[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 249 (Monday, December 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67810-67813]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28391]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84933; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Relating to the ICE Clear Europe Model Risk Governance Framework (the
``MRGF'')

December 21, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 14, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by ICE Clear
Europe. On December 21, 2018, ICE Clear Europe filed Amendment No.1 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The amendment clarified Items 1(a) and 2(a) in the Form 19b-
4 but did not change any other items in Form 19b-4, any exhibits to
the filing, or the text of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to adopt a Model Risk Governance
Framework (the ``MRGF''). The revisions do not involve any changes to
the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules or Procedures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules (the
``Rules'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

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

(a) Purpose
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to adopt a new MRGF, which is
intended to establish overall standards and principles for managing and
mitigating model risk, for all product categories. Specifically, it is
designed to ensure that (1) the roles and responsibilities for model
oversight are clearly defined, (2) an appropriate organizational
structure is in place to address new models, model changes, review of
existing models and model retirement, and (3) appropriate guidelines
and schedules exist for model inventory, model validation and
remediation of concerns with models. The MRGF applies throughout the
life cycle of models used by the Clearing House.
    The MRGF defines a ``model'' for this purpose as a quantitative
method, system or approach that applies statistical, economic,
financial or mathematical theories, techniques and assumptions to
process input data into quantitative estimates. The framework also
defines ``model risk'' as the risk that a model does not perform as it
was designed, either due to error or failure in the model specification
or inappropriate use.
    The MRGF addresses the materiality of models, based on the
potential impact the related model risk may have on ICE Clear Europe
and its clearing members. A model will be deemed material where the
output of the model is the primary factor affecting risk management
decisions relating to counterparty and liquidity risk.\5\ With respect
to model changes, the framework also assess the significance of the
change, in accordance with applicable law and regulatory guidelines.
Relevant factors include an assessment of the size of resulting changes
in risk requirements calculated by the model, alterations in the scope
of model use and the risk profile of products covered, and the
development of new model features. As discussed herein, the materiality
of a model, and significance of changes, are factors in the model
review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A model may also be considered material if it has a high
error potential, with sizeable impact, most likely resulting from
complexities in the data model and inputs (e.g., complex
manipulation of input data), the modelling approach (e.g., reliance
on large number of assumptions), the model output (e.g., large
number of dependent downstream models) or model users and operations
(e.g., large number of independent systems).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MRGF establishes the role of governance bodies in model review
and approval, including the Model Oversight Committee (``MOC'') and
Board. The MOC is responsible for model risk governance at an executive
level, and advises the Board on material model risk. The MOC is
responsible for approving new models, model changes and retirement of
models, approving the periodic validation cycle, or validation
pipeline, approving remediation actions, reviewing model performance
assessments and approving external validators. The Board has ultimate
responsibility for model risk governance, approving material new models
and significant model changes for material models, reviewing the
