[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 87 (Friday, May 7, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24564]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09715]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 573

[Docket No. FDA-2017-F-0969]

Canadian Oilseed Processors Association; Withdrawal of Food
Additive Petition (Animal Use)

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; withdrawal of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive
petition (FAP 2299) proposing that the food additive regulations be
amended to provide for the safe use of spent bleaching clay as a flow
agent in canola meal for all livestock and poultry species.
Additionally, the petition proposed that the regulations be amended to
provide for the safe use of silicon dioxide and diatomaceous earth as
components of spent bleaching clay.

DATES: The food additive petition was withdrawn on January 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to
the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chelsea Cerrito, Center for Veterinary
Medicine, HFV-221, Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rm.
2684, Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a notice published in the Federal
Register on April 18, 2017 (82 FR 18268), FDA announced that we had
filed a food additive petition (FAP 2299), submitted by Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association, 404-167 Lombard Ave., Winnipeg MB R3B
0T6, Canada. The petition proposed to amend part 573 of title 21 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Food Additives Permitted in Feed and
Drinking Water of Animals (21 CFR part 573), to provide for the safe
use of spent bleaching clay as a flow agent in canola meal for all
livestock and poultry species. Additionally, the submission proposed
that the existing regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
silicon dioxide (21 CFR 573.940) and diatomaceous earth (21 CFR
573.340) for use as components of spent beaching clay. The Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association has now withdrawn the petition without
prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 571.7).

    Dated: April 30, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-09715 Filed 5-6-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 99 (Monday, May 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 29776]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12649]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1971-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 28, 2011.

    Bibb, Blount, Calhoun, Cullman, DeKalb, Elmore, Franklin,
Jackson, Limestone, Madison, Marion, Marshall, Walker and Winston
Counties for Public Assistance [Categories C-G], (already designated
for Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-12649 Filed 5-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 24, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 15)]
[Notices]
[Page 4099]
[DOCID:fr24ja11-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13948-000]

Public Utility No. 1 of Snohomish County; Notice of Preliminary
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

January 14, 2011.
    On December 20, 2010, the Public Utility No. 1 of Snohomish County,
filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of
the Calligan Creek Hydroelectric Project (project) to be located on
Calligan Creek, near North Bend in King County, Washington. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 8-foot-
high, 60-foot-long diversion weir and intake structure; (2) an
impoundment having a total storage capacity of one acre-foot at a
normal maximum operating elevation of 2,221 feet mean sea level; (3) a
6,288-foot-long, 38-inch-diameter buried pressure penstock; (4) a
2,600-square-foot powerhouse containing a single turbine/generator unit
with an installed capacity of 6.0 megawatts; (5) a 148-foot-long, 10-
foot-wide rip-rap open channel tailrace; (6) a switchyard containing a
4.16/34.5 three-phase step-up transformer; (7) a 13,200-foot-long, 34.5
kilovolt three-phase buried transmission line and (8) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the project would be
20,717.8 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Kim D. Moore, Assistant General Manager of
Generation Resources; Public Utility No. 1 of Snohomish County; 2320
California Street; Everett, WA 98201; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13948-000) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-1281 Filed 1-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 58 (Monday, March 29, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16314-16319]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Child Restraint Systems;
Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition for rulemaking from Jewkes
Biomechanics (Jewkes) requesting that NHTSA amend Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, ``Child restraint systems,'' to remove
a requirement that child restraint systems (CRSs) must meet performance
requirements without use of a top tether, or exclude from that
requirement a new kind of CRS that the petitioner would like to develop
called a ``hybrid CRS.'' Alternatively, the petitioner requests that
the definition of a ``harness'' in FMVSS No. 213 be amended to include
its hybrid CRS. NHTSA is denying the petition because the requested
amendments would unreasonably reduce the child occupant protection
provided by FMVSS No. 213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For non-legal issues, you may contact
Cristina Echemendia, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you
may contact Deirdre Fujita, Office of the Chief Counsel, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Petition for Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    a. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test
Completely
    b. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test for
Hybrid CRSs
    c. The Requested Amendment's Possible Adverse Effect on Child
Occupant Protection
    d. The Absence of Safety Advantages
    e. Denial of Request To Consider Hybrid CRSs as Harnesses

