Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) - Information Collection Request (ICR)
Change Worksheet

1. Identification of the Information Collection

Title: Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements

OMB control number: 2060-0003

2. Description of the Change in Requirements

In this good cause final rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is amending its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and title V regulations to remove from the Code of Federal Regulations portions of those regulations that were initially promulgated in the 2010 Tailoring Rule and that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) specifically identified as vacated in the April 10, 2015, amended judgment, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. The rule removes from the PSD and title V regulations those vacated provisions that can be removed from the EPA regulations through a ministerial action. The removed regulations include portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as applicable to the PSD program and the PSD and title V regulations that required EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds.
3. Description of the Burden
In the regulatory impact analysis for the Tailoring Rule, we estimated that the average annual burden on an industrial respondent submitting a part C (PSD) permit application is 1,006 hours and the average annual burden on a reviewing authority processing a part C (PSD) permit application is 336 hours. By removing portions of Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule from the PSD regulations, permit applicants and reviewing authorities would not incur these part C permitting burdens for Step 2 sources. In addition, not phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements for additional sources under the PSD and title V program will further reduce burden for both permit applicants and PSD and title V permitting authorities. These potential burdens were not estimated as part of the Tailoring Rule, but would have been estimated as part of the rulemaking that would have determined whether to phase-in the PSD and title V permitting requirements at lower GHG emissions thresholds.

Therefore, to the extent this rule has any substantive effect, it relieves regulatory burdens. The rule relieves regulatory burdens by removing regulations that (1) would have required permit applicants to request PSD permits if GHGs are the only pollutant emitted by the new source or modification to an existing source above the applicable major source thresholds; (2) required the EPA to consider further phasing-in the GHG permitting requirements at lower GHG emission thresholds.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66603-66605]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27516]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76246; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2015-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Extending the Pilot
Period Applicable to Rule 6.65A(c), Which Addresses How the Exchange
Treats Obvious and Catastrophic Errors During Periods of Extreme Market
Volatility To Coincide With the Pilot Period for the Plan To Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS

October 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 22, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to Rule
6.65A(c), which addresses how the Exchange treats Obvious and
Catastrophic Errors during periods of extreme market volatility to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS. The pilot
period is currently set to expire on October 23, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot period applicable to Rule
6.65A(c), which addresses how the Exchange treats Obvious and
Catastrophic Errors during periods of extreme market volatility to
coincide with the pilot period for the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS, as it may be
amended from time to time (``LULD Plan''), including any extensions to
the pilot period for the LULD Plan. The pilot period is currently set
to expire on October 23, 2015.
    In April 2013, in connection with the Plan to Address Extraordinary
Market Volatility Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS (the
``Plan''),\3\ the Exchange adopted Rule 6.65A(c) to provide that
options executions would not be adjusted or nullified if the execution
occurs during periods of extreme market volatility.\4\ Specifically,
Rule 6.65A(c) provides that, during the pilot period, electronic
transactions in options that overlay an NMS Stock that occur during a
Limit State or a Straddle State (as defined by the Plan) are not
subject to review under Rule 6.87(c) for Obvious Errors or Rule 6.87(d)
for Catastrophic Errors. Nothing in Rule 6.65A(c) prevents electronic
transactions in options that overlay an NMS Stock that occur during a
Limit State or a Straddle State from being reviewed on Exchange motion
pursuant to Rule 6.87(c)(3), or a bust or adjust pursuant to paragraphs
(e) through (j) of Rule 6.87.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (Order Approving,
on a Pilot Basis, the Plan). The Plan is designed to prevent trades
in individual NMS Stocks from occurring outside of specified Price
Bands, which are described in more detail in the Plan.
    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 69340 (April 8,
2013), 78 FR 22004 (April 12, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-10)
(``Approval Order'').
    \5\ See Rule 6.87, Commentary .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan has been amended several times since inception and was
implemented on February 24, 2014. On May 28, 2015, the Participants
submitted to the Commission a Supplemental Joint Assessment that
recommended that the Plan be adopted as permanent with certain
modifications.\6\ The purpose of this proposed extension is to allow
the Participants to conduct, and the Commission to consider, further
analysis of data in support of the recommendations made in the
Supplemental Joint Assessment, including around the attributes of limit
states; the length of trading pauses; the use of an alternative
reference price at the open of trading; and the alignment of the
percentage parameters with the Clearly Erroneous Execution (CEE)
thresholds (with the goal of largely eliminating the Participants' CEE
authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from Christopher B. Stone, Vice President, FINRA,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC, dated May 28, 2015. In addition,
the Participants to the Plan recently filed to extend the Plan's
pilot period until April 22, 2016 (the ``Ninth Amendment''). See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75917 (September 14, 2015), 80
FR 56515 (September 18, 2015) (File No. 4-631) (notice of proposed
Ninth Amendment to the Plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to align the pilot period for Rule 6.65A(c) with the
proposed pilot

