[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 27633]
[FR Doc No: 2022-09899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14976-000]

Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXIII, LLC; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Lock\+TM\ Hydro Friends Fund XXIII, LLC, permittee
for the proposed George B. Stevenson Dam Hydropower Project, has
requested that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was
issued on December 6, 2019 and would have expired on November 30,
2023.\1\ The project would have been located at the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' George B. Stevenson
Dam on First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek in Cameron County, Pennsylvania.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 169 FERC ] 62,139 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14976 will remain in effect
until the close of business, June 2, 2022. But, if the Commission is
closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close
of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ New
applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit
surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2021).

    Dated: May 3, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-09899 Filed 5-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29319-29320]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property and
Long-Term Lease Approval at Harrisburg International Airport (MDT),
Middletown, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is requesting public
comment on the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority's (SARAA)
request to change 7.18 acres of airport property from aeronautical use
to non-aeronautical use. The acreage in question is subject to the
Provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949, and the Surplus Property Act of 1944 as amended. In accordance
with 49 U.S.C. 47151(d), 47153(c), and 47107(h), this notice is
required to be published in the Federal Register 30 days before waiving
the condition that such land be used for aeronautical purposes. The
purpose of the release request is to enable SARAA to generate revenue
from this property by taking action including, but not limited to,
entering into a long-term lease agreement with UPS for the purpose of
constructing and operating a mobile distribution facility.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 10, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Susquehanna Area
Regional Airport Authority Office located at Harrisburg International
Airport:

Timothy Edwards, Executive Director,
Harrisburg International Airport,
Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority,
One Terminal Drive,
Suite 300,
Middletown, PA 17057,
717-948-3900.

and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office:

Oscar D. Sanchez, Program Manager,
Harrisburg Airports District Office,
3905 Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508,
Camp Hill, PA 17011,
(717) 730-2834.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Oscar D. Sanchez, Program Manager,
Harrisburg Airports District Office (location listed above).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to re-designate current aeronautical

property at the Harrisburg International Airport as available for non-
aeronautical use under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49
U.S.C.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    This action will allow the re-designation of the 7.18 acres as non-
aeronautical use on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). The purpose of the
release request is that SARAA has determined that it is in its best
interest to encourage development of land not needed for airport
development on the approved ALP to increase airport revenues.
Consistent with this purpose, this release request will enable SARAA to
enter into a lease agreement with UPS for the purpose of constructing
and operating a mobile distribution facility. There is to be no sale or
transfer of property rights in connection with this Airport Layout Plan
change. Proceeds from the lease of this property will be utilized in
accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of
Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February 16,
1999.
    MDT, including the 7.18 acres that are the subject of this release
request, was the former Olmsted Air Force Base. On June 20, 1967, under
the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949, and the Surplus Property Act of 1944, as amended, the Air
Force ceded Olmsted Air Force Base to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
for the purpose that it be utilized as an airport. This land was
conveyed to SARAA by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through its
Department of Transportation by a deed dated 01/02/1998 and recorded in
Dauphin County, Pennsylvania book 3008, page 425. On April 21, 2016,
the Department of Defense concurred with the decision to release the
National Emergency Use Provision on the 7.18 acres.
    The 7.18 acres is located on the landside of the airport in a
central area in close proximity to Airport Drive, and the long-term
parking area. To the north, the area is bordered by Airport Drive,
Amtrak Railroad, and Route 230. To the south of the area lies the
Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PANG) 193rd Special Operations Wing
Complex. The subject parcel is defined as Dauphin County tax
identification Parcel 36-024-001. The property is currently depicted on
the approved ALP on record as airport property and consists of asphalt
pavement that is currently used as an overflow long-term vehicle
parking lot. MDT has sufficient parking space available to accommodate
existing and future anticipated needs. This parcel is not needed for
future aeronautical development as shown on the airport's ALP.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment. All
comments will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, May 4, 2016.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2016-11118 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32862-32863]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13279]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0178; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASW-23]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Conway, AR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Conway, AR.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Cantrell Field. The
FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raul Garza, Jr., Central Service
Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone
817-321-7654.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 31, 2014, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for
the Conway, AR, area, creating controlled airspace at Cantrell Field
(79 FR 17944) Docket No. FAA-2014-0178. Interested parties were invited
to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments
on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X dated
August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 12-mile radius of Cantrell Field, Conway,
AR, for new standard instrument approach procedures developed at the
airport. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of
IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Cantrell Field, Conway, AR.