I. Background

    FMVSS No. 213 specifies performance and other requirements for
child restraint systems to reduce the number of children killed or
injured in motor vehicle crashes.\1\ Under FMVSS No. 213, ``child
restraint systems'' are devices, except vehicle lap or lap/shoulder
belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or
position children weighing 36 kilograms (80 pounds) or less. S5(b)
requires each child restraint system to meet the requirements of the
standard when tested in accordance with S6.1 and S5. Among other tests
is a dynamic frontal sled test involving a 48-kilometer per hour (km/h)
(30-mile per hour (mph)) velocity change. NHTSA dynamically tests CRSs
with anthropomorphic test devices (test dummies) of sizes representing
the children for whom the CRS is designed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.213, ``Child restraint systems.'' All references
to subparagraphs in this denial of the petition for rulemaking are
to FMVSS No. 213 unless otherwise noted. All references in this
document to the requirements in FMVSS No. 213 are to the
requirements for ``add-on'' (portable) CRSs (as opposed to ``built-
in'' CRSs). (See S4 of 49 CFR 571.213 for definitions of these
terms.) NHTSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
November 2, 2020 proposing updates to FMVSS No. 213, including
updating the standard seat assembly used to test CRSs in NHTSA's
compliance tests (85 FR 69388).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S6.1 specifies the conditions and procedures for the dynamic sled
test. Under S6.1.2(a)(1)(B), NHTSA may test a CRS without a top tether
attached.\2\

One of the dynamic performance requirements for forward-facing CRSs
tested in the untethered condition is an 813 mm (32 inch) limit on head
excursion. Head excursion refers to the distance the test dummy's head
moves forward during the dynamic test (S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1)).\3\ The limit on
head excursion reduces the likelihood of a child head's striking
harmful objects or surfaces in a crash. The CRSs must also meet other
dynamic performance requirements without use of a tether, including
limits on the head and chest acceleration of the test dummies during
the sled test (S<IP_ADDRESS>). This document refers to the requirement that
CRSs meet FMVSS No. 213 without using the tether as the ``untethered
test requirement.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this document, the terms ``tether,'' ``top tether'' and
the like also include other supplementary features that must be
attached by the consumer separately from the lower anchorages of a
child restraint anchorage system or seat belt to install the CRS to
the vehicle seat.
    \3\ In addition, S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) also requires CRSs to provide
enhanced head protection by way of a 720 mm (28 inch) head excursion
limit. This requirement may be met through attachment of a tether
strap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the untethered test requirement is to ensure that
CRSs provide at least a minimum level of adequate protection when the
tether strap is not attached. When a tether strap is properly attached,
a forward-facing child restraint equipped with a tether strap will
generally offer the best protection for child occupants. However,
survey results have continuously shown that tether straps are not
widely used by caregivers to secure CRSs in vehicles. Recent studies
from NHTSA's National Child Restraint Use Special Study (NCRUSS) \4\
and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) \5\ show that
tether use is low in the field, as it has been since the initial
implementation of FMVSS No. 213. NCRUSS found that the overall tether
use in forward-facing CRSs with internal harnesses was 42 percent.
Tether use was 71 percent when the CRS was attached with the lower
anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system and 31 percent when
the CRS was attached with seat belts. IIHS researchers analyzed data
from 479 vehicle observations and found that the top tether was used
only 56 percent of the time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, DOT HS 811 679,
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812142.
NCRUSS is a large-scale nationally-representative survey that
involves both an inspection of the child passenger's restraint
system by a certified child passenger safety technician and a
detailed interview of the driver. Between June and August 2011, the
survey collected information on drivers and child passengers ages 0-
8 years.
    \5\ Eichelberger, A. H., Decina, L.E., Jermakian, J. S.,
McCartt, A. T., ``Use of top tether with forward facing child
restraints: Observations and driver interviews,'' Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety, April 2013. IIHS surveyed collected
data at roughly 50 suburban sites near Fredericksburg, VA.,
Philadelphia, PA, Seattle, WA, and Washington, DC Shopping centers,
recreation facilities, child-care centers, car-seat checkpoints and
health-care facilities were among the locations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address this problem, FMVSS No. 213 requires forward-facing
CRSs, with certain limited exceptions, to meet the standard's minimum
performance requirements without attachment of a tether. In that way,
children will be afforded at least a minimum level of adequate occupant
protection even if the caregiver does not attach the tether. That
untethered test requirement applies to the restraint that Jewkes seeks
to develop.

