[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7535-7536]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3169]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0800; FRL-]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, California
Air Resources Board--Consumer Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2011 and concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from consumer products. We are approving a State rule that regulates
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on March 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0800 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4122<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On October 6, 2011 (76 FR 62004), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Regulation                           Regulation title             Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Code of Regulations, Title 17,      Article 2--Consumer Products...        08/06/10         01/28/11
 Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 8.5--
 Consumer Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received one comment as follows.
    Carla D. Takemoto, California Air Resources Board, letter dated
October 7, 2011 clarified that while amendments to CARB Test Method 310
was included in the January 28, 2011 submittal package to EPA, CARB did
not intend for Method 310 to be acted on as a SIP revision. The amended
test method replaces a previous version of Method 310 that was
separately approved from the SIP process by EPA.
    EPA agrees with CARB's clarification that the August 6, 2010
version of Method 310 replaces the previously approved Method 310. We
also agree that the revised test method can be used to show compliance
with California's Consumer Products rule. EPA plans to approve the
revised test method in a separate action that does not incorporate it
into the SIP.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
this rule into the California SIP.

IV. 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 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report,
which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this action and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 13, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 7, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(406) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (406) New and amended regulations were submitted on January 28,
2011, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by Reference.
    (A) California Air Resources Board.
    (1) Submittal letter from Robert D. Fletcher (California Air
Resources Board) to Jared Blumenfeld (Environmental Protection Agency),
stating the submission does not include the second tier emission limits
for Multi-purpose Solvent and Paint Thinner, dated January 28, 2011.
    (2) Executive Order R-10-013, dated August 6, 2010.
    (3) ``Final Regulation Order, Regulation for Reducing Emissions
from Consumer Products,'' California Code of Regulations, Title 17
(Public Health), Division 3 (Air Resources), Chapter 1 (Air Resources
Board), Subchapter 8.5 (Consumer Products), Article 2 (Consumer
Products), adopted August 6, 2010, effective October 20, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-3169 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7419-7420]
[DOCID:fr17fe09-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

February 9, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-70-003.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.

    Description: Texas Easter Transmission, LP submits Sub Original
Sheet No. 531A to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090205-0325.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-72-003.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Second Sub
Original Sheet No. 549A to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090205-0326.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-342-000.
    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.
    Description: WestGas InterState, Inc submits Second Revised Sheet
No. 65 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, to be
effective 3/6/09.
    Filed Date: 02/04/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090205-0324.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-343-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub Project.
    Description: White River Hub, LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 7 to
Original Volume 1, to be effective 3/1/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0229.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-344-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 67 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/8/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0230.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-345-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Southeast Supply Header, LLC submits First Revised
Sheet 280 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be effective
3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0231.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-346-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Fourth Revised
Sheet 509 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0232.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-347-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet 375A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0233.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-348-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Fifth Revised
Sheet 607 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0234.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-349-000.
    Applicants: Saltsville Gas Storage Company LLC.
    Description: Saltsville Gas Storage Company, LLC submits Third
Revised Sheet 151 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to be
effective 3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0235.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-350-000.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, LLC submits Fifth
Revised Sheet 211 et al. FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, to be
effective 3/11/09.
    Filed Date: 02/05/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090206-0236.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, February 17, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3248 Filed 2-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76395-76397]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0166]

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 26 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective December 17, 2013. The exemptions
expire on December 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>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. 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 at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our 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, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On October 22, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (78 FR 62935). That notice listed 26 applicants' case
histories. The 26 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
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.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 26 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle 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 requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 26
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, macular degeneration, retinal detachment,
prosthetic eye, Harada's disease, central scotoma, and strabismus. In
most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Eighteen
of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood.
    The eight individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 4 to 29 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 valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 26 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven

CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 48 years.
In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and
two were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 22, 2013
notice (78 FR 62935).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement 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. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
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 him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 26 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes and two
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. 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.
    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 veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that 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. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 26 applicants listed in the notice of October
22, 2013 (78 FR 62935).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 26 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
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 (3) 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 have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments are
considered and discussed below.
    Debbie Aten is in favor of granting all of the drivers exemptions.
    Chad Bradford is in favor of granting all of the drivers
exemptions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 26 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Herbert R. Benner (ME), Junior Chavarria (NM), Albert M.
DiVella (NV), Terry D. Elliot (TN), Bernard T. Gillette (PA), James B.
Grega (PA), Steven M. Hoover (IL), Gregory R. Johnson (SC), Lewis J.
Johnson (PA), Carol Kelly (IN), Jeremy W. Knott (NC), Chase L. Larson
(WA), Ronald E. Loper (LA), James M. McCleary (OH), Michael E. Miles
(IL), Jeremy L. Miller (OR), Ronald L. Newlin (IL), Carlos A. Osollo
(NM), Steven J. Scesnewicz (IL), Henry D. Smith (NC), Dennis R.
Stockert (MN), Kolby W. Strickland (WA), Eric Taniguchi (HI), Stephen
G. Vermilya (PA), Cesar Villa (NM), and Dennis E. White (PA) from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements
cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (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 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 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: December 3, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-29978 Filed 12-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P