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface.

* * * * *

ASW AR E5 Conway, AR [New]

Cantrell Field, AR
    (Lat. 35[deg]01'12'' N., long. 92[deg]33'18'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 12-mile radius of Cantrell Field.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 28, 2014.
Gail Jackson
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2014-13279 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45598-45599]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18705]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RM06-16-000]

North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 16, 2012, the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) submitted a filing proposing to amend
the NERC Glossary Definition by modifying reference to the defined term
``Cascading Outages'' to ``Cascading outages'' within the definition of
Interconnection Reliability Operating Limit, approved in the
Commission's Final Rule issued December 27, 2007 on NERC's Proposed
Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability
Standards.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Facilities Design, Connections and Maintenance Reliability
Standards, Order No. 705, 121 FERC ] 61,296 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to

serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 15, 2012.

    Dated: July 25, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-18705 Filed 7-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 239 (Thursday, December 16, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 71409-71411]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1106; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-70]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Route
T-266; Juneau, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend United States Area Navigation
(RNAV) route T-266 in the vicinity of Juneau, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1106; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-70 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-1106; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-70) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ``ADDRESSES'' section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-1106; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-70''. The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ``ADDRESSES'' section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-

route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The project mission
statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air Traffic Service route
structure using satellite based navigation Development of new T-routes
and optimization of existing T-routes will enhance safety, increase
efficiency and access, and will provide en route continuity that is not
subject to the restrictions associated with ground based airway
navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the existing
Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct replacement (i.e., overlay)
with a T-route that offers a similar or lower Minimum En route Altitude
(MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite System Minimum En route Altitude
(GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the colored airway with a T-route in
an optimized but similar geographic area, while retaining similar or
lower MEA; or (c) removal with no route structure (T-route) restored in
that area because the value was determined to be insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to amend RNAV route
T-266 by extending the route to the north from the current endpoint,
the RADKY waypoint (WP), to the US/Canadian border at the SPUTA WP. Due
to the future decommissioning of the Haynes, AK (HNS); Coghlan Island,
AK (CGL); and Nichols, AK (ICK) NDBs, the route would serve as an
adjusted alternate to Colored airway A-15, providing pilots the ability
to follow more favorable terrain with lower GNSS MEAs. Additionally, in
order to provide future connectivity to the route, a waypoint will be
added (ZIDRA WP) to the northeast of Level Island, AK (LVD). This
waypoint is not a turn point along the route so it will not be included
in the legal description.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV
route T-266 in the vicinity of Juneau, AK in support of a large and
comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of Alaska.
The proposed route is described below.
    T-266: The FAA proposes to amend T-266 by extending the route from
the RADKY, AK, WP to the SPUTA, AK, WP. The FOGID, AK, WP and the
NEREE, AK, WP will be removed from the legal description, since they
are not turn points.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes

* * * * *

T-266 SPUTA, AK to Annette Island, AK [Amended]