II. Petition for Rulemaking

    Jewkes submitted a petition for rulemaking, dated February 21,
2017, requesting NHTSA to either: (a) Remove the untethered test
requirement; or (b) classify a child restraint system the petitioner
would like to develop as a new type of CRS (``hybrid CRS''), and
exclude these restraints from the standard's untethered test
requirement. The petitioner states that the untethered test requirement
``automatically disqualifies use of so-called `hybrid' '' child
restraints. NHTSA understands the statement to mean that the child
restraints cannot meet the untethered test requirement of FMVSS No.
213.
    Jewkes describes a hybrid CRS as ``a CRS with a flexible connection
between car-seat bottom and back . . . with a five-point harness.''
Jewkes provided a schematic drawing of ``a type of hybrid CRS,'' which
NHTSA has reproduced in Figure 1 below.\6\ The petitioner suggests
FMVSS No. 213 define a hybrid CRS as ``an add-on forward facing CRS
with five-point harness using a combination of flexible materials
connecting a rigid seat-bottom to a seat-back structure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ To view a copy of the petition, see https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0007-0004. The schematic
drawing in the petition was not clear, so NHTSA enhanced the
outlines so the schematic could be published in this document. It
appears the schematic is showing a hybrid CRS positioned on a
vehicle seat with a head restraint.

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29MR21.007

    Alternatively, Jewkes suggests that NHTSA amend the existing
``harness'' definition in FMVSS No. 213 so that the definition includes
child restraints such as the petitioner's hybrid CRS.\7\ The aim of
this approach is to exclude the subject CRSs from the untethered test
requirement on the basis that they are ``harnesses,'' as currently,
under FMVSS No. 213, harnesses are not subject to the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a ``harness'' as ``a combination
pelvic and upper torso child restraint system that consists
primarily of flexible material, such as straps, webbing or similar
material, and that does not include a rigid seating structure for
the child.'' The petitioner's restraint system does not meet this
definition; it has a rigid seating structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner claims that there is no need for hybrid CRSs to be
subject to an untethered test requirement because caregivers would know
to attach the tether. It did not provide data supporting this
assertion. Jewkes notes its belief that, due to the untethered test
requirement, child restraints must have a ``rigid junction'' between
the child restraint's seat bottom and the CRS seat back. The petitioner
states, without providing supporting data, that CRSs with a rigid
junction between the CRS bottom and back--
appear to average users to function equally well with and without
top-tether. As such, users do not recognize the necessity for top-
tether use to increase their child's safety and, thus, fail to
utilize the top tether. By contrast, the need to use the top tether
with the hybrid CRS is readily apparent, because the shoulder
harness is not accessible without it. As such, misuse of the car
seat by omitting the top tether-the primary reason FMVSS No. 2013
[sic] requires compliance without top tether use--is negligible in
the case of the hybrid CRS. Because the hybrid CRS does not
necessitate concern for use without top-tether, it should be
exempted from FMVSS No. 213 as petitioned.

    Moreover, the petitioner asserts that its hybrid CRS is a ``lighter
species of the five-point restraint'' and a ``remedy'' to ``several
drawbacks'' caused by the untethered test requirement. Jewkes states
that, due to the untethered test requirement, the ``rigid junction''
between a CRS's seat bottom and seat back creates bulk which ``can
compromise child safety in several ways.'' The petitioner lists what it
believes to be five advantages its devices have over CRSs with ``rigid
junctions.'' NHTSA addresses those views later in the section below.

III. Discussion

a. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test Completely

    NHTSA denies the request to remove the untethered test requirement
in FMVSS No. 213 as applied to all CRSs. The untethered test
requirement ensures that CRSs provide at least a minimum level of
adequate protection when the tether strap is not attached. As noted
above in this preamble, NCRUSS and IIHS data show that tether nonuse
continues to be a problem. Thus, the untethered test requirement serves
an important safety need. Jewkes did not provide any data or rationale
supporting its request. NHTSA concludes that the requested amendment
would subject children to an unacceptable risk of injury in crashes and
does not meet the need for motor vehicle safety.

b. NHTSA Denies the Request To Remove the Untethered Test for Hybrid
CRSs

    The Agency also denies the request to exclude the petitioner's
``hybrid'' child restraints from the untethered test requirement. The
petitioner asserts that the untethered test is unnecessary for hybrid
CRSs because caregivers will know to tether the restraint. Jewkes did
not provide any data supporting this proposition. Furthermore, the data
that are available to NHTSA do not support that view.
    Studies have shown that caregivers do not use the tether anchorage
because they are not familiar with it or do not know what it is for. A
2006 study by Decina et al.\8\ found that 61 percent of upper tether
nonusers cited their lack of knowledge--not knowing what the tethers
were, that they were available in the vehicle, the importance of using
them, or how to properly use them--as the reason for not using them.
The study

did not find that consumers were forgoing tether use because they
believed that CRSs with ``rigid junctions'' ``appear . . . to function
equally well with and without top-tether,'' as Jewkes asserts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Decina, L.E. et al. ``Child Restraint Use Survey: LATCH Use
and Misuse.'' December 2006. DOT HS 810 679. Link: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/810679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, a 2013 study by IIHS \9\ showed that the top reasons for
not using the tether were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Eichelberger A.H., et al. ``Use of top tethers with forward-
facing child restraints: observations and driver interviews.'' Link
to public presentation http://www.iihs.org/media/85044cce-4c80-4818-b1d5-75a695f6924d/R3iBdw/Presentations/Eichelberger_tethers_Lifesavers.pdf.