actions of the MOC, reviewing performance of material models outside of
acceptable levels for model risk, in light of risk appetite metrics,
and reviewing impact assessments for the retirement of material models.
    The MRGF uses the Clearing House's tiered approach to model
governance. This approach entails: (i) A first line, such as the
clearing risk department, that is responsible for owning the model,
ensuring that models are properly developed, implemented and used,
establishing a model inventory, proposing new models, model changes and
model retirements and related materiality and significance levels,
conducting performance and impact assessments, and proposing and
implementing remediation actions as needed; (ii) a second line,
represented by the risk oversight department (``ROD''), that is
responsible for performing or overseeing independent validation,
reviewing performance assessments, establishing risk appetite metrics
for model performance, establishing guidelines for validations and
external validators (including criteria for expertise and
independence), and reporting results of validations and assessments to
appropriate committees; and (iii) a third line, represented by the
Internal Audit Department, that is responsible for assessing the
overall effectiveness of the MRGF and related governance policies and
assessing independent validation work.
    The MRGF sets out a general oversight process for models throughout
their life cycle, including development of new models, model changes,
review of existing models and model retirements. New models will be
subject to validation before being approved and introduced into use.
For model changes, significant changes will be validated before being
approved (using the same criteria as for new models). Model changes
that are not significant will be validated in accordance with the
periodic re-validation pipeline. The MRGF provides for model re-
validation and performance assessments, to determine whether a model
continues to be fit for its designed purposes. The ROD will establish a
validation pipeline, or periodic re-validation cycle. The frequency of
re-validation will be in accordance with regulatory requirements, which
may be annually where required or more frequently as needed. Similarly,
performance assessments will also be conducted on a periodic basis at
least annually, in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
    The MRGF also addresses model retirements and deactivations
(retirement permanently discontinues a model while deactivation is a
temporary discontinuation). Prior to retiring or deactivating a model,
the Clearing House will conduct an impact assessment of the risks and
consequences.
    In terms of validation, the ROD is responsible for conducting the
independent validation (if done internally) at the appropriate
frequency and coordinating external validation when appropriate. ICE
Clear Europe has adopted a set of independent validator selection
guidelines addressing external validation. Under the guidelines, the
Clearing House may engage an external independent model validator when
there are insufficient internal resources to meet both the technical
expertise and independence requirements for the model undergoing
independent validation, internal resources do not have the operational
capacity to perform the validation within an appropriate timeframe or
otherwise at the discretion of the ROD. The use of external independent
model validators is subject to review and approval by the MOC.
    To be considered independent with respect to a model:
     The validator must have no involvement or responsibility
for any component of the model development, implementation or operation
for at least two years other than reviewing and commenting on the scope
of model documentation, the completeness and appropriateness of
documentation, the scope of model performance testing and analysis on
the acceptance criteria for performance testing and analysis;
     the validator must have no involvement or responsibility
for a period of two years or more for any upstream development process
relating to an input feeding into the model being submitted for
validations;
     If the validator is an employee of ICE Clear Europe, they
must report into the chief risk officer; and
     If the validator is an employee of an Intercontinental
Exchange, Inc. group

