[Federal Register: April 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 69)]
[Notices]
[Page 18308-18309]
[DOCID:fr11ap06-75]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-281-000]

Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP; Notice of Proposed
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

April 4, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 31, 2006, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company, LP (Panhandle) tendered for filing as

part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the revised
tariff sheets listed in Appendix A attached to the filing to become
effective May 1, 2006.
    Panhandle states that this filing is made in accordance with
section 25.1 (Flow Through of Cash-Out Revenues in Excess of Costs) of
the General Terms and Conditions in Panhandles FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-5295 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 14878]
[DOCID:fr24mr06-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2978-005, 2979-006 and 2980-007]

Traverse City Light and Power Board; Notice Denying Late
Interventions

March 17, 2006.
    On October 25, 2005, Traverse City Light and Power Board (Traverse
City) filed applications to surrender its license for the Brown Bridge
Project No. 2978 and its exemptions from licensing for the Sabin
Project No. 2980 and Boardman Project No. 2979.\1\ The projects are
located on the Boardman River, Traverse City, Grand Traverse County,
Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Traverse City has proposed to surrender the projects, which
would include decommissioning of the generating facilities but would
not include removal of any of the dams. No construction activities
are proposed and existing conditions (i.e., lake levels, etc.) would
remain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 9, 2005, the Commission issued a notice of application
for surrender of license and exemptions, and solicited comments,
protests, and motions to intervene. The notice established December 9,
2005, as the deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene. 70 FR 69754 (2005).
    On February 28, 2006, Boardman River Riparian Property Owners
(Boardman) filed a motion for late intervention in all three projects.
On March 9, 2006, Community Hydro Partners (Community) filed a motion
for late intervention in all three projects. On March 13, 2006,
Traverse City filed an answer in opposition to the motions.
    Boardman states that it missed the intervention deadline of
December 9, 2005, because it was not informed of or aware of its rights
to intervene in the proceeding until the week before filing its motion.
Community states that it missed the deadline because it was not aware
that Traverse City had filed a motion to surrender until February 9,
2006.
    Boardman's statement that it was not aware of its rights to
intervene until a week before filing its motion and Community's
explanation that it did not learn of the project until February 9,
2006, do not constitute good cause. See California Independent System
Operator Corp., 91 FERC ]61,243 at 61,876 (2000) (that movants did not
learn of the intervention deadline in time to submit a timely motion to
intervene does not amount to good cause under 18 CFR 385.214(d)).
    The motions for late intervention in these proceedings filed by
Boardman and Community are denied.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4236 Filed 3-23-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From: Mitchell, Ken
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 5:49 PM
To: 'Karen Hays'
Cc: Pearce, Albert; 'Keith Bentley'; Wilson, Erika; Noonan, Jenny; Godfrey, Janice; Harvey, Reid; Banister, Beverly; Kemker, Carol; Gettle, Jeaneanne; Powell, Keri; Rinck, Todd; Hackel, Angela; Mitchell, Ken
Subject: FW: AJC Vogtle Delay to Cost $740 Million

Karen....

I heard about this on the news myself last week.  I am passing this information on to folks in EPA HQ.  Please be advised that EPA is docketing comments received after the close of the comment period (which closed 12/1/14), but we are not legally required to consider them or respond to them.

Thanks!

___________________________________________________________________
Kenneth L. Mitchell, Ph.D. │Special Assistant to the Director│
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency │61 Forsyth Street, SW │Atlanta, GA  30303
Voice:<PHONE_NUMBER> │Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>│Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Healthier Families, Cleaner Communities, A Stronger America
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the information.  Also, please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error, and delete the copy you received.

