[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 8374-8375]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-144]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2008-0008]

Design of Cave-in Protection Systems; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits comments concerning its request for an extension
of the information collection requirements contained in 29 CFR
1926.652, Requirements for Protective Systems.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2008-
0008, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2008-0008). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Michael Buchet
at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Buchet, Directorate of
Construction, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3468, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C.
651, et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as
necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Sec.  1926.652 (``Requirements for
Protective Systems''; the ``Standard'') contain paperwork requirements
that impose burden hours or costs on employers. These paragraphs
require employers to use protective systems to prevent cave-ins during
excavation work; these systems include sloping the side of the trench,
benching the soil away from the excavation, or using a support system
or shield (such as a trench box). The Standard specifies allowable
configuration and slopes for excavations, and provides appendices to
assist employers in designing protective systems. However, paragraphs
(b)(3) and (b)(4) of the Standard permit employers to design sloping or
benching systems based on tabulated data (Option 1), or to use a design
approved by a registered professional engineer (Option 2).
    Under Option 1, employers must provide the tabulated data in a
written form that also identifies the registered professional engineer
who approved the data and the parameters used to select the sloping or
benching system drawn from the data, as well as the limitations of the
data (including the magnitude and configuration of slopes determined to
be safe); the document must also provide any explanatory information
necessary to select the correct benching system based on the data.
Option 2

requires employers to develop a written design approved by a registered
professional engineer. The design information must include the
magnitude and configuration of the slopes determined to be safe, and
the identity of the registered professional engineer who approved the
design.
    Paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) allow employers to design
support systems, shield systems, and other protective systems based on
tabulated data provided by a system manufacturer (Option 3) or obtained
from other sources and approved by a registered professional engineer
(Option 4); they can also use a design approved by a registered
professional engineer (Option 5). If they select Option 3, employers
must complete a written form that provides the manufacturer's
specifications, recommendations, and limitations, as well as any
deviations approved by the manufacturer. The paperwork requirements of
Option 4 are the same as for Option 1. Option 5 requires a written form
that provides a plan indicting the sizes, types, and configurations of
the materials used in the protective system and the identity of the
registered professional engineer who approved the design.
    Each of these provisions requires employers to maintain a copy of
the documents described in these options at the jobsite during
construction. After construction is complete, employers may store the
documents off-site provided they make them available to an OSHA
compliance officer on request. These documents provide both the
employer and the compliance officer with information needed to
determine if the selection and design of a protective system are
appropriate to the excavation work, thereby assuring employees of
maximum protection against cave-ins.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the
information collection requirements contained in 29 CFR 1926.652,
Requirements for Protective Systems. The Agency will summarize the
comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this
summary in the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard.
    Type of Review: Extension of currently approved information
collection requirements.
    Title: Design of Cave-in Protection System.
    OMB Number: 1218-0137.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 20,000.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 20,000.
    Average Time per Response: Two hours to obtain information on the
design of cave-in protection systems.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 20,022 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $815,400.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2008-0008). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit

comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506, et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR
31159).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 7, 2008.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E8-2624 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38568-38570]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0410]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bullhead City Regatta, Bullhead City, AZ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Colorado River in Bullhead City, Arizona for
the Bullhead City Regatta on August 13, 2011. This temporary safety
zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew,
spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of the
waterway. Persons and vessels would be prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective August 13, 2011, from 6 a.m. through 6
p.m.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0410 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0410 the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the 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, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Petty Officer Shane Jackson, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because publishing a NPRM would be
impracticable since immediate action is needed to provide for the
safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and
other vessels and users of the waterway during the Regatta event.

Basis and Purpose

    The City of Bullhead is sponsoring the Bullhead City Regatta, which
is held on the navigable waters of the Colorado River in Bullhead City,
Arizona. The temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the
safety of the participants, crew, spectators, sponsor vessels, and
other vessels and users of the waterway. This event involves people
floating down the river on inflatable rafts, inner tubes and floating
platforms. The size of vessels used would vary in length from 3 feet to
100 feet. Approximately 15,000 to 20,000 people would be participating
in this event. The sponsor would provide 37 patrol and rescue boats to
help facilitate the event and ensure public safety.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone that would
be enforced from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 13, 2011. This safety zone
is necessary to provide for the safety of the crews, spectators,
participants, and other vessels and users of the waterway. Persons and
vessels would be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain

