[Federal Register: November 26, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 72111-72113]
[DOCID:fr26no08-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12479]

Dorel Juvenile Group [Cosco] (DJG); Notice of Appeal of Denials
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for comments on DJG appeal of denials of
inconsequential noncompliance.

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

SUMMARY: This notice asks for public comments on DJG's appeal of
NHTSA's denial of its petitions for two inconsequential noncompliances
with the Federal safety standard for child restraint systems. This
notice simply summarizes DJG's appeal--it does not represent NHTSA's
judgment or findings on the appeal. All public comments will be
considered along with the information in DJG's appeal and other
relevant information as the agency makes its final decision on these
petitions for inconsequential noncompliance.

DATES: Comments must be received by NHTSA on or before December 26,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 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.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), of Columbus,
Indiana, the parent company manufacturing Cosco brand child restraints,
has appealed a decision by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that denied its two applications for a determination
that its noncompliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child Restraint Systems'' is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. This notice of receipt of DJG's appeal is
published in accordance with NHTSA's regulations (49 CFR 556.7 and
556.8) and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the appeal.
    Notice of receipt of the petitions for inconsequential
noncompliance was published on July 30, 2002 and December 3, 2002 in
the Federal Register (67 FR 49387 and 67 FR 72025). On July 18, 2008,
NHTSA published a notice in the Federal Register denying DJG's
petitions (73 FR 41397), stating that the petitioner had not met its
burden of persuasion that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
    Affected are a total of 3,957,826 child restraints representing 39
models produced from January 2000 through September 30, 2001 due to
noncompliance with the post-abrasion tether webbing strength
requirement and 54,400 child restraints representing 14 models produced
from March 15, 2002 through August 1, 2002 due to noncompliance with
the post-light exposure harness webbing strength requirement. The
noncompliant tether webbing retained only 55 percent of its new webbing
strength when subjected to the abrasion test and so failed to meet the
75 percent strength retention requirement of FMVSS No. 213. The
noncompliant harness webbing retained only 37 percent of its new
webbing strength when exposed to carbon arc light and so failed the 60
percent strength retention requirement in FMVSS No. 213.

Post-Abrasion Webbing Strength Petition, Denial, and Appeal Summary

    In its original post-abrasion test strength retention petition, DJG
asserted that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety because its unabraded webbing strength as well as its post-
abrasion webbing strength was sufficiently high and that its abraded
strength was far higher than the anchorage strength requirement
specified in FMVSS No. 225. In addition, DJG asserted that the abraded
webbing strength test procedure was flawed because a minimum abraded
breaking strength was not specified.
    In its denial, NHTSA made the point that both the unabraded webbing
strength and the degradation rate requirements are important from a
safety perspective. NHTSA determined that the lack of sufficient
breaking strength retention after abrasion signals the distinct
probability that the webbing strength would be insufficient throughout
a lifetime of use. The high

