[Federal Register: March 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 47)]
[Notices]
[Page 12725-12728]
[DOCID:fr10mr08-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0153; FRL-8540-5]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Critical Use
Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide (Applications,
Recordkeeping, and Periodic Reporting) (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 2031.03,
OMB Control No. 2060-0482

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR,
2031.02, is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2008. In addition, EPA is
also planning to renew and transfer the burden from EPA ICRs 2179.02
and 2179.03 into this ICR. Those ICRs are scheduled to expire on August
31, 2008, and November 30, 2008, respectively. Thus, EPA seeks to
create a single comprehensive ICR for the methyl bromide CUE program.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed information
collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0153 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0153, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 6205J, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0153, Air and Radiation
Docket at EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code
6102T, Washington, DC 20460. 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-HQ-OAR-
2008-0153. EPA's policy is that all comments

received will be included in the public docket without change and may
be made available online at http://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
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at: http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (6205J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2338; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also
visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection
Division at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html for further
information about EPA's Stratospheric Ozone Protection regulations, the
science of ozone layer depletion, and related topics.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0153, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for Air and Radiation Docket is
202-566-1742.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
producers, importers, distributors, and custom applicators of methyl
bromide, organizations, consortia, and associations of methyl bromide
users, as well as individual methyl bromide users.
    Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Protection of Stratospheric Ozone:
Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide
(Applications, Recordkeeping, and Periodic Reporting) (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2031.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0482.
    ICR status: EPA ICR 2031.02 is currently scheduled to expire on
August 31, 2008. In addition, EPA ICR 2179.02 and 2179.03 are scheduled
to expire on August 31, 2008, and November 30, 2008, respectively. An
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is seeking to renew EPA ICR 2031.02 which allows EPA
to collect CUE applications from regulated entities on an annual basis.
EPA is also seeking to renew and transfer the burden from EPA ICR
2179.02 and 2179.03 which require the submission of data from regulated
industries to the EPA and require recordkeeping of key documents to
ensure compliance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete
the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and the CAA.

    Entities applying for this exemption are asked to submit to EPA
applications with necessary data to evaluate the need for a critical
use exemption. This information collection is conducted to meet U.S.
obligations under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). The information collection
request is required to obtain a benefit under section 604(d)(6) of the
CAA, added by section 764 of the 1999 Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 105-277; October 21,
1998).
    Since 2002, entities have applied to EPA for a critical use
exemption that would allow for the continued production and import of
methyl bromide after the phaseout in January 2005. These exemptions are
for consumption only in those agricultural sectors that have
demonstrated that there are no technically or economically feasible
alternatives to methyl bromide. The applications are rigorously
assessed and analyzed by EPA staff, including experts from the Office
of Pesticide Programs. On an annual basis, EPA uses the data submitted
by end users to create a nomination of critical uses which the U.S.
Government submits to the Protocol's Ozone Secretariat for review by an
international panel of experts and advisory bodies. These advisory
bodies include the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC)
and the Technical and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The uses
authorized internationally by the Parties to the Protocol are made
available in the U.S. on an annual basis.
    The applications will enable EPA to:
    1. Maintain consistency with the Protocol by supporting critical
use nominations to the Parties to the Protocol, in accordance with
paragraph 2 of Decision IX/6 of the Protocol;
    2. Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with section
604(d)(6);
    3. Provide EPA with necessary data to evaluate the technical and
economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives in the circumstance
of the specific use, as presented in an application for a critical use
exemption;
    The reported data will enable EPA to:
    1. Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with section
604(d)(6);
    2. Maintain compliance with the Protocol requirements for annual
data submission on the production of ozone depleting substances;
    3. Analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used in
accordance with requirements included in the annual authorization
rulemakings.
    EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business
confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information
claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures
for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2,
Subpart b, and will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the
information is not entitled to confidential treatment. If no claim of
confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it
may be made available to the public without further notice to the
respondents (40 CFR 2.203). Individual reporting data may be claimed as
sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance
with procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 2.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.6
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The annual application, reporting, and recordkeeping burden is as
follows: 75 applicants to the critical use exemption program at 2,925
hours per year; 4 producers and importers at a total of 80 hours per
year (quarterly reporting); 100 distributors and applicators at 1287.5
hours per year (annual reporting); and 2,000 end users at 625 hours per
year (periodic certification of purchases of critical use methyl
bromide at the time of each purchase). The total industry burden is
therefore 4917.5 hours per year.
    The annual public application burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 39 hours per response (2925 hours
divided by 75 responses). The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.64
hours per response (1992.5 hours divided by 3,098 responses). Overall,
the total annual public burden (application, reporting, and
recordkeeping) for this collection of information is estimated to
average 1.6 hours per response (4917.5 hours divided by 3,173
responses).
    The total annual labor cost burden associated with information
collection request is $993,622. EPA estimates the costs as follows:
Application costs totaling $295,016 per year, recordkeeping and
reporting costs totaling $631,787 per year, and self certification by
producers, importers, distributors, and end users costing $66,820 per
year. EPA estimates the capital costs to be $0.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There is a decrease of 82.5 hours in the total estimated respondent
burden compared with that identified in the EPA ICR 2031.02 which is
currently approved by OMB. This estimate for total burden hours
includes updated burden estimates from the recordkeeping and reporting
ICR (EPA ICR 2179.02 and 2179.03) as well as EPA ICR 2031.02.
    The reason for the decrease in burden is that the Agency has six
years of experience managing the critical use exemption program which
has led to efficiency and greater accuracy in estimating future burden.
Over the last four years, EPA has received on average 65 applications
each year, rather than the 100 estimated in the previous ICR. EPA
continues to encourage users with similar circumstances to utilize
grower and user organizations to aid in completion of the application,
thereby reducing both the burden on applicants (particularly small
businesses) and the Agency. The registration of additional alternatives
since 2002 in the U.S. may also result in fewer applications received.
Furthermore, stakeholders are more familiar with the critical use
exemption program and have already organized associations to apply on
behalf of multiple growers. Other reasons for burden reduction include
the encouragement of electronic submission of applications and other
data and very frequent EPA communication with methyl bromide
stakeholders.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice

pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the
ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If
you have any questions about this ICR or the approval process, please
contact the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

    Dated: February 28, 2008.
Drusilla Hufford,
Director, Stratospheric Protection Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-4697 Filed 3-7-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 76996]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-32-000]

North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, Inc. v.
Duke Energy; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on December 16, 2014, pursuant to Rule 206 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 and section 206 of the Federal Power Act,
16 U.S.C. 824e, North Carolina Waste Awareness and Reduction Network,
Inc. (Complainant or NC WARN), filed a formal complaint against Duke
Energy (Respondent), alleging that the Respondent manipulates the
electricity market so that the Respondent can construct new generating
plants that are not needed and not warranted given the overcapacity in
the Southeast region. In addition, NC WARN requests the Commission to
investigate the Respondent's practices to determine if the Respondent
should enter into a Regional Transmission Operator and purchase
necessary power from other utilities rather than construct wasteful and
redundant generating plants.
    The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served
on the contacts of the Respondent as listed on the Commission's list of
Corporation 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 5 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 electronic 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 email notification when a document is added to a subscribed
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 5, 2015.

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29960 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

P.S. I'm a 70 yr old woman that was addicted to cigarettes for about 50 years. I tried everything that came on the market to quit, even hypnotism.  I accepted that i would take my last breath with a lung full of tobacco smoke.

Then i was blessed with discovering the health improving, longer life blessing of electronic cigarettes. I have been free of the chain  of cigarettes for almost five years!

If the government makes them so expensive that i will have to resort to rolling cigarettes and smoking again, you will have signed my death warrant.

No.. I know I'll be back smoking if I can't use e-cigs. I'm not weak...I was addicted and I will be again.

