[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83552-83553]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28248]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-17-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

    Take notice that on December 11, 2020, Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in Docket
No. CP21-17-000 a prior notice request pursuant to section 157.205 and
157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act, for
authorization to abandon 9 injection/withdrawal wells and associated
pipelines and appurtenances, located in its Wellington Storage Field in
Lorain and Medina Counties, Ohio (2021 Wellington Well Abandonments
Project).
    Specifically, Columbia proposes to plug and abandon wells 7779,
8907, 8908, 8909, 8968, 9060, 9031, 9121, and 9309, and their
associated pipelines. Columbia asserts that plugging and abandoning
these wells will reduce integrity risk in alignment with the PHMSA
Storage Final Rule. Columbia states that there will be no change to the
existing boundary, total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and
buffer boundaries, or the certificated capacity of the Wellington
Storage Field as a result of these abandonments, therefore will have no
impact on Columbia's existing customers or affect Columbia's existing
storage operations, all as more fully set forth in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    The filing is available for review on the Commission's website web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
the Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation
declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19), issued by the President on March 13, 2020.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Sorana Linder, Director, Modernization & Certificates, Columbia Gas
Transmission, LLC, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 700, Houston, Texas
77002-2700, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's
public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of
Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and
state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary
reviews, and

the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90
days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list and will be
notified of any meetings associated with the Commission's environmental
review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve
copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party
commenters, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other
parties or issued by the Commission and will not have the right to seek
court review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFile link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other
carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.

    Dated: December 16, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28248 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 35203]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14963]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP11-493-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice Application

    Take notice that on May 27, 2011, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(Dominion), filed an application in Docket No. CP11-493-000 pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission's Regulations, for a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to: (1) Revise the active storage boundary; and (2) establish
a protective boundary for the Woodhull Storage Pool located in Steuben
County, New York, all as more fully set forth in the applications which
is on file with the Commission and open for public inspection.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Amanda K. Prestage, Regulatory and Certificates Analyst III, Dominion
Transmission, Inc., 701 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219, or
call at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify Federal and State agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all Federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: July 1, 2011.

    Dated: June 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-14963 Filed 6-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on March 1, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-20442

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Air Central Co., Ltd. 					Date Filed:  February 17, 2005

Relief requested:

Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in scheduled foreign air
transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or points
in Japan, and any point or points in the United States; and to perform
charters subject to Part 212 of our rules.

Statement of authorization under 14 CFR Part 212 to the extent necessary
to permit Air Central to wet lease aircraft to All Nippon Airways Co.,
Ltd. (ANA) for use by ANA between points in Japan under ANA’s blanket
code-share arrangement with United Air Lines, Inc. (United).

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New Authority

Applicant representative:  Charles J. Simpson<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None filed

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved								Action date:  March 1, 2005

(We acted on Air Central’s request without awaiting expiration of the
prescribed answer period with the consent of all parties served)

(Effective dates of the exemption and statement of authorization
granted:  March 1, 2005-March 1, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  1998 Memorandum
of Understanding between the United States and Japan (1998 MOU).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

X Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Based on the
record in this case, we found that Air Central is financially and
operationally qualified to perform the services authorized above.  In
addition, we found that Air Central is substantially owned and
effectively controlled by Japanese citizens.  Air Central is properly
licensed by the Government of Japan to perform the proposed services.

The code-share operations authorized here are subject to the following
conditions:

(a)  The authority granted above is limited to the carriage of
code-share traffic only.

(b)  The statement of authorization will remain in effect only as long
as (i) Air Central, ANA and/or United continue to hold the necessary
underlying authority to operate the code-share services at issue, and
(ii) the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations
remains in effect.

2

(c)  Air Central, ANA and/or United must promptly notify the Department
if the code-share agreement providing for the code-share operations is
no longer effective or the carriers decide to cease operating any or all
of the approved code-share services.  Such notices should be filed in
Docket OST-2005-20442.

(d)  Air Central, ANA and/or United must notify the Department no later
than 30 days before they begin any new code-share service under the
code-share services authorized here.  Such notice shall identify the
market(s) to be served and the date on which the service will begin.
Such notices should be filed in Docket OST-2005-20442.

(e)  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must
comply with 14 CFR Part 257 and with any amendments to the
Department’s regulations concerning code-share arrangements that may
be adopted.  Notwithstanding any provisions in the contract between the
carriers, our approval here is expressly conditioned upon the
requirements that the subject foreign air transportation be sold in the
name of the carrier holding out such service in computer reservation
systems and elsewhere; that the carrier selling such transportation
(i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket) accept responsibility for the
entirety of the code-share journey for all obligations established in
its contract of carriage with the passenger; and that the passenger
liability of the operating carrier be unaffected.  Further, the
operating carrier shall not permit the code of its U.S. carrier
code-sharing partner to be carried on any flight that enters, departs or
transits the airspace of any area for whose airspace the Federal
Aviation Administration has issued a flight prohibition.

(f)  The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that
neither carrier shall give any force or effect to any contractual
provisions between themselves that are contrary to these conditions.

(g)  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority granted at any time
without hearing at our discretion.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

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

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Attachment

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

												05/2004

  On August 7, 1998, we granted ANA and United blanket statements of
authorization to engage in code-share services.  See undocketed joint
application of United and ANA dated May 1, 1998.