company, the company they are employed by must have no direct
dependence on the outcome of the validation.
    Requirements may be waived at the discretion of the ROD, subject to
review and approval by the MOC. In evaluating the independence of an
external validator, the ROD may also take into account the following
factors:
     Connections of the validator to ICE Clear Europe;
     duration of time that the validator has been performing
independent model validations for ICE Clear Europe;
     dependence of the validator on ICE Clear Europe; and
     outside interests of or any other conflicts of interest
with the validator.
    ICE Clear Europe maintains a list of external validators, which is
approved by the MOC, and the use of a particular validator depends on
their ability to fulfill both the technical and independence
requirements for a particular external validation. In addition, the
second line keeps track of the frequency of the reviews per validator,
and may decide to alternate validators if outputs deteriorate and
requirements specified in the validation guidelines become less likely
to be met.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the changes described herein are
consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the
regulations thereunder applicable to it. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act \7\ in particular requires, among other things, that the rules of
the clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, to the extent
applicable, derivative agreements, contracts and transactions, to
assure the safeguarding of securities and funds in the custody or
control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible, and, in
general, protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
amendments adopt the MRGF, which will be applicable to all models used
by the Clearing House and is intended to set an overall framework for,
and generally facilitate, the ongoing development, review and
validation of such models (and changes thereto) throughout their life
cycle. The MRGF will also assist the Clearing House in managing the
risks from its use of models. In ICE Clear Europe's view, the
amendments will enhance the overall risk management of the Clearing
House, and thereby promote the prompt and accurate clearance of
transactions and further the public interest in sound operation of
clearing agencies, within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).\8\ The
amendments are not intended to effect, and are consistent with, the
Clearing House's existing provisions relating to the safeguarding of
funds and securities in the custody or control of the Clearing House or
for which it is responsible, within the meaning of that section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe also believes that the amendments are consistent
with specific requirements of Rule 17Ad-22.\9\ Rule 17Ad-22(b)(4) \10\
requires clearing agencies to perform an annual model validation,
including a performance evaluation, of their margin models and the
related parameters and assumptions. Rules 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii) \11\ and
17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii),\12\ also require clearing agencies to have policies
and procedures in place to ensure the performance of a model validation
of their credit risk models, margin system, and related models not less
than annually. In compliance with these requirements, the MRGF provides
for periodic re-validation and assessment of models, consistent with
the timing required under these and other applicable regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22.
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(b)(4). The rule states that ``[a]
registered clearing agency that performs central counterparty
services shall establish, implement, maintain and enforce written
policies and procedures reasonably designed to:
    (4) Provide for an annual model validation consisting of
evaluating the performance of the clearing agency's margin models
and the related parameters and assumptions associated with such
models by a qualified person who is free from influence from the
persons responsible for the development or operation of the models
being validated''.
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(vii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (4) Effectively identify, measure, monitor, and manage its
credit exposures to participants and those arising from its payment,
clearing, and settlement processes, including by:
    (vii) Performing a model validation for its credit risk models
not less than annually or more frequently as may be contemplated by
the covered clearing agency's risk management framework established
pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section''.
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(6)(vii). The rule states that
``[e]ach covered clearing agency shall establish, implement,
maintain and enforce written policies and procedures reasonably
designed to, as applicable:
    (6) Cover, if the covered clearing agency provides central
counterparty services, its credit exposures to its participants by
establishing a risk-based margin system that, at a minimum:
    (vii) Requires a model validation for the covered clearing
agency's margin system and related models to be performed not less
than annually, or more frequently as may be contemplated by the
covered clearing agency's risk management framework established
pursuant to paragraph (e)(3) of this section''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) \13\ requires clearing agencies to
establish reasonably designed policies and procedures to provide for
governance arrangements that are clear and transparent and specify
clear and direct lines of responsibility. To facilitate compliance with
this requirement, the MRGF sets out clear responsibilities of various
Clearing House personnel and committees with respect to the
development, validation and ongoing review of all models used by the
Clearing House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(2). The rule states that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable:
    (2) Provide for governance arrangements that:
    (i) Are clear and transparent;
    (ii) Clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of the covered
clearing agency;
    (iii) Support the public interest requirements in Section 17A of
the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q-1) applicable to clearing agencies, and the
objectives of owners and participants;
    (iv) Establish that the board of directors and senior management
have appropriate experience and skills to discharge their duties and
responsibilities;
    (v) Specify clear and direct lines of responsibility; and
    (vi) Consider the interests of participants' customers,
securities issuers and holders, and other relevant stakeholders of
the covered clearing agency.'' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i) \14\ requires clearing agencies to have
reasonably designed policies and procedures that, at a minimum, include
risk management policies, procedures, and systems designed to identify,
measure, monitor, and manage the range of risks that arise in or are
borne by a clearing agency. The MRGF is intended to facilitate
compliance with this requirement as it covers all models used by the
Clearing House, and provides for evaluations and validations by second
line personnel and procedures for ongoing review, amendment and
retirement of models, to ensure models remain appropriate to manage the
range of risks borne by the Clearing House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17 Ad-22(e)(3)(i). The rule states that ``[e]ach
covered clearing agency shall establish, implement, maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to, as
applicable:
    (3) Maintain a sound risk management framework for
comprehensively managing legal, credit, liquidity, operational,
general business, investment, custody, and other risks that arise in
or are borne by the covered clearing agency, which:
    (i) Includes risk management policies, procedures, and systems
designed to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the range of
risks that arise in or are borne by the covered clearing agency,
that are subject to review on a specified periodic basis and
approved by the board of directors annually''.