Sincerely,

Yvonne Perkins


About the PBT Profiler Background The PBT Profiler was designed to be an easy to use, widely available, no cost tool to screen chemicals lacking experimental data in order to identify pollution prevention (P2) opportunit ies. It is a continuation of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency) Pollution Prevention (P2) Assessment Framework  a collection of screening models and methods to help promote the design, development, and application of safer chemicals and processes. The P2 Framework uses computerized methods such as structure/ activity relationships (SARs) and standard scenarios to predict risk related data (physical/ chemical properties, bioconcentration, environmental fate, carcinogenicity, toxicity to aquatic organisms, worker and general population exposure, and other information) on chemicals lacking experimental data. The PBT Profiler arose from experience gained in the P2 Framework's outreach program, a vigorous set of initiatives by collaborators in the business, government, and academic sectors to promote the voluntary use of these tools to reduce pollution and highlight the potential economic benefits of informed environmental decision making.

Purpose The PBT Profiler uses a subset of P2 Assessment Framework computer based tools to help identify chemicals that potentially may persist, bioaccumulate, and be toxic to aquatic life, i. e., PBT chemicals. The release of even small amounts of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals to the environment is of concern because they can accumulate over time to higher concentrations and, therefore, have a higher potential to adversely impact human health and the environment. The overwhelming majority of known chemical substances do not have experimental persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity data available. Only a small fraction of chemicals currently in commerce, including the 2,000 new chemicals introduced each year, have sufficient data available to perform a thorough evaluation of potential risks. The PBT Profiler was designed to help interested parties voluntarily screen chemicals for persistence, bioaccumulation, and aquatic toxicity characteristics when no experimental data are available.

Limitations It is important to stress that the PBT Profiler is a screening level predictive tool and cannot be used for all chemical substances. The methodology the PBT Profiler uses has been developed by government, academic, and private sector researchers over the past 20 years and represents some of the best techniques currently available. Nevertheless, the PBT Profiler is a tool that, like all tools, has strengths, weaknesses, and limitations. These limitat ions should be considered before using this model. For example, predicted data should never be used in place of experimental data. Additional model limitations are described on this web site. When properly applied, the PBT Profiler can provide a straight forward estimate of persistence, bioaccumulation, and aquatic toxicity based on internationally accepted criteria. This information can help interested parties to identify pollution prevention initiatives and aid in their chemical selection processes.

Advantages Many chemicals can be profiled in one on line session. The PBT Profiler provides three integrated levels of output: (1) easy to read color coded comparisons of predicted values to PBT criteria; (2) predicted values for P, B, and T; and (3) descriptions of pollution prevention considerations for each chemical. For rapid recognition of the estimated results, the "P", "B", and "T" designators (corresponding to persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity, respectively) are shaded orange or red if a chemical exceeds the defined thresholds for each criteria; if the thresholds are not exceeded, the designators are shaded green. Numeric estimates in a tabular format are also provided for persistence (in air, water, soil, and sediment), bioaccumulation, and toxicity. To put these results in perspective, pollution prevention considerations for each chemical profiled are also provided in narrative. More information on interpreting the PBT Profiler estimates is available on this web site.

Security and Privacy Issues Throughout its development, concerns over protecting the privacy and security of chemical information sent over the internet to the PBT Profiler have been a high priority. Users of the PBT Profiler do so completely anonymously and no user or chemical information is purposefully stored, tracked, monitored, or analyzed. Additional notes on security and anonymity, including technical details, are available for those interested. Depending on user feedback, future versions of the PBT Profiler may offer advanced options such as the use of encrypted data transfer, or development of a downloadable, stand alone version of the model that can be used off line.

Developed by the Environmental Science Center under contract to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Computer Resources Donated by Syracuse Research Corporation Ver 0. 911 BetaR Restricted Access Last Updated April 18, 2001