SPUTA, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]42'42.73'' N, long. 135[deg]16'41.88'' W)
AKCAP, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]27'36.23'' N, long. 135[deg]18'56.39'' W)
FEDMI, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]18'38.28'' N, long. 135[deg]23'31.15'' W)
BAVKE, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]12'43.71'' N, long. 135[deg]25'39.26'' W)
ROTVE, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]05'52.67'' N, long. 135[deg]21'43.16'' W)
WONOS, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 59[deg]00'16.62'' N, long. 135[deg]20'12.89'' W)
COPOG, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]53'31.17'' N, long. 135[deg]19'57.44'' W)
JAPOR, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]45'45.29'' N, long. 135[deg]09'08.84'' W)
NIGPE, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]38'44.99'' N, long. 135[deg]04'28.66'' W)
GUMLE, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]35'18.69'' N, long. 135[deg]02'58.46'' W)
ZONPU, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]31'22.14'' N, long. 134[deg]59'35.61'' W)
ZADED, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]20'24.09'' N, long. 134[deg]48'30.77'' W)
RADKY, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 58[deg]08'00.39'' N, long. 134[deg]29'55.53'' W)
XADZY, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 57[deg]01'00.00'' N, long. 133[deg]00'00.00'' W)
VULHO, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 56[deg]49'05.00'' N, long. 132[deg]49'30.00'' W)
YICAX, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 56[deg]39'45.00'' N, long. 132[deg]37'00.00'' W)
VAZPU, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 56[deg]27'24.00'' N, long. 132[deg]25'56.00'' W)
DOOZI, AK                                       WP                             (Lat. 55[deg]37'57.14'' N, long. 132[deg]10'28.73'' W)
Annette Island, AK (ANN)                        VOR/DME                        (Lat. 55[deg]03'37.47'' N, long. 131[deg]34'42.24'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2021.
Margaret C. Flategraff,
Acting Manager,Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-27142 Filed 12-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66545-66546]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25546]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG22-24-000.
    Applicants: Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Meadow Lake Solar Park LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/16/21.
    Accession Number: 20211116-5195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/7/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints
and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:

    Docket Numbers: EL22-11-000.
    Applicants: Salt Creek Solar, LLC v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Complaint of Salt Creek Solar LLC v. Southwest Power
Pool Inc. Requesting Fast Track Processing.
    Filed Date: 11/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20211112-5370.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/2/21.

    Docket Numbers: EL22-12-000.
    Applicants: Persimmon Creek Wind Farm 1, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Declaratory Order of Persimmon Creek Wind
Farm 1, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/12/21.
    Accession Number: 20211112-5393.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/13/21.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER22-170-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2021-11-17_SA 3194 Wolf Run Solar-
Ameren Illinois Substitute 1st Rev GIA (J641) to be effective 10/6/
2021.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-416-000.
    Applicants: Indra Power Business NJ, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Tariffs and Agreements to be
effective 1/16/2022.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-417-000.
    Applicants: Southwestern Electric Power Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revised and Restated Minden PSA to
be effective 4/24/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-418-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing of revisions to
enhancements of CSR implementation to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5075.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-419-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA/CSA, Service
Agreement Nos. 6220/6221; Queue No. AB2-037 to be effective 10/18/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5103.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-420-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Reactive Revenue
Requirement for Two Creeks to be effective 11/18/2021.

    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-421-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 897 to
be effective 1/18/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-422-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Service Agreement No. 898 to
be effective 2/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 11/17/21.
    Accession Number: 20211117-5170.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/8/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 17, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-25546 Filed 11-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 42 (Friday, March 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12982-12983]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04551]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043]