  We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.


May 21, 2009

MEMORANDUM

TO: 			Air Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161

SUBJECT:	Domestic Agricultural Sector Impacts from the Forest and
Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM)

This memorandum accompanies two spreadsheets in the docket that provide
more detailed results from the FASOM model.  FASOM results were used to
estimate the domestic agricultural sector impacts for the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).

Several scenarios were run using the FASOM model to determine the
agricultural impacts of the NPRM.  The economic impacts reported in the
preamble and NPRM are based on the Control Case scenario relative to the
Reference Case scenario included in the Excel spreadsheet entitled
"FASOM Economic Impacts."  In addition, we conducted sensitivity
analyses on several key assumptions, including the number of acres in
the conservation reserve (CRP) program, corn yields, and high energy
prices.  This information is presented in the accompanying Excel
spreadsheet entitled "FASOM Economic Impacts Sensitivity Runs."  It
should be noted that each of the sensitivity analysis compares the
sensitivity scenario relative to a different reference case.  For
example, the high corn yield sensitivity run assumes higher corn yields
in both the reference case and the scenario case.

It is important to note that these economic impact scenarios are similar
to, but not identical to, the scenarios used to determine the greenhouse
gas emissions from the domestic agricultural sector for the lifecycle
analysis.  Due to the short timeframe available to develop the
greenhouse gas emissions estimates, the default assumptions in FASOM
were used to determine the energy prices, rather than the AEO 2008
projections.  A comparison of the price differences in included in the
two tables below.

Table 1: AEO 2008 Reference Case Energy Prices (From Tables 12, 8, and
15)

Table 2: FASOM Default Energy Prices


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 smoked cigarettes for twenty years. I would stand out in the cold, and walk into my children's sporting events smelling horrible. I physically felt the effect of cigarettes, it became hard to breath and exercise was difficult. Since switching to ecigarettes two years ago, I continue to feel better. I can now exercize like I want to without getting short of breath. When I say they have saved my life, I mean it. I lost both of my grandparents to smoking. I may be addicted to nicotine, but I love my family and don't want to end up as another statistic for lung cancer or any other number of fatal illnesses linked to cigarettes. 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.


Aquatic acute studies with rainbow trout and daphnids were conducted by the MBTP and submitted to EPA in fulfillment of reregistration requirements.

Because of the rapid volatilization of methyl bromide from water, these studies were conducted in exposure chambers with minimal to no headspace and sealed to prevent loss from the test chambers. Rainbow trout were exposed in 4L serum 1) Supplemental studies may be used for risk quotients,

but this does not mean that Acceptable ( formerly Core)

studies are not still needed. Better quality data can improve the quality of the risk assessment.

2) It is EFED's understanding that chronic flowthrough studies with measured concentrations are possible and appropriate. bottles containing approximately 4 liters of test solution ( MRID 43066701). The bottles were sealed with 22 mm Teflon faced septa. Methyl bromide gas was directly introduced into the exposure chambers by piercing the septum and injecting the methyl bromide gas directly into the water column. In order to further maintain methyl bromide concentrations, the studies were conducted under static conditions since it was anticipated that the methyl bromide would rapidly dissipate from the water column. As per guideline, the water temperature in this study was maintained in the range of 10.9 to 11.8 ° C.

Table 7 below summarizes the methyl bromide concentrations in water seen under the artificial exposure conditions described above. The results show that it was possible to maintain methyl bromide concentrations of approximately I to 2 mgfL over the 4 day exposure period. Despite the measures to prevent methyl bromide loss, methyl bromide concentrations declined by 10% to 20% over the 4 day period at higher concentrations ( 2 to 9 mgIL). The 96 hour LC5O under these conditions was 3.9 mg/ L classifying methyl bromide as slightly to moderately toxic to fish.

Similar artificial conditions were used to exposure cladocerans ( Daphnia magna)

to methyl bromide. The daphnids were exposed in 1 00 ml serum bottles containing approximately 125 ml of test solution with no headspace. The bottles were sealed with 20 mm Teflon faced septa to prevent volatilization of methyl bromide. The water temperature was maintained at 20 ± 1 ° C. The methyl bromide concentrations seen in the daphnid study are summarized in Table 8 as follows:

The analytical results demonstrate that stable methyl bromide concentrations were maintained during the 48 hour exposure period. The apparent differences in the stability of the high test concentrations between the daphnid and trout studies may be attributed to the shorter duration of the study, the smaller exposure vessels and the " overfilling" of the exposure vessels with water to assure no headspace.

Collectively, the analytical results show that stable concentrations of methyl bromide in water can be maintained under static conditions with no headspace for 48 hours.

The standard methodologies for longer term aquatic studies require flow through systems to assure that both test substance concentration and water quality conditions are maintained. This testing methodology would not be practical for methyl bromide as it would be logistically difficult, if not impossible to conduct long term studies under flow through conditions in a completely sealed system,

i. e., no headspace in the exposure vessel into which methyl bromide would dissipate or closed flow cells without headspace. Further, water turbulence in such a system would drive methyl bromide from the water. Thus, it would not be possible to consistently maintain methyl bromide concentrations.

Neither is it practical to conduct the longer term studies under static conditions. In the rainbow trout acute study, loss of methyl bromide occurred over the 4 day period even in a virtually sealed system. More importantly, a 34% decrease in dissolved oxygen concentration occurred, a condition that would be detrimental to the health of the aquatic organisms.