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20593-20594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0053]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt seven individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have
``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are applicable on April 2, 2021. The exemptions
expire on April 2, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 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.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Dockets Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2020-0053, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On February 23, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from seven individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (86 FR 11044). The public comment
period ended on March 25, 2021, and 19 comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners (MEs) in determining whether
drivers with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV
in interstate commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These criteria may be found in APPENDIX A TO PART 391--
MEDICAL ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8),
paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, which is available on the internet at
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received 19 comments in this proceeding, one of which was a
duplicate. Most of the comments received were either for or against the
issuance of exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure disorders
prohibition and not in response to the exemption requests from the
specific seven applicants for which the Agency requested comments.
There were nine comments in support of issuing exemptions from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition. There were eight comments
against the issuance of exemptions from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition. The commenters that were against stated it would
be a safety risk and danger to everyone on the road to allow these
individuals to drive. Several pointed out that a seizure can occur
unexpectedly while driving, causing a loss of consciousness, even if
the individual is taking their medication as prescribed. In addition,
there was one comment that specifically addressed the seven applicants
and was only in support of an exemption being granted to Thomas A. Marx
because his last seizure was more than 20 years ago. The commenter
suggested that another 5-year waiting period be applied to the other
six applicants. The commenter stated that at least 15 years of no
recorded seizures or complications with epilepsy should be noted before
allowing these individuals to operate a CMV. As stated in the February
23, 2021, notice, to be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy
and seizure disorders prohibition in Sec.  391.41(b)(8), applicants
must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's
Medical Expert Panel (78 FR 3069). These recommendations state that
drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. The Agency also conducted an individualized
assessment of each applicant's medical information, including the root
cause of the respective seizure(s) and medical information about the
applicant's seizure history, the length of time that has elapsed since
the individual's last seizure, the stability of each individual's
treatment regimen and the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure
medication. Based on this information and the criteria in the 2007
recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (78 FR 3069), the
Agency believes the drivers in this notice have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-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 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum

duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel.
The Agency conducted an individualized assessment of each applicant's
medical information, including the root cause of the respective
seizure(s) and medical information about the applicant's seizure
history, the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's
last seizure, the stability of each individual's treatment regimen and
the duration of time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition,
the Agency reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to
the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of
seizure and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and intrastate inspections recorded in
the Motor Carrier Management Information System. For non-CDL holders,
the Agency reviewed the driving records from the State Driver's
Licensing Agency. A summary of each applicant's seizure history was
discussed in the February 23, 2021, Federal Register notice (FR 86
11044) and will not be repeated in this notice.
    These seven applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 9 to
26 years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last 2 years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in Sec.
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the 2-year exemption period; (2) Each driver must submit annual
reports from their treating physicians attesting to the stability of
treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free; (3) each
driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a certified ME, as
defined by Sec.  390.5; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the seven exemption applications,
FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure
disorder prohibition, Sec.  391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements
cited above:

Sayed K. Abbed (IL)
Devante Carter (IL)
David R. Frantz (PA)
Brian P. Klein (IN)
Thomas A. Marx (WA)
Jeffrey Smith, Jr. (FL)
Eric R. Smits (WI)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-08066 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 231)]
[Notices]
[Page 72783-72784]
[DOCID:fr01de08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL09-3-000]

Control and Affiliation for Purposes of the Commission's Market-
Based Rate Requirements Under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and
the Requirements of Section 203 of the Federal Power Act; Notice of
Agenda for Workshop

November 21, 2008.
    As announced in the notice of workshop issued November 12, 2008,
Commission staff will convene a workshop with interested persons
regarding issues raised in Docket No. PL09-3-000, concerning the
petition filed by the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA). The
workshop will be held on December 3, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. EST.
The workshop will take place in hearing room 7 at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, located at 888 First Street, NE., Washington,
DC.
    This notice provides more information on the topics to be explored
in the workshop. The goal of the workshop is to consider issues
involving control and affiliation as they pertain to the Commission's
market-based rate requirements under section 205 of the Federal Power
Act (FPA) and the requirements of section 203 of the FPA.
    In its petition,\1\ EPSA asks that the Commission state that
investments in publicly-held companies by investors owning less than 20
percent of such companies' voting securities and making filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Schedule 13G,
certifying that the investment is not for the purpose of controlling
the company, will not be deemed to convey ``control'' or to result in
``affiliation'' for market-based rate or FPA section 203 purposes. EPSA
also seeks confirmation that Commission findings that a given entity
does not ``control'' another entity made in the FPA section 203 setting
apply equally in the market-based rate setting to affected market-based
rate sellers. Finally, EPSA requests that the Commission state that
investments by entities upstream of a publicly-held company in entities
not otherwise related to the publicly-held company will not be deemed
to be within the knowledge and control of the