From: Hays, Karen<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 7:23 PM
To: Mitchell, Ken
Cc: Bentley, Keith; Pearce, Albert
Subject: AJC Vogtle Delay to Cost $740 Million

Ken,

I wanted to make sure that you (and your colleagues at EPA that are evaluating state comments on the Clean Power Plan (CPP) proposal) saw this article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on delays for the under-construction nuclear plants in Georgia (Vogtle units 3 and 4). The project will be delayed into 2019 for one unit and into 2020 for the other. This delay reinforces our concern about EPA's inclusion of the under-construction nuclear project in Georgia's proposed baseline, as discussed in our September 2014 comments to EPA.

Thanks,
Karen

Karen Hays
Manager, Policy and Radiation Program
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
4244 International Parkway, Suite 120
Atlanta, GA 30354
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mobile:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

Atlanta Journal Constitution
Georgia Power nuclear project faces more delays
By Matt Kempner
January 30, 2015

Contractors on Georgia Power's massive nuclear expansion say the Plant Vogtle project will be delayed another year and a half, a development that might lead to pressure to add hundreds of millions of dollars onto consumer power bills over time.

While the risk of further delays has been warned about by state staff and monitors, Georgia Power on Thursday evening said contractors had informed it of the delay.

The costs to Georgia Power and for additional financing could be $40 million for each month of delay, or an additional $720 million, the company said in a regulatory filing. Costs could be substantially higher after factoring in having to rely longer on more expensive power generation at other plants.

Vogtle is already 21 months behind the original schedule, expected construction costs have risen hundreds of millions of dollars and Georgia Power is locked in a lawsuit with its contractors.

In its latest filing, the company said contractors Westinghouse Electric Company and CB&I / Stone & Webster informed it of further delays. That would push the in-service dates for one of the new reactors from the fourth quarter of 2017 to the second quarter of 2019 and, on the second new reactor, from the fourth quarter of 2018 to the second quarter of 2020.

Georgia Power said it "does not believe that the Contractor's revised forecast reflects all efforts that may be possible to mitigate the Contractor's delay."

Chuck Eaton, the chairman of the state's energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, said, "obviously the delays are a disappointment."

As for added costs, Eaton said, "Georgia Power and their contractors are going to have to sort through that. Most likely there will be big costs presented to us. The Georgia Public Service Commission is going to have to give that an extremely high level of scrutiny. We are going to have to do what is in the best interests of the citizens of Georgia."

The PSC must approve any rate increases for Georgia Power customers.

The commission "is going to have to decide if and how much of those costs were prudently incurred," Eaton said.

The expansion project involves the first new U.S. nuclear power units licensed in three decades. Plant Vogtle is near Augusta.

"Building it correctly, and safely, is more important than building it quickly," Georgia Power spokesman Jacob Hawkins wrote in an email to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Thursday.

He said the project will have long-term benefits for consumers and that other earlier adjustments have reduced the anticipated impact on consumer rates.

Liz Coyle, executive director of Georgia Watch, a consumer advocacy group that has frequently criticized the Vogtle project, said the state's ratepayers "need to be very concerned that these delays could end up costing them money unfairly."

"Consumers have a right to know sooner rather than later how much of these cost overruns related to delays apparently beyond the control of the company should be paid for in people's power bills."

Georgia consumers currently are paying the project's financing costs on their power bills. Regulators approved that advance funding provision as a way to reduce the overall cost of the project over time.

Said Coyle, "It's time for policymakers to tear up the blank check."


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38386-38388]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0104]

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 eight individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). 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 June 27, 2012. The exemptions
expire on June 27, 2014.

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 FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On May 11, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (77 FR 27847). That notice listed eight applicants' case
histories. The eight 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 eight 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 eight 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 loss of vision, amblyopia, retinal detachment, macular
scarring and prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions were not
recently developed. Six of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The individuals
that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a
period of 17 to 25 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 eight 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 4 to 26 years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers were
involved in crashes, and none of the drivers 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 May 11, 2012
notice (77 FR 27847).