of the Port, or his designated representative. The temporary safety
zone would include the waters of the Colorado River between Davis Camp
to Rotary Park in Bullhead City, Arizona. Before the effective period,
the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This determination is based on the size and location of the safety
zone. Vessels will not be allowed to transit through the established
safety zone during the specified times unless authorized to do so by
the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of the waters of the
Colorado River between Davis Camp to Rotary Park in Bullhead City,
Arizona from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. on August 13, 2011.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons.
Although the safety zone would apply to the entire width of the river,
traffic would be allowed to pass through the zone with the permission
of the Coast Guard patrol commander. Before the effective period, the
Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM).
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Petty Officer Shane Jackson,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, Coast Guard at
(619) 278-7267. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule would call for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result
in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling

procedures; and related management systems practices) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves establishing a
safety zone and is categorically excluded under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-425 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-425  Safety zone; Bullhead City Regatta, Bullhead City,
AZ.

    (a) Location. This temporary safety zone includes the waters of the
Colorado River between Davis Camp to Rotary Park in Bullhead City,
Arizona.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section is in effect from 7 a.m. to 3
p.m. on August 13, 2011. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard
will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNM). If the event concludes
prior to the scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will
cease enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary,
and local, state, and Federal law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated representative.
    (2) Mariners can request permission to transit through the safety
zone from the Patrol Commander. The Patrol Commander can be contacted
on VHF-FM channels 16 and 23.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: June 7, 2011.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2011-16539 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66097-66098]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26339]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Safety Awareness,
Feedback, and Evaluation (SAFE) Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following collection of information was published on
April 12, 2013, vol. 78, no. 71, pages 22020-22021. The information
collected will be used by FAA Flight Standards Service to improve the
quality and delivery of the services and products provided to their
stakeholders.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 4, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX
    Title: Safety Awareness, Feedback, and Evaluation (SAFE) Program
    Form Numbers: No FAA forms are associated with this collection.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: Executive Order 12862 requires the Federal Government
to provide the ``highest quality service possible to the American
people.'' The FAA Flight Standards Service has designed the Safety
Awareness, Feedback, and Evaluation (SAFE) Program to measure the
aviation community stakeholder perception of effectiveness with various
FAA-mandated and regulatory programs.
    Respondents: A total sample of 4,782 commercial and non-commercial
pilots, repair station operators, maintenance technicians, and air
carrier operations managers.
    Frequency: Information will be collected once annually per
individual stakeholder group.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 531 hours.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 30, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-26339 Filed 11-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19141-19143]
[FR Doc No: E9-9640]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0179]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; St. Thomas Harbor, Charlotte Amalie, U.S.V.I.

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of St. Thomas Harbor in support of the Virgin Islands
Carnival Finale fireworks display. This temporary safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of spectators, participating
vessels and their crews, and other vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP) San Juan or the designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 p.m. on May 2, 2009, through 10:30
p.m. on May 2, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0179 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0179
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
two locations: The 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Mr. John Reyes, Marine Information
Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard, Prevention Department telephone 787-729-
5381, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because information regarding the event was
not provided with sufficient time to publish an NPRM. Publishing an
NPRM and delaying its effective date would be contrary to the public
interest since immediate action is needed to minimize potential danger
to the public during the fireworks display.
    For the same reasons above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard
will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of the
restriction and provide on scene notification.

Background and Purpose

    This rule is required to provide for the safety of life in St.
Thomas Harbor because fireworks will be launched from a vessel within
the harbor. These fireworks could potentially pose a safety hazard to
the small craft operators that

frequent the area. To prevent injury or loss of life or property, a
safety zone is required to maintain a safe distance between the
fireworks vessel and any spectators or other users of the waterway.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone around the fireworks
vessel at a radius determined by the National Fire Protection Agency
(NFPA) Standards. The safety zone includes all waters within a 280 yard
radius of the fireworks vessel. The fireworks vessel will be anchored
in position 18[deg]20'15'' N, 064[deg]55'41'' W in the vicinity of
Kings Wharf Bay inside St. Thomas Harbor. All non-participating persons
and vessels are prohibited from entering the safety zone without
permission from the COTP San Juan or the designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is not necessary. This rule will only affect
those vessels that would attempt to transit or anchor in that portion
of St. Thomas Harbor between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10:30 p.m. Vessel
traffic will still be able to flow in and out of Kings Wharf Bay around
the limit of the safety zone.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor in a portion of St. Thomas Harbor from 7 p.m. to
10:30 p.m. on May 2, 2009. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. This rule will be in effect for only 3\1/2\ hours at
night when vessel traffic is low. Vessel traffic can pass safely around
the safety zone. Before the effective periods, we will issue maritime
advisories widely available to users of the harbor.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing
a temporary safety zone and is considered a regulation ``establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas and security or
safety zones'' as stated in Paragraph (34(g).
    A final ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' and a final
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and
160.5; Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation no. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0179 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0179  Safety Zone; St. Thomas Harbor, Charlotte Amalie,
U.S.V.I.