publicly-held company's subsidiaries with market-based rate
authorization, and, therefore, those market-based rate subsidiaries
will not be required to file a notification of change in status or to
include generation or inputs to generation owned or controlled by the
other entities in future market power analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Petition of the Electric Power Supply Association For
Guidance Regarding ``Control'' and ``Affiliation,'' Docket No. EL08-
87-000, re-docketed as PL09-3-000 (Sept. 2, 2008) (Petition).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the issues raised by EPSA, participants are invited to
address some or all of the following questions:
    1. Should the Commission reconsider its decision in FPA Section 203
Supplemental Policy Statement, 120 FERC ] 61,060 (2007) not to rely
solely on a Schedule 13G filing as evidence of a lack of control and
instead to consider the totality of the facts and circumstances on a
case-by-case basis? If so, why?
    2. How does compliance with the intent to not exercise control for
purposes Schedule 13G address the Commission's concerns under section
203 of the FPA and the Commission's market-based rate program?
    3. What statutory and policy purposes is a Schedule 13G filing
intended to fulfill under the SEC's regulatory program and how do they
compare with the statutory and policy purposes of section 203 of the
FPA and the Commission's market-based rate program under sections 205
and 206 of the FPA? Are the SEC and this Commission seeking to fulfill
fundamentally different goals with respect to an entity's possible
exercise of control, such that the Commission's reliance on the SEC's
Schedule 13 filing requirements would be insufficient to help protect
against the potential exercise of control as relevant to the
Commission's concerns under sections 203, 205 and 206 of the FPA? If
the answer to the prior question is yes, that reliance on the Schedule
13 filing requirements are insufficient, what if any additional filings
or requirements might supplement the Schedule 13 requirements in this
regard?
    4. What actions can an investor take with respect to the
management, operation or policies of a company in which it holds an
investment and still be considered eligible to file a Schedule 13G? To
what extent could taking any of those actions directly or indirectly in
some way affect some aspect of the day-to-day operation of a public
utility in which the investor holds an interest, either directly or
through a holding company?
    5. Using EPSA's hypothetical example shown on page 9 of the
Petition, how far upstream should a seller go when determining whether
an entity is an affiliate?
    6. Using EPSA's hypothetical example shown on page 9 of the
Petition, which of the IPPs should be considered to be under common
control, and therefore affiliates, under the Commission's regulations?
    7. Should a finding under FPA section 203 that an entity does not
``control'' another entity apply equally in the market-based rate
setting? Conversely, should a finding under section 203 that an entity
does ``control'' another entity necessarily apply equally in the
market-based rate setting? If not, under what conditions or
circumstances would the Commission have a reasonable basis to conclude
that the same finding should not apply in the market-based rate
setting?
    a. For example, if an upstream owner has been found to not have
control for section 203 purposes over two large IPPs in the same
relevant market, should the IPPs be required to study one another's
generation for purposes of their individual horizontal and vertical
market power analyses? Would the IPPs remain unaffiliated?
    b. If the upstream owner has control over both IPPs for section 203
purposes, should the IPPs be required to study one another's generation
for purposes of their individual horizontal and vertical market power
analyses?
    8. Should the Commission revise its requirements under FPA section
203 and the market-based rate program, in light of the concern raised
by EPSA that electric utilities may not know when their upstream owners
acquire ownership interests in other electric utilities? If so, what
changes can both address these concerns and still permit the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under sections 203 and 205 of the
FPA?
    All interested persons are invited to participate in this workshop.
Those interested in participating are asked to register no later than
November 28, 2008. To register or for additional information, please
contact Christina Hayes at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28401 Filed 11-28-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 42430]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0155; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-1]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; West Memphis, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at West Memphis, AR.
Separation of existing Class E airspace surrounding West Memphis
Municipal Airport from the Class E airspace of Memphis International
Airport, Memphis, TN, has made this action necessary to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at
the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, September 20, 2012. The Director of
the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action
under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9
and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 26, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the West Memphis, AR, area, creating controlled airspace at West
Memphis Municipal Airport (77 FR 17363) Docket No. FAA-2012-0155.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective
September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at West Memphis, AR, to accommodate the separation of
existing Class E airspace surrounding West Memphis Municipal Airport
from the Class E airspace area of Memphis International Airport,
Memphis, TN. The amendment for the existing Class E airspace
surrounding Memphis International Airport, Memphis, TN, is
simultaneously coordinated with this action. Controlled airspace is
needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at West Memphis Municipal
Airport, West Memphis, AR.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 West Memphis, AR [New]