 22% did not know it was there,
 15% did not know how to use,
 13% in a hurry/not enough time to use it,
 10% did not know where to attach the tether,
 9% did not think it was important or needed,
 9% did not know they had tether anchors in their vehicle and,
 5% had no anchor for the seating position.

    None of the reasons listed above for not using the tether
specifically include a belief that the CRS, installed with no tether,
has comparable performance to a tethered CRS.
    The petitioner also claims that the need to use the tether with the
hybrid CRS is ``readily apparent, because the shoulder harness is not
accessible without it.'' The petitioner did not provide any data to
support this assertion. Further, from the sketch provided by Jewkes in
its petition and from the ``hybrid CRS'' definition it suggests, NHTSA
cannot conclude that it is ``readily apparent'' that the tether must be
used. Nothing in the sketch or the definition would prevent a user from
``accessing'' the shoulder harness of a hybrid CRS if the tether were
not used. Given the findings of the Decina and IIHS studies which
showed a substantial degree of unfamiliarity and unawareness on the
part of consumers with tethers, NHTSA does not believe it should be
assumed that consumers will automatically know or make the effort to
attach the tether of a ``hybrid CRS.''
    The consequences of a caregiver's not attaching the tether on a
hybrid CRS can be severe. For example, a child in an untethered hybrid
CRS would experience excessive head excursion and a high risk of head
injury due to impacts with structures or objects in front of the
seat.\10\ Data from the National Automotive Sampling System--
Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) \11\ for the years 1995-2009
show that 39 percent of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2+ \12\ injuries
to restrained children in frontal crashes are to the head and face,
with 59 percent of these injuries due to contact with the seat and back
support. In a study of 28 cases of children ages 0 to 15 who sustained
AIS 2+ head or face injuries in a frontal crash, Arbogast et al. (2012)
found that the front row seat back and the B-pillar were the most
commonly contacted components.\13\ The petitioner provided no data
showing a lack of a safety need for the untethered test for children in
hybrid CRSs. The requested amendment does not meet the need for motor
vehicle safety and is denied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The petitioner provided no information on how head and
chest accelerations on the child could be affected if the hybrid CRS
were untethered in a crash.
    \11\ In 2016, NASS-CDS was replaced with the Crash Investigation
Sampling System (CISS).
    \12\ The Abbreviated Injury Scale is a 6-point ranking system
used for ranking the severity of injuries. AIS2+ injuries are
injuries of severity level 2 (moderate), 3 (serious), 4 (severe),
and 5 (critical) according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale.
www.aaam.org.
    \13\ Arbogast, K.B., S. Wozniak, Locey, C.M., Maltese, M.R., and
Zonfrillo, M.R. (2012). Head impact contact points for restrained
child occupants. Traffic Injury Prevention, 13(2):172-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The Requested Amendment's Possible Adverse Effect on Child Occupant
Protection