period for the Plan, the Exchange similarly proposes to extend the
pilot period. The Exchange has committed to provide the Commission with
its data assessments five months prior to the expiration of the LULD
Plan pilot period, including any extensions. If the Plan extension is
approved, the Exchange will deliver its next data assessment to the
Commission by December 18, 2015.
    In connection with the proposed change, the Exchange proposes to
modify the text of Rule 6.65A to make clear that paragraph (c), like
paragraphs (a) and (b), will be in effect for a pilot period to
coincide with the pilot period for the LULD Plan, including any
extensions to the pilot period for the LULD Plan. The Exchange believes
the benefits afforded to market participants under Rule 6.65A(c) should
continue on a pilot basis during the same period as the Plan pilot. The
Exchange continues to believe that adding certainty to the execution of
orders in Limit or Straddle States would encourage market participants
to continue to provide liquidity to the Exchange, and thus, promote a
fair and orderly market during those periods. Thus, the Exchange
believes that the protections of current Rule 6.65A(c) should continue
while the industry gains further experience operating the Plan. In
addition, the Exchange believes that extending the pilot period for
Rule 6.65A(c) would allow the Exchange to continue to collect and
evaluate data, as well as to conduct further data analyses, related to
this provision.
    Specifically, in connection with the adoption of Rule 6.65A (c),
the Exchange committed to review the operation of this provision and to
analyze the impact of Limit and Straddle States accordingly.\7\ The
Exchange agreed to and has been providing to the Commission and the
public data for each Straddle State and Limit State in NMS Stocks
underlying options traded on the Exchange beginning in April 2013,
limited to those option classes that have at least one (1) trade on the
Exchange during a Straddle State or Limit State.\8\ For each of those
option classes affected, each data record contains the following
information:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Specifically, the Exchange committed to: ``(1) Evaluate the
options market quality during Limit States and Straddle States; (2)
assess the character of incoming order flow and transactions during
Limit States and Straddle States; and (3) review any complaints from
members and their customers concerning executions during Limit
States and Straddle States.'' See Approval Order, 78 FR at 22008.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71869 (April 4,
2014), 79 FR 19689 (April 9, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Stock symbol, option symbol, time at the start of the
Straddle or Limit State, an indicator for whether it is a Straddle or
Limit State.
     For activity on the Exchange:
     Executed volume, time-weighted quoted bid-ask spread,
time-weighted average quoted depth at the bid, time-weighted average
quoted depth at the offer;
     high execution price, low execution price;
     number of trades for which a request for review for error
was received during Straddle and Limit States;
     an indicator variable for whether those options outlined
above have a price change exceeding 30% during the underlying stock's
Limit or Straddle state compared to the last available option price as
reported by OPRA before the start of the Limit or Straddle State (1 if
observe 30% and 0 otherwise). Another indicator variable for whether
the option price within five minutes of the underlying stock leaving
the Limit or Straddle state (or halt if applicable) is 30% away from
the price before the start of the Limit or Straddle state.
    The Exchange believes that the extension of the pilot period of
Rule 6.65A(c) would allow the Exchange to continue to observe the
operation of the pilot and conduct its assessments relating to the
impact of the operation of the Rule during Limit and Straddle States,
which information will continue to be shared with the Commission and
the public as set forth above.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend 6.65A(c) to update cross-
references to Rule 6.87 that reflect the recent amendments of that
rule, which add clarity and consistency to Exchange rules. The Exchange
also proposes to similarly amend Commentary .03 to Rule 6.87 regarding
the Limit Up-Limit Down State to reflect the extension of the pilot to
coincide with the pilot period for the LULD Plan, including any
extensions to the pilot period for the LULD Plan.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5),\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f (b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposal to extend the pilot program of Rule
6.65A(c) and Commentary .03 to Rule 6.87 to coincide with the pilot
period for the LULD Plan, as it may be amended from time to time,
including any extensions to the pilot period for the LULD Plan would
align that pilot program with the Pilot Period for the Plan, as
proposed in the Ninth Amendment to the Plan. The Exchange believes that
aligning the pilot periods would ensure that trading in options that
overlay NMS Stocks continues to be appropriately modified to reflect
market conditions that occur during a Limit State or a Straddle State
in a manner that promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to, and perfects the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
extension of Rule 6.65A(c) and Commentary .03 to Rule 6.87 would help
encourage market participants to continue to provide liquidity during
extraordinary market volatility.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that extending the pilot period for
Rule 6.65A(c) and Commentary .03 to Rule 6.87 would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market because it
would enable the Exchange to continue to conduct its assessments
relating to the impact of the operation of the Obvious Error rules
during Limit and Straddle States as set forth above, which, in turn,
provides the Exchange with more information from which to assess the
impact of Rule 6.65A(c) and Commentary .03 to Rule 6.87.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that amending 6.65A(c) to update
cross-references to Rule 6.87 to reflect the recent amendments of that
rule would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free
and open market by adding clarity and consistency to Exchange rules to
the benefit of all market participants.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed changes will
not impose any burden on competition and will instead provide certainty
regarding the treatment and execution of options orders, specifically
the treatment of Obvious and Catastrophic Errors during periods of
extraordinary volatility in the underlying NMS Stock, and will

