[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19703-19705]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0397]

Commercial Driver's License: Oregon Department of Transportation;
Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) a limited exemption from the commercial learner's
permit (CLP) requirement in 49 CFR 383.25(c). All State Driver's
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) are allowed to use this exemption at their
discretion. The exemption will allow ODOT and participating SDLAs to
extend to one year the 180-day timeline for the CLP from the date of
issuance, without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and
endorsement knowledge tests. Under the exemption, an applicant wishing
to have a new CLP after the previous one expires will be required to
take all applicable tests before a new CLP is issued.

DATES: This exemption is effective April 5, 2016, and expires April 5,
2018.

ADDRESSES:
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    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: Mrs. Pearlie Robinson, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards;

Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. If you have questions on viewing material in the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2015-0397 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document 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.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    ODOT requested an exemption from the Agency's CLP requirement in 49
CFR 383.25(c). The regulation provides that the CLP be valid for no
more than 180 days from the date of issuance. The State may renew the
CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the CLP holder to
retake the general and endorsement knowledge tests. ODOT proposed that
it be allowed to extend the 180-day timeline to one year for CLPs
issued to its drivers.
    ODOT provided multiple reasons for regulatory relief from the CLP
rule. First, ODOT believes that the 180-day time line required to renew
the CLP adds nothing to the effectiveness of the rule itself, the
purpose of which is to ``enhance safety by ensuring that only qualified
drivers are allowed to operate commercial vehicles on our nation's
highways'' (76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011). ODOT asserts that neither FMCSA
staff nor the States were able to identify any highway safety
enhancement arising from this requirement. ODOT states that it is
unaware of any data suggesting that persons who have not renewed their
CLP or obtained their CDL within six months pose less risk on the
Nation's highways.
    Second, ODOT agrees that requiring CLP holders to retake the
knowledge test after not obtaining a CDL within one year improves
highway safety, but disagrees that the requirement for renewal at six
months is needed. According to ODOT, if the exemption is granted,
ODOT's CLP would have a validity period of one year with no renewal
allowed. All applicable knowledge tests would be required before a new
CLP could be issued, which would accomplish the objective of not
allowing a person to have a CLP longer than one year without passing
knowledge tests.
    The third reason for the request is that Oregon's ``Department of
Motor Vehicle (DMV) field offices have a very large volume of work to
accomplish and, at best, limited resources with which to accomplish it.
Adding the bureaucratic requirement for a CLP holder to visit a DMV
office and pay a fee in order to get a second six months of CLP
validity will add unnecessary workload to offices already stretched to
the limit. ODOT is confident there would be no negative impact on
safety if the exemption is granted.''
    According to ODOT, ``If this exemption is not granted, Oregon
drivers with CLPs who have not passed the CDL skills test within six
months of CLP issuance would have to go to a DMV office and pay for a
renewal of the CLP. This would cause undue hardship to the drivers,
from the perspectives of both their time and their pocketbooks. It
would also cause undue hardship to our agency, where scarce resources
would be used to process bureaucratic transactions that add nothing to
highway safety.''
    In addition, because the issues concerning ODOT's request could be
applicable in each State, FMCSA requested public comment on whether the
exemption, if granted, should apply to all SDLAs.

VI. Public Comments

    On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published notice of this application
and requested public comment (80 FR 74199). The Agency received 10
comments representing various interests in response to the proposed
exemption.
    Six comments received in support of the exemption were from the
Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA); Colorado Department of Revenue
CDL Unit (Colorado); New York Department of Motor Vehicles (New York
DMV); Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc. (OTA); and two individuals.
    The ALEA commented that ``this requirement is an added financial
burden to the CLP holder by having to pay additional fees for renewal
and if applicable, any re-testing fees. Therefore, ALEA is in complete
agreement with the Oregon Department of Transportation in their
petition to allow the CLP to be valid for one year.''
    Colorado commented ``Regarding FMCSA's request that should this be
applicable to all states. Colorado is concerned that 77% of the SDLA's
have already made the programming changes to issue only a 180 day CLP.
Making a change at this point could be very confusing and possibly
expensive for SDLA's and the CDL industry. Colorado would suggest that
FMCSA leave the rule as is. However, Colorado would also suggest that
FMCSA work with ODOT one on one regarding this issue to determine if an
exemption should be granted to ODOT. If FMCSA believes an exemption
should be granted to ODOT, Colorado would support FMCSA granting
Oregon's exemption request.''
    The New York DMV commented that ``New York supports granting
Oregon's request for an exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(c) which requires
that a CLP must be valid for no more than 180 days. The exemption
should apply to all SDLAs, allowing states to set their own CLP
expiration date, provided the CLP's validity does not exceed one
year.''
    The OTA commented ``FMCSA has asked if the exemption requested by
ODOT should be extended to other states? Our response is, absolutely
and we believe FMCSA should go one step further and change the
underlying regulation to allow issuance of a CLP for 1-year.''