    The petitioner asserts that children are safer in a hybrid CRS
compared to CRSs with a ``rigid junction.'' (NHTSA understands from the
petition that CRSs with a ``rigid junction'' consist of a rigid seat
bottom and rigid seat back, with a rigid side structure.) Although the
petitioner did not specify the ages of the children for whom its
product is intended, NHTSA gathers from the petition that hybrid CRSs
would be for children weighing less than 30 or 40 pounds, who now use
what is commonly known as a ``car safety seat'' (rather than a booster
seat). For simplicity, hereinafter the agency will use ``car safety
seat'' in referring to the CRSs that Jewkes describes as having a
``rigid junction between seat-bottom and seat back.'' These car safety
seats with ``a rigid junction between the seat-bottom and seat back''
have an internal harness to restrain the child (and are different from
high back booster seats, which do not have internal harnesses).
    The petitioner provided no data supporting its argument that
children will be safer in a hybrid CRS than in a car safety seat. To
the contrary, NHTSA believes children are afforded greater protections
in a car safety seat because FMVSS No. 213 requires car safety seats to
provide adequate occupant protection (limiting a child's head
excursion, and head and chest accelerations) even when the tether is
not used. With tether use rates as low as they are (e.g., NCRUSS,
supra, found that the overall tether use was only 42 percent), NHTSA
believes that a large portion of hybrid CRSs may similarly be used
untethered. While petitioner asserts that hybrid CRS would not face the
same type of untethered use, it does not support this assertion with
data, and the risks presented by any potential misuse are high. The
untethered test requirement ensures that a child's head would be
reasonably protected against head impacts in an untethered car safety
seat. That same child's head would be almost totally unprotected in an
untethered hybrid CRS; the restraint would have no structure to keep
the child's torso from rotating forward.
    Another reason children would be more protected in a car safety
seat than in hybrid CRSs is that car safety seats have a padded back
and padded side structure that protect the head and torso of a
restrained child in side crashes. Impacts to the side of a vehicle rank
almost equal to frontal crashes as a source of occupant fatalities and
serious injuries to children ages 0 to 12. In response to a safety need
to improve side impact protection and pursuant to the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), NHTSA has proposed side
impact protection requirements for CRSs manufactured for children
weighing up to 18 kilograms (40 pounds), and is in the process of
finalizing these requirements.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Section 31501(a) of MAP-21 states that the Secretary of
Transportation (authority delegated to NHTSA) shall issue a final
rule amending FMVSS No. 213 to ``improve the protection of children
seated in child restraint systems during side impact crashes.''
NHTSA published an NPRM on January 28, 2014, proposing to amend
FMVSS No. 213 to adopt side impact performance requirements for CRSs
designed to seat children in a weight range that includes weights up
to 18 kilograms (40 pounds) (79 FR 4570, Docket No. NHTSA-2014-
0012). See Fall 2020 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
Actions, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain, and search
for Regulation Identifier Number 2127-AK95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA found in conducting its research for the side impact
rulemaking that the padded side structure (wings) on current car safety
seats appear to be soundly effective in providing protection in side
impacts. Hybrid CRSs have no side structure and padding. The petitioner
provided no information on the performance of its hybrid CRS in side
impacts, or discussed the proposed side impact protection requirements.
In the absence of these data and information, NHTSA denies the
petition.