T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc.: Grant of Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to grant
renewal of recognition to T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc. as a
Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The renewal of recognition becomes effective on March 5, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice that it is granting the renewal of
recognition to T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc. as a NRTL under 29 CFR
1910.7.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details the
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the
expiration date of the current recognition. A renewal request includes
a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating
their continued compliance with the terms of the recognition and 29 CFR
1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL
headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will
schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date
of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and,
as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces the preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicits comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc. (TUVAM) initially received OSHA
recognition as a NRTL on January 25, 2002 (65 FR 26637), for a five-
year period ending on January 25, 2007. TUVAM's most recent renewal was
granted on January 30, 2014, for a five year period ending on January
20, 2019. TUVAM submitted a timely request for renewal, dated April 26,
2018 (OSHA-2007-0043-0029), and retains their recognition pending
OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. The current addresses of
TUVAM facilities recognized by OSHA and included as part of the renewal
request are:
    1. TUVAM, 10 Centennial Drive, Peabody, Massachusetts 01960;
    2. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, 141 14th Street NW, New Brighton,
Minnesota 55112;
    3. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D America, Inc., 10040 Mesa Rim Road, San Diego,
California 92121;
    4. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D China, Shanghai Branch 3-13, No. 151 Heng Tong
Road, Shanghai
    200070, P.R. China.
    5. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Canada, 1229 Ringwell Drive, Newmarket,
Ontario, L3Y 8T8, Canada;
    6. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Product Services GmbH, Ridlerstrasse 65 D-
80339, Munich, Germany; and
    7. T[Uuml]V S[Uuml]D Product Services GmbH, Daimlerstrasse 11 D-
85748, Garching, Germany.
    OSHA evaluated TUVAM's application for renewal and made a
preliminary determination that TUVAM can continue to meet the
requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's renewal
application in the Federal Register on July 13, 2020 (85 FR 42016). The
agency requested comments by July 28, 2020, and received no comments in
response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice
to renew TUVAM NRTL recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the TUVAM's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the
Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3655,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0043 contains all materials in the record concerning TUVAM's NRTL
recognition. Please note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket
Office is closed to the public at this time but can be contacted at
(202) 693-2350.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of TUVAM as
a NRTL. OSHA examined TUVAM's renewal application and all pertinent
information related to TUVAM's request for renewal of NRTL recognition.
Based on this review of the renewal request and other pertinent
information, OSHA finds that TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7 for renewal of recognition as a NRTL, subject to the specified
limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of TUVAM's
recognition to include the terms and conditions of TUVAM's recognition
found in 67 FR 3737. The NRTL scope of recognition for TUVAM is also
available on the OSHA website at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/tuvam.html. This renewal extends TUVAM's recognition as a NRTL for a
period of five years from March 5, 2021.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
TUVAM must abide by the following conditions of recognition:

    1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of their recognition and comply
with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby renews the
recognition of TUVAM as a NRTL.

III. Authority and Signature

    Amanda L. Edens, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington,
DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the
agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2)),
Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020),
and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on March 1, 2021.
Amanda L. Edens,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2021-04551 Filed 3-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41073-41074]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16474]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4117-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Oklahoma; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma (FEMA-4117-DR), dated May 20, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 28, 2013.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Oklahoma is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of May 20, 2013.

    Atoka, Coal, Hughes, Latimer, Nowata, Pittsburg, Pushmataha, and
Seminole Counties for Public Assistance, including direct federal
assistance.
    Canadian, Okfuskee, and Okmulgee Counties for Public Assistance,
including

direct federal assistance (already designated for Individual
Assistance).
    Cleveland, Lincoln, McClain, Oklahoma, and Pottawatomie Counties
for Public Assistance [Categories C-G] (already designated for
Individual Assistance and debris removal and emergency protective
measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance,
under the Public Assistance program).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-16474 Filed 7-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 235 (Friday, December 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 66897]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26353]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9048-3]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 11/25/2019 10 a.m. ET Through 12/02/2019 10 a.m. ET
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20190285, Draft, USFWS, CA, Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed
Upper Santa Ana River Wash Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period
Ends: 01/21/2020, Contact: Karin Cleary-Rose<PHONE_NUMBER> ext 406
EIS No. 20190286, Final Supplement, BLM, CA, United States Gypsum
Company Expansion/Modernization Project, Imperial County, California
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Review Period Ends:
01/06/2020, Contact: Miriam Liberatore<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20190287, Draft, BR, CO, Paradox Valley Unit of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program Environmental Impact Statement,
Comment Period Ends: 02/04/2020, Contact: Lesley McWhirter<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: December 2, 2019.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2019-26353 Filed 12-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26611-26615]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program: Eligibility of Ground
Access Projects Meeting Certain Criteria

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Policy Amendment and Request for Comments

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend its ``Notice of Policy Regarding the
Eligibility of Airport Ground Access Transportation Projects for
Funding Under the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program,'' \1\
regarding the requirements for PFC funding of on-airport, rail access
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 69 FR 6366 (Feb. 10, 2004).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2016. Comments
that are received after that date will be considered only to the extent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
practical.