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

1. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The MRGF, which
will apply to all product categories, implements internal procedures
intended to strengthen oversight of models, and is not intended to
affect directly Clearing Members or market participants, or the markets
for cleared products. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe
the amendments will materially affect the cost of, or access to,
clearing. To the extent the framework results in changes to risk and
other models that do have an impact on margin levels or otherwise
affect the cost of clearing, ICE Clear Europe believes such changes
will be appropriate in furtherance of the risk management of the
Clearing House. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is
inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The MRGF, which
will apply to all product categories, implements internal procedures
intended to strengthen oversight of models, and is not intended to
affect directly Clearing Members or market participants, or the markets
for cleared products. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe
the amendments will materially affect the cost of, or access to,
clearing. To the extent the framework results in changes to risk and
other models that do have an impact on margin levels or otherwise
affect the cost of clearing, ICE Clear Europe believes such changes
will be appropriate in furtherance of the risk management of the
Clearing House. Therefore, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
proposed rule changes impose any burden on competition that is
inappropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions
required with respect to the proposal are completed.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-024. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation. All comments received will be posted without change.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-024 and should be
submitted on or before January 22, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28391 Filed 12-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17597-17601]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07399]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0631; FRL 9961-45-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT32

Relaxation of the Federal Reid Vapor Pressure Gasoline Volatility
Standard for Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson
Counties, Tennessee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a request from the state of Tennessee for EPA to relax the
federal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) standard applicable to gasoline
introduced into commerce from June 1 to September 15 of each year for
Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties
(hereinafter referred to as the Middle Tennessee Area or Area).
Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the

regulations to allow the RVP standard for the Middle Tennessee Area to
rise from 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) to 9.0 psi for gasoline. EPA
has preliminarily determined that this change to the federal RVP
regulation is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 12, 2017
unless a public hearing is requested by April 27, 2017. If the EPA
receives such a request, we will publish information related to the
timing and location of the hearing and a new deadline for public
comment.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0631, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA
may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. If you need to include CBI as part of your comment, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for
instructions. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make.
    For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-
9256; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The contents of this preamble are listed in the following outline:

I. General Information
II. Public Participation
III. Background and Proposal
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Legal Authority

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this proposed rule are fuel
producers and distributors involved in the supplying of gasoline to the
Middle Tennessee Area.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             NAICS \1\
       Examples of potentially  regulated entities             codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum refineries....................................          324110
Gasoline Marketers and Distributors.....................          424710
                                                                  424720
Gasoline Retail Stations................................          447110
Gasoline Transporters...................................          484220
                                                                  484230
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The above table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. The table lists the types of entities of which EPA is
aware that potentially could be affected by this proposed rule. Other
types of entities not listed on the table could also be affected. To
determine whether your organization could be affected by this proposed
rule, you should carefully examine the regulations in 40 CFR 80.27. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ North American Industry Classification System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by
Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C.
7545(h) and 7601(a).

II. Public Participation

    EPA will not hold a public hearing on this matter unless a request
is received by the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble by April 27, 2017. If the EPA receives
such a request, we will publish information related to the timing and
location of the hearing and a new deadline for public comment.

III. Background and Proposal

A. Summary of the Proposal

    EPA is proposing to approve a request from the State of Tennessee
to change the summertime federal RVP standard for Davidson, Rutherford,
Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi by
amending EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2). In a separate,
concurrent rulemaking noted below, EPA has already proposed to approve
a maintenance plan revision for the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997
ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) and a CAA section
110(l) non-interference demonstration that relaxing the federal RVP
requirement from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for gasoline sold from June 1 to
September 15 of each year in the Middle Tennessee Area would not
interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS in the Middle Tennessee Area,
including the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable
CAA requirement. For more information on Tennessee's maintenance plan
revision request for the Middle Tennessee Area, please refer to the
notice of proposed rulemaking for that action (82 FR 11517 (February
24, 2017)). EPA intends to take final action on this rule as proposed
only upon the finalization of the maintenance plan revision and non-
interference demonstration rulemaking.
    The preamble for this rulemaking is organized as follows: Section
III.B. provides the history of the federal gasoline volatility
regulation. Section III.C. describes the policy regarding relaxation of
gasoline volatility standards in ozone nonattainment areas that are
redesignated as attainment areas as well as maintenance areas. Section
III.D. provides information specific to Tennessee's request for the
Middle Tennessee Area.