d. The Absence of Safety Advantages

    As discussed in this section, NHTSA disagrees with the petitioner's
assertions

that hybrid CRSs have advantages over car safety seats.
    1. The petitioner states that the ``greater fore-aft bulk'' due to
the ``rigid junction'' reduces ``the available space for head
excursion'' and increases the risk of neck or head injury to the
child.'' Jewkes believes because a hybrid CRS lacks a rigid junction,
there is increased available space for head excursion which reduces the
risk of neck or head injury.
    NHTSA's Response: Jewkes failed to provide supporting data
demonstrating that the increased headspace for head excursions
(stemming from a hybrid CRS's initial placement of the child's head
closer to the vehicle seat back) offsets the increased risk of head and
neck injury resulting from removing the limit on head excursions in the
hybrid CRS's untethered condition. If the consumer does not attach the
tether of a hybrid CRS--and data indicate the potential that many will
not--there is a high likelihood the child's head will impact an object
or surface that can cause injury, such as the seat back, B-pillar, or
another passenger.
    2. The petitioner states that the rigid junction introduces stiffer
materials, increasing the ``mass and expense of the car-seat.'' Jewkes
believes that the increased mass ``often limits the permissible child
weight to barely over 40 pounds as the combined load limit for lower
anchors has been proposed at 65 pounds.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The petitioner refers to FMVSS No. 213 labeling
requirements instructing the consumer to use the lower anchorages of
a child restraint anchorage system only while the child's weight
plus the weight of the CRS is under 65 pounds. NHTSA requires the
label (S5.5.2(l)(3)) to ensure that the lower anchorages will not be
overloaded by loads that could potentially be imposed by heavier
CRSs and heavier children in very severe crashes. FMVSS No. 225
requires vehicle manufacturers to install a child restraint
anchorage system in rear seating positions of passenger vehicles.
For simplicity, this document will refer to the child restraint
anchorage system as the ``FMVSS No. 225 system.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's Response: The petitioner did not provide any information
about the ``mass and expense'' of a hybrid CRS. NHTSA does not view the
possible longer use by children of the FMVSS No. 225 system when in a
hybrid CRS as a relevant factor. When the weight of a car safety seat
plus the child exceeds 65 pounds, the CRS manufacturer instructs the
consumer to install the car safety seat using a seat belt instead of
the FMVSS No. 225 system. A car safety seat installed with a seat belt
is also used with the tether, just as it is with an FMVSS No. 225
system.
    More importantly, NHTSA does not view the ability of a hybrid CRS
to use the FMVSS No. 225 system longer as a factor that outweighs the
safety concerns discussed above. If a consumer does not attach the
tether of a hybrid CRS, there would be a significantly higher risk of
head injury compared to that of a child in an untethered car safety
seat. Car safety seats are required to restrict head excursions when
untethered. Under the sought-after amendment, an untethered hybrid CRS
would have no restriction on head excursion and would not provide the
same protection. Further, a hybrid CRS does not provide any head,
thorax, pelvic or leg protection in side impacts even when tethered--
whereas car safety seats can and do provide such protection. NHTSA does
not view a hybrid CRS's longer use of the FMVSS No. 225 system as
relevant or advantageous to safety.
    3. The petitioner believes that a hybrid CRS would ``significantly
simplify access'' to the lower anchorage bars of an FMVSS No. 225
system or to (lap) belt routing paths since it is less bulky than a car
safety seat, which would make a tight installation of the hybrid CRS
easier to achieve.
    NHTSA's Response: The petitioner provides no data supporting its
assertions. Data available to NHTSA indicate that there are vehicle
\16\ and CRS features \17\ that affect the correct, tight installation
of CRSs, such as the kind of connector used to attach to the FMVSS No.
225 system, the forces needed to attach the connectors, the position of
the lower anchorages relative to the vehicle seat cushion and seat
back, the location of the seat belt buckle stalk, and the presence of
components that assist in tightening a seat belt used to attach the
CRS. The bulk of the CRS back is not among the identified factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Klinich, K., et al. ``Effects of Vehicle Features on CRS
Installation Errors,'' DOT HS 811626, July 2012. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/811626.pdf.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The petitioner states that caregivers may prematurely graduate
their children to [belt-positioning booster seats (BPB)] or vehicle
belts ``to avoid the expense of, or difficulty traveling with, a
forward-facing car-seat [sic] following the baby, convertible or
combination seats.'' The petitioner asserts that a hybrid CRS would
reduce the number of users graduating their children to booster seats
prematurely.
    NHTSA's Response: NHTSA recommends that from birth to 12 months,
children ride in a rear-facing car seat, and from 1 to 3 years they
should be rear-facing as long as possible and then move to a harnessed
forward-facing seat (car safety seat with tether) when they outgrow the
rear-facing seat. From ages 4 to 7, children should ride in the
harnessed forward-facing car safety seat (with tether) until they
outgrow the seat, then ride in a booster seat. From ages 8 to 12,
children should be in a booster seat until they are big enough to fit a
vehicle seat belt properly.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NHTSA's Car Seat Recommendations can be found at https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/car-seats-and-booster-seats#age-size-rec.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The petitioner provides no data supporting its assertion that
consumers prematurely transition their children into boosters or belts
to avoid the cost of purchasing a car safety seat or a booster seat,
respectively, or to avoid difficulties traveling with such CRSs.\19\ It
provides no information supporting its claim that its product would
reduce premature graduation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The petitioner provided no information on the price
difference between hybrid CRSs and car safety seats. There are some
inexpensive options of car safety seats in the U.S. market, as their
prices range from $60 to over $300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA did not find information on reasons consumers transition
toddlers to boosters prematurely. The Agency did find a 2008 Australian
study \20\ on factors associated with premature graduation of children
into seat belts. The study showed that children who were moved
prematurely into a seat belt were more likely to be older/heavier, have
other children travelling in the vehicle and have younger parents
compared to children appropriately restrained in a booster seat. In
this study, parents identified the following reasons for moving a child
into a seat belt:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Koppel,S., et al. ``Factors associated with the premature
graduation of children into seatbelts,'' Monash University Accident
Research Center. Accident Analysis & Prevention. March 2008. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457507001510.

 Child was too big for toddler/booster seat (27 percent)
 Child was old enough to not slide out of seat belt unaided (19
percent)
 Child had reached the upper weight limit of the CRS with
integral harness/booster seat (14 percent)
 Child would be more comfortable in a seat belt (12 percent)
 Child disliked toddler/booster seat or feels too grown up for
CRS with integral harness/booster seat (8 percent)
 Child would be safer in a seat belt (4 percent)
 Needed toddler/booster seat for another child (1 percent)
 Other (24 percent)

    These reasons did not include the desire to avoid costs of another
CRS or the difficulty in traveling with CRSs.