    Mr. Vardis Gaus wrote ``I believe this extension to be valid.''
    Mr. Daniel Tucker commented ``As a CDL driver, instructor and
state-certified third-party evaluator I believe this proposal/request
makes all the sense in the world. Allowing up-to a year practice and
development for an entry level driver candidate or re-entering driver
allows them to take as much time necessary to build (or rebuild)
skills.''
    Four comments opposing the exemption were from the Commercial
Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) and three individuals.
    The CVTA summarized its opposition to the exemption by stating ``We
urge FMCSA to deny ODOT's request for an exemption from the 180-day CLP
renewal requirement. Granting such an exemption carries serious safety
concerns and sends the wrong message regarding FMCSA's willingness to
accommodate underfunded CDL programs across the Country. Granting this
exemption would signal to states that FMCSA will not only tolerate
state practices of underfunding CDL programs, but will accommodate
them. Moreover, granting this exemption would undercut Congress' recent
efforts to put greater pressure on FMCSA and states to ensure that
state CDL programs are more adequately funded and efficiently
administered.''
    Josh Anonymous wrote ``Don't do it. Six months is plenty.''
    Mr. Roland Doe wrote ``Send a message to such an unfriendly
bureaucracy: NO dice on the waiver request. If other states can meet
the Federal requirement--and the majority of them are much easier to do
business with--even California--so can ODOT.''
    Mr. Gary Scott commented that ``A learner's permit should only be
valid for 6 months. If a person cannot achieve a level of proficiency
within that time period to acquire a permanent CDL then maybe they
should consider another line of work.''
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

V. FMCSA Response and Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated ODOT's application on its merits following
full consideration of the comments submitted to the docket, and has
decided to grant the exemption from 49 CFR 383.25(c) for a period of 2
years. The exemption covers ODOT and all SDLAs. Extending the exemption
to cover all SDLAs, at their discretion, will preclude the need for
other SDLAs choosing to use the exemption to file identical exemption
requests. FMCSA believes that safety would not be diminished by
allowing a validity period of one year for the CLP. The maximum time
allowed between taking the knowledge tests and obtaining the CDL is 12
months under the current rule and under the exemption. The exemption
avoids the necessity of obtaining a renewal of the CLP after 6 months
if the State chooses to allow that. FMCSA determined that the exemption
would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the
level achieved without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)).

    Issued on: March 25, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-07730 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 47197]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 9968-002]

Massachusetts Water Resource Authority; Notice of Application
Accepted for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Applications: Exemption surrender.
    b. Project No.: 9968-002.
    c. Date Filed: September 18, 2017.
    d. Exemptee: Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA).
    e. Name of Projects: Aqueduct Transfer Project No. 9968.
    f. Location: City of Southborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a--825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Pamela Heidell, MWRA, 100 First Ave.,
Building 39, Boston, MA 02129,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: David Rudisail,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-9968-002) on
any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The project has had only intermittent
use and has not generated power since June 7, 1995. MWRA has determined
that the cost of maintaining the project is not economically feasible,
and therefore, petitioned to surrender the exemption. MWRA proposes
maintain the valves to the turbine in an off position, lock out the
electrical breaker from the generator, and disconnect the leads to the
generator.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in
the docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208- 3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title COMMENTS, PROTEST, or MOTION TO
INTERVENE, as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, motions
to intervene or protests must set forth their evidentiary basis and
otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). All comments,
motions to intervene or protests should relate to project works which
are the subject of the license proposed re-development. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of
any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: October 4, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-21836 Filed 10-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P