B. History of the Gasoline Volatility Requirement

    On August 19, 1987 (52 FR 31274), EPA determined that gasoline
nationwide was becoming increasingly volatile, causing an increase in
evaporative emissions from gasoline-powered vehicles and equipment.
Evaporative emissions from gasoline, referred to as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), are precursors to the formation of tropospheric ozone
and contribute to the nation's ground-level ozone problem. Exposure to
ground-level ozone can reduce lung function, thereby aggravating asthma
and other respiratory conditions, increase susceptibility to
respiratory infection, and may contribute to premature death in people
with heart and lung disease.
    The most common measure of fuel volatility that is useful in
evaluating gasoline evaporative emissions is RVP. Under CAA section
211(c), the EPA promulgated regulations on March 22, 1989 (54 FR 11868)
that set maximum limits for the RVP of gasoline sold during the
regulatory control periods that were established on a state-by-state
basis in the final rule. The regulatory control periods addressed the
portion of the year when peak ozone concentrations were expected. These

regulations constituted Phase I of a two-phase nationwide program,
which was designed to reduce the volatility of gasoline during the high
ozone season. On June 11, 1990 (55 FR 23658), EPA promulgated more
stringent volatility controls as Phase II of the volatility control
program. These requirements established maximum RVP standards of 9.0
psi or 7.8 psi (depending on the state, the month, and the area's
initial ozone attainment designation with respect to the 1-hour ozone
NAAQS).
    The 1990 CAA Amendments established a new section 211(h) to address
fuel volatility. CAA section 211(h) requires EPA to promulgate
regulations making it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, dispense,
supply, offer for supply, transport, or introduce into commerce
gasoline with an RVP level in excess of 9.0 psi during the high ozone
season. CAA section 211(h) also prohibits the EPA from establishing a
volatility standard more stringent than 9.0 psi in an attainment area,
except that the EPA may impose a lower (more stringent) standard in any
former ozone nonattainment area redesignated to attainment.
    On December 12, 1991 (56 FR 64704), the EPA modified the Phase II
volatility regulations to be consistent with CAA section 211(h). The
modified regulations prohibited the sale of gasoline with an RVP above
9.0 psi in all areas designated attainment for ozone, effective January
13, 1992. For areas designated as nonattainment, the regulations
retained the original Phase II standards published on June 11, 1990 (55
FR 23658), which included the 7.8 psi ozone season limitation for
certain areas. As stated in the preamble to the Phase II volatility
controls and reiterated in the proposed change to the volatility
standards published in 1991, EPA will rely on states to initiate
changes to their respective volatility programs. EPA's policy for
approving such changes is described below in Section III.C.
    The State of Tennessee has initiated this change by requesting that
EPA relax the 7.8 psi gasoline RVP standard to 9.0 psi for Davidson,
Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties, which are subject
to the 7.8 gasoline RVP requirement during the summertime ozone season.
Accordingly, the TDEC provided a technical demonstration showing that
relaxing the federal gasoline RVP requirements in the five counties
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would not interfere with maintenance of any
NAAQS in the Middle Tennessee Area, including the 2015 ozone NAAQS, or
with any other applicable CAA requirement.

C. Relaxation of Gasoline Volatility Standards in Ozone Nonattainment
Areas That Are Redesignated to Attainment Areas

    As stated in the preamble for EPA's amended Phase II volatility
standards (56 FR 64706), any change in the gasoline volatility standard
for a nonattainment area that was subsequently redesignated as an
attainment area must be accomplished through a separate rulemaking that
revises the applicable standard for that area. Thus, for former 1-hour
ozone nonattainment areas where the EPA mandated a Phase II volatility
standard of 7.8 psi RVP in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, the
federal 7.8 psi gasoline RVP requirement remains in effect, even after
such an area is redesignated to attainment, until a separate rulemaking
is completed that relaxes the federal gasoline RVP standard in that
area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi.
    As explained in the December 12, 1991 rulemaking, EPA believes that
relaxation of an applicable gasoline RVP standard is best accomplished
in conjunction with the redesignation process. In order for an ozone
nonattainment area to be redesignated as an attainment area, CAA
section 107(d)(3) requires the state to make a showing, pursuant to CAA
section 175A, that the area is capable of maintaining attainment for
the ozone NAAQS for ten years. Depending on the area's circumstances,
this maintenance plan will either demonstrate that the area is capable
of maintaining attainment for ten years without the more stringent
volatility standard or that the more stringent volatility standard may
be necessary for the area to maintain its attainment with the ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, in the context of a request for redesignation, EPA
will not relax the gasoline volatility standard unless the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for ten years without the need for the
more stringent volatility standard. Similarly, a maintenance plan may
be revised to relax the gasoline volatility standard if the state
requests a relaxation and the maintenance plan demonstrates that the
area will maintain attainment for the duration of the maintenance plan.
    Tennessee is requesting relaxation of the federal gasoline RVP
standard from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for the Middle Tennessee Area
concurrent with its request that the EPA approve a maintenance plan
revision for the Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