In any event, the test methodologies described above clearly do not simulate the potential exposure of aquatic organism and aquatic plants to methyl bromide. Such exposures could be simulated by direct injection of methyl bromide into the water column however, methyl bromide would rapidly volatilize from the water and stable concentrations could not be maintained. These types of studies would need to be conducted in chambers to contain methyl bromide vapors to avoid occupational exposure to technical staff. It is not practical to conduct the aquatic toxicity studies in enclosed systems since a number of processes in long term aquatic studies would require opening of the test vessels and losses of methyl bromide.

The trigger for the acute and chronic aquatic organism and the acute aquatic plant toxicity studies is related to the potential for methyl bromide to either be directly added to water or to translocate to water bodies. The volatility of the product argues against translocation and methyl bromide is not used in a manner leading to direct application to water. Further, the Henry's law constant supports a conclusion that methyl bromide would not remain in water even if trans location occurred.

As recognized by the Agency scientists, the toxicity databases for acute exposure of mammals, birds, fish, aquatic invertebrates and algae and chronic exposure of mammals and fish are adequate and have permitted the estimation of risks using a RQ approach.

In consideration of the ability of the Agency to perform risk assessment coupled with the chemical nature of methyl bromide, the very low potential for exposure to aquatic organism and the impracticality of testing methyl bromide in standard aquatic toxicity studies, the MBIP requests the Agency reconsider the requirements for testing in aquatic organism and plants.

76 ( EFED) 127 Aquatic Organisms   Bromide Toxicity Field applications of methyl bromide are not expected to increase levels of free bromide that would translocate to water bodies. Flux studies have demonstrated that the vast majority of methyl bromide volatilizes from the soil. The MBIP requests that the Agency reconsider the requirements for the evaluation of bromide toxicity on aquatic organisms. References cited in the Ecological Risk Assessment of Methyl Bromide document suggest that a significant portion of applied methyl bromide can degrade in soils ( page 17) and consequently bromide ions can potentially accumulate in soils ( Page 36). Thus,

accumulated bromide ions in soil can potentially transport to nearest water bodies via runoff events. As indicated in the 7/ 8/ 04 memorandum, " current aquatic modeling indicates the potential for chronic exposure to the bromide ion, very near the available open literature fish NOAEC. This study will enable a complete chronic risk assessment for freshwater fish,

with reduced uncertainty".

77 128 ° " Safe use" of these fumigants cannot be ensured, as indicated by the number and severity of poisoning incidents for different fumigants. We highlight a number of these poisonings and their effects on the lives of individuals and strongly urge EPA to phase out the use of these chemicals. The Agency's risk assessment process will include a thorough analysis of incident reports.

78 ° The FQPA's " reasonable certainty of no harm" standard is not consistently employed in risk assessment, nor is a consideration of all routes of exposure to ensure adults and children are protected. See response to comment # 36 & 42 79 ° External costs of fumigant use are rarely considered including costs associated with ill health, disabilities, and environmental damage caused by fumigant The Agency agrees that alternatives along with other risk mitigation options ( e. g. emission reduction exposure.

° Real world conditions warrant assessment of cumulative risks of exposure to multiple fumigants to ensure protection of the most fumigant affected populations,

i. e. farm workers and nearby residents.

° Non chemical alternatives to fumigants exist, are documented, and warrant greater emphasis and evaluation. EPA plays a key role in calling out these alternatives to USDA to develop methods of support for farmers to ensure a just transition to alternatives.

° Affected communities must be consulted at all stages of the fumigant cluster assessment process methods) must be considered in combination with a cost/ benefits analysis. Furthermore, along with the Phase 5 revised risk assessment, the Agency seeks public comment on Risk Mitigation Options for commodity uses The Agency is working with closely with USDA's Agricultural Research Service to fund research on methyl bromide alternatives.

80 128 Although we do not object to the use of pharmacokinetic data to refine the fumigant risk assessments, we do believe that the scientific support and information provided in US EPA's calculation of human equivalency concentrations ( HEC) in each risk assessment is inadequate. Another flaw in the US EPA's derivation of HECs is that test animal exposures to fumigants do not match typical human exposures. We offer specific recommendations in our comments to make the derivation of HECs for inhalation exposures more transparent and accurate. See response to comment # 37. The Agency also notes that part of the dosimetric adjustment conducted in this risk assessment to derive HECs includes an adjustment for duration of exposure. Hence, the different HECs calculated for occupational vs. non occupational exposures. For occupational exposures, the Agency assumes that individuals may be exposed during the course of an average workweek ( 8 hrs/ day and 5 days/ week). In the case of non occupational exposures ( i. e., bystanders), it is assumed that exposure may occur 24 hours/ day for 7 days/ week. By conducting these adjustments as part of the HEC derivation, the Agency believes that the differences between animals and humans exposure to the fumigant have been accounted for in the risk assessment.