ADDRESSES: You may send written comments by any of the following
methods. Identify all transmissions with ``Docket Number FAA 2016-
XXXX'' at the beginning of the document.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     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: Deliver comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to Room W12-140 on the ground floor
of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-
3831; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 123(e) of Public Law 108-176, Vision
100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (December 12, 2003)
directed the FAA to publish a policy on the eligibility of ground
access projects for PFC funding. The FAA's Notice of Policy Regarding
Eligibility of Ground Access Transportation Projects for Funding Under
the Passenger Facility Charge Program (2004 Notice), 69 FR 6366, was
published on February 10, 2004. The 2004 Notice presented the relevant
statutory requirements as well as FAA's regulations and guidance on
PFC-funded ground access transportation projects in a consolidated
form.\2\ As stated in the 2004 Notice, the statutory requirements
include the significant contribution test for PFC contributions higher
than $3 per passenger (49 U.S.C. 40117(d)(3)); the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) funding test (49 U.S.C. 40117(b)(4)(B); 14 CFR
158.17(a)(2)) and the airside needs test (49 U.S.C. 40117(d)(4); 14 CFR
158.17(a)(3)).\3\ Other requirements can be found in 14 CFR part 158;
FAA Order 5500.1, ``Passenger Facility Charge'' (August 9, 2001); ``The
AIP Handbook,'' FAA Order 5100.38D (September 30, 2014); and FAA PFC
records of decision and final agency decisions on about the use of PFC
revenue to finance airport ground access transportation projects.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 69 FR 6367.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of the policy, airport ground access includes all
potential surface transportation modes (i.e., road, light and heavy
rail, and water).
    The 2004 Notice restated the agency's longstanding policy
requirement from the AIP Handbook, FAA Order 5100.38, that to be AIP
and/or PFC eligible, an airport ground access transportation project
must meet the following conditions:
    (1) The road or facility may only extend to the nearest public
highway or facility of sufficient capacity to accommodate airport
traffic;
    (2) the access road or facility must be located on the airport or
within a right-of-way acquired by the public agency; and
    (3) the access road or facility must exclusively serve airport
traffic.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 6367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first and second of these requirements are relatively
straightforward to apply and evaluate. The third requirement (exclusive
use) requires more explanation. The 2004 Notice stated that ``exclusive
use of airport patrons and employees means that the facility can
experience no more than incidental use by non-airport users.'' \6\ By
incidental use, the 2004 Notice explains, routine use of the rail
ground access transportation facility by non-airport users must ``be
unattractive and non-airport users in fact constitute only a minor
percentage of total system ridership.'' However, the 2004 Notice also
stated that ``Exclusive airport use does not mean that any non-airport
use must be prevented at all costs.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 6368.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2004 Notice also stated that related facilities, such as
acceleration and deceleration lanes, exit and entrance ramps, lighting,
equipment to provide operational control of a rail system or people
mover, and rail system or people mover stops at intermediate points on
the airport are eligible when they are a necessary part of an eligible
access road or facility. In addition, the public agency must retain
ownership of the completed ground access transportation project. The
public agency may choose to operate the facility on its own or may
choose to lease the facility to a local or regional transit agency for
operation within a larger local or regional transit system.
    During the 12 years that have ensued since publication of the 2004
Notice, the FAA has consistently applied these criteria. However, as
FAA's experience in administering the program has developed, it has
become clear that strictly applying criteria originally designed to
judge eligibility for on-airport road access projects, to on-airport
rail projects, can produce financially and practically inefficient
outcomes. The concept of ``exclusive use'' has been the subject of
particular interest because of the underlying principle that the
stakeholders who pay excise taxes on airline passenger tickets or
passenger facility charges should not have to pay the costs of
facilities, except to the extent necessary to meet the needs of airport
patrons and employees. Over the years, the FAA has had to decide
whether all or portions of proposed on-airport ground access projects
utilizing rail, or portions thereof, met the policy requirement that

