[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7852-7855]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02268]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 19 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 March 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0011 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 December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

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 19 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

Nicholas C. Bolton

    Mr. Bolton, 22, 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. Bolton understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bolton 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 York.

Isaias Gomez

    Mr. Gomez, 54, has had ITDM since 2009. 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. Gomez understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gomez meets the vision
requirements of 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 A CDL from Indiana.

Brandon E. Hamlett

    Mr. Hamlett, 40, has had ITDM since 2006. 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. Hamlett understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hamlett 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 C operator's license from Nevada.

Douglas F. Keller

    Mr. Keller, 36, has had ITDM since 2002. 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. Keller understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Keller meets the vision
requirements of 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 C CDL from Michigan.

Mark R. Loesel

    Mr. Loesel, 50, has had ITDM since 2000. 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. Loesel understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Loesel 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 B CDL from Wisconsin.

Steven A. Marion

    Mr. Marion, 51, has had ITDM since 1998. 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. Marion understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Marion 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 D operator's license from Massachusetts.

Jason E. McAnnally

    Mr. McAnnally, 34, 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. McAnnally understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McAnnally meets the
vision requirements of 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 A CDL from Alabama.

Robert W. Moen

    Mr. Moen, 37, 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. Moen understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moen meets the vision requirements
of 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 Iowa.

Craig S. Moran

    Mr. Moran, 56, has had ITDM since 1969. 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. Moran understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moran 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 C operator's license from
California.

Wayne A. Ondrusek

    Mr. Ondrusek, 71, 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. Ondrusek understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ondrusek 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 A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Lenicia R. Riley

    Ms. Riley, 31, has had ITDM since 2012. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she 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.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Riley understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Riley meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in
2012 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She
holds a Class A CDL from Texas.

Mark L. Sandager

    Mr. Sandager, 60, has had ITDM since 1980. 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. Sandager understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sandager 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 D operator's license from
Minnesota.

Samuel L. Sergio

    Mr. Sergio, 22, has had ITDM since 1995. 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. Sergio understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sergio 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
Massachusetts.

Jason L. Shaw

    Mr. Shaw, 30, has had ITDM since 1998. 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. Shaw understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shaw 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 Oklahoma.

Paul M. Shierk

    Mr. Shierk, 43, 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. Shierk understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV

safely. Mr. Shierk meets the vision requirements of 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 A CDL from
Oregon.

Kailey J. Skroko

    Ms. Skroko, 26, has had ITDM since 1999. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she 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.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Skroko understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Skroko meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2012 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds an operator's license from Indiana.

Samantha K. Tsuchiya

    Ms. Tsuchiya, 27, has had ITDM since 1996. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she 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.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Tsuchiya understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Tsuchiya meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2012 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

David W. West

    Mr. West, 54, 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. West understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. West 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 E operator's license from Missouri.

Eugene R. Zollner, II

    Mr. Zollner, 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. Zollner understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zollner meets the
vision requirements of 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 A CDL from Ohio.

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: January 18, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-02268 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 130 (Tuesday, July 8, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38659-38661]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0147]

Driver Qualifications: Skill Performance Evaluation; Virginia
Department of Motor Vehicles' Application for an Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to the
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia), on behalf of truck
and bus drivers who are licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia and
need a Skill Performance Evaluation (SPE) certificate from FMCSA to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The
exemption will enable Virginia-licensed drivers subject to the Federal
SPE requirements under 49 CFR 391.49, to fulfill the Federal
requirements with a State-issued SPE. The State-issued SPE will be
based on standards, processes and procedures comparable to those used
by FMCSA, and the State will maintain copies of all evaluation forms
and certificates issued to enable FMCSA to conduct periodic reviews of
the State's program. Virginia licensed drivers who receive the State-
issued SPE are allowed to operate CMVs in interstate commerce, anywhere
in the United States.

DATES: The exemption is effective July 8, 2014. The exemption will
expire on July 8, 2016 but may be renewed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Eileen Nolan, Office of Carrier,
Driver and Vehicle Safety, Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    The FMCSA received 2 comments in response to the July 9, 2013 (78
FR 41187), notice requesting public comment on Virginia's application
for an exemption. A copy of Virginia's application is in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice and any comments or
additional information submitted to the Agency following publication of
this notice may be accessed online through http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal
Document Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket/access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each
exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The
Agency must provide the public an opportunity to inspect the
information relevant to the application, including any safety analyses
that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide an opportunity
for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Virginia's Exemption Application