81 128 In general, the discussion and justification for the use of uncertainty factors in the risk assessment is difficult to follow, and the rationale for selecting uncertainty factors unclear; it appears to us that US EPA's decisions were subjective and arbitrary. We recommend that US EPA adopt the more widely used default methodology, as explained in our comments, and consider additional uncertainty factor applications in specific cases. See response to comment # 37 82 128 In general, the sections referring to aggregate risk in the risk assessments are too superficial to fully understand what US EPA is attempting to do. We recommend that US EPA revise the risk assessment documents to include a full quantitative analysis for the combination of the three major exposure routes for all exposure sources for each chemical fumigant. See response to comment # 36 & 42 83 128 There is no attempt by US EPA to consider human exposures to mixtures of fumigants, or sequential exposures to the fumigants as they are applied in practice.

We provide specific examples in our comments on how the risk assessments could be revised to include cumulative risk assessment. Section 8.0 of the risk assessment characterizes the Agency position on cumulative exposure related to methyl bromide uses.

84 128 In conducting cumulative risk assessments, we urge US EPA to define the methodology in broader terms than simply summing the risks for comparable toxicity endpoints for chemicals with the same mechanism of action. Detrimental effects to the body caused by a chemical might make an individual more vulnerable to the toxicity of another chemical, which acts by a different mechanism. In the absence of data to substantiate taking no action, an additional See response to comment # 83 uncertainty factor is indicated.

85 128 Bystander Exposure Assessment A review of major poisonings shows that common features are low wind speeds and other conditions necessary for high atmospheric stability.

Low wind speeds occur frequently, during at least 10% of the hours annually, and up to 30% of the hours depending on the cutoff defining low wind speeds and the weather stations used for the estimates.

The ISCST3 model and methodology used by EPA systematically underestimates air concentrations during calm and near calm wind conditions by treating concentrations calculated for these conditions as missing.

The AERMOD model which can provide estimates under these circumstances is available and should be used to compute realistic fumigant air concentrations.

Use of the AERMOD model instead of the ISCST3 model in this circumstance is in compliance with EPA regulatory guidelines. In the revised assessment for commodities, the PERFUM model is now being used with ISCST3. The Agency is in process of accounting for low wind speeds in modeling estimates as well as the feasibility and benefit of using AERMOD in place of ISCST3.

The first indication related to AERMOD is that it will not provide significantly different results since the major modifications have been to the algorithms that address buoyant plumes ( e. g., heated stack emissions)

and not non buoyant plumes ( e. g., methyl bromide which is not heated and more dense that air).

86 128 There is insufficient detail to follow or comment on the indirect back calculation method for determining flux. Detail lacking includes the field monitoring studies used, the criteria for combining or eliminating study results, and the comparison of study results. The flux calculation and hence the exposure modeling calculation are therefore not transparent. See response to comment # 41 87 128 The model ( including its calibration through the back calculation of flux values)

was not corroborated with known major poisoning incidents. Demonstrating that the calibrated model correctly predicts past incidents would increase confidence that the model results will correctly validate risk mitigation strategies and prevent future incidents. See response to comment # 41 88 Dismissal of ambient chronic and sub chronic exposure is premature for multiple reasons including the fact that some of the existing studies did indicate that levels of concern were exceeded, the sensitivity of the result to HEC and MOE values,

and trends of increasing use which render old air monitoring studies obsolete The Agency has calculated chronic and sub chronic risks based on available ambient data.

89 128 Assessments for multiple ( successive, geographically neighboring) applications have not been included and will increase the exposure estimates when they are. The Agency aggress that this is possible.

90 128 Occupational Exposure Assessment These risk assessments show that a majority of occupational exposures to metam sodium, dazomet and methyl bromide are much too high, with the Agency's estimates of exposure for many jobs having little or no safety margin.

Our concerns are heightened because these risk assessments are based on many assumptions which underestimate occupational exposures. Specifically we conclude that the length of workday, number of days worked per year and fumigant exposure levels are underestimated. In contrast, respiratory protection factors are overestimated. The Agency is committed to refining risk estimates based on information from all stakeholders. The Agency believes that the revised risk assessment adequately characterizes the conservativeness and uncertainties.

91 128 EPA Must Seriously Consider Existing Viable Alternatives The substantial evidence of the hazards fumigants pose to workers and bystanders indicates that EPA cannot be assured that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from registration and use of these chemicals. For workers especially, it is clear that the extreme risks outweigh the limited benefits. The Agency agrees that alternatives along with other risk mitigation options ( e. g. emission reduction methods) must be considered in combination with a cost/ benefits analysis. Furthermore, along with the Phase 5 revised risk assessment, the Agency seeks The fumigants considered in this cluster assessment have viable non toxic alternatives that are being used successfully for fumigant intensive crops in many climatic and ecological zones. These fumigants continue to be responsible for mass poisonings as well as chronic adverse health effects. We urge EPA to invest more resources in alternatives assessment work with USDA to help farmers transition away from fumigants as a soil pest control strategy public comment on Risk Mitigation Options for commodity uses The Agency is working with closely with USDA's Agricultural Research Service to fund research on methyl bromide alternatives.

92 129   one problem with the current modeling is that it does not take the seasonality of applications by crop into account . For example more than 75% of the pre plant MeBr applications in almonds occur Nov Jan .

