no more than four
individual stocks for inclusion in the Pilot Program at the same
time there are strike prices listed for $1 intervals on Mini-SPX
options in accordance with Interpretation and Policy .14 to CBOE
Rule 24.9. If CBOE were to determine to discontinue listing Mini-SPX
option series at $1 strike price intervals, CBOE would again be free
to select up to five option classes for inclusion in the Pilot
Program. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52625 (October 18,
2005), 70 FR 61479 (October 24, 2005) (File No. SR-CBOE-2005-81)
(notice of filing and order granting accelerated approval of
proposed rule change relating to options on a reduced-value version
of the Standard and Poor's 500 Stock Index (``Mini-SPX options'')).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in its previous filings establishing and extending the
Pilot Program,\7\ CBOE believes that $1 strike price intervals provide
investors with greater flexibility in the trading of equity options
that overlie lower-priced stocks \8\ by allowing investors to establish
equity options positions that are better tailored to meet their
investment objectives.\9\ As reflected in the First Pilot Extension
Notice, the trading volume in a wide majority of the classes selected
for the Pilot Program increased significantly within the first year
after being selected for the Pilot Program.\10\ In ten of the 22
classes originally selected, average daily trading volume (``ADV'')
increased over 100%, and in some classes ADV more than tripled.\11\ As
reflected in the Second Pilot Extension Notice, after almost two years
since the inception of the Pilot Program, ADV in several options
classes remained significantly higher than immediately prior to their
respective selection in the Pilot Program.\12\ Now, almost three years
since the inception of the Pilot Program, CBOE notes that ADV in
several options classes remains significantly higher than immediately
prior to their selection for the Pilot Program.\13\ It should be noted
that, as reflected in the Pilot Program Report for the Second Pilot
Extension Notice and this Third Pilot Extension Notice, ADV also has
dropped in several options classes since their selection for the Pilot
Program, although it is difficult to identify the specific market
factors that may contribute to the increase or decrease in options
trading volume from one particular class to another, especially
considering the time removed since the inception of the Pilot Program.
However, the Exchange still believes that the practice of offering
customers strike prices for lower-priced stocks at $1 intervals
contributes to the overall volume of the participating options classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Pilot Approval Order and Pilot Extension Notices, supra
note 5.
    \8\ To be eligible for inclusion in the Pilot Program, the
underlying stock must close below $20 per share on its primary
market on the previous trading day.
    \9\ See Pilot Approval Order and Pilot Extension Notices, supra
note 5.
    \10\ See First Pilot Extension Notice, supra note 5.
    \11\ See First Pilot Extension Notice, supra note 5.
    \12\  See Second Pilot Extension Notice, supra note 5.
    \13\ Pursuant to the Pilot Extension Notices, CBOE is submitting
a report (the ``Pilot Program Report''), as Exhibit 3 to the
proposal. Among other things, the Pilot Program Report contains
analyses of the ADV and open interest (``OI'') for the options
classes that have been selected for the Pilot Program since its
inception.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact on system capacity, CBOE's analysis of
the Pilot Program also suggests that the impact on CBOE's, the Options
Price Reporting Authority's (``OPRA''), and market data vendors''
respective automated systems has been minimal. Specifically, CBOE notes
that in February 2006, 22 of the 23 classes participating in the Pilot
Program accounted for 7,002,356 quotes per day or 0.89% of the
industry's 790,899,315 average quotes per day.\14\ The 23 classes
averaged 268,468 contracts per day or 3.56% of the industry's 7,531,756
average contracts per day. The classes involved totaled 1458 series or
1.1% of all series listed.\15\ It should be noted that these quoting
statistics may overstate the contribution of $1 strike prices because
these figures also include quotes for series listed in intervals higher
than $1 (i.e., $2.50 strikes) in the same options classes. Even with
the non-$1 strike series quoting being included in these figures, CBOE
believes that the overall impact on capacity is still minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Quoting information is not included for CPN, which was
delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on December 6, 2005 and
trading in the existing option series was restricted.
    \15\ See Pilot Program Report, infra Exhibit 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that an extension of the Pilot Program is
warranted because the data indicates that there is strong investor
demand for $1 strikes and because the Pilot Program has not adversely
impacted systems capacity. For these reasons, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and
regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\16\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) \17\ that the rules
of a national securities exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believes that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in the
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 neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    CBOE has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \18\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\19\ Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does
not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder. As
required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), CBOE provided the Commission with
written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the
Commission or such shorter period as designated by the Commission.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \20\ As set forth in the Commission's initial approval of the
Pilot Program, if CBOE proposes to: (1) Extend the Pilot Program;
(2) expand the number of options eligible for inclusion in the Pilot
Program; or (3) seek permanent approval of the Pilot Program, it
must submit a Pilot Program report to the Commission along with the
filing of its proposal to extend, expand, or seek permanent approval
of the Pilot Program. CBOE must file any such proposal and the Pilot
Program report with the Commission at least 60 days prior to the
expiration of the Pilot Program. The Pilot Program report must cover
the entire time the Pilot Program was in effect and must include:
(1) Data and written analysis on the open interest and trading
volume for options (at all strike price intervals) selected for the
Pilot Program; (2) delisted options series (for all strike price
intervals) for all options selected for the Pilot Program; (3) an
assessment of the appropriateness of $1 strike price intervals for
the options CBOE selected for the Pilot Program; (4) an assessment
of the impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of CBOE's,
OPRA's, and vendors' automated systems; (5) any capacity problems or
other problems that arose during the operation of the Pilot Program
and how CBOE addressed them; (6) any complaints that CBOE received
during the operation of the Pilot Program and how CBOE addressed
them; and (7) any additional information that would help to assess
the operation of the Pilot Program. See Pilot Approval Order, supra
note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-CBOE-2006-31 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-31. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of CBOE. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
CBOE-2006-31 and should be submitted on or before June 13, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-7800 Filed 5-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P