D. Tennessee's Request To Relax the Federal Gasoline RVP Requirement
for the Middle Tennessee Area

    On November 21, 2016, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC or State), submitted a
revised maintenance plan for the Middle Tennessee Area to EPA for
approval, and this maintenance plan revision included a request to
relax the federal gasoline RVP requirement. The Middle Tennessee Area
is designated as attainment for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Tennessee did not request relaxation of the federal RVP standard from
7.8 psi to 9.0 psi when TDEC originally submitted a CAA section
110(a)(1) maintenance plan (for the 1997 ozone NAAQS) that was approved
on January 28, 2011 (76 FR 5078). In addition to the State's November
21, 2016 request to relax the federal gasoline RVP requirement, the
State's request includes a CAA section 110(l) non-interference
demonstration that removal of the federal RVP requirement of 7.8 psi
for gasoline during the summertime ozone season in the Middle Tennessee
Area would not interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS, or with any
other applicable CAA requirement. Specifically, the State provided a
technical demonstration showing that relaxing the federal gasoline RVP
requirement in the Middle Tennessee Area from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi for
gasoline sold between June 1 and September 15 of each year would not
interfere with maintenance of any NAAQS in the Area, including the 2015
ozone NAAQS, or with any other applicable CAA requirement.
    On February 24, 2017, EPA proposed the approval of Tennessee's
November 21, 2016 request for a maintenance plan revision for the
Middle Tennessee Area. In that proposed rulemaking, EPA included an
initial evaluation of Tennessee's non-interference demonstration for
the Area.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 82 FR 11517 (February 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maintenance plan revision and non-interference demonstration
rulemaking is subject to public notice and comment. EPA will evaluate
any comments on the request for a maintenance plan revision and
associated non-interference demonstration rulemaking, and any comments
will be addressed in the final rule for that rulemaking. Further
information on that rulemaking, including any comments received, can be
found in the docket for that rulemaking (EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0615).