    (a) Regulated Area. The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary
safety zone on the navigable waters of St. Thomas Harbor for a
fireworks display within the harbor. The safety zone is circular in
shape and extends in a 280 yard radius from the launch vessel which
will be anchored in position 18[deg]20'15'' N, 064[deg]55'41'' W in the
vicinity of Kings Wharf Bay.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
Designated Representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders including
Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers operating
Coast Guard vessels and Federal, State, and local officers designated
by or assisting the COTP San Juan in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entering, anchoring, mooring or transiting
in the Regulated Area is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Coast Guard COTP San Juan or a designated representative. The Coast
Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners to advise mariners of
the restriction and provide on scene notification.
    (d) Effective Date. This rule is effective from 7 p.m. on May 2,
2009, through 10:30 p.m. on May 2, 2009.

    Dated: April 6, 2009.
J.M. Nunan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Juan.
[FR Doc. E9-9640 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17542-17545]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0216]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant requests from 6
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that
interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have ``no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' The regulation and the associated advisory
criteria published in the Code of Federal Regulations as the
``Instructions for Performing and Recording Physical Examinations''
have resulted in numerous drivers being prohibited from operating CMVs
in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified medical
examiner. The Agency concluded that granting exemptions for these CMV
drivers will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions. FMCSA
grants exemptions that will allow these 6 individuals to operate CMVs
in interstate commerce for a 2-year period. The exemptions preempt
State laws and regulations and may be renewed.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 1, 2015. The exemptions
expire on April 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

B. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the safety regulations for a 2-year period if it finds ``such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 2-year period.
    FMCSA grants 6 individuals an exemption from the regulatory
requirement inSec.  391.41(b)(8), to allow these individuals who take
anti-seizure

medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce for a 2-year period.
The Agency's decision on these exemption applications is based on an
individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information,
including the root cause of the respective seizure(s), the length of
time elapsed since the individual's last seizure, and each individual's
treatment regimen. In addition, the Agency reviewed each applicant's
driving record found in the Commercial Driver's License Information
System (CDLIS) \1\ for commercial driver's license (CDL) holders, and
interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS).\2\ For non-CDL holders, the
Agency reviewed the driving records from the State licensing agency.
The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers covered by the exemptions granted here have
demonstrated that they are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical
condition does not pose a risk to public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) is an
information system that allows the exchange of commercial driver
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
    \2\ Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) is an
information system that captures data from field offices through
SAFETYNET, CAPRI, and other sources. It is a source for FMCSA
inspection, crash, compliance review, safety audit, and registration
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, the
Agency considered both current medical literature and information and
the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (MEP).
The Agency previously gathered evidence for potential changes to the
regulation at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) by conducting a comprehensive review
of scientific literature that was compiled into the ``Evidence Report
on Seizure Disorders and Commercial Vehicle Driving'' (Evidence Report)
[CD-ROM HD TL230.3 .E95 2007]. The Agency then convened a panel of
medical experts in the field of neurology (the MEP) on May 14-15, 2007,
to review 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and the advisory criteria regarding
individuals who have experienced a seizure, and the 2007 Evidence
Report. The Evidence Report and the MEP recommendations are published
on-line at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/mep/mep-reports.htm, under Seizure Disorders, and are in the docket for this
notice.