In 2002 5%, in 2003 9%, and in 2004 13% of the applications took place between May 1 and October 31, and most of those were in October. Given that rain fall, air temperature and winds are very different during the winter months from the summer months in the Central Valley, accounting for seasonality of applications by crop is critical to understand the actual bystander exposure risks posed. See response to comment # 41 93 129 Nor does the model account for the days when methyl bromide cannot be applied due to , the weather conditions. Any MeBr application requires a permit from the county ag. commissioner's office as well as a 24 h pre notification of the planned application. If there are inversion weather conditions the ag . commissioner will not allow the fumigation. Similarly if the soil is too moist, which leads to poor penetration, the ag. commissioners will not permit the application . Thus, there is not an equal probability at methyl bromide will be applied any of the 365 days of the year by almond growers as currently assumed in the model . It is unclear whether EPA made any effort to exclude weather conditions where MeBr would not be applied in their calculations and thus in the data presented as bystander exposure. See response to comment # 41 94 129 It was impossible to understand the assumptions EPA used in the worker exposure risk assessment for methyl bromide ( the referred to appendices were completely unintelligible and/ or illegible) . A updated legible version of the appendices has been added to the docket.

95 129 The pre plant applications of methyl bromide in almonds are exclusively done by custom applications as required by the State of California . Thus, it is likely that a single applicator will be exposed to methyl bromide several days in a row .

However, the state has also recently introduced limitations to the number of hours and acres that a single applicator may treat in a day to reduce worker exposure.

The typical application will involve the applicator, who also does the mixing and loading, along with a supervisor.

The presence of a second trained person is required by California for monitoring.

Most commonly a third person will be disking the soil as a seal several rows behind the applicator. Tarps are not used in the almond industry. EPA does not discuss the single tree hole treatment . These applications are typically done by the growers or employees . The state requires special training of anyone working with methyl bromide as well as the presence of two persons during the application . The methyl bromide is injected into the prepped hole ( loose soil) ideally at 2 3 ft depth using a injector attached to a pressurized canister. As mentioned above the typical rate is 1 lb/ hole. This is method is most commonly used to treat replants of young trees in an existing orchard that have died due to soil pest issues. See response to comment # 41 96 129 EPA discusses the bystander exposure both in terms of the maximum buffer distances from the field where the MOE is achieved as well as whole field buffer distances. Unfortunately it is still very difficult to understand what the whole field buffer distances mean both mathematically as well as in reality. If EPA would like to use whole field buffer calculations in the risk assessments and risk mitigation, then a greater effort is needed to educate readers on what the whole field buffers represent. See response to comment # 41 Page 42 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM Subject: Response to Comments  Methyl Bromide's Uses in Enclosures, Chambers, Structural Food Processing/ Storage Facilities ( Docket Number EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123).

From: Jonathan Becker, Ph. D., Senior Science Advisor William Chism, Ph. D., Senior Agronomist Biological Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division ( 7503C)

To: Steven Weiss, Chemical Review Manager Special Review Branch Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C)

Product Review Panel Date: March 15, 2006 The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) has received a number of comments related to the risk assessment for methyl bromide. Comments submitted to the docket ( EPA HQ OPP 2005 0123) related to the commodity or structural uses of methyl bromide are discussed generally below. Comments related to the soil uses of this chemical will be addressed at a later date.

Comments on the commodity and structural uses of methyl bromide can be grouped into three subject areas: the importance of methyl bromide to commodity fumigation, use practices and application rates used in the risk assessment, and limitations of methyl bromide alternatives.

Importance of methyl bromide in commodity and structural fumigation Comments: Many of the comments emphasized the importance of methyl bromide related to the elimination of unwanted pests ( phytosanitary and quarantine purposes). Fumigation with methyl bromide is required for export to certain countries and is required by USDA/ APHIS for importation of some commodities into the United States. Further, because the use of methyl bromide allows rapid fumigation and ventilation of commodities, certain market windows can be met only with the use of this fumigant.

EPA Response: EPA recognizes the benefits of methyl bromide in commodity and structural fumigation. Since the initiation of the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption process under the Page 43 Montreal Protocol, the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs, in conjunction with the Office of Air and Radiation, has developed the annual United States nomination for critical use exemptions from the phaseout of methyl bromide. These technical documents discuss in detail the benefits of methyl bromide. The most recent documents for commodities and structures may be located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ CUN2008/ CUN2008_ Commodities. pdf and http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ CUN2008/ CUN2008_ PostHarvest. pdf .

Use practices and application rates used in the risk assessment Comments: Several comments indicated that the risk assessment did not reflect their experience using methyl bromide in terms of general use practices and application rates.

EPA Response: Many of these comments have been incorporated in the revised risk assessment. Please refer to the risk assessment for the commodity uses of methyl bromide in " Methyl Bromide: Revised Health Effects Division ( HED) Human Health Risk Assessment for Phase 5" ( Jeff Dawson, March 10, 2006). This document is included the Methyl Bromide Docket ( EPAHQ OPP 2005 0123).

Limitations of methyl bromide alternatives Comments: Several comments indicate that some alternatives damage the commodity ( e. g., heat), are not accepted by the market ( e. g., irradiation), are restricted by regulation ( e. g., township caps for Telone), or have limited efficacy against key pests.

EPA Response: EPA acknowledges the limitations of some alternatives. Any proposed change in the use pattern of methyl bromide will be evaluated in an impact assessment.