West Memphis Municipal Airport, AR
    (Lat. 35[deg]08'06'' N., long. 90[deg]14'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of West Memphis Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 13, 2012.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-17362 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33325-33326]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2011-0003]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 1660-0058; Fire Management Assistance
Grant Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; extension,
without change, of a currently approved information collection; OMB No.
1660-0058; FEMA Form 078-0-1 (previously FEMA Form 90-58), Request for
Fire Management Assistance Declaration; FEMA Form 089-0-24 (previously
FEMA Form 90-133), Request for Fire Management Sub-grant; FEMA Form
078-0-2 (previously FEMA Form 90-32), Principal Advisor's Report.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection

abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and
clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the
information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated
burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by respondents to
respond) and cost, and the actual data collection instruments FEMA will
use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Fire Management Assistance Grant Program.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0058.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 078-0-1 (previously FEMA Form
90-58), Request for Fire Management Assistance Declaration; FEMA Form
089-0-24 (previously FEMA Form 90-133), Request for Fire Management
Sub-grant; FEMA Form 078-0-2 (previously FEMA Form 90-32), Principal
Advisor's Report.
    Abstract: The information collection is required to make grant
eligibility determinations for the Fire Management Assistance Grant
Program (FMAGP). These eligibility-based grants and subgrants provide
assistance to any eligible State, Tribal Government, or local
government for the mitigation, management, and control of a fire on
public or private forest land or grassland that is threatening such
destruction as would constitute a major disaster. The data/information
gathered in the forms is used to determine the severity of the
threatening fire, current and forecast weather conditions, and
associated factors related to the fire and its potential threat as a
major disaster.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 178.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: FEMA-State Agreement
and Amendment, 24 minutes; State Administrative Plan for Fire
Management Assistance, 8 hours; Request for Fire Management Assistance
Declaration, FEMA Form 078-0-1 (Previously FF 90-58), 1 hour; Request
for Fire Management Assistance Sub-grant, FEMA Form 089-0-24
(Previously FF 90-133), 18 minutes; Principal Advisor's Report, FEMA
Form 078-0-2 (Previously FF 90-32), 3 hours; Appeal Letter, 1 hour;
Duplication of Benefits Letter, 1 hour; Training Sessions, 90 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 810.5 hours.
    Estimated Cost: There are no annual operation, maintenance, capital
or startup costs associated with this collection.

    Dated: June 1, 2011.
Lesia M. Banks,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2011-14069 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70534-70537]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0337]

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 18 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0337 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
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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 18 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

Joseph Colecchi

    Mr. Colecchi, age 27, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Colecchi has more than adequate
vision required to operate a commercial vehicle and there is no reason
that he should not continue to receive his CDL.'' Mr. Colecchi reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 80,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating
80,000 miles. He holds a Class AM Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William A. Donovan

    Mr. Donovan, 54, has had a cataract in his left eye since childhood
due to a traumatic incident. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Donovan has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to drive a vehicle while
on the job.'' Mr. Donovan reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 17 years, accumulating 142,800 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Douglas Eamens

    Mr. Eamens, 51, has had no light perception in his left eye since
childhood due to a traumatic incident. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception.
Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``In my
medical opinion, I feel that Mr. Eamens has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Eamens reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 300,000 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.

Brian Knust

    Mr. Knust, 47, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
February 2004. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``Brian Knust, in my medical opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Knust reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17
years, accumulating 637,500 miles. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Scott A. Lambertson

    Mr. Lambertson, 48, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2011, his optometrist noted,
``There is no reason for me to believe that this patient would have any
difficulty performing the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Lambertson reported that he has driven

straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 18,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 8,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James W. Long

    Mr. Long, 57, has had a traumatic cataract in his right eye since
1967. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2012,
his optometrist noted, ``Patient has sufficient vision for commercial
vehicle operation.'' Mr. Long reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 35 years, accumulating 875,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 3 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Dean L. Price

    Mr. Price, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, I believe that Dean has the sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Price reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10
years, accumulating 25,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
4 years, averaging 216,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Roberto Ramos

    Mr. Ramos, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, and by DPS state standards, Mr. Ramos has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Ramos reported that he has driven buses for 14 years,
accumulating 909,538 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction
for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph.