MEP Criteria for Evaluation

    On October 15, 2007, the MEP issued the following recommended
criteria for evaluating whether an individual with epilepsy or a
seizure disorder should be allowed to operate a CMV.\3\ The MEP
recommendations are included in previously published dockets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Engel, J., Fisher, R.S., Krauss, G.L., Krumholz, A., and
Quigg, M.S., ``Expert Panel Recommendations: Seizure Disorders and
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety,'' FMCSA, October 15, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Epilepsy diagnosis. If there is an epilepsy diagnosis, the
applicant should be seizure-free for 8 years, on or off medication. If
the individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with an epilepsy diagnosis should be
performed every year.
    Single unprovoked seizure. If there is a single unprovoked seizure
(i.e., there is no known trigger for the seizure), the individual
should be seizure-free for 4 years, on or off medication. If the
individual is taking anti-seizure medication(s), the plan for
medication should be stable for 2 years. Stable means no changes in
medication, dosage, or frequency of medication administration.
Recertification for drivers with a single unprovoked seizure should be
performed every 2 years.
    Single provoked seizure. If there is a single provoked seizure
(i.e., there is a known reason for the seizure), the Agency should
consider specific criteria that fall into the following two categories:
low-risk factors for recurrence and moderate-to-high risk factors for
recurrence.
     Examples of low-risk factors for recurrence include
seizures that were caused by a medication; by non-penetrating head
injury with loss of consciousness less than or equal to 30 minutes; by
a brief loss of consciousness not likely to recur while driving; by
metabolic derangement not likely to recur; and by alcohol or illicit
drug withdrawal.
     Examples of moderate-to-high-risk factors for recurrence
include seizures caused by non-penetrating head injury with loss of
consciousness or amnesia greater than 30 minutes, or penetrating head
injury; intracerebral hemorrhage associated with a stroke or trauma;
infections; intracranial hemorrhage; post-operative complications from
brain surgery with significant brain hemorrhage; brain tumor; or
stroke.
    The MEP report indicates individuals with moderate to high-risk
conditions should not be certified. Drivers with a history of a single
provoked seizure with low risk factors for recurrence should be
recertified every year.

Medical Review Board Recommendations and Agency Decision

    FMCSA presented the MEP's findings and the Evidence Report to the
Medical Review Board (MRB) for consideration. The MRB reviewed and
considered the 2007 ``Seizure Disorders and Commercial Driver Safety''
evidence report and the 2007 MEP recommendations. The MRB recommended
maintaining the current advisory criteria, which provide that ``drivers
with a history of epilepsy/seizures off anti-seizure medication and
seizure-free for 10 years may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked
seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if
seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5 year period or
more'' [Advisory criteria to 49 CFR 391.43(f)].
    The Agency acknowledges the MRB's position on the issue but
believes relevant current medical evidence supports a less conservative
approach. The medical advisory criteria for epilepsy and other seizure
or loss of consciousness episodes was based on the 1988 ``Conference on
Neurological Disorders and Commercial Drivers'' (NITS Accession No.
PB89-158950/AS). A copy of the report can be found in the docket
referenced in this notice.
    The MRB's recommendation treats all drivers who have experienced a
seizure the same, regardless of individual medical conditions and
circumstances. In addition, the recommendation to continue prohibiting
drivers who are taking anti-seizure medication from operating a CMV in
interstate commerce does not consider a driver's actual seizure history
and time since the last seizure. The Agency has decided to use the 2007
MEP recommendations as the basis for evaluating applications for an
exemption from the seizure regulation on an individual, case-by-case
basis.

C. Exemptions

    Following individualized assessments of the exemption applications,
including a review of detailed follow-up information requested from
each applicant, FMCSA is granting exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8)
to 6 individuals. Under current FMCSA regulations, all of the 6 drivers
receiving

exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) would have been considered
physically qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce except that
they presently take or have recently stopped taking anti-seizure
medication. For these 6 drivers, the primary obstacle to medical
qualification was the FMCSA Advisory Criteria for Medical Examiners,
based on the 1988 ``Conference on Neurological Disorders and Commercial
Drivers,'' stating that a driver should be off anti-seizure medication
in order to drive in interstate commerce. In fact, the Advisory
Criteria have little if anything to do with the actual risk of a
seizure and more to do with assumptions about individuals who are
taking anti-seizure medication.
    In addition to evaluating the medical status of each applicant,
FMCSA evaluated the crash and violation data for the 6 drivers, some of
whom currently drive a CMV in intrastate commerce. The CDLIS and MCMIS
were searched for crash and violation data on the 6 applicants. For
non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State
licensing agency.
    These exemptions are contingent on the driver maintaining a stable
treatment regimen and remaining seizure-free during the 2-year
exemption period. The exempted drivers must submit annual reports from
their treating physicians attesting to the stability of treatment and
that the driver has remained seizure-free. The driver must undergo an
annual medical examination by a medical examiner, as defined by 49 CFR
390.5, following the FCMSA's regulations for the physical
qualifications for CMV drivers.
    FMCSA published a notice of receipt of application and requested
public comment during a 30-day public comment period in a Federal
Register notice for each of the applicants. A short summary of the
applicants' qualifications and a discussion of the comments received,
if any, follows this section. For applicants who were denied an
exemption, a notice will be published at a later date.