Since the initiation of the Methyl Bromide Critical Use Exemption process under the Montreal Protocol, the Biological and Economic Analysis Division of the Office of Pesticide Programs, in conjunction with the Office of Air and Radiation, has developed the United States nomination for critical use exemptions from the phaseout of methyl bromide. These technical documents discuss in detail the benefits of methyl bromide. The most recent documents for commodities and structures may be located at: http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ CUN2008/ CUN2008_ Commodities. pdf and http:// www. epa. gov/ ozone/ mbr/ CUN2008/ CUN2008_ PostHarvest. pdf .


[Federal Register: March 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 57)]
[Notices]
[Page 13305-13306]
[DOCID:fr26mr09-134]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 31, 2008, vol. 73, no. 212, pages
65005-65006. The requested information is needed to mitigate potential
hazards presented by airmen using alcohol or drugs in flight, to
identify persons possibly unsuitable for pilot certification.

DATES: Please submit comments by April 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Pilots Convicted of Alcohol or Drug-Related Motor Vehicle
Offenses or Subject to State Motor Vehicle Administrative Procedures.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0543.
    Form(s) There are no FAA forms associated with this collection.
    Affected Public: An estimated 1113 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 10 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 185.5 hours annually.
    Abstract: The requested information is needed to mitigate potential
hazards presented by airmen using alcohol or drugs in flight, to
identify' persons possibly unsuitable for pilot certification.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 16, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E9-6185 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59697-59699]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21247]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343; FRL-10200-01-R6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Clean Air Act Requirements for
Nonattainment New Source Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving portions of the
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to the EPA by the
State of Texas (``the State'') for the 2008 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The SIP revisions being approved
describe how CAA requirements for Nonattainment New Source Review
(NNSR) are met in the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria (HGB) serious ozone nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on November 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0343. All documents in the docket are listed
on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure and Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Please call or email the contact listed above
if you need alternative access to material indexed but not provided in
the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our March
1, 2021, proposal (86 FR 11913). In that document we proposed to
approve portions of two revisions to the Texas SIP submitted to the EPA
on May 13, 2020, that describe how CAA requirements for enhanced
vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) and NNSR are met in the DFW
and HGB serious ozone nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    Our March 2021 proposal provided a detailed description of the
revisions and the rationale for the EPA's proposed actions, together
with a discussion of the opportunity to comment. The public comment
period for our March 2021 proposal action closed on March 31, 2021. We
received comments during the public comment period from two sources:
Earthjustice, on behalf of Achieving Community Tasks Successfully,
Coalition of Community Organizations, Downwinders at Risk, Sierra Club,
Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, and itself, together
with Caring for Pasadena Communities; and Air Law for All (ALFA), on
behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for
Environmental Health.\1\ The comments received are available for review
in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA is not finalizing the
proposed approval of revisions that address the CAA requirements for
vehicle I/M at this time. Those revisions will be addressed in a
separate rulemaking. Our responses to the comments addressing NNSR
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Henceforth, we refer to Earthjustice and ALFA as
``commenters.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: Commenters assert that the proposed rule relies on the
provisions of the Texas Administrative Code which require new or
modified major sources of ozone precursors in ozone nonattainment areas
to procure emission offsets for their emission increases through the
state's Emission Credit Banking and Trading program. According to the
Commenters, these provisions authorize inter-precursor trading (IPT) of
NOx and VOC emissions which was vacated by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on January 29, 2021. The
commenters also argued that EPA's approval of an inter-precursor trade
is presumed unless the EPA disapproves the trade during its comment
period, according to TCEQ guidance memorandum.
    Response: The commenter correctly points out that the D.C. Circuit
(the court) vacated the portion of the EPA's NNSR regulation at 40 CFR
51.165 that allows IPT to meet the offset requirements for ozone.
Following the court's decision, the EPA notified the TCEQ in a letter
dated June 17, 2021, that the EPA would no longer approve any IPT
trades under the previously approved Texas SIP rules based on the court
decision. In a response to the EPA dated June 25, 2021, the TCEQ
confirmed that its NNSR IPT provisions cannot function without the
EPA's prior approval of each trade, and that the TCEQ has not approved
any IPT request in the past without prior approval from the EPA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The text of each letter is available in the docket to this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TCEQ also confirmed that without the IPT provisions, its
regulations continue to meet the NNSR program requirements at 40 CFR
51.165. EPA agrees that, without the IPT provisions, the Texas SIP
regulations meet the CAA's NNSR requirements. The EPA-approved Texas
SIP already includes 30 TAC Section 116.12 (Nonattainment and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review Definitions) and 30 TAC
Section 116.150 (New Major Source or Major Modification in Ozone
Nonattainment Area). Based on EPA's review of Texas SIP regulations for
the NNSR program requirements for serious ozone nonattainment areas, we
are approving this portion of the SIP revision.
    The EPA does not agree with the commenters that the EPA's approval
of an IPT can be presumed under the Texas SIP unless the EPA
disapproved the trade during the comment period. Texas has not
submitted, and the EPA has not approved the State's guidance document,
described by the commenters, as part of the Texas SIP. Nothing in the
previously approved Texas regulations establishes a presumption of the
EPA's approval of an IPT if the EPA does not communicate its
disapproval during a relevant public notice and comment period.
    In addition, the EPA's commitment that it will not approve IPT for
ozone because of the court's decision is sufficient to render the Texas
IPT provisions inoperative for ozone. Texas has confirmed that IPT is
not permitted under its regulation without prior EPA approval of a
trade. Finally, we would work with Texas to get the inoperative IPT
provisions removed in future SIP revisions.
    As stated in our proposal, NNSR permitting program requirements

specific to serious ozone nonattainment areas are reflected in CAA
section 182 and further defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of
New Sources and Modifications). The EPA and states may rely on
previously approved SIP provisions to meet these NNSR requirements. One
way that a state may do so is by providing a SIP revision certifying
that the existing SIP requirements are sufficient to meet the
requirements of the new classification, as Texas has done here. EPA has
reviewed this submission and agrees that the existing provisions
referenced in the Texas certification are sufficient to meet the NNSR
requirements in 40 CFR 51.165.
    These comments did not result in changes to the EPA's proposed
approval.