    The Virginia DMV requested an exemption from 49 CFR 391.49
concerning FMCSA's SPE process for drivers who have experienced an
impairment or loss of a limb, on behalf of CMV drivers licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. Instead of requiring such drivers to apply to
FMCSA for an SPE, Virginia would establish its own SPE program
essentially identical to the current FMCSA program. Virginia would
establish an application process modeled on the FMCSA process and State
personnel who have completed SPE training identical to that of FMCSA
personnel currently administering the Federal SPE program would conduct
the skill evaluation following the same procedures and testing criteria
used by FMCSA. If the driver passed the skill evaluation, the State
would issue the SPE certificate. Virginia would maintain records of
applications, testing, and certificates issued for periodic review by
FMCSA.
    On July 9, 2013, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comment on Virginia's exemption application (78 FR
41187). The Agency received comments from the Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety (Advocates) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA).
    The Advocates expressed opposition to the exemption, stating:

the VA DMV application does not request an exemption from any
particular driver qualification standard or requirement on behalf of
any particular driver or class of drivers, but instead seeks to
transfer federal authority to grant or deny SPE certifications from
federal officials to the VA DMV Commissioner. Because the exemption
provisions of federal law are not intended to permit a transfer of
federal administrative and regulatory authority to state officials,
Advocates opposes the application.

    The ATA supports the concept of the exemption but expressed
concerns regarding the precedent the exemption might set for other
States that are not prepared to handle the SPE process. The ATA
believes FMCSA needs to ensure any subsequent State authorities that
may be granted a similar exemption adhere to strict standards for
program design and implementation. The ATA asked whether drivers in an
authorized State would be required to apply in that State or would the
Federal SPE process still be available? The ATA also asked whether a
driver who fails the SPE test in an authorized State could reapply to
FMCSA?

FMCSA Response

    The FMCSA acknowledges Advocates' concerns, but disagrees with its
conclusions. The Virginia DMV is seeking an exemption on behalf of a
class of drivers, and the proposed exemption would not involve the
delegation of Federal authority to Virginia.
    Currently, 49 CFR 391.49 prescribes alternative physical
qualification standards for drivers with a loss or impairment of a
limb(s). A person who is not physically qualified to drive under 49 CFR
391.41(b)(1) or (b)(2) concerning loss of limbs or impairment of limbs,
respectively, may apply for an SPE from the FMCSA Division
Administrator in the State in which the driver is licensed. The current
regulations does not provide an alternative to an FMCSA-issued SPE
certificate for drivers who have experienced the loss or impairment of
a limb(s). In the absence of an FMCSA-issued SPE certificate, such
drivers are prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce.
    The FMCSA continues to view Virginia's request as an appropriate
application for an exemption on behalf of Virginia-licensed drivers who
have experienced the loss or impairment of a limb, and wish to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce. Through the exemption process, FMCSA would
accept a State-issued SPE certificate in lieu of requiring these
drivers to obtain an FMCSA-issued SPE certificate, as specified in the
current regulations. Therefore, the exemption would provide an
alternative to the current regulations for the class of drivers
described by Virginia's application. As such, Virginia's request is no
different from other applications submitted by entities on behalf of a
class of persons or class of carriers. Under this scenario, the State
is not seeking relief from any rules applicable to the State, rather it
is seeking relief on behalf of the class of drivers who would otherwise
have to seek individual exemptions to obtain a variance from the
Federal SPE requirement.
    FMCSA acknowledges that the same terms and conditions of the
exemption that ensure it would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the
current regulations, may have led Advocates to conclude the exemption
represents a transfer of authority from FMCSA to the State. However, no
such transfer of authority would take place through the exemption. Each
driver who has experienced a loss or impairment of a limb(s) remains
subject to 49 CFR 391.49 and only the subset of such drivers who are
licensed in Virginia may seek a State-issued SPE in lieu of the FMCSA-
issued SPE certificate. The fact that the State would adhere to the
same strict standards for the personnel administering the test and the
same performance-based testing standards for each SPE applicant does
not mean there is a transfer of authority. What the exemption provides
is a streamlined alternative through which this limited class of
drivers may pursue a State-issued SPE from the same entity that issued
their driver's license rather than having to undertake a two-step
process where the license is issued by the State and the SPE is issued
by FMCSA.
    The exemption is analogous to long-standing regulations governing
the roles of (1) medical examiners who qualify drivers (49 CFR part
391, subpart E), and (2) State officials who can trigger FMCSA's
emergency exemptions (49 CFR 390.23).
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) have long
entrusted private medical personnel with the task of applying the
Agency's medical standards to determine whether drivers are physically
qualified to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). No one contends
that this amounts to a delegation of Federal authority to private
individuals. Agency rules simply specify the types of medical
professional who may be ``medical examiners'' (as defined in 49 CFR
390.5) and accept (or ratify) their judgment as to whether a driver
meets the physical qualification standards in

