[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 67 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20435-20438]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08058]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-
2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564;
FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773;
FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0011;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321;
FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366;
FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
87 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals
from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these
exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions are effective from the dates
stated in the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before
May 9, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Numbers: Docket No. [Docket No. FMCSA-1999-
5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-

2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194;
FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0071;
FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0086;
FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0299;
FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378;
FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002], 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 or Courier: 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 number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    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 Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division, 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 renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 87 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 87 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. Each
individual is identified according to the renewal date.
    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. The following group(s) of
drivers will receive renewed exemptions effective in the month of April
and are discussed below.
    As of April 12, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 13 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (68 FR
61857; 68 FR 75715; 71 FR 644; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 73 FR 8392; 73
FR 46973; 73 FR 54888; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 28094; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR
57553; 74 FR 60021; 75 FR 8184; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 44652; 76 FR 70210;
76 FR 70212; 76 FR 73769; 77 FR 3547; 77 FR 5874; 77 FR 7233; 77 FR
7657; 77 FR 17117; 77 FR 17119; 77 FR 22059; 77 FR 22061; 78 FR 66099;
78 FR 67455; 79 FR 2248; 79 FR 4805; 79 FR 13085; 79 FR 14328; 79 FR
14332; 79 FR 18390):

Brian F. Denning (CA)
James Esposito, Jr. (PA)
Keith J. Haaf (VA)
Lowell Johnson (MN)
Chet A. Keen (UT)
Allen J. Kunze (ND)
Craig R. Martin (TX)
Daniel I. Miller (PA)
Jason E. Mallette (MS)
John W. Myre (SD)
Ezequiel M. Ramirez (TX)
Mark A. Smalls (GA)
Greg W. Story (NC)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-
0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-
0366; FMCSA-2013-0170. Their exemptions are effective as of April 12,
2016 and will expire on April 12, 2018.
    As of April 14, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
40404; 64 FR 54948; 64 FR 66962; 64 FR 68195; 65 FR 159; 65 FR 20251;
66 FR 66969; 67 FR 10475; 67 FR 17102; 68 FR 61860; 68 FR 69432; 68 FR
74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 10503; 69 FR 17267; 69 FR 8260; 70 FR 57353;
70 FR 72689; 71 FR 4194; 71 FR 5105; 71 FR 6824; 71 FR 6825; 71

FR 6826; 71 FR 13450; 71 FR 16410; 71 FR 19600; 71 FR 19602; 73 FR
8392; 73 FR 11989; 74 FR 60022; 75 FR 1835; 75 FR 4623; 75 FR 9482; 75
FR 13653; 77 FR 17107; 79 FR 18391):

Bradley T. Alspach (IL)
Scott E. Ames (ME)
Nick D. Bacon (KY)
Mark A. Baisden (OH)
Johnny W. Bradford, Sr. (KY)
Levi A. Brown (MT)
Charlie F. Cook (GA)
Curtis J. Crowston (ND)
Rupert G. Gilmore III (AL)
Albert L. Gschwind (WI)
Walter R. Hardiman (WV)
Michael W. Jones (IL)
Matthew J. Konecki (MT)
Jack D. Miller (OH)
Eric M. Moats, Sr. (MD)
Robert W. Nicks (NY)
Joseph S. Nix, IV (MO)
Robert V. Sloan (NC)
Steven L. Valley (ME)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-2003-
15892; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-
2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2009-0321. Their exemptions are
effective as of April 14, 2016 and will expire on April 14, 2018.
    As of April 16, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following individual, Glen A. Schroeder (SD), has satisfied
the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision
requirements (79 FR 10611; 79 FR 22003).
    The driver was included in the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-
2014-0002. The exemption is effective as of April 16, 2016 and will
expire on April 16, 2018.
    As of April 17, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 7 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (77 FR
19749; 77 FR 22838; 79 FR 15794):

Robert J. Abbas (MN)
Paul T. Browning (MT)
Kevan J. Larson (ID)
Gilbert M. Rosas (AZ)
Kim A. Shaffer (PA)
Larry W. Slinker (VA)
Lonnie J. Supanchick (NV)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2011-0378. Their exemptions are effective as of April 17,
2016 and will expire on April 17, 2018.
    As of April 18, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (79 FR
10606; 79 FR 10607; 79 FR 10608; 79 FR 10609; 79 FR 10610; 79 FR 10611;
79 FR 22003):
John M. Alfano (MI)
Felipe Bayron (WI)
Thomas Benavidez, Jr. (ID)
Gary A. Budde (IL)
Mark Castleman (MN)
Lorimer Christianson (IA)
David L. Dykes (FL)
Daniel Fedder (IL)
Edward A. Flitton (UT)
Juan Gallo-Gomez (CT)
Andeberhan O. Gidey (WA)
Luis Gomez-Banda (NV)
Christopher Goodwin (NC)
David Knobloch (MI)
Gregory L. Kockelman (MN)
Mark La Fleur (MD)
Jerry P. Lindesmith (OK)
Dennis A. Lindner (MN)
John Murray (WA)
Michael Nichols (GA)
Dino J. Pires (CT)
Anthony S. Poindexter (MD)
Phil N. Schad (MO)
Glen A. Schroeder (OR)
John B. Theres (IL)
Robert S. Waltz (ME)
Willard H. Weerts (IL)