degradation rate of the DJG tether webbing could abrade to the point
where the webbing strength is lower than the tether anchor strength,
providing for an unsafe connection to the vehicle. In consideration of
the foregoing, NHTSA decided that DJG did not meet its burden of
persuasion that this noncompliance was inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    In its appeal from NHTSA's denial, DJG stated that NHTSA did not
respond to all the arguments and data in the denial decision and
focused instead on the ``high degradation rate'' of the webbing and
that it may not last the life of these child restraints. DJG states
that according to NHTSA's own recommendation for the useful life of
child restraints, the majority of the subject noncompliant child
restraints are already beyond their useful life, given the passage of
time between the filing of DJG's petition and the denial decision. DJG
asserts that most of the child restraints at issue are now more than
seven years old and beyond their useful life, yet there have been no
complaints of tether webbing abrasion or tether webbing failure in
crashes. DJG further states that the real world performance of these
restraints contradicts NHTSA's assertion that there is a distinct
probability that the tether webbing strength would be insufficient
throughout a lifetime of use.
    DJG also provided tether webbing strength test data of used child
restraints from the affected population to demonstrate that the tether
webbing is not being abraded in the real world to a strength level
corresponding to the post-abrasion test strength of 10,903 N. DJG
maintains that the tether webbing strength after 6 to 8 years of use
ranges from 82.4 to 99.6 percent of initial breaking strength. DJG
states that these test results also show that the tether webbing from
compliant and noncompliant used child restraints performed comparably,
and demonstrated no problematic degradation.
    DJG argued in their appeal of NHTSA's denial that NHTSA had
previously granted a petition for a determination of inconsequentiality
with respect to tether webbing on certain Evenflo child restraints
reasoning that the tensile strength of abraded Evenflo tethers were
greater than the measured tensile loads in sled tests and that the
Evenflo tether webbing would have complied with the agency's regulation
in effect from 1971 to 1979 for both unabraded and abraded webbing for
a Type 3 belt. DJG states that they had provided test data in the
initial petition to demonstrate that the same two reasons for which
NHTSA granted the application of inconsequential noncompliance applies
to the subject noncompliant DJG child restraints and therefore, NHTSA
should have also granted the DJG petition.
    Finally, DJG cites docketed test results in connection with NHTSA's
rulemaking on minimum breaking strength which demonstrates that DJG's
tether webbing post-abrasion breaking strength was significantly higher
than the new and post-abrasion breaking strength for at least one
Britax model in the market at the time. DJG believes that since this
Britax child restraint complied with the FMVSS No. 213 requirements,
their subject child restraints with a post-abrasion tether breaking
strength of more than two times that of the Britax child restraint
poses no consequential safety risk.

Post Light Exposure Petition, Denial, and Appeal Summary

    In its original post-light exposure test strength retention
petition, DJG asserted that the noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety because its light-exposed harness webbing breaking
strength of 4,539 N far exceeded the corresponding tensile loads in 30
mph dynamic sled tests.
    DJG argued that while the webbing (made of nylon fabric) was
noncompliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a Corex-D
filter (tested according to the standard's specifications), the webbing
was compliant when exposed to carbon arc light filtered by a soda-lime
glass filter (specified by the standard for use only for polyester
fabric). In addition, DJG asserted that carbon arc light does not have
the same spectral characteristics as sunlight and delivers excessive
relative photon energy to the test specimen in the ultraviolet and low
visual spectrum compared to natural sunlight. DJG contends that light
exposure testing using carbon arc light systems is obsolete since, in
recent years, these systems have been replaced by Fluorescent UV or
Xenon arc systems that resemble natural sunlight characteristics more
closely than carbon arc systems. DJG stated that the harness webbing
retained 93.5 percent of its initial breaking strength when it was
exposed to a xenon arc lamp for 300 hours (3 times longer than that
required by the standard).
    In its denial, NHTSA noted that the test conditions in FMVSS No.
213 reflect the concern that child restraints will withstand even the
most severe crashes which are well above 30 mph. Therefore, NHTSA did
not find DJG's assertion that its light exposed harness webbing
strength far exceeds forces in a 30 mph dynamic crash test to be
persuasive evidence of the noncompliance being inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. NHTSA also pointed out that carbon arc light filtered
by a soda-lime glass filter is not appropriate for webbing made of
nylon and so the DJG compliant data was based on testing using an
inappropriate filter, and not conducted according to FMVSS No. 213
requirements. NHTSA believes that the test results obtained by the
carbon arc test method are an appropriate reflection of the strength
capabilities of the DJG webbing and stated that the use of xenon arc
lamp for weathering tests of glazing materials under FMVSS No. 205 does
not mean that the carbon arc is not indicative of the sunlight spectral
power distribution or that it produces invalid weathering results for
webbing materials.
    In its appeal of NHTSA's denial, DJG reiterated and emphasized the
same points made in the original petition. DJG stated that NHTSA's
assertion on the use of carbon arc source in light exposure testing was
not substantiated and is contrary to the Agency's own conclusion in its
recent rulemaking to amend FMVSS No. 205. In the final rule amending
that standard, NHTSA concluded that a xenon arc light source had
characteristics closer to natural sunlight than carbon arc light
source. DJG noted that natural sunlight characteristics are the same
for glazing material and harness webbing and so this implies that the
xenon arc light source is more appropriate for use in the webbing light
exposure tests.
    DJG pointed out that NHTSA had previously relied on 30 mph crash
test data to grant inconsequentiality petitions with respect to child
restraints such as the Evenflo tether webbing described earlier that
failed to meet the post-abrasion test requirements. DJG also presented
docketed information of NHTSA's compliance test data which showed that
the Safeline child restraints had post-light exposure strengths that
were lower than that of the DJG webbing, yet the Safeline restraints
complied with the standard and were deemed to provide an adequate level
of safety because they had a very low initial breaking strength. DJG
asserts that this Safeline data demonstrates that DJG's arguments are
not theoretical and should not have been dismissed by NHTSA.
    Lastly, DJG states that the real world experience of the
noncompliant child restraints disproves NHTSA's assertion that the high
degradation rate of the harness webbing signals a distinct probability
that the webbing strength