III. Final Action

    We are approving portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted to the EPA by the State of Texas for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, we are approving the portion of the SIP
revision that describes how CAA requirements for NNSR are met in the
DFW and HGB serious ozone nonattainment areas.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \3\ For this final
action, the EPA conducted screening analyses using the EJScreen
(Version 2.0) tool. We conducted the analyses for the purpose of
providing information to the public, not as a basis of our final
action. The EJScreen analysis reports are available in the public
docket for this action. The EPA found, based on the EJScreen analyses,
that this final action will not have disproportionately high or adverse
human health or environmental effects on communities with EJ concerns,
as the changes to NNSR will result in an assurance that the applicable
Texas NNSR requirements for the various ozone nonattainment
classifications meet the CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov//environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 2, 2022. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 26, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection

Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, paragraph (e), the second table titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding an entry at the end of the table for
``Nonattainment New Source Review for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or     State submittal/    EPA approval date       Comments
                                  nonattainment area    effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Nonattainment New Source Review   Dallas-Fort Worth   May 13, 2020......  October 3, 2022     For the Serious
 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.         and Houston-                            [Insert Federal     classification.
                                   Galveston-                              Register
                                   Brazoria                                citation].
                                   nonattainment
                                   areas.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-21247 Filed 9-30-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39295-39296]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17042]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. Er19-2527-000]

Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Prevailing Wind
Park, LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced Prevailing
Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of

future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 26, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website 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>.

    Dated: August 5, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17042 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14223-14227]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06179]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0304]

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 28 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 April 17, 2015. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0304 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: 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.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<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. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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 28 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.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Dakota A. Albrecht

    Mr. Albrecht, 27, has a retinal scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
150, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``It is our opinion that he has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Albrecht reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 7 years, accumulating 700,000 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.

Joseph L. Beverly

    Mr. Beverly, 58, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since 2011 due to a central retinal artery occlusion. The visual acuity
in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``It is
my medical opinion as an ophthalmologist that Mr. Beverly has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Beverly reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 960,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a
CMV; he exceeded the speed limit by 21 miles per hour.

Jaroslav Cigler

    Mr. Cigler, 64, has had a branch retinal vein occlusion in his
right eye since 2011. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``Dr. Komyatte certifies that in her medical
opinion, Mr. Cigler has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Cigler reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 2.6
million miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was not cited
and did not contribute, and two convictions for moving violations in a
CMV; in one instance he disregarded a traffic signal, and in another he
was cited for improper lane usage.

David E. Crane

    Mr. Crane, 59, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye, 20/25.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I also
certify that he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Crane reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he
was operating a CMV in a no truck zone.

Alan J. Daisey

    Mr. Daisey, 63, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Daisey's vision is
good enough to have a commercial license.'' Mr. Daisey reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 18,000 miles. He
holds a Class CB CDL from Delaware. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Terry L. Daneau

    Mr. Daneau, 54, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/300.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I believe
that Terry Daneau possesses sufficient vision to maintain a CDL as long
as glasses are worn.'' Mr. Daneau reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 16 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a Class B MC
CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald A. Doyle

    Mr. Doyle, 53, has had a corneal scar in his right eye since 1985.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/
25. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Upon
examining patient I certify that in my medical opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle with a license (non-CDL) as explained in #1 Proof of Commercial
License.'' Mr. Doyle reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14
years, accumulating 121,422 miles. He holds a Class D license from New
York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Darin T. Eubank

    Mr. Eubank, 25, has had refractive amblyopia in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Darin has sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Eubank reported that he has driven straight trucks for 9 years,
accumulating

51,300 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years,
accumulating 17,500 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.

Dan J. Feik

    Mr. Feik, 53, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident
in 1989. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left
eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Feik has excellent
peripheral vision and visual acuity in the right eye to perform the
tasks required of him to operate a commercial vehicle without
reservations.'' Mr. Feik reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 8 years, accumulating 380,000 miles. He holds a Class BM CDL from
Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Phillip E. Fitzpatrick

    Mr. Fitzpatrick, 38, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Based on the longstanding nature of Phillip's amblyopia in the left
eye and the fact he has had a CDL for a number of years I believe that
Phillip can safely and effectively operate a vehicle that requires a
CDL.'' Mr. Fitzpatrick reported that he has driven straight trucks for
18 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New
Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William H. Fleming

    Mr. Fleming, 68, has had a branch vein occlusion in his right eye
since 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his
left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion,
    William Fleming has sufficient vision to perform the driving task
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Fleming reported that
he has driven buses for 3 years, accumulating 78,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Lucien W. Foote III

    Mr. Foote, 61, has had exotropia with amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in
his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to perform
the necessary driving tasks for a commercial vehicle.''
    Mr. Foote reported that he has driven straight trucks for 29 years,
accumulating 435,000 miles. He holds a Class A MC CDL from New
Hampshire. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jimmy F. Garrett

    Mr. Garrett, 61, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1974. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Due to his driving
record and excellent vision in his left eye I feel Jimmy can operate a
commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Garrett reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 36,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 26 years, accumulating 2.34 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.