the rail right-of-way exclusively served airport traffic.
    In the past, both before and after the publication of the 2004
Notice, the FAA has found that almost all otherwise eligible rail
stations located on-airport are eligible for PFC funding under agency
guidelines, because they are exclusively used by airport patrons and
employees.\8\ However, whether the right of way or guideway itself met
the historical interpretation of exclusive use depended upon the
configuration of the rail line (e.g., whether a spur line terminating
at the airport, or a through-line where the airport station is not the
terminus). Historically, the FAA has approved funding only for tracks
or guideways that clearly meet the requirement of exclusive use, by
virtue of the physical configuration of the rail line.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 64 FR 53763 (Oct. 4, 1999); PFC Record of Decision,
Application No. 01-08-C-00-PDX (July 20, 2001) at 8.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed below, the FAA recently received a request for the use
of PFC revenue to fund an on-airport ground access rail station and
related trackage, where the trackage would not exclusively serve
airport traffic because the rail line would not terminate at the
airport station but continue beyond the airport property. Our review
and evaluation of the application has caused the agency to consider
whether the exclusive use policy is unduly limiting, thereby preventing
the approval of PFC funds for some airport ground access projects that
might be consistent with the agency's mission to ``encourage the
development of intermodal connections on airport property between
aeronautical and other transportation modes and systems to serve air
transportation passengers and cargo efficiently and effectively and
promote economic development.'' 49 U.S.C. 47101(a)(5).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This policy, when completed, will also apply to AIP
eligibility. However, due to AIP rules that limit funding for
airport terminal development, rail access projects would not likely
be funded with AIP funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the agency notes that by extending the rail line
beyond the airport, thereby providing more transit options for more
travelers and increasing the utility of the system consistent with the
agency's mission, the financing options for that system become
conversely limited. There are fundamental differences between fixed-
guideway systems like rail and public roads. With road access, all that
is needed to facilitate efficient access to the air transportation
system is a direct connection from the airport to a main thoroughfare
or population center, as individual drivers can then choose their own
path to their destination. The roads used by airport visitors are
typically part of a broader system that may be funded, constructed, and
maintained by multiple levels of government or private entities for
multiple purposes and journeys. Given the open and variable nature of
road systems, it is critical for the FAA to apply strict eligibility
criteria that tie the funding of the on-airport project to the
exclusive use of the airport. Without such criteria, users of the
infrastructure could benefit from federally-approved funds designed to
improve access to the national air transportation system without ever
intending to visit, or actually visiting, the airport. Airport rail
access projects, however, are planned, funded, constructed, operated,
and used differently from on-airport road projects. By their nature,
passenger rail and rail transit aggregate passenger traffic along fixed
routes with a limited number of stops, each with their own
justification and purpose. Users of road infrastructure have more
flexibility and control in determining their route that users of rail,
who are more limited in their options. Without a very strict exclusive
use requirement, users of access roads could take advantage of that
infrastructure, and make a choice to never pass through the airport
itself. Users of rail, however, have little choice of route and their
degree of control over that route. Non-airport users are not taking
advantage of the airport portions of track by choice, but are more
likely to be passing through the airport because they cannot use rail
travel to their destination without doing so. The FAA is seeing an
increasing number of circumstances and physical configurations in which
strict adherence to the historical interpretation of `exclusive use'
may not be in the balance of the public interest. Indeed, rigid
application of the historical policy, designed primarily for road
access projects, potentially frustrates the FAA's own objectives as set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 47101(b)(5) and (6).
    Additionally, population and demographic trends have changed since
the ground access policy was developed. Many airports that were
originally constructed on the periphery of population centers, now find
themselves ensconced as suburban growth has extended to and beyond the
airport. As such, it may no longer make sense for a ``downtown'' rail
or transit line to terminate at the airport, as there now exists a pool
of potential users beyond the airport. However, under current policy,
which equates on-airport rail projects with ``access roads,'' extending
rail/transit access beyond the airport so that these populations can
also access the airport precludes the use of federally-approved funds,
such as PFCs, for significant portions of the project since the line
would go beyond the airport and no longer serves airport traffic
exclusively.
    Accordingly, the FAA is considering amending the 2004 Policy so
that on-airport rail access projects are no longer treated identically
to access roads.
    The FAA is evaluating whether, consistent with intermodal policy
under 49 U.S.C. 47101(b)(5) and (6), it should reconsider its policy to
only permit ground access projects where the airport terminal is the
terminus of the rail line, or whether PFCs should also be available for
other types of rail projects. The FAA is soliciting comment on whether
it should amend its policy to consider rail projects that are located
on airport, but that may not exclusively serve air traffic, where the
creation of a separate spur into the airport (in order to ensure
exclusive use of the right-of-way) would be materially more expensive
than having the rail line transit the airport property and continue
beyond and/or would be contrary to the agency's mission to ``encourage
the development of intermodal connections at airports.'' 49 U.S.C.
47101(a)(5). The FAA requests comments on several policy alternatives
for determining when rail projects on airport are eligible for PFC
funding. After reviewing comments, the FAA may permit some of the
alternatives to establish PFC eligibility or may permit other
alternatives raised by commenters. One recent PFC application received
by the FAA highlights the agency's experience with intermodal
objectives, and a need for flexibility in using PFCs to fund on-airport
rail access. In March 2014, the FAA received a PFC application from the
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) that included a
request to use PFCs to help fund both an on-airport station and a
portion of the on-airport tracks that would be located immediately
adjacent to the station. Although both segments of the track would be
located on airport property and connect to the nearest public
transportation facility, the tracks would not be exclusively used by
airport patrons and employees, as has been historically required based
on the FAA's policy, per the 2004 Notice, to analyze rail projects
under the same framework as access roads.\11\ The tracks would not be
for the exclusive use of

