	        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

	 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

	         OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

	               WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matters of

Blanket Route Integration Authority and Blanket Open-Skies Certificate
Authority

Dockets DOT-OST-2005-22228

            DOT-OST-2007-0084

Served: November 28, 2007

NOTICE

Summary

By this Notice we invite U.S. air carriers holding authority to conduct
foreign scheduled air transportation and interested in obtaining blanket
route integration authority and/or blanket open-skies certificate
authority to notify the Department, as specified below, within fourteen
(14) days of the service date of this Notice.

Background

The Department continues to implement the regulatory streamlining
initiative, announced in an August 2005 notice (Docket
DOT-OST-2005-22228).  Under the streamlining initiative, the Department
previously invited carriers to seek, and in response issued, blanket
route integration certificates and blanket open-skies certificates to
qualifying U.S. air carriers.

By Order 2006-1-1, we issued a five-year blanket route integration
certificate to each U.S. air carrier that requested the blanket route
integration authority in response to the August 2005 notice.  The
certificate permits the carrier to integrate all of its route authority,
both currently held and prospective (subject to applicable bilateral
agreement provisions and certain standard conditions).   These
certificates enable those U.S. carriers to enjoy greatly enhanced
routing flexibility without the need to seek route integration authority
as part of future exemption or certificate applications.

Subsequently, a number of other U.S. air carriers have requested blanket
route integration authority and still others have requested route
integration on a case-by-case basis.  Accordingly, since we are
processing those applications, we are inviting other interested U.S. air
carriers that do not currently hold a blanket route integration
certificate to request one in this docket.  The certificate would be
subject to our standard certificate conditions, as well as the standard
conditions we impose on awards of route integration authority.

Under the streamlining initiative, we also awarded certificated U.S. air
carriers blanket open-skies certificates to serve all existing and
prospective U.S. open-skies partners.  The certificate authority was
granted on a prospective basis to allow U.S. air carriers to serve any
future open-skies partner once an agreement between the United States
and that partner is being applied by the two governments, without the
need for further action by the carrier or the Department.

We are prepared to entertain requests for the blanket open-skies
certificates from additional U.S. carriers currently authorized to
conduct foreign scheduled air transportation.  The decision to grant a
carrier blanket open-skies certificate authority will be done on a
case-by-case basis.

Applications

In the interest of administrative efficiency, we would like to ensure
that we receive and can proceed to process additional requests for
blanket route integration authority and/or blanket open-skies
certificate authority from interested U.S. air carriers, as specified
below.

Blanket Route Integration Authority:

We request that any U.S. air carrier interested in obtaining a blanket
route integration certificate notify the Department no later than
December 12, 2007 by letter  submitted  to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C., 20590, in
Docket

DOT-OST-2005-22228.

Blanket Open-Skies Certificate:

U.S. air carriers who now wish to apply for blanket open-skies
certificate authority, to conduct either all-cargo or combination
services, should file applications with the Department in Docket
DOT-OST-2007-0084, no later than December 12, 2007.   Answers to the
applications should be filed no later than January 2, 2008.  Replies to
answers should be filed no later than January 16, 2008.  Applications
should conform to Part 302, Subpart B, of our regulations

(14 CFR Part 302).

We will serve this Notice on certificated U.S. air carriers, the U.S.
Department of State (Office of Aviation Negotiations), and the Federal
Aviation Administration, and hereby authorize service of documents by
facsimile and by electronic mail.

By:

				PAUL L. GRETCH

				Director, Office of International Aviation

 (SEAL)

Dated:

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov

 See Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228.

 Alaska Airlines, Inc. (Docket DOT-OST-2007-27790), Cargo 360, Inc.
(Docket DOT-OST-2006-26419), Custom Air Transport, Inc. (Docket
DOT-OST-2007-27790), and Southern Air, Inc. (Docket DOT-OST-2006-25478)
have already filed applications requesting blanket route integration
authority.  These carriers need not respond to this Notice.

 See Order 2006-1-1.

 We specifically invited applications for such certificates in a notice
that we issued on April 3, 2007, in Docket DOT-OST-2007-27790 and
requested that applications be submitted by April 23, 2007.

 See Order 2007-4-2 (Docket DOT-OST-2000-8516), Order 2007-4-19 (Dockets
DOT-OST-2006-25917 and DOT-OST-2006-26037), Order 2007-4-20 (Docket
DOT-OST-2005-22578), Order 2007-4-27 (Dockets

DOT-OST-99-6246 and DOT-OST-2007-27790), Order 2007-7-3 (Docket
DOT-OST-2007-27790),

Order 2007-7-4 (Dockets DOT-OST-2004-19189, DOT-OST-2004-19398,
DOT-OST-2005-22552,

DOT-OST-2006-25478, DOT-OST-2006-26419, and DOT-OST-2007-27790).