Given what is known, NHTSA cannot agree with the petitioner's view that
hybrid CRSs would prevent premature graduation into a booster or belt
system.
    5. The petitioner states that ``people with multiple CRS users
would be able to place up to three hybrid CRSs side-by-side, such that
compromising the child's safety can be avoided'' by avoiding premature
graduation to a booster seat or to the adult belt system.
    NHTSA's Response: The petitioner did not provide any information
supporting its view. Fitting three CRSs side-by-side does not offset
the concern that hybrid CRSs provide a reduced degree of occupant
protection than car safety seats. In addition, NCRUSS \21\ data show
that few consumers are faced with this issue. The NCRUSS data show that
only 1.4 percent of vehicles had CRSs adjacently installed.
Specifically, NCRUSS found that of the 4,132 vehicles with children 9
years old or younger in the second row, 329 vehicles (8 percent) had
two children in car seats in the second row--of these, 293 vehicles (7
percent) had the two children in the outboard seating positions and 36
vehicles (0.9 percent) had the two children in adjacent seating
positions, (one in an outboard seating position and one in the center
seating position). Twenty vehicles (0.5 percent) of the 4,132 vehicles
had three children seated in a CRS in the second row--of these, 8
vehicles (0.2 percent) had three children in car safety seats, 1
vehicle (0.025 percent) had 2 car safety seats and a booster seat and
11 vehicles (0.26 percent) had 2 booster seats and 1 car safety seat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ National Child Restraint Use Special Study, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Denial of Request To Consider Hybrid CRSs as Harnesses

    Products meeting the definition of a ``child restraint system''
must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. In some instances, sub-
groups of child restraints (e.g., car beds, booster seats, harnesses)
are subject to specialized requirements or are excluded from a
requirement. The standard currently does not subject harnesses to the
untethered test requirement (S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1)). Harnesses have also been
excluded from NHTSA's proposal establishing side impact protection
requirements for children in child restraints.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 79 FR 4570; January 28, 2014, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    S4 defines a ``harness'' as ``a combination pelvic and upper torso
child restraint system that consists primarily of flexible material,
such as straps, webbing or similar material, and that does not include
a rigid seating structure for the child.'' The petitioner's hybrid CRS
does not meet the current harness definition as it has a rigid seating
structure.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See also September 21, 2016, letter to Mr. Charles Vits,
(CRS with a booster seating structure is not a harness), https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/14-001678%20IMMI%20STAR%20crs.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jewkes suggests amending the definition along the lines of the
following: ``An add-on forward facing CRS with five-point harness using
a combination of flexible materials connecting a rigid seat-bottom to a
seat-back structure.'' The effect of the suggested wording would be to
exclude the petitioner's hybrid CRS from the untethered test
requirement and the proposed side impact protection requirement.
    NHTSA is denying the request. NHTSA considers harnesses to be a
niche product that is not widely used in private vehicles.\24\ NHTSA's
Car Seat Recommendations, supra, do not mention harnesses at all in
guiding consumers on how best to restrain children in motor vehicles.
Because FMVSS No. 213 does not apply the same safety requirements to
harnesses that it does to car safety seats, children are generally not
as protected in harnesses in the general motor vehicle population as
they are in car safety seats. NHTSA believes that a hybrid CRS with the
rigid seating structure would not look as different from forward-facing
car safety seats as a harness does. The Agency is concerned that
consumers might purchase hybrid CRSs thinking that they afford the same
protection as a traditional car safety seat, which is not the case.
NHTSA declines to expand the harness definition to allow market
entrance of a kind of CRS that does not provide equivalent crash
protection to a car safety seat. The suggested amendment would provide
caregivers a false sense of security about the level of crash
protection provided their children.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ NHTSA is aware of a niche market for harnesses for use on
large school buses to restrain preschoolers, children needing help
sitting upright, and children needing to be physically restrained
because of physical or behavioral needs. See 79 FR at 4576
(harnesses excluded from side impact proposal); 69 FR 10928, March
9, 2004 (``seat-mounted'' harnesses permitted for school bus seats).
In the school bus environment, there is assurance that harnesses
will be correctly used, as school bus drivers and monitors receive
training to ensure harnesses are properly attached to the school bus
seat and that passengers are all properly restrained.
    \25\ Additionally, expanding the definition to allow entry into
the general marketplace of a CRS that does not ``improve the
protection of children seated in child restraint systems during side
impact crashes'' (MAP-21 section 31501(a)) would not be consistent
with Congress's intent in enacting section 31501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 49 CFR part 552, NHTSA hereby denies Jewkes'
February 21, 2017 petition.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117 and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2021-06223 Filed 3-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29366-29367]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11926]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14503-000]