airport patrons and employees because the rail line in question would
not terminate at the airport station, but continue to other
destinations beyond the airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a July 11, 2014, final agency decision, the FAA approved
portions of the application and the Dulles Airport Metrorail Station
project in particular, but deferred consideration of ``the track
portions of this project (beyond the Airport station footprint).'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ FAA Final Agency Decision dated July 11, 2014, page 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA's final agency decision stated that ``The FAA is generally
reviewing the historical interpretation of exclusive use, and
considering possible refinements in the general eligibility criteria
relating to track and guideway elements, on airport, in certain
circumstances.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its consideration of this potential policy change, the FAA must
be mindful of how such a change could affect future airport ground
access project approvals. The agency will have to balance the benefit
to the airport (e.g., increasing ease of access for airport patrons,
and employees; decreased ground congestion; preserving or enhancing
capacity, etc.) against the use of PFCs to pay for the trackage or
guideway where use of that right-of-way would not exclusively serve
airport traffic as historically interpreted.
    Discussion on Proposed Policy: As a result of its review and
evaluation of the MWAA application, and past PFC decisions relating to
airport ground access, the FAA has identified three proposed means by
which an airport could demonstrate eligible costs of on-airport rail
trackage to be funded through PFC revenues. These proposals are based
on the underlying principle that the stakeholders who pay PFCs should
not have to pay the costs of facilities, except to the extent necessary
to meet the needs of airport patrons and employees, and also promote
the agency's statutory mission to expand intermodal links at the
nation's airports. The three proposals are:
    1. Incremental Cost Comparison: The increased cost of a through-
track solution (compared to a track that bypasses the airport) benefits
no one but the airport passengers and employees.
    Detailed Discussion of Alternative:
     For this alternative, the public agency could demonstrate
that the rail line would be built from Point A to Point B regardless of
whether the airport station is added.
     This approach would compare the actual cost needed to
serve airport passengers and employees against the cost of the PFC
project (airport station).
     If not for the service to the airport, the track alignment
in this section (Section C-D) would typically be shorter, straighter,
and less expensive than that of a design that includes the Airport
Station (C-A1-Airport Station-B1-D).