D. Comments

Docket # FMCSA-2014-0216

    On October 1, 2014, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications and requested public comment on seven
individuals (79 FR 59345; Docket number FMCSA-2014-23439). The comment
period ended on October 31, 2014. No commenters responded to this
Federal Register notice. Of the seven applicants, one was denied. The
Agency has determined that the following six applicants should be
granted an exemption.

Ronald J. Bland

    Mr. Bland is a 51 year-old class A CDL holder in Ohio. He has a
history of three possible seizures due to head trauma in 2003. He has
taken anti-seizure medication since 2004 with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same since 2009. If granted an exemption, he would like
to drive a CMV. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Bland
receiving an exemption.

Joseph M. Celedonia

    Mr. Celedonia is a 44 year-old driver in Maryland. He has a history
of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since 2007. If granted an exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states he is supportive of Mr. Celedonia receiving an
exemption.

Mathew J. Chizek

    Mr. Chizek is a 35 year-old driver in Wisconsin. He has a history
of seizures and has remained seizure free since 2004. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same
since 2008. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a CMV. His
physician states he is supportive of Mr. Chizek receiving an exemption.

Gregory B. Hardy

    Mr. Hardy is a 54 year-old class B CDL holder in Massachusetts. He
has a history of seizure and has remained seizure free since 1985. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since 2011. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Hardy receiving
an exemption.

Thomas K. Mitchell

    Mr. Mitchell is a 54 year-old class A CDL holder in Mississippi. He
has a history of seizures and has remained seizure free since 1999. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since that time. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a CMV. His physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Mitchell
receiving an exemption.

Himat S. Sandhu

    Mr. Sandhu is a 52 year-old driver in California. He has a history
of a possible seizure after a surgical resection of an arteriovenous
malformation. He does not require anti-seizure medication. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Sandhu receiving an
exemption.

E. Basis for Exemption

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy/seizure standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption,
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, the
Agency's analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of
safety is likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to
drive in interstate commerce as opposed to restricting the driver to
driving in intrastate commerce.

Conclusion

    The Agency is granting exemptions from the epilepsy standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(8), to 6 individuals based on a thorough evaluation of
each driver's safety experience, and medical condition. Safety analysis
of information relating to these 6 applicants meets the burden of
showing that granting the exemptions would achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
without the exemption. By granting the exemptions, the interstate CMV
industry will gain 6 highly trained and experienced drivers. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be valid for
2 years, with annual recertification required 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.
    FMCSA exempts the following 6 drivers for a period of 2 years with
annual medical certification required: Ronald Bland (OH); Joseph
Celedonia (MD); Mathew Chizek (WI); Gregory Hardy (MA); Thomas Mitchell
(MS); and Himat Sandhu (CA) from the prohibition of CMV operations by
persons with a clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or seizures. If the
exemption is still in effect 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: March 19, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07351 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11407-11408]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05045]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0953; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-15]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Massena, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E surface airspace and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Massena,
NY, as the Massena collocated VHF omnidirectional range tactical air
navigation system (VORTAC) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace
reconfiguration at Massena International-Richards Field Airport.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action
also updates the geographic coordinates of this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, May 24, 2018. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at Massena International-Richards Field
Airport., Massena, NY, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register for Docket No. FAA-2017-0953 (82 FR 57888, December 8, 2017),
proposing to amend Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface at Massena
International-Richards Field Airport., Massena, NY.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this

document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace
areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E surface airspace and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Massena
International-Richards Field Airport, Massena, NY. The segment within
1.8 miles each side of the Massena VORTAC 286[deg] radial extending
from the 4-mile radius to the VORTAC is removed in Class E surface
airspace; and the segment within 2.7 miles each side of the Massena
VORTAC 106[deg] radial extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 7 miles
east of the VORTAC is removed in Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface, due to the decommissioning of the Massena
VORTAC, and cancelation of associated approaches. This action enhances
the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979) and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA NY E2 Massena, NY [Amended]

Massena International-Richards Field Airport, NY
    (Lat. 44[deg]56'11'' N, long. 74[deg]50'42'' W)

    Within a 4-mile radius of the Massena International-Richards
Field Airport, excluding the airspace within Canada.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA NY E5 Massena, NY [Amended]

Massena International-Richards Field Airport, NY
    (Lat. 44[deg]56'11'' N, long. 74[deg]50'42'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Massena International-Richards Field
Airport, excluding the airspace within Canada.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 6, 2018.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-05045 Filed 3-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P