would be insufficient throughout its use. DJG noted that though these
restraints are now more than seven years old, and generally past their
useful life, there have been no complaints regarding harness
degradation in these restraints or any known failures of the harness
webbing in crashes.
    In conclusion, DJG states that real world experience of child
restraints at issue in this proceeding has proven that the non-
compliant webbing has performed satisfactorily for more than seven
years in the field. In addition, DJG contends that recent testing of
the breaking strength of the tether webbing in used child restraints
confirms that the webbing is not degrading in use from abrasion,
exposure to light or any other reason, and is retaining a very high
percentage of its original strength. Therefore, DJG believes that NHTSA
should grant DJG's appeal of the decision to deny its petitions for a
determination that the noncompliance of its tether and harness webbing
is inconsequential to safety.

Public Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on the petition appeal described above. The petition appeal,
supporting materials, and all comments received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated in the beginning of this notice
will be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting
materials received after the closing date will also be filed and will
be considered to the extent possible. When the petition appeal is
granted or denied, notice of the decision will be published in the
Federal Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h); delegations of
authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 49 CFR 501.8.

    Issued on: November 20, 2008.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. E8-28083 Filed 11-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54966-54968]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21704]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-496-000]

NFEnerg[iacute]a LLC; Notice of Application and Establishing
Intervention Deadline

    Take notice that on September 15, 2021, NFEnerg[iacute]a LLC
(NFEnerg[iacute]a), 111 W 19th Street, New York, New York 10011, filed
in Docket No. CP21-496-000 an abbreviated application under Section
3(a) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), Parts 153 and 380 of the
Commission's regulations, and the Order issued by the Commission on
March 19, 2021 in Docket No. CP20-466-000 (Order on Show Cause),\1\
requesting authorization to operate the San Juan Micro-Fuel Handling
Facility (MFH Facility), a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import and
regasification facility, located at the Port of San Juan in Puerto
Rico, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file
with the Commission and open to public inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ New Fortress Energy LLC, 174 FERC ] 61,207 (2021) (Order on
Show Cause), notice of reh'g denial, 175 FERC ] 62,108 (2021), reh'g
denial confirmed, 176 FERC ] 61,031 (2021) (Rehearing Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this filing may be directed to Cameron
MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnerg[iacute]a LLC, 111 W 19th Street,
New York, New York, 10011, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to Section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\2\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either:

Complete its environmental review and place it into the Commission's
public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Sec.  157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project: You can file comments on the project, and you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding. There is no fee or cost for
filing comments or intervening. The deadline for filing a motion to
intervene is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on October 20, 2021.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. Comments
may include statements of support or objections to the project as a
whole or specific aspects of the project. The more specific your
comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your comments
are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or
before October 20, 2021.
    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket
number CP21-496-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website at www.ferc.gov
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a
project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; first select ``General'' and then select ``Comment on a
Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the address below.\3\ Your written comments must reference the project
docket number (CP21-496-000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments (options 1
and 2 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected] Persons who comment on the
environmental review of this project will be placed on the Commission's
environmental mailing list, and will receive notification when the
environmental documents (EA or EIS) are issued for this project and
will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's
environmental review process.
    The Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. However, the filing of
a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the
proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
For instructions on how to intervene, see below.