facilitate appropriate liquidity during a Limit State or Straddle
State.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the obvious error pilot program to continue
uninterrupted while the industry gains further experience operating
under the Plan, and avoid any investor confusion that could result from
a temporary interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-101. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2015-101, and
should be submitted on or before November 19, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-27516 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 78 (Tuesday, April 25, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18983-18985]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0217; Airspace Docket No. 17-ANM-8]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Moses Lake, WA; Olympia, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, technical amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the legal descriptions of the Class E
airspace area designated as an extension to a Class D airspace at Grant
County International Airport (formerly Grant County Airport), Moses
Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport),
Olympia, WA, by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time
status. Also, this action updates the airport name for Grant County
International Airport and Olympia Regional Airport and updates the
geographic coordinates for Grant County International Airport, Moses
Lake VOR/DME, and Fairchild AFB, as listed in the Grant County
International Airport Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions.
This action does not affect the charted boundaries or operating
requirements of the airspace.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
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 amends the legal descriptions of Class E airspace at Grant County
International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport,
Olympia, WA, to remove the NOTAM part-time status.

History

    The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E
airspace designated as an extension to a Class D area at Grant County
International Airport, Moses Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport,
Olympia, WA, as published in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations
and Reporting Points, does not require part-time status. The FAA also
found the airport names for Grant County International Airport
(formerly Grant County Airport) and Olympia Regional Airport (formerly
Olympia Airport) have changed. Additionally, after a review, the FAA
found the geographic coordinates listed in Grant County International
Airport's Class D and Class E airspace legal descriptions for Grant
County International Airport, Moses Lake VOR/DME, and Fairchild AFB, do
not match the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D and Class E
airspace legal descriptions replacing Airport/Facility Directory with
the term Chart Supplement, and adds the city name Spokane to Fairchild
AFB listed under the header for Grant County International Airport in
Class E 700 foot airspace.
    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal
description of Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D
or Class E surface area at Grant County International Airport, Moses
Lake, WA, and Olympia Regional Airport, Olympia, ``This Class E
airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established
in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.''
    Also, this action updates the airport names for Grant County
International Airport (formerly Grant County Airport) and Olympia
Regional Airport (formerly Olympia Airport). Additionally, this action
updates the geographic coordinates for Grant County International
Airport, Moses Lake VOR/DME, and Fairchild AFB as listed in the Grant
County International Airport Class D and Class E airspace legal

descriptions. Lastly, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/
Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D and
Class E airspace legal descriptions, and adds the city name Spokane to
Fairchild AFB listed under the header for Grant County International
Airport in Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface.
    This action is an administrative change and does not affect the
boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace.
Therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is
unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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, is
non-controversial, and is unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. 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.

