[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24303-24304]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09688]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0013]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 25 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 24, 2013. The exemptions
expire on April 24, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room
W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

Background

    On March 5, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 25 individuals and requested
comments from the public (78 FR 14406). The public comment period
closed on April 4, 2013, and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 25 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal
Register notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
Federal Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 25 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 29 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the March 5, 2013, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment is
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is in favor of
granting an exemption to Scott A. Carlson after reviewing his driving
history.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's

qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 25 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Christopher R. Anderson (MN), Brent T. Applebury (MO), Joseph
A. Auchterlonie (NH), Brett D. Bertagnolli (IN), Brian T. Bofenkamp
(WA), Scott A. Carlson (PA), Craig L. Falck (WI), John Fityere (NJ),
Dana R. Griswold (VT), Ronald A. Heaps (OH), Martin A. Houts (IA),
Michael T. Kraft (MN), Kris W. Lindsay (KS), Edward M. Lucynski (NJ),
Wendell J. Matthews (MO), Patric L. Patten (NH), Darryl G. Rockwell
(TX), John E. Ruth (IL), Greggory A. Smith (MO), Dwight E. Sory (CO),
James M. Torklidson (WI), Terry R. Washa (NE), Alfred J. Williams (VA),
Scott B. Wood (ND), and James L. Zore (IN) from the ITDM requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under
``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply
with the terms and conditions of the 1/exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: April 12, 2013.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09688 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 210)]
[Notices]
[Page 56612-56614]
[DOCID:fr02no09-44]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8975-9]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA or ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of
a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Association of
Irritated Residents (``Plaintiff'') in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California: Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA, No. 09-cv-1890-CW (N.D. Cal.). On or about April 30,
2009, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that EPA failed to perform a
non-discretionary duty to take action under section 110(k) of the Act
on a revision to the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the
State of California. Specifically, the complaint alleges that EPA
failed to take action on two rules amended by the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (``District'') on September 21,
2006 and included in a SIP revision submitted to EPA by the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) on December 29, 2006: Rule 2020
(``Exemptions'') and Rule 2020 (``New and Modified Stationary Source
Review Rule''). The subject rule amendments relate to permitting of
agricultural sources. In the SIP revision dated December 29, 2006, CARB
submitted amended District Rule 2020 in its entirety but only Paragraph
4.6.9 of District Rule 2020. Under the terms of the proposed consent
decree, a deadline has been established for EPA to take action on the
amended District rules as submitted on December 29, 2006. If EPA
fulfills its obligations, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss this suit
with prejudice.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by December 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0831, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred

method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jefferson Wehling, Office of Regional
Counsel (ORC-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking action
by EPA under section 110(k) of the CAA on two rules amended by the
District on September 21, 2006 and included in a SIP revision submitted
by CARB on December 29, 2006: Rule 2020 (``Exemptions'') and Paragraph
4.6.9 of Rule 2020 (``New and Modified Stationary Source Review
Rule''). The subject rule amendments relate to permitting of
agricultural sources. The District has adopted further amendments to
Rules 2020 and 2201, and CARB has submitted the further amended rules,
which carry forward the specific amendments to the rules submitted on
December 29, 2006, to EPA as SIP revisions. The further amended
District Rule 2020 was submitted on March 7, 2008, and the further
amended District Rule 2201 was submitted on March 17, 2009.
    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA will sign for
publication in the Federal Register notice of the Agency's final action
pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on Rule 2020 (``Exemptions'') and
Paragraph 4.6.9 of Rule 2020 (``New and Modified Stationary Source
Review Rule''), submitted to EPA for review on December 29, 2006, by
March 15, 2010. However, the proposed consent decree provides that EPA
final action on the more recent amendments to District Rules 2020 and
2201 shall discharge EPA's obligations to act on the subject rules as
submitted on December 29, 2006.
    In the proposed consent decree, EPA agrees that, pursuant to CAA
section 304(d), 42 U.S.C. 7604(d), Plaintiff is both eligible and
entitled to recover its costs of litigation in this action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred prior to entry of the consent
decree. The consent decree becomes an order of the Court upon entry,
and, consistent with the terms of the consent decree, the case shall be
dismissed with prejudice after EPA takes final action on the amended
rules.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties
to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the
comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice
determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent
to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0831) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents
in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you

provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic
public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-
mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made
available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: October 26, 2009.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-26338 Filed 10-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P