Interventions

    Any person, which includes individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities,\4\ has the option to file a motion
to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to
request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to
subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit
Courts of Appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is October 20, 2021. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
the your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could
include your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are two ways to submit your motion to intervene. In both
instances, please reference the Project docket number CP21-496-000 in
your submission.
    (1) You may file your motion to intervene by using the Commission's
eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website
(www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making; first select
``General'' and then select ``Intervention.'' The eFiling feature
includes a document-less intervention option; for more information,
visit https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/document-less-intervention.pdf.; or
    (2) You may file a paper copy of your motion to intervene, along
with three copies, by mailing the documents to the address below.\7\
Your motion to intervene must reference the project docket number CP21-
496-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of motions to intervene
(option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202)
502-8258 or [email protected]
    Motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail
at: Cameron MacDougall, General Counsel, NFEnerg[iacute]a LLC, 111 W
19th Street, New York, New York, 10011, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any subsequent submissions by an intervenor
must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online. Service can be via
email with a link to the document.
    All timely, unopposed \8\ motions to intervene are automatically
granted by

operation of Rule 214(c)(1).\9\ Motions to intervene that are filed
after the intervention deadline are untimely, and may be denied. Any
late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and
must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations.\10\ A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The applicant has 15 days from the submittal of a motion to
intervene to file a written objection to the intervention.
    \9\ 18 CFR 385.214(c)(1).
    \10\ 18 CFR 385.214(b)(3) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Intervention Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, October
20, 2021.

    Dated: September 29, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-21704 Filed 10-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59149-59150]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4029-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4029-DR), dated September 9, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 14, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
September 9, 2011.

    Colorado, Houston, Leon, Travis, and Williamson Counties for
Individual Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant).

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-24447 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15225-15232]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0023]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 46 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 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 May 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0023 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) 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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day e.t.,
365 days each year. If you want

acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-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
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The 46 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3).
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.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control. The Agency established the current requirement for
diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that drivers
with diabetes had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general
population.
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    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). 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).
Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for three
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 three-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.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Mark G. Albertson

    Mr. Albertson, 54, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Albertson understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Albertson meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New
York.

Duane L. Barrett

    Mr. Barrett, 48, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Barrett understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barrett meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Alabama.

Marvin L. Bodey

    Mr. Bodey, 54, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bodey understands
diabetes management and monitoring,

has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive
a CMV safely. Mr. Bodey meets the requirements of the vision standard
at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Texas.

Kevin A. Cardona

    Mr. Cardona, 22, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Cardona understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cardona meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from New York.

James W. Carlson

    Mr. Carlson, 58, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Carlson understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Carlson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Kyle E. Caswell

    Mr. Caswell, 41, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Caswell understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Caswell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Massachusetts.

Nathaniel W. Curry

    Mr. Curry, 34, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Curry understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Curry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Henry H. Daugherty

    Mr. Daugherty, 66, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Daugherty understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daugherty meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Victor D. Davis

    Mr. Davis, 49, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Davis understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Delaware.

Todd E. Dawson

    Mr. Dawson, 56, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dawson understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dawson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.

James A. Denmark

    Mr. Denmark, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Denmark understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Denmark meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia.

John V. Dobrowski

    Mr. Dobrowski, 47, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Dobrowski understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dobrowski meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

Michael W. Driggers

    Mr. Driggers, 56, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Driggers understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Driggers meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina.

Michael J. Duffey

    Mr. Duffey, 26, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Duffey understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Duffey meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.