 The Department’s Office of International Aviation maintains a list of
currently applied open-skies aviation agreements between the United
States and its open-skies partners.  The Department will update the list
as open-skies partners are added.

 This would apply to both combination and all-cargo carriers.

 The letter should be addressed to the Director, Office of International
Aviation, X-40, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC  20590 and
placed in Docket DOT-OST-2005-22228.  We also direct applicants to send
an electronic copy to Esta Rosenberg, Chief of the U.S. Air Carrier
Licensing Division, at   HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

 Filers are encouraged to use the electronic submission capability
available through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov ) and follow
the online instructions for filing submissions.  In the alternative, all
filings should be on 8-1/2” X 11” white paper using dark ink (not
green), and be unbound without tabs, which will expedite use of our
docket imaging system.

 Filers are encouraged to use the electronic submission capability
available through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  http://www.regulations.gov ) and follow
the online instructions for filing submissions.  In the alternative, all
filings should be on 8-1/2” X 11” white paper using dark ink (not
green), and be unbound without tabs, which will expedite use of our
docket imaging system.

 Please send an electronic copy of all pleadings to Esta Rosenberg,
Chief of the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division, at   HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50953-50955]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16010]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0223; FRL-10012-75-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Connecticut; Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan Requirements for the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving most of
the elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by
the State of Connecticut that addresses the infrastructure requirements
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), excluding the interstate transport
provisions, for the 2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). We are conditionally approving several elements of
Connecticut's SIP revision regarding air quality modeling requirements.
    The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural

components of each state's air-quality management program, including
provisions prohibiting emissions that will have certain adverse air-
quality effects in other states, are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0223. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Air and Radiation Division, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel. (617)
918-1684, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 29, 2020, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) to approve a Connecticut SIP revision addressing the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)--
excluding the interstate transport provisions--for the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Connecticut submitted
the formal SIP revision on September 7, 2018. The rationale for EPA's
proposed action is given in the NPRM and will not be restated here. EPA
received no public comments on the NPRM.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving most of the elements of Connecticut's September 7,
2018, infrastructure SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS)--
excluding section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (i.e., the Good Neighbor'' or
``transport'' provisions)--as a revision to the Connecticut SIP.
    In addition, EPA is conditionally approving section 110(a)(2)(K)
(Air quality modeling and data) as well as the PSD-related requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(J). The
State must submit to EPA by August 19, 2021 the necessary revisions to
RCSA section 22a-174-3a(i) needed to fully approve these elements.
    If the State fails to do so, this approval will become a
disapproval on that date. EPA will notify the State by letter that this
action has occurred. At that time, this commitment will no longer be a
part of the approved Connecticut SIP. EPA subsequently will publish a
notice in the notice section of the Federal Register notifying the
public that the conditional approval automatically converted to a
disapproval. If the State meets its commitment, within the applicable
time frame, the conditionally approved submission will remain a part of
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the
necessary SIP revision. If EPA disapproves the new submittal, the
conditionally approved sections 110(a)(2)(K) and the PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C), and
110(a)(2)(J) will also be disapproved at that time. If EPA approves the
submittal, sections 110(a)(2)(K) and the PSD-related requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C), and 110(a)(2)(J) will be
fully approved in their entirety and replace the conditionally approved
elements in the SIP.
    If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, such
action will trigger EPA's authority to impose sanctions under section
110(m) of the CAA at the time EPA issues the final disapproval or on
the date the State fails to meet its commitment. In the latter case,
EPA will notify the State by letter that the conditional approval has
been converted to a disapproval and that EPA's sanctions authority has
been triggered. In addition, the final disapproval triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).

III. 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land

or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule
does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 October 19, 2020. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 20, 2020.
Dennis Deziel,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends Part 52 of
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (123) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.370   Identification of plan

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (123) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on
September 7, 2018.
    (i) [Reserved]
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection document, ``Connecticut State Implementation Plan--Clean Air
Act Section 110(a) Infrastructure Elements for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' Final, September 7, 2018.
    (B) [Reserved]