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY16.005

     The approximate incremental cost to serve the airport is
the difference between the track cost to serve the airport (C-A1-
Station-B1-D) and the cost if the track did not deviate to serve the
airport (C-D). This incremental cost represents the costs needed to
directly benefit airport passengers and employees. This incremental
cost forms the basis of PFC eligibility. However, only that trackage on
airport property (A1-Airport Station-B1) is eligible for PFC funding.
    2. Separate System Comparison: The project costs of a through-track
solution is less expensive than a stand-alone people-mover bringing
passengers in from an off-airport station.
    Detailed Discussion of Alternative:
     The full costs of a hypothetical people mover system
including the costs of the Airport Station, the transport vehicles, and
the full costs of the rail line between the Airport Station and A1
(theoretical airport property line) would typically be eligible for PFC
funding.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN03MY16.006

     This alternative would compare the cost of developing a
hypothetical people mover system (on airport) against the cost of
bringing the transit line to and through an on-airport station.
    If the airport can demonstrate that the costs to be funded through
PFC revenues would be less than the cost of building a separate system,
then the costs to be funded through PFC revenues would be eligible.
    3. Prorate the costs of the trackage on airport property based on
ridership forecast. If the airport can demonstrate that the costs to be
funded through PFC revenues would be no more than the prorated costs of
the trackage on airport property, based on ridership forecasts and the
percentage representing passengers and employees utilizing the airport,
then those costs could be considered eligible.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
data, or views concerning this proposal. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for
any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the
docket does not contain duplicate comments, please send only one copy
of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically,
please submit your comments only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments received, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposal. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will
consider all comments received on or before the closing date for
comments and any late-filed comments if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light
of comments received.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2016.
Elliott Black,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2016-10334 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34127-34130]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0125]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 15 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0125 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 15 individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from
the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b) (3), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate

commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of
each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve
the required level of safety mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Richard A. Bosma

    Mr. Bosma, age 56, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Bosma understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bosma meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Drivers License
from Illinois.

Ronnie E. Combs, Jr.

    Mr. Combs, 48, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Combs understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky.

Barbara A. Farrell

    Ms. Farrell, 42, has had ITDM since 1998. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2011 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Farrell understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Farrell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
ophthalmologist examined her in 2011 and certified that she does not
have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Tony D. Gayles

    Mr. Gayles, 50, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Gayles understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gayles meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Kentucky.

Dennis E. Hoffman

    Mr. Hoffman, 63, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Hoffman understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hoffman meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania.

Joshua D. Kohl

    Mr. Kohl, 28, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kohl understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kohl meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2011 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class B CDL from Iowa.

Clayton K. Lichtenberger

    Mr. Lichtenberger, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lichtenberger understands
diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lichtenberger
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Oklahoma.

Steven C. Mulder

    Mr. Mulder, 31, has had ITDM since 1984. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mulder understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mulder meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Illinois.

Judah A. Nell

    Mr. Nell, 23, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic
episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr.
Nell understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control
of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Nell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from Pennsylvania.

Ronald A. Sherwood

    Mr. Sherwood, 54, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Sherwood understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sherwood meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur license from Indiana.

John A. Svedics

    Mr. Svedics, 35, has had ITDM since 1980. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Svedics understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Svedics meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Vincent H. Thomas, Jr.

    Mr. Thomas, 51, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Thomas understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Douglas E. Walter

    Mr. Walter, 59, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Walter understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walter meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington.

Peter J. Wasko

    Mr. Wasko, 35, has had ITDM since 1983. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wasko understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wasko meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he has stable
proliferative retinopathy in the right eye and stable nonproliferative
diabetic retinopathy in the left eye. He holds a Class C operator's
license from Pennsylvania.

Alfred S. Zaldana

    Mr. Zaldana, 46, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2011 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zaldana understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zaldana meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2011 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
California.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). \1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety

required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of
the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with
section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: June 2, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-14462 Filed 6-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P