Timothy L. Ebbers

    Mr. Ebbers, 55, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ebbers understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ebbers meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Alfred K. Estes

    Mr. Estes, 53, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Estes understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Estes meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Travis L. Gelbrich

    Mr. Gelbrich, 44, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gelbrich understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gelbrich meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oregon.

Wyllshaun A. Gipson

    Mr. Gipson, 34, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gipson understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gipson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Maine.

Adam K. Graham

    Mr. Graham, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Graham understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Graham meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Nicholas D. Haggerty

    Mr. Haggerty, 33, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2018 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Haggerty understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Haggerty meets
the requirements of the vision standard at

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from West Virginia.

John A. Hayes

    Mr. Hayes, 57, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hayes understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hayes meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Dennis R. Henry

    Mr. Henry, 30, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2018 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henry understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Texas.

Kenneth R. Henry

    Mr. Henry, 50, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Henry understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henry meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Texas.

Robert T. Holcombe

    Mr. Holcombe, 53, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2018 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Holcombe understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holcombe meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Tennessee.

Richard P. Houle

    Mr. Houle, 61, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Houle understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Houle meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Daniel S. Howell

    Mr. Howell, 38, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Howell understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Howell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

Christopher S. Justice

    Mr. Justice, 34, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Justice understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Justice meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2018 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from North Carolina.

William T. Kribell

    Mr. Kribell, 68, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kribell understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kribell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Jason A. Lantz

    Mr. Lantz, 43, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe
hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. Lantz understands diabetes management and
monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is
able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lantz meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2017 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Dennis A. Lightbown

    Mr. Lightbown, 70, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lightbown understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lightbown meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Colorado.

Anthony L. Maita

    Mr. Maita, 71, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Maita understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Maita meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Robert M. Matthies

    Mr. Matthies, 54, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Matthies understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Matthies meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Massachusetts.

James J.P. May

    Mr. May, 39, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2018 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 (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. May understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. May meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2018 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds an operator's license from California.

Dale H.N. McCann

    Mr. McCann, 61, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. McCann understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCann meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania.

James L. Morgan, Jr.

    Mr. Morgan, 41, has had ITDM since 2015. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Morgan understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morgan meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

William L. Nicklas

    Mr. Nicklas, 82, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Nicklas understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nicklas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Lorenzo E. Romo

    Mr. Romo, 71, has had ITDM since 2014. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2017 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 (two or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Romo understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Romo meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2017

and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an
operator's license from Texas.

Dennis K. Rottenbucher

    Mr. Rottenbucher, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2018 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Rottenbucher understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rottenbucher
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota.

Gregory Schembri

    Mr. Schembri, 49, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schembri understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schembri meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Douglas R. Schrader

    Mr. Schrader, 62, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schrader understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schrader meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Ethan J. Stewmon

    Mr. Stewmon, 28, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stewmon understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stewmon meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Tennessee.

Charles F. Stockton

    Mr. Stockton, 62, has had ITDM since 2017. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stockton understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stockton meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2017 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Missouri.

Michael E. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 58, has had ITDM since 2016. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Nebraska.

Benjamin D. Utoft

    Mr. Utoft, 42, has had ITDM since 2013. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Utoft understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Utoft meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2017 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Iowa.

Cassandra D. Waters

    Ms. Waters, 54, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2017 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last five
years. Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Waters understands
diabetes management and monitoring has stable control of her diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Waters meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2017 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Maryland.

Daniel J. Welch

    Mr. Welch, 24, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2018 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 (two or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in

the last five years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Welch
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Welch meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2018 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Michigan.

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 dates
section of the notice.