Johnie Reed

    Mr. Reed, 54, has had open angle glaucoma in his right eye since
2008. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/150, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``The patient has sufficient vision to drive a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Reed reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Virginia. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Charles Roudebush

    Mr. Roudebush, 36, has had a macular scar and amblyopia in his
right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an
examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr.
Roudebush's retina shows scarring of macula and periphery of right eye.
This correlates with longstanding amblyopia. The left was clear of any
retinopathy. I feel based on this information that he is able to
perform driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Roudebush
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating
72,000 miles. He holds Class D operator's license from New Jersey. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Mario G. Sanseverino

    Mr. Sanseverino, 59, has complete loss of vision in his left eye
due to a traumatic incident in 2008. The best corrected visual acuity
in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``Mr. Sanseverino has been operating a commercial
vehicle for 3 years post injury to his left eye. He has been accident
free during this time. Therefore, I feel he has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Sanseverino reported that he has driven straight trucks for 33
years, accumulating 330,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
33 years, accumulating 1.32 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for speeding in a CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 10
mph.

Samuel Soles

    Mr. Soles, 29, has had aphakia and a corneal scar in his right eye
since childhood due to a traumatic incident. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is light perception only, and in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted that
Mr. Soles ``has full field OS and has the ability to recognize the
colors of traffic control signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber, and in my opinion has sufficient vision in the left eye to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Soles reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 4.5 years, accumulating 64,800 miles. He holds a
Class C chauffeur license from Michigan. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV;
he exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph.

Joseph Stenberg

    Mr. Stenberg, 34, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 2008 due to a traumatic incident. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Joe has sufficient vision to
perform many tasks including driving a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr.
Stenberg reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years,
accumulating 720,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years,
accumulating 770,000 miles, and buses for 4 months, accumulating 8,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Karl H. Strangfeld

    Mr. Strangfeld, 58, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Strangfeld reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years,
accumulating 18,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6
years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Grover C. Taylor

    Mr. Taylor, 57, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since
birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2012, his
optometrist noted, ``In my

opinion and without reservation I believe Mr. Taylor is able to
visually perform the task of operating a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Taylor reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 3
years, accumulating 111,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jimmy Van Meter

    Mr. Van Meter, 63, has had a traumatic cataract and glaucoma since
age 15, causing a field defect in his right eye. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/30.
Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted, ``There
have been no changes in your visual acuity or visual fields since 2007.
It is my opinion that if you have been able to operate a commercial
vehicle since that time, then there is no reason to make a change at
this time.'' Mr. Van Meter reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 44 years, accumulating 5.5 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Keith Washington

    Mr. Washington, 55, has had a branch retinal artery occlusion in
his right eye since 1985 due to a traumatic incident. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted,
``Patient has sufficient vision to drive and operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Washington reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 6 years, accumulating 366,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 19 years, accumulating 1.08 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Donald L. Weston

    Mr. Weston, 39, has had medullated nerve fibers in his right eye
since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2012, his optometrist noted, ``Donald's right eye alone has about
65% intact visual field and along with the normal vision and full field
of his left eye, again I have no concern that Donald will be more than
capable of operating a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Weston reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 77,000 miles,
and buses for 7 months, accumulating 9000 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Pennsylvania. 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 December 26, 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: November 14, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28574 Filed 11-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Draft—Not for Distribution

Page Footer

5-  PAGE  72

Draft—Not for Distribution

5- PAGE  92

The comments on this draft are designed to improve the flow of the
analysis as we move toward the NAS recommendation of incorporating the
characterizatio of uncertainty into the main write up.

Below is an option that I played around with, but after discussing with
others, I’m not so sure this is very clear and it loses a lot of
information.  At this point we’re leaning toward recommending that we
just not have a summary table, as someone suggested on the call.