Lists 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 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 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016,
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ANM WA D Moses Lake, WA [Modified]

Grant County International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]12'31'' N., long. 119[deg]19'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,700 feet MSL within a 5.7-mile radius of Grant County
International Airport, excluding that airspace within an area
bounded by a line beginning at lat. 47[deg]11'31'' N., long.
119[deg]10'59'' W., to lat. 47[deg]09'59'' N., long. 119[deg]14'55''
W., to lat. 47[deg]07'34'' N., long. 119[deg]14'55'' W., thence
counterclockwise via a 5.7-mile radius of Grant County International
Airport to the point of beginning. This Class D airspace area is
effective during the specific dates and times established in advance
by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter
be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

ANM WA D Olympia, WA [Modified]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N., long. 122[deg]54'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,700 feet MSL within a 4-mile radius of Olympia Regional Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ANM WA E2 Moses Lake, WA [Modified]

Grant County International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]12'31'' N., long. 119[deg]19'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.7-
mile radius of the Grant County International Airport, excluding
that airspace within an area bounded by a line beginning at lat.
47[deg]11'31'' N., long. 119[deg]10'59'' W.; to lat. 49[deg]09'59''
N., long. 119[deg]14'55'' W.; to lat. 47[deg]07'34'' N., long.
119[deg]14'55'' W.; thence counterclockwise via a 5.7-mile radius of
the Grant County International Airport to the point of beginning.
This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement.

ANM WA E2 Olympia, WA [Modified]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N., long. 122[deg]54'09'' W.)

    Within a 4-mile radius of the Olympia Regional Airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective
date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

ANM WA E4 Moses Lake, WA [Modified]

Grant County International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]12'31'' N., long. 119[deg]19'09'' W.)
Ephrata VORTAC
    (Lat. 47[deg]22'41'' N., long. 119[deg]25'26'' W.)
Moses Lake VOR/DME
    (Lat. 47[deg]12'39'' N., long. 119[deg]19'01'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles
each side of the Ephrata VORTAC 156[deg] radial extending from the
5.7-mile radius of Grant County International Airport to 2.7 miles
southeast of the VORTAC, and within 2.2 miles each side of the Moses
Lake VOR/DME 050[deg] radial extending from the 5.7-mile radius of
the airport to 13.5 miles northeast of the VOR/DME, and within 3.5
miles each side of the Moses Lake VOR/DME 063[deg] radial extending
from the 5.7-mile radius of the airport to 12.9 miles northeast of
the VOR/DME, excluding the airspace within the Ephrata Municipal
Airport, WA, Class E airspace area.

ANM WA E4 Olympia, WA [Modified]

Olympia Regional Airport, WA
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'10'' N., long. 122[deg]54'09'' W.)
Olympia VORTAC
    (Lat. 46[deg]58'18'' N., long. 122[deg]54'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.5 miles
each side of the Olympia VORTAC 195[deg] radial extending from the
4-mile radius of Olympia Regional Airport to 9.2 miles south of the
VORTAC, and within 1.8 miles each side of the Olympia VORTAC
010[deg] radial extending from the 4-mile radius of the airport to
4.8 miles north of the VORTAC.