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-2018-0023 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 materials 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-2018-0023 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: April 2, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-07183 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29960-29962]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13702]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81017; File No. SR-CBOE-2017-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Extend a Pilot Program That Eliminates Position
and Exercise Limits for Physically-Settled SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust
(``SPY'') Options

June 26, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 22, 2017, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the operation of a pilot program
that eliminates position and exercise limits for physically-settled SPY
options (``SPY Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed rule change
is provided below.
    (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 4.11. Position Limits

    No changes.
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
    .01-.06 No change.
    .07 The position limits under Rule 4.11 applicable to options on
shares or other securities that represent interests in registered
investment companies (or series thereof) organized as open-end
management investment companies, unit investment trusts or similar
entities that satisfy the criteria set forth in Interpretation and
Policy .06 under Rule 5.3 shall be the same as the position limits
applicable to equity options under Rule 4.11 and Interpretations and
Policies thereunder; except that the position limits under Rule 4.11
applicable to option contracts on the securities listed in the below
chart are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Security underlying option                 Position limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DIAMONDS Trust (DIA).................  300,000 contracts.
The Standard and Poor's Depositary         None.
 Receipt Trust (SPY).
The iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund (IWM)  500,000 contracts.
The PowerShares QQQ Trust (QQQ)..........  900,000 contracts.
The iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index    500,000 contracts.
 Fund (EEM).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Position limits for SPY options are subject to a pilot program
through [July 12, 2017] July 12, 2018.
    .08 No change.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to
Rule 4.11 (Position Limits) to extend the

duration of the SPY Pilot Program.\5\ The SPY Pilot Program is
currently scheduled to expire on July 12, 2017, and this proposal would
extend the SPY Pilot Program through July 12, 2018. There are no
substantive changes being proposed to the SPY Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67937 (September
27, 2012), 77 FR 60489 (October 3, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-091); 70878
(November 14, 2013), 78 FR 69737 (November 20, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-
106); 74149 (January 27, 2015) 80 FR 5606 (February 2, 2015) (SR-
CBOE-2015-008); 75381 (July 7, 2015) 80 FR 40111 (July 13, 2015)
(SR-CBOE-2015-065); and 78131 (June 22, 2016) 81 FR 42011 (June 28,
2016) (SR-CBOE-2016-052).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing to extend the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange
reaffirms its consideration of several factors that supported its
original proposal to establish the SPY Pilot Program, which include:
(1) The liquidity of the option and the underlying security; (2) the
market capitalization of the underlying security and the securities
that make up the S&P 500 Index; (3) options reporting requirements; and
(4) financial requirements imposed by CBOE and the Commission. When the
SPY Pilot Program was most recently renewed in July 2016, CBOE
submitted a report providing an analysis of the SPY Pilot Program
during the period June 2015 through April 2016 (the ``Pilot Report'').
In the July 2016 extension, the Exchange stated that if it were to
submit a proposal to either extend the SPY Pilot Program, adopt the SPY
Pilot Program on a permanent basis, or terminate the SPY Pilot Program,
it would submit another Pilot Report covering the period since the
previous extension.\6\ Accordingly, the Exchange is submitting another
Pilot Report that details CBOE's experience with the SPY Pilot Program.
The Pilot Report now includes the period of May 2016 through April
2017. The Pilot Report is attached as Exhibit 3 [sic]. CBOE notes that
it is unaware of any problems created by the SPY Pilot Program and does
not foresee any as a result of the proposed extension. In extending the
SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange states that if CBOE were to propose
another extension, permanent approval or termination of the SPY Pilot
Program, the Exchange will submit another Pilot Report covering the
period since the previous extension, which will be submitted at least
30 days before the end of the proposed extension. If the SPY Pilot
Program is not extended or adopted on a permanent basis by July 12,
2018, position limits in SPY will revert to their Pre-Pilot levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 81 FR at 42011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the
SPY Pilot Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
permitting market participants, including market makers, institutional
investors and retail investors, to establish greater positions when
pursuing their investment goals and needs. Extending the SPY Pilot
Program will give the Exchange and the Commission additional time to
evaluate the pilot and its effect on the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue as the Exchange expects other SROs will propose similar
extensions.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \10\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \11\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay, noting
that such waiver will allow the Exchange to extend the pilot program
prior to its expiration on July 12, 2017. In addition, the Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because it will allow
for the least amount of market disruption as the pilot will continue as
it currently does maintaining the status quo. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2017-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-050. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2017-050, and should be
submitted on or before July 21, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-13702 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


the safety of the vessel, compliance with laws and regulations, and for
the prevention of marine pollution:
    (a) Experience and training relevant to assigned shipboard duties
(i.e., record of training completed, ship-specific familiarization and
of relevant on-the-job experience acquired); and
    (b) Copies of the mariner's current credentials.