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 eight applicants, none of the drivers were involved in crashes and
none of the drivers 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 eight applicants listed in the notice of May
11, 2012 (77 FR 27847).
    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 eight
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 no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the eight exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts Joseph A. Ellis (NY), Matthew G. Epps (FL), Brian R.
Gallagher (TX), Jolene A. Gauger (WI), John F. Lynch (VT), Marcus D.
Perkins (LA), Joe Ramirez (CA), and John C. Smith (IL) 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: June 20, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-15758 Filed 6-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54643-54644]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23707]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0159]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of an Approved
Information Collection Request: Commercial Driver Licensing and Test
Standards

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
and approval. FMCSA requests approval to revise and renew an ICR
titled, ``Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards,'' due to, in
part, a decrease in the number of commercial driver's license records
and the addition of one information collection item: ``Driver
completion of knowledge and skills tests.'' This ICR is needed to
ensure that drivers, motor carriers and the States are complying with
notification and recordkeeping requirements for information related to
testing, licensing, violations, convictions and disqualifications and
that the information is accurate, complete and transmitted and recorded
within certain time periods as required by the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended.

DATES: Please send your comments by November 29, 2018. OMB must receive
your comments by this date in order to act quickly on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2018-0159. 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/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to
[email protected], 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Selden Fritschner, Senior
Transportation Specialist, Office of Safety Programs, Commercial
Driver's License Division (MC-ESL), Department of Transportation,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 6th Floor, West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone: 202-
366-0677; Email Address: [email protected]. Office hours are
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Commercial Driver Licensing and Test Standards.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0011.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Drivers with a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or
commercial driver's license (CDL) and State driver licensing agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 7,364,972 driver respondents and
4,746 State respondents.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies.
    Expiration Date: October 31, 2018.
    Frequency of Response: Varies.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,825,503 hours, which is the total
of four tasks for CDL drivers (2,403,248 hours), added to a total of
eight tasks for State driver licensing agency CDL activities (422,255
hours).
    Information collection tasks and associated burden hours are as
follows:

IC-1.1 Driver Notification of Convictions/Disqualifications to
Employer: 473,577 hours

IC-1.2 Driver Providing Previous Employment History to New Employer:
297,758 hours
IC-1.3 Driver Completion of the CDL Application Form: 40,719 hours
IC-1.4 Driver Completion of Knowledge and Skills Tests: 1,591,194 hours
IC-2.1 State Recording of Medical Examiner's Certificate Information:
80,344 hours
IC-2.2 State Recording of the Self Certification of Commercial Motor
Vehicle (CMV) Operation: 3,018 hours
IC-2.3 State Verification of Medical Certification Status: 3,180 hours
IC-2.4 Annual State Certification of Compliance: 1,632 hours
IC-2.5 State Preparing for and Participating in Annual Program Review:
10,200 hours
IC-2.6 CDLIS/PDPS/State Recordkeeping: 214,548 hours
IC-2.7 Knowledge and Skills Test Recordkeeping: 82,034 hours
IC-2.8 Knowledge and Skills Test Examiner Certification: 27,299 hours
    Background: The licensed drivers in the United States deserve
reasonable assurance that their fellow motorists are properly qualified
to drive the vehicles they operate. Before the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA or the Act) Public Law 99-570, Title XII, 100
Stat. 3207, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313) was signed by the
President on October 27, 1986, 18 States and the District of Columbia
authorized any person licensed to drive an automobile to also legally
drive a large truck or bus. No special training or special license was
required to drive these vehicles, even though it was widely recognized
that operation of certain types of vehicles called for special skills,
knowledge and training. Even in the 32 States that had a classified
driver licensing system in place, only 12 of these States required an
applicant to take a skills test in a representative vehicle. Equally
serious was the problem of drivers possessing multiple driver licenses.
By spreading their convictions among several States, CMV drivers could
avoid punishment for their infringements, and stay behind the wheel.
    For a detailed history of regulatory developments in 49 CFR parts
383 and 384 to implement the mandates in the CMVSA, see the supporting
statement in the docket for this matter.''
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: October
24, 2018
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2018-23707 Filed 10-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P