Archon Energy 1, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On February 26, 2013, Archon Energy 1, Inc., filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Kern River Drop 2
and 3 Hydroelectric Project (Kern River Drop 2 and 3 Project or
project) to be located on the Kern River, near the city of Bakersfield
in Kern County, California. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit,
if

issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of two river drop developments.
Each of the proposed in-stream installations would consist of the
following: (1) A 40-foot-wide concrete diversion canal approximately
150 feet in length; (2) two VLH 4000 turbo-generators; (3) a 10-by-10-
foot electrical shack; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The proposed
project would have a total installed capacity of 2 megawatts and
generate an estimated average annual energy production of 14 gigawatt-
hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Paul Grist, Archon Energy 1, Inc., 101 E.
Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2800, Tampa, Florida 33602, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Corey Vezina; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and five copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14503) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: May 14, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11926 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5874-5876]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2509]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0366]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from twelve
individuals for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal
vision requirement.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0366 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 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 FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical Program
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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The twelve individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Eugenio V. Bermudez

    Mr. Bermudez, age 33, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/80 and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``I believe that he is capable of performing the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bermudez
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3\1/2\ years,
accumulating 175,000 miles. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) from Massachusetts. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
Commercial Motor Vehicle (CMV).

John A. Carroll, Jr.

    Mr. Carroll, 48, has had a retinal artery occlusion in his right
eye sustained ten years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in right
eye is 20/80 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2011, his optometrist noted, ``I think Mr. John Carroll's vision is
sufficient to perform commercial driving.'' Mr. Carroll reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 180,000 miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 780,000
miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Mark W. Crocker

    Mr. Crocker, 53, has had glaucoma in his right eye since 2007. The
best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/400 and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``I feel his vision is sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle at
this time.'' Mr. Crocker reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 34 years, accumulating 3.4 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Tennessee. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Johnny Dillard

    Mr. Dillard, 50, has had a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1974. The best corrected visual acuity in left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``At
this time, I consider Mr. Dillard to demonstrate sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Dillard reported that he has driven straight trucks for 31 years,
accumulating 620,000 miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 31
years, accumulating 1.24 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
South Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Keith J. Haaf

    Mr. Haaf, 52, has had a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1989. The best corrected visual acuity in right eye
is 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted,
``We do feel that the patient has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Haaf
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating
1.6 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Edward M. Jurek

    Mr. Jurek, 45, has had macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained when he was 8 years old. The best corrected
visual acuity in right eye is 20/200 and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``In my
opinion Mr. Jurek has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle; as he has driven a commercial
vehicle for many years without a problem.'' Mr. Jurek reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 153,000 miles and
tractor-trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 153,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Allen J. Kunze

    Mr. Kunze, 64, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained in 2008. The best corrected visual
acuity in right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, finger-count vision.
Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted, ``Mr. Kunez
does have sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Kunez reported that he has driven straight trucks for 54 years,
accumulating 1.35 million miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 17
years, accumulating 595,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jack W. Murphy, Jr.

    Mr. Murphy, 56, has had a retinal artery occlusion in his left eye
sustained in 2006. The best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/
15 and in his left eye, 20/200. Mr. Murphy reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 2.6 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows one crash in a CMV, for which he was cited for an
unsecured load, and no other convictions for moving violation in a CMV.

Mark A. Smalls

    Mr. Smalls, 41, has had a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained 14 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, I feel Mark has sufficient visual activity and visual
field to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Smalls reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 275,600 miles
and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 68,900
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows one crash for which he was cited for having an
unsecure load while in a CMV.

Glenn R. Theis

    Mr. Theis, 42, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/200 and in his left
eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``It is my opinion that he has adapted to his amblyopiua or reduced
vision in his right eye and can safely perform driving tasks required
to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Theis reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 135,200 miles. He
holds a Class D operator's license from Minnesota. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Peter A. Troyan

    Mr. Troyan, 30, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``Patient has good

vision field and 20/20 correction OU, good for driving tasks of
commercial vehicles.'' Mr. Troyan reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 8 years, accumulating 8,000 miles and tractor-trailer
combinations for 5 years, accumulating 175,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gary Vines

    Mr. Vines, 47, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to a traumatic injury sustained 30 years ago. The best corrected visual
acuity in right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, hand motion vision.
Following an examination in 2011, his ophthalmologist noted, ``He
certainly has excellent right eye monocular vision that should be
sufficient to operate that sort of vehicle.'' Mr. Vines reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 2.8 million
miles and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 1.5
million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

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. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business March 7, 2012. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: January 20, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-2509 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P