Sec.  15.1109  Watches.

    Each master of a vessel that operates beyond the boundary line, as
described in part 7 of this chapter, must ensure observance of the
principles concerning watchkeeping set out in Regulation VIII/2 of the
STCW Convention and section A-VIII/2 of the STCW Code (both
incorporated by reference, see Sec.  15.103 of this part).

Sec.  15.1111  Work hours and rest periods.

    (a) Every person assigned duty as officer in charge of a
navigational or engineering watch, or duty as ratings forming part of a
navigational or engineering watch, or designated safety, prevention of
pollution, and security duties onboard any vessel that operates beyond
the boundary line, as described in part 7 of this chapter, must
receive:
    (1) A minimum of 10 hours of rest in any 24-hour period; and
    (2) 77 hours in any 7-day period.
    (b) The hours of rest required under paragraph (a) of this section
may be divided into no more than two periods in any 24-hour period, one
of which must be at least 6 hours in length, and the interval between
consecutive periods of rest must not exceed 14 hours.
    (c) The requirements of paragraph (a) and (b) of this section need
not be maintained in the case of an emergency or drill or in other
overriding operational conditions.
    (d) The minimum period of rest required under paragraph (a) of this
section may not be devoted to watchkeeping or other duties.
    (e) Watchkeeping personnel remain subject to the work-hour limits
in 46 U.S.C. 8104 and to the conditions when crewmembers may be
required to work.
    (f) The master must post watch schedules where they are easily
accessible. They must cover each affected member of the crew and must
take into account the rest requirements of this section as well as port
rotations and changes in the vessel's itinerary.
    (g) Records of daily hours of rest for mariners must be maintained
onboard the vessel. These records must be endorsed by the master or a
person authorized by the master and by the mariner. A copy of the
records must be provided to the mariner.
    (h) For every person on call, such as when a machinery space is
unattended, the person must have an adequate compensatory rest period
if the normal period of rest is disturbed by call-outs to work.
    (i) The master of the vessel may suspend the schedule of hours of
rest and require a mariner to perform any hours of work necessary for
the immediate safety of the ship, persons onboard, or cargo, or for the
purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress at
sea. As soon as practicable after the situation has been restored, the
master must ensure that any mariner who has performed work in a
scheduled rest period is provided with an adequate period of rest.
    (j) In exceptional circumstances, the master may authorize
exceptions from the hours of rest required under paragraph (a)(2) of
this section provided that the rest period is not less than 70 hours in
any 7-day period. These exceptions must meet the following additional
requirements:
    (1) Exceptions shall not extend beyond two 24-hour periods in any
7-day period;
    (2) Exceptions shall not extend for more than two consecutive
weeks; and
    (3) The intervals between two periods of exceptions shall not be
less than twice the duration of the exception.

Sec.  15.1113  Security personnel.

    (a) Onboard a seagoing vessel of 200 GRT/500 GT or more, all
persons performing duties as Vessel Security Officer (VSO) must hold a
valid endorsement as VSO.
    (b) After July 1, 2012, all personnel with security duties must
hold a valid endorsement as vessel personnel with designated security
duties, or a certificate of course completion from an appropriate Coast
Guard-accepted course meeting the requirements of 33 CFR 104.220.
    (c) After July 1, 2012, all other vessel personnel, including
contractors, whether part-time, full-time, temporary, or permanent,
must hold a valid endorsement in security awareness, or a certificate
of course completion from an appropriate Coast Guard-accepted course
meeting the requirements of 33 CFR 104.225.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Robert J. Papp, Jr.,
Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
[FR Doc. 2011-17093 Filed 7-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P