    In this action, the EPA is taking the second step in the process by
proposing to approve Tennessee's request to relax the summertime ozone
season gasoline RVP standard for the Middle Tennessee Area from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi. Specifically, EPA is proposing to amend the applicable
gasoline RVP standard to allow the gasoline RVP requirements to rise
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi provided at 40 CFR 80.27(a)(2) for the Area.
This proposal to approve Tennessee's request to relax the summertime
ozone season gasoline RVP standard for the Middle Tennessee Area from
7.8 psi to 9.0 psi is contingent on EPA's separate approval of
Tennessee's November 21, 2016 request for a maintenance plan revision
and non-interference demonstration. It is also based on the fact that
the Middle Tennessee Area is currently in attainment for both the 2008
ozone NAAQS and the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    If EPA finalizes the approval of the revised maintenance plan for
Middle Tennessee and the section 110(l) non-interference demonstration
as separately proposed, EPA may issue its final action (based on this
proposal) as soon as the date of publication of such final rule. EPA
believes that a final rule that raises the RVP standard for gasoline
from 7.8 psi to 9.0 psi would be a ``a substantive rule which . . .
relieves a restriction'' within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
Accordingly, EPA may decide to make a final rule based on this proposal
effective upon publication.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., and therefore is not subject to these requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In
making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant
adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no
net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. The small entities subject to the
requirements of this action are refiners, importers or blenders of
gasoline that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in
Tennessee and gasoline distributers and retail stations in Tennessee.
This action relaxes the federal RVP standard for gasoline sold in
Davidson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson, and Wilson Counties during
the summertime ozone season (June 1 to September 15 of each year) to
allow the RVP for gasoline sold in those counties to rise from 7.8 psi
to 9.0 psi. This rule does not impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities beyond those, if any, already required by or
resulting from the CAA section 211(h) Volatility Control program.
Therefore, this action will have no net regulatory burden for all
directly regulated small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100
million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action
implements mandates that are specifically and explicitly set forth in
CAA section 211(h) without the exercise of any policy discretion by
EPA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed
rule affects only those refiners, importers or blenders of gasoline
that choose to produce or import low RVP gasoline for sale in the
Middle Tennessee Area and gasoline distributers and retail stations in
the Area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it approves a state program.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations because it does not affect the applicable
ozone NAAQS which establish the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. This rule will relax the applicable
volatility standard of gasoline during the summer, possibly resulting
in slightly higher mobile source emissions. However, the State of
Tennessee has demonstrated in its non-interference demonstration that
this action will not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in
the Middle Tennessee Area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, or with any other
applicable requirement of the CAA including the 2008 and 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Therefore, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations are not an
anticipated result. The results of this evaluation are contained in
EPA's proposed rule for Tennessee's maintenance plan revision. A copy
of Tennessee's November 23, 2016 letter requesting that the EPA relax
the gasoline RVP standard, including the technical analysis
demonstrating that the less stringent gasoline RVP would

not interfere with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the
Area Middle Tennessee Area, or with any other applicable CAA
requirement, has been placed in the public docket for this action.

V. Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is granted to the EPA by
Sections 211(h) and 301(a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended; 42 U.S.C.
7545(h) and 7601(a).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Fuel additives, Gasoline, Incorporation by
reference, Motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, Motor vehicle
pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 4, 2017.
E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-07399 Filed 4-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51541-51548]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA--2016-0043]

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 47 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 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0043 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 47 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

Larry S. Ankerson

    Mr. Ankerson, 47, 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. Ankerson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ankerson 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 Wisconsin.

Kenneth D. Beatty

    Mr. Beatty, 62, 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. Beatty understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Beatty 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
Mississippi.

Christopher R. Bianco

    Mr. Bianco, 46, 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. Bianco understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bianco 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 B CDL from Pennsylvania.

John J. Bittner

    Mr. Bittner, 40, has had ITDM since 2003. 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. Bittner understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bittner 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 North Dakota.

Brandon J. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 35, has had ITDM since 1992. 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. Brown understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown 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 Tennessee.

Justin D. Campbell

    Mr. Campbell, 27, has had ITDM since 1993. 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. Campbell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Campbell 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 Alabama.

Anthony Cicciari

    Mr. Cicciari, 50, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2015 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. Cicciari understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cicciari 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.

Noah F. Cockman

    Mr. Cockman, 67, 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. Cockman understands diabetes management and
monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is
able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cockman 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 North Carolina.

Vito J. Dambra

    Mr. Dambra, 59, 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. Dambra understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dambra 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 Pennsylvania.

Linda D. Davis

    Ms. Davis, 51, has had ITDM since 2016. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2016 and certified that she 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.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Davis understands diabetes
management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Davis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2016 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from Indiana.

Frank A. DeCarolis

    Mr. DeCarolis, 58, 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. DeCarolis understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. DeCarolis 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 Kansas.

Orlando Dominguez

    Mr. Dominguez, 35, 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. Dominguez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dominguez 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 California.

Scott L. Fetzer

    Mr. Fetzer, 61, has had ITDM since 2005. 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. Fetzer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fetzer 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 Pennsylvania.

Carl E. Fisher

    Mr. Fisher, 64, 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. Fisher understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fisher 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.