49 CFR part 391, subpart E. No Federal authority is transferred to
medical examiners.
    Similarly, while the relief from regulations provided by 49 CFR
390.23 is often triggered by the declaration of an emergency by a State
official, FMCSA has not thereby delegated its exemption authority to
the State. On the contrary, Sec.  390.23 represents an FMCSA decision,
made in advance of any particular incident, that events serious enough
to qualify as an ``emergency'' justify regulatory exemptions for motor
carriers and drivers providing ``direct assistance'' to supplement the
``emergency relief'' efforts of State and local governments, as those
terms are defined in Sec.  390.5. FMCSA has not delegated its authority
to the States; it accepts (with rare exceptions) the factual conclusion
of State officials that a given event qualifies as an ``emergency''
under Federal rules.
    The exemption granted the Virginia DMV is of the same type. Because
of Virginia's well-documented training of its personnel to apply
FMCSA's SPE standards and its commitment to maintaining compliance with
those standards, the Agency is simply accepting (and ratifying) the
State's conclusions about the applicant's qualifications in the same
way that it accepts the conclusions of medical examiners. But FMCSA
retains and will exercise the authority to review Virginia's adherence
to the Federal SPE standards, just as it has undertaken to review the
adherence of medical examiners to Federal qualification standards.
    With regard to the ATA's comments, FMCSA believes its oversight of
the exemption process would ensure adherence to the terms and
conditions of the exemption, and provide for an effective FMCSA-
Virginia partnership in streamlining the SPE process for Virginia-
licensed drivers. If, for whatever reason, a Virginia-licensed driver
would prefer not to opt for the streamlined SPE process, he or she may
still apply for an FMCSA-issued SPE. However, FMCSA may still exercise
its discretion and call upon the State licensing agency to provide
assistance in conducting the road test needed to complete an SPE
application, depending on the volume of applications.
    In response to the ATA's question about drivers who fail the SPE
certification process, the current regulations do not prohibit drivers
from reapplying for SPE certification. In this case, FMCSA would work
with the State to reevaluate a driver who fails to obtain a State-
issued SPE. FMCSA would consult with the State for any SPE application
from a Virginia-domiciled driver to determine whether the driver had
previously applied for an SPE from the State and request the results of
that application before making any decision in the matter.
    Finally, FMCSA emphasizes that the Agency does not intend its
decision to serve as pressure upon other States to take action to
implement State-run SPE programs. Virginia is the first State to submit
an application on behalf of its drivers to provide an alternative to
the Federal SPE process. Other States are welcome to take similar
actions if they believe it is appropriate to do so and they have the
resources to meet terms and conditions comparable to those provided in
this exemption.

FMCSA Decision

    Based upon its analysis of the application, FMCSA has determined
that there are no safety vulnerabilities associated with Virginia's
request and that the exemption should be granted. The Agency has
determined that the exemption will achieve a level of safety equivalent
to, or greater than, the level achieved by the current SPE
requirements.
    As indicated above, Virginia will establish its own SPE program
essentially identical to the current FMCSA program. Virginia will
establish an application process modeled on the FMCSA process. State
personnel who conduct the skill evaluation will complete the same
training as FMCSA personnel conducting the test and will follow the
same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA. And Virginia will
maintain records of applications, testing, and certificates issued for
periodic review by FMCSA.
    Because Virginia's program will be essentially identical to the
current FMCSA program, FMCSA has concluded that the program will
achieve the level of safety required by 49 U.S.C. Sec.  31315.

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

    The FMCSA grants an exemption to the Virginia DMV on behalf of
drivers who have experienced an impairment or loss of a limb, and are
licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The following terms and
conditions apply to the State and any drivers who receive a State-
issued SPE certificate.
     Virginia must establish and maintain its own SPE program
essentially identical to the current FMCSA program.
     The State must establish an application process modeled on
the FMCSA process and must submit information concerning the
application process to FMCSA's Medical Programs Division for review.
     State personnel who conduct the skill test must complete
SPE training identical to that of FMCSA personnel currently
administering the Federal SPE program.
     The skill evaluation and scoring for the SPE must be done
using the same procedures and testing criteria used by FMCSA.
     Virginia must maintain records of applications, testing,
and certificates issued for periodic review by FMCSA.
     Virginia must submit a monthly report to FMCSA listing the
names and license number of each driver tested by the State and the
result of the test (pass or fail).
     Each driver who receives a State-issued SPE must keep a
copy of the certificate when driving, for presentation to authorized
Federal, State, or local law enforcement officials.