Odus P. Gautney III

    Mr. Gautney, 61, has had glaucoma in his left eye since 1983. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 2030, and in his left eye, 20/400.
Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``The
above named patient has had the diagnosis of glaucoma for over 30 years
. . . The patient can perform all tasks required to maintain CDL
certification.'' Mr. Gautney reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He
holds a Class AM CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Dale R. Goodell

    Mr. Goodell, 73, has glaucoma in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1991. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``Attn: Vision Program U.S. Dept of Transportation
. . . Considering the fact this vision defect in the left eye is
longstanding I would state Dale has over time adapted to the loss of
vision and should continue to be able to operate a motor vehicle
safely.'' Mr. Goodell reported that he has driven straight trucks for
56 years, accumulating 5.6 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 42 years, accumulating 1.05 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Elmer Y. Mendoza

    Mr. Mendoza, 35, has had histoplasmosis in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 201X, his optometrist
stated, ``I believe Mr. Mendoza does have sufficient vision required
for CDL.'' Mr. Mendoza reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for nine years, accumulating 954,000 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.

Andrew M. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 60, has retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1972. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``He is able to perform the required
visual tasks associated with commercial driving skills.'' Mr. Miller
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating
110,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Iowa. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Richard N. Moyer, Jr.

    Mr. Moyer, 47, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Field is full od and doesn't compromise his ability to function as a
commercial driver.'' Mr. Moyer reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 29 years, accumulating 870,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 26 years, accumulating 260,000 miles. He holds a Class
AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Heath A. Pillig

    Mr. Pillig, 43, has had anisometropia with amblyopia in his left
eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right

eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in
2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Given his history and current
visual acuity I feel he has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Pillig reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 7.5 years, accumulating 881,250
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.53
million 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.

Alonzo K. Rawls

    Mr. Rawls, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2015, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Patient has a corneal scar from an accident OS in 1990. Vision has
been poor since then. Patient obtained a commercial license in 2008 and
2010, but needs re-evaluation to see if he qualifies for an exemption
for a CDL license. The patient, based upon his examination today, does
not meet the requirements for a CDL. However, the patient has had a CDL
in the past with no accidnets on record. If appropriate, the patient
would desire a road test to prove his ability to safely drive and
quality [sic] for an exemption.'' Mr. Rawls reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 18,375 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows one crash, for which he was not cited and to which he did not
contribute, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

John R. Ropp

    Mr. Ropp, 72, has had histoplasmosis in his left eye since 1973.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, light
perception. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion I believe with his record of 30 plus years without an
accident or moving violation I don't feel his vision will be a concern
in regards to driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ropp reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 34 years, accumulating 68,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 34 years, accumulating 68,000 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.

Timothy J. Slone

    Mr. Slone, 51, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Slone has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle under the following restrictions (a)
spectacle RX (b) passenger mirror.'' Mr. Slone reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 1.75 million miles.
He holds an operator's license from Kentucky. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

David L. Sorensen

    Mr. Sorensen, 57, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident at birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is
counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I would also state in my medical
opinion Mr. Sorensen is able to safely operate a commercial vehicle.
There is a longstanding history of loss of vision in the right eye
associated with trauma resulting in loss of vision in the right eye.''
Mr. Sorensen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years,
accumulating 40,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 11
years, accumulating 33,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nelson J. Stokke

    Mr. Stokke, 54, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 2005. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in
2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In summary, this 53 year old
commercial truck driver has adequate vision to continue driving a
commercial vehicle in my opinion.'' Mr. Stokke reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 29 years, accumulating 1.37
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Darwin L. Stuart

    Mr. Stuart, 55, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
350. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion Mr. Stuart has sufficient vision to perform [sic] driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Stuart reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 23 years, accumulating 115,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 60,000
miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Illinois. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Ivan Tlumach

    Mr. Tlumach, 45, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``At this time, from a medical standpoint, he has sufficient
vision needed to continue to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Tlumach reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 144,000 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.

Clarence K. Watkins

    Mr. Watkins, 74, has/has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``Pt's [sic] vision is currently as good as it has ever been
with 20/25 visual acuity in his right eye and 20/400 vision in his left
eye. Pt's [sic] ability to drive commercial truck at this time would be
no different than his ability has been over the past 5 decades.'' Mr.
Watkins reported that he has driven straight trucks for 55 years,
accumulating 550,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 56
years, accumulating 112,000 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.

Kevin D. Zaloudek

    Mr. Zaloudek, 43, has a damaged cornea and retina in his right eye
due to a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion Kevin
Zaludek's vision is sufficient for him to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Zaloudek reported that he has driven straight trucks for
15 years, accumulating 225,000 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Vermont. His driving record for the last 3 years shows

no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2014-0304 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0304 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: March 12, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-06179 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P