0
3. Section 52.386 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.386   Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) The Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection submitted an infrastructure SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on
September 7, 2018. This infrastructure SIP is approved, with the
exception of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which will be addressed in a
future rulemaking, and sections 110(a)(2)(K) and the PSD-related
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(C), and
110(a)(2)(J), which are conditionally approved.
[FR Doc. 2020-16010 Filed 8-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 156 (Thursday, August 13, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48441-48443]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19987]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-0717]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Carly's Crossing; Outer Harbor, Gallagher Beach,
Buffalo, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
Outer Harbor, Gallagher Beach, Buffalo, NY. This safety zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Outer Harbor during
the Carly's Crossing swimming event. This temporary safety zone is
necessary to protect participants, spectators, mariners, and vessels
from the navigational hazards associated with a large scale swimming
event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6:45 a.m. until 2:15 p.m. on August
16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2015-0717]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and 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 doing so would be impracticable. The
final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until
there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an
NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a
comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit
the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the
hazards associated with a large scale swimming event.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    Between 6:45 a.m. and 2:15 p.m. on August 16, 2015, a large scale
swimming event will take place in the Outer Harbor, near Gallagher
Beach on Lake Erie in Buffalo, NY. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has
determined that such a large scale swimming event across a navigable
waterway will pose significant risks to participants and the boating
public.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the Carly's Crossing
swimming event. This zone will be enforced from 6:45 p.m. until 2:15
p.m. on August 16, 2015. This zone will encompass a portion of the
Outer Harbor, Gallagher Beach, Buffalo, NY starting at position
42[deg]50'38.92'' N., 78[deg]51'40.37'' W.; then West to
42[deg]50'25.33'' N., 78[deg]52'12.05'' W.; then East to
42[deg]50'26.69'' N., 78[deg]51'34.97'' W.; then North returning to the
point of origin to form a triangle (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this rule on small entities. 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.
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
might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit or anchor in a portion of the Outer Harbor between 6:45 a.m.
to 2:15 p.m. on August 16, 2015.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be effective, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only 7.5 hours early in the day. Traffic may be allowed to pass through
the zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of
the Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the enforcement of
the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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. 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 the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.
    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.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

7. 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 will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. 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 determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
rule.

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 parts 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. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0717 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0717  Safety Zone; Carly's Crossing; Outer Harbor,
Gallagher Beach, Buffalo, NY.

    (a) Location. This zone will encompass a portion of the waters of
the Outer Harbor, Gallagher Beach, Buffalo, NY starting at position
42[deg]50'38.92'' N., 78[deg]51'40.37'' W.; then West to
42[deg]50'25.33'' N., 78[deg]52'12.05'' W.; then East to
42[deg]50'26.69'' N., 78[deg]51'34.97'' W.; then North returning to the
point of origin to form a triangle (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on August
16, 2015 from 6:45 a.m. until 2:15 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 28, 2015.
B.W. Roche,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2015-19987 Filed 8-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 81 (Friday, April 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24795-24798]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09916]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0017]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 23 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0017 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    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 Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment 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).

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:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier 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. The 23 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Willie J. Brock

    Mr. Brock, 55, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brock understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brock meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class E operator's license from Missouri.

Kenneth L. Bunn

    Mr. Bunn, 52, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic
episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr.
Bunn understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control
of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Bunn meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified
that he has stable non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class D operator's license from Ohio.

Robert S. Fow

    Mr. Fow, 52, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fow understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fow meets the vision requirements of
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
D operator's license from Arkansas.

Kevin J. Fuller

    Mr. Fuller, 33, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Fuller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fuller meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Eliazar M. Gonzalez

    Mr. Gonzalez, 58, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gonzalez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzalez meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

John M. Hawk

    Mr. Hawk, 69, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hawk understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hawk meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota.

Michael J. Makwinski

    Mr. Makwinski, 32, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Makwinski understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Makwinski meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
New Jersey.

Ralph W. Middaugh

    Mr. Middaugh, 70, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Middaugh understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Middaugh meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Michael J. Moynihan

    Mr. Moynihan, 43, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Moynihan understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moynihan meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

Juan F. Ortega

    Mr. Ortega, 51, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ortega understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ortega meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia.

Fernand L. Poulin

    Mr. Poulin, 50, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Poulin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Poulin meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

James A. Pruitt

    Mr. Pruitt, 62, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pruitt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pruitt meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2013 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Georgia.

Tony E. Pullen

    Mr. Pullen, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Pullen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pullen meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Michael M. Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 49, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sanchez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sanchez meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New Mexico.

Nathaniel Scales, Jr.

    Mr. Scales, 66, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scales understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scales meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Delaware.

Ronald L. Schmidt

    Mr. Schmidt, 77, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schmidt understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schmidt meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.

Michael Schrock, III

    Mr. Schrock, 27, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Schrock understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Schrock meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Tennessee.

Jimmy W. Scroggins

    Mr. Scroggins, 42, has had ITDM since approximately 2003. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Scroggins understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Scroggins meets
the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas.

Leonard R. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 55, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Smith understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the

requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Washington.

Mark A. Stromberg

    Mr. Stromberg, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Stromberg understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stromberg meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Minnesota.

Daniel J. Wagner

    Mr. Wagner, 26, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wagner understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wagner meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Texas.

Andrew J. White

    Mr. White, 22, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. White understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. White meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Iowa.

Michael D. Ziegler

    Mr. Ziegler, 33, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Ziegler understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ziegler meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he has stable
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from Pennsylvania.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441)\1\. The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 USC. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: April 18, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09916 Filed 4-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P