Preemption of State Laws and Regulations

    An exemption granted under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)
preempts State laws and regulations that conflict with or are
inconsistent with the exemption. The decision to grant Virginia's
request amounts to automatic Federal ratification of the State issued
SPE certificate and therefore prohibits other jurisdictions from
requiring a separate FMCSA-issued SPE. The State-issued certificate
must be treated as if it had been issued by FMCSA. Virginia-licensed
drivers who receive the State-issued SPE are allowed to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce, anywhere in the United States.

    Issued on: July 1, 2014.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-15958 Filed 7-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8322-8323]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-41-000]

Tatanka Wind Power, LLC, Complainant, v. Montana-Dakota Utilities
Company, a Division of MDU Resources Group, Inc., Respondent; Notice of
Complaint

February 17, 2010.
    Take notice that on February 9, 2010, pursuant to section 206 of
the Rules and Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and Order Nos.
2003 and 2003-A,\1\ Tatanka Wind Power, LLC (Complainant) filed a
formal complaint against Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, a division
of MDU Resources Group, Inc. (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent
improperly failed to repay Complainant for 100 percent of its costs
incurred for network upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, 104 FERC ] 61,103 (2003) (Order No. 2003);
Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, 106 FERC ] 61,220 (2004) (Order No. 2003-A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tatanka certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporate Officials.
    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, 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. The Respondent's answer and all
interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be
served on the Complainants.
    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>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 1, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3621 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65593-65594]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26212]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0675; FRL-9902-38--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Nitrogen
Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittal from the State of West Virginia pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA). Whenever new or revised national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) are promulgated, the CAA requires states to submit a plan for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of such NAAQS. The
plan is required to address basic program elements, including, but not
limited to, regulatory structure, monitoring, modeling, legal
authority, and adequate resources necessary to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards. These elements are referred to as
infrastructure requirements. West Virginia has made a submittal
addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2010 nitrogen
dioxide (NO2) NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 2, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0675 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0675, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0675. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. 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 either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston,
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 13, 2012, the State of West
Virginia through the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS.

I. Background

    In 1971, EPA promulgated a NO2 primary and secondary
standard of 53 parts per billion (ppb), averaged annually. On January
22, 2010, EPA established an additional primary standard for
NO2 at 100 ppb, averaged over one hour. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as
EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that
states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related to a
newly established or revised NAAQS. These requirements include basic
SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affect
the content of the submission. The content of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On December 13, 2012, the WVDEP provided a submittal to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. This submittal addressed the following
infrastructure elements or portions thereof, which EPA is proposing to
approve: Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J),
(K), (L), and (M). A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for
approving West Virginia's submittal may be found in the Technical
Support Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action, which is
available online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0675.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the following elements or portions
thereof, of West Virginia's December 13, 2012 SIP revision: (A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). West Virginia's
SIP revision provides the basic program elements specified in section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2010
NO2 NAAQS. This action does not

include any proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which
pertains to the nonattainment requirements of part D, Title I of the
CAA, because this element is not required to be submitted by the 3-year
submission deadline of section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a
separate process, if applicable. This action also does not include
proposed action on section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) of the CAA
as they relate to West Virginia's required permit program for the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD), as required by part C of
Title I of the CAA. EPA will take separate action on these elements.\1\
Additionally, EPA will take later separate action on CAA section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS as it relates to CAA
section 128, ``State Boards.'' EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously approved West Virginia's PSD permit program
with the limited exception of West Virginia's definition of
``regulated new source review (NSR) pollutant'' which received a
narrow disapproval as the definition did not include condensable
emissions of particulate matter. See (77 FR 63736, October 17, 2012)
and (78 FR 27062, May 9, 2013). Because the grounds for disapproval
were narrow and extended only to the lack of condensables within the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant,'' the narrow disapproval
does not alter EPA's October 17, 2012 approval of the remaining
portions of West Virginia's August 2011 SIP submittal for the
State's PSD program. EPA anticipates that West Virginia will make a
submission rectifying the deficiency regarding condensables.
Further, EPA anticipates acting on West Virginia's submission on
this definition within the two year time frame prior to EPA's
Federal implementation plan obligation on this very narrow issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; 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, this proposed rule, which addresses West Virginia's
infrastructure requirements in section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the
2010 NO2 NAAQS or portions thereof, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Recordkeeping and reporting.

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

    Dated: September 26, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013-26212 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P