Awkward

Note: There isn’t any new text in this section  except for the two
sentences re: the NRC – I just moved around the text that you already
had to improve the flow.

Make sure this estimate is consistent with one used in valuation section
that cites SAB (sentence right after table 5.12)

Moved from below

Paragraph moved up from subsequent page.

Side note – many cross sectional studies do have individual level
data. It is the subset of ecological studies that do not have individual
level data.

Paragraph was originally a couple paragraphs below

If you add the suggested text in the new “first section” it will be
clear who the SAB HES are/is.  Otherwise add footnote describing who
they are/relevance of their opinion.

I think you can delete this now that it has a been overcome by more
recent studies. Or phrase “Although the NRC also recommended, this was
before extended analysis…” If kept, this paragraph should go before
the discussion of the HES 2004 findings in order to keep things in
chronological order.

Put this paragraph just after the one that ends with the ref to SAB-HES
2004 in order to keep the chronology.

suggested changes relfect that you are now using cohort studies to
characterize premature mortality effects due to both short term and long
term exposures

add to footnote discussion of what it means to adjust (why, how)

since 10 is the baseline assumption, it isn't really part of the four.

edits are designed to avoid confusion, but best option might just be to
delete the last two sentences, since they are redunant anyway - this is
a short section and the same thing is already said twice above.

see note re: section 5.1.3 - suggest moving this section forward to

for instance, if this section appears before "methods of characterizing
uncertainty subsection" in Sec 5.1.3, it will be clear exactly what the
method of propogating standard errors provides.

for instance, moving this section up to Section 5.1.3 would ensure that
this topic is introduced before Sec 5.1.5 discussion of health endpoints
which talks about applying the same CR function across the country.

note that this is good for setting up the discusison in 5.1.5; be
careful to make sure that this isn't redundant and is written to be
consistent with what is already in that section.

note: you might set this section up to say that these are uncerainties
in  the concentation response functions for all health endpoints.  Then
say that the example provided focuses on premature mortality as that
this the largest impact on the total benfits estimate.

suggest experessing that you use a weight of evidence approach to look
at these issues; that you don't select a health endpoint unless it meets
broader criteria for causality (and inclusion - discussed later)

could cite CASAC letter here.

Again, it would be better to present this before the "Treatment of
Potential Thresholds" discussion.  Also note that some editing is
necessary to make if flow This section needs to be made consistent wtih
the threshold discussion

this text is simply copied from the end of the paragraph with no edits

can easily be integrated wtih existing discussion in sources of
uncertianty.

Is this a sensitivity analysis? If so, suggest discussing in the same
way that you do the "thresholds" discussion.  this phrasing is
approrpiately similar to that added to the "threshold" section of the
"sources of uncertianty" discussion, but there does not seem to be a
section like the "treatment of thresholds" section (methods for how/what
you'll do in the sensitivity analysis)

this statement is not consistent with the statement above, implying a
sensitivity analysis

do these three bullet points belong here since this isn't a control
strategy rule?  or does it go in the preamble rather than in the
benefits methods section or in the introduction??

what is being referred to here? length of exposure or intensity of
exposure or species?

This discussion is necessary since that is what you are using in the
next paragraph.  Actually, it might make sense to put the paragraph just
below this one first, and then add the information from intervention
studies (note that the smoking studies you refer to are also
intervention studies).

Is this still true from the perspective of either using the cohort
studies to capture both long and short term effects or  incorporating
the expert elicitation?

Add a sentence linking/transitioning WTP with VSL

Suggest moving this to the start of the section

Suggest copying this text to Uncertainty section (5.1.3) explaining why
focus of uncertainty analysis is premature mortality/why expert
elicitation focus on premature mortality . Also edit footnote to replace
reference to pilot elicitation with reference to analysis in this
document or final report for full scale study

Need to disentangle which are PM effects; not sure all of these effects
are not assoc w/PM

Shouldn’t it be “fine PM”

Note that in the next draft of this chapter all mortality and valuation
estimates will include both point and upper/lower bound estimates. Due
to time constraints we do not include all upper/lower bound estimates
here.

Make sure this estimate is consistent with one used in valuation section
that cites SAB (sentence right after table 5.12)