Ryan A. Gehrke

    Mr. Gehrke, 34, has had ITDM since 1985. 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. Gehrke understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gehrke 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 Minnesota.

Davy O. Glanville

    Mr. Glanville, 54, 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. Glanville understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Glanville 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 the District of
Columbia.

George S. Goanos

    Mr. Goanos, 44, 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. Goanos understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Goanos 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 C CDL from Georgia.

Shane R. Gousie

    Mr. Gousie, 22, 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. Gousie understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gousie 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
Massachusetts.

Randal E. Hampton

    Mr. Hampton, 50, 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. Hampton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hampton 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 Nevada.

Lindell O. Hart

    Mr. Hart, 72, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2015 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. Hart understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hart 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.

Reginald M. Hart

    Mr. Hart, 31, 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. Hart understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hart 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 Georgia.

David R. Holbert

    Mr. Holbert, 29, has had ITDM since 2008. 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. Holbert understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holbert 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.

Robert J. King

    Mr. King, 54, 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. King understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. King 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 Carolina.

Dennis J. Kniffen

    Mr. Kniffen, 57, 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. Kniffen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kniffen 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.

Scott D. Lazzell

    Mr. Lazzell, 47, 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. Lazzell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lazzell 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 Arizona.

Allen E. Lemaster

    Mr. Lemaster, 36, 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. Lemaster understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lemaster 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 Carolina.

Wayne F. Leonard

    Mr. Leonard, 52, 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. Leonard understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Leonard 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 Illinois.

Joshua W. Lockwood

    Mr. Lockwood, 32, 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. 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
optometrist examined him in 2016 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland.

Ryan D. Mace

    Mr. Mace, 26, has had ITDM since 2005. 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. Mace understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mace 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 Washington.

Brian P. McCabe

    Mr. McCabe, 43, has had ITDM since 1980. 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. McCabe understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCabe 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 Washington.

Charles M. McKenzie

    Mr. McKenzie, 53, 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. McKenzie understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McKenzie 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 Ohio.

Michael C. McNamara

    Mr. McNamara, 57, 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. McNamara understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McNamara 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 South
Carolina.

Michael S. Meulenberg

    Mr. Meulenberg, 60, 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. Meulenberg understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Meulenberg 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 C CDL from Michigan.

Adam P. Neppl

    Mr. Neppl, 40, 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.
Neppl understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Neppl 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
North Dakota.

Timothy J. Newton

    Mr. Newton, 38, has had ITDM since 2005. 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. Newton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Newton 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 Iowa.

Harold N.J. Pennington III

    Mr. Pennington, 36, 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. Pennington understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Pennington 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 Pennsylvania.

David T. Petty

    Mr. Petty, 70, 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. Petty understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Petty 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 California.

William T. Phipps, Jr.

    Mr. Phipps, 46, 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. Phipps understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Phipps 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
Maryland.

Ronald K. Roe

    Mr. Roe, 59, 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. Roe understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roe 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 Pennsylvania.

Harry W. Roebuck

    Mr. Roebuck, 71, 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. Roebuck understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roebuck 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 Texas.

Jeffrey M. Shipley

    Mr. Shipley, 48, 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. Shipley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shipley 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 South Dakota.

Glenn M. Shockley, Jr.

    Mr. Shockley, 32, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2015 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. Shockley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shockley 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 Maryland.

Carl G. Stafford

    Mr. Stafford, 48, 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. Stafford understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stafford 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 West
Virginia.

James D. Tichnor

    Mr. Tichnor, 56, 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. Tichnor understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tichnor 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 Jersey.

Scott W. Waterman

    Mr. Waterman, 51, 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. Waterman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Waterman 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 South Dakota.

Richard A. Wojciak

    Mr. Wojciak, 62, 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. Wojciak understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wojciak 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.

Ricky L. Young

    Mr. Young, 50, has had ITDM since 2008. 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. Young understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Young 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-2016-0043 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-2016-0043 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

Issued on: July 27, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-18501 Filed 8-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P