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

* * * * *

ANM WA E5 Moses Lake, WA [Modified]

Grant County International Airport, WA
    (Lat. 47[deg]12'31'' N., long. 119[deg]19'09'' W.)
Ephrata VORTAC
    (Lat. 47[deg]22'41'' N., long. 119[deg]25'26'' W.)
Spokane, Fairchild AFB
    (Lat. 47[deg]36'54'' N., long. 117[deg]39'21'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 16.6-mile radius of Grant County International Airport, and
within a 16.6-mile radius of the Ephrata VORTAC; that airspace
extending upward

from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the north by lat.
47[deg]45'00'' N., on the east by the 45.3-mile radius of Fairchild
AFB, on the southeast by V-204, on the south by V-298, and on the
west by long. 120[deg]00'04'' W.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 18, 2017.
Sam S.L. Shrimpton,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-08241 Filed 4-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Ecological Incident Summary for Registration Review Snapshot

Fomesafen Sodium (PC Code 123802)

The Agency’s Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) contains 64
reports of damage to non-target plants attributed to the use of
fomesafen sodium on various agricultural crops.  In 54 of these
incidents, a crop was allegedly damaged following direct application of
the herbicide to the crop or by carryover effects from a previous
application.  Six of the incidents were associated with off-site
transport of fomesafen sodium resulting from spray drift.  In all of
these spray drift incidents, however, level of certainty that the
fomesafen exposures caused the observed symptoms was categorized as
“possible,” indicating a lack of conclusive causal evidence.
Besides these incidents in EIIS, aggregate incident summaries submitted
by pesticide registrants have reported a total of 349 additional minor
plant damage incidents linked to fomesafen sodium use.  The Agency is
aware of one incident of fish mortality that was associated with
exposure to fomesafen sodium (I007601-001).  However, fish in this
incident also were exposed to two other active ingredients,
fluazifop-P-butyl (122809) and fenoxaprop-P-ethyl (129092).  Evidence
was lacking to ascertain which, if any, of these ingredients caused the
observed fish mortality.  The Agency is aware of no incident of adverse
effects to terrestrial wildlife that was attributed to fomesafen sodium
use.  Three incidents of fomesafen sodium contamination of surface and
drinking water have been reported to the Agency.  No incidents of ground
water contamination have been reported.

A lack of reported incidents does not necessarily mean that such
incidents have not occurred.  In addition, incident reports for
non-target plants and animals typically provide information on mortality
events only.  Reports for other adverse effects, such as reduced growth
or impaired reproduction, are rarely received.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64181-64183]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0283]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 16 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 November 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0283 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: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 16 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

James D. Astle

    Mr. Astle, age 52, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Astle understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Astle meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's
License from Ohio.

Gregory L. Faison

    Mr. Faison, 39, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Faison understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Faison meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class C operator's license from Maryland.

Theodore A. Garsombke

    Mr. Garsombke, 70, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Garsombke understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Garsombke meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Thomas A. Goodman

    Mr. Goodman, 39, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Goodman
understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Goodman meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Kenneth M. Hansen

    Mr. Hansen, 57, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Hansen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hansen meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Iowa.

Ronald D. Johnston

    Mr. Johnston, 38, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Johnston understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnston meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Carl E. McCartney

    Mr. McCartney, 73, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. McCartney understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. McCartney meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
License from Pennsylvania.

Jerry W. McFarland

    Mr. McFarland, 69, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. McFarland understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. McFarland meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Oregon.

Fred Nelson, Jr.

    Mr. Nelson, 67, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Nelson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nelson meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Ricky L. Osterback

    Mr. Osterback, 55, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Osterback understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Osterback meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class B CDL from Washington.

Francis J. Pollock

    Mr. Pollock, 58, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Pollock understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pollock meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts.

Dwaine H. Sandlin

    Mr. Sandlin, 58, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Sandlin understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sandlin meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan.

Dan R. Stark

    Mr. Stark, 62, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Stark understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stark meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class D operator's license from Minnesota.

Chad E. Vanscoy

    Mr. Vanscoy, 41, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Vanscoy understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vanscoy meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Gregory C. Watson

    Mr. Watson, 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Watson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watson meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from North Carolina.

Bailey G. Zickefoose, Jr.

    Mr. Zickefoose, 59 has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 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. Zickefoose understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zickefoose meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from West Virginia.

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 USC. 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: October 9, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-25681 Filed 10-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P