[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 217 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71295-71296]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24776]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2008-0784; FRL-10011-77-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; PSD and Nonattainment NSR Rule
Clarifications

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP),
submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on
September 30, 2008. The revision updates the definition of
``Replacement Unit'' and clarifies a component of the emission
calculation used to determine emissions under a plantwide applicability
limitation (PAL) in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. Approving this
revision makes Wisconsin rules consistent with Federal rules.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2008-0784 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Cloyd, Air Permits Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Review of Wisconsin's Submittal

    This action proposes to approve the request EPA received on
September 30, 2008 from WDNR to incorporate changes made by EPA to 40
CFR parts 51 and 52, effective on January 6, 2004 (68 FR 63021). As a
result of petitions for reconsideration, EPA added two clarifications
of underlying rules. EPA updated the definition of ``Replacement Unit''
to clarify that a replacement unit is reconstructed or takes the place
completely of the unit being replaced, the replacement unit is
functionally identical to the old unit, a replacement unit cannot
change the design parameters of the existing process, and the replaced
unit has to be permanently removed or rendered permanently unusable. In
addition, EPA clarified that the PAL baseline calculation procedures
for newly constructed units do not apply to modified units. Modified or
existing units are not considered newly constructed units and therefore
do not need to be added to the PAL level for the 24-month emissions
period.

    Wisconsin's submittal includes revisions to its SIP to incorporate
these changes. Wisconsin's rules are consistent with the January 6,
2004 definition of ``Replacement Unit'' and clarification of
calculations for PAL (November 7, 2003, 68 FR 63021).

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve updates and revisions to Wisconsin's
air quality SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve updates to
the definition of ``Replacement Unit'' under NR 405.02(12)(b),
NR405.02(25k), and NR 408.02(29s), and is approving a revision to a
component of the emission calculation used to determine emissions under
a PAL under NR 405.18(6)(e) and NR 408.11(6)(e).

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Wisconsin Administrative Code provisions NR 405.02(12)(b),
405.18(6)(e), NR 405.02(25k), NR 408.02(29s) and NR 408.11(6)(e), as
published in the Wisconsin Register, July, 2008, No. 631 and state
effective August 1, 2008. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: November 3, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-24776 Filed 11-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2289-2291]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0023]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 25 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on October 19, 2017. The
exemptions expire on October 19, 2019.

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 from 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. 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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

    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.

II. Background

    On September 18, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from 25 individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (82 FR 43647). The public comment period ended on October 18,
2017, and three comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these 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)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. Mr. Cory Manthei
commented however his comments are out of scope for this office. Mr.
Ryan Pitre commented that FMCSA should revisit the vision
qualifications and stated that these are new regulations. In July 1992,
the Agency first published the criteria for the Vision Waiver Program,
and are therefore not new regulations. Mr. Brian Weaver commented that
he believes that if a driver is able to back a trailer in a safe manner
then those drivers are okay to obtain a vision exemption. FMCSA has
established program criteria drivers must meet in order to obtain a
Federal vision exemption, functional testing is not one of them.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows applicants to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the September 18, 2017, Federal
Register notice (82 FR 43647) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 25
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, cataract, chorioretinal scar,
complete loss of vision, fibrotic scarring, macular coloboma, phthisis
bulbi, prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, retinal neovascularization,
and retinal scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. Nineteen of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The six
individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
it for a range of four to 45 years. Although each applicant has one eye
which does not meet the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
each has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and in a
doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks
necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV, with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though
their vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for five to 56 years. In the past three
years, one driver was involved in a crash, and two drivers were
convicted of moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified Medical Examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) each driver
must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to
the Medical Examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and
(3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification
to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or
keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this

exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 25 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Paul A. Bartels (WI)
Harold J. Bartley, Jr. (KY)
Charles C. Berns (IA)
Eric L. Boyle, Jr. (MD)
Jeremiah E. Casey (MO)
Leonard M. Cassieri (CA)
Randy J. Conrad (IA)
Jimmie E. Curtis (NM)
Daniel E. Delano (VA)
Jonathan P. Edwards (PA)
James A. Green (IL)
Richard Healy (MD)
Tommy G. Hillis (TX)
Richard A. Honstad (MN)
Stephen M. Lovell (TX)
Thomas P. Maio (ME)
Carlos Marquez (WI)
Jason L. McBride (MI)
Dennis M. Olson (WI)
Kameron W. Quinalty (AR)
Daniel C. Sagert (WI)
Robert D. Steele (WA)
Richard C. Strassburg (NY)
Jeremy E. Studebaker (IN)
Daniel D. Woodworth (LA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for two years from the effective date 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 exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: January 5, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-00599 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P