    The drivers were included on the following docket: Docket No.
FMCSA-2014-0002. Their exemptions are effective as of April 18, 2016
and will expire on April 18, 2018.
    As of April 23, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (67 FR
10471; 67 FR 19798; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 74699; 68 FR 75715; 69 FR 19611;
71 FR 6825; 71 FR 6829; 71 FR 19604; 72 FR 46261; 72 FR 54972; 72 FR
71993; 73 FR 15254; 73 FR 16950; 74 FR 57553; 74 FR 65842; 75 FR 1835;
75 FR 9478; 75 FR 9482; 75 FR 20881; 77 FR 7657; 77 FR 10604; 77 FR
13689; 77 FR 17115; 77 FR 22059):

Lyle H. Banser (WI)
Cary Carn (NJ)
Charley J. Davis (OK)
Derek T. Ford (MD)
Thomas R. Hedden (IL)
Earl R. Mark (IL)
Richard K. Mell (VA)
Douglas A. Mendoza (MD)
Russell L. Moyers, Sr. (WV)
Danny Rolfe (ME)
Donald Schaeffer (MO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2007-
0071; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-
0324. Their exemptions are effective as of April 23, 2016 and will
expire on April 23, 2018.
    As of April 27, 2016, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 9 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (75 FR 9480;
75 FR 22176; 77 FR 3552; 77 FR 13691; 77 FR 17108; 79 FR 17642; 79 FR
17643):

Chad L. Burnham (ME)
Loren D. Chapman (MN)
David A. Christenson (NV)
John T. Edmondson (AL)
Paul K. Leger (NH)
Martin L. Reyes (IL)
Gerald L. Rush, Jr. (NJ)
Alan T. Watterson (MA)
Larry W. Winkler (MO)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2011-0365. Their exemptions are effective as
of April 27, 2016 and will expire on April 27, 2018.
    Each of the 87 applicants listed in the groups above has requested
renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement specified at
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In
addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the
respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each
applicant continues to meet the vision exemption requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by May 9, 2016.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially
granting the renewal and then

requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by
interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published
notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 87
individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The
final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was
made on the merits of each case and made only after careful
consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications.
The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications,
experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption
from the vision requirements. That information is available by
consulting the above cited Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket numbers FMCSA-1999-6480; FMCSA-
2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-
1999-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099;
FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773; FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0011; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154;
FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321; FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0324;
FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366; FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0170;
FMCSA-2014-0002 and click the search button. When the new screen
appears, click on the blue ``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand
side of the page. On the new page, enter information required including
the specific section of this document to which each comment applies,
and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the
close of the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert
the docket number FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-1999-6156; FMCSA-1999-6480;
FMCSA-2001-11426; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16241; FMCSA-2003-16564;
FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2005-23099; FMCSA-2005-23238; FMCSA-2006-23773;
FMCSA-2007-0071; FMCSA-2007-28695; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2009-0011;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0291; FMCSA-2009-0321;
FMCSA-2011-0299; FMCSA-2011-0324; FMCSA-2011-0365; FMCSA-2011-0366;
FMCSA-2011-0378; FMCSA-2013-0170; FMCSA-2014-0002 and click ``Search.''
Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and
comments related to this notice.

    Issued on: March 31, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-08058 Filed 4-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 86 (Friday, May 3, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26024-26025]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10469]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC13-97-000.
    Applicants: Calpine Construction Finance Company, L.P., Osprey
Energy Center, LLC, CCFC Sutter Energy, LLC, Westbrook Energy Center,
LLC.
    Description: Joint Application For Approval under Section 203 of
the Federal Power Act and Request for Expedited Action of Calpine
Construction Finance Company, L.P., et al.
    Filed Date: 4/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130425-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG13-30-000.
    Applicants: Gainesville Renewable Energy Center.
    Description: Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator
Status of Gainesville Renewable Energy Center, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130425-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/16/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER10-1894-005; ER10-1901-006; ER10-1882-002; ER10-
3025-002; ER10-3036-002; ER10-3039-002; ER10-3042-002.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, Upper Peninsula
Power Company, Wisconsin River Power Company, Integrys Energy Services,
Inc., WPS Power Development, LLC, Quest Energy, LLC, Combined Locks
Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5156.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4267-006; ER11-4270-006; ER11-4269-007; ER11-
4268-006; ER11-113-007; ER10-2682-006; ER12-1680-004; ER11-4694-003.
    Applicants: Algonquin Energy Services Inc., Algonquin Power Windsor
Locks LLC, Algonquin Tinker Gen Co., Algonquin Northern Maine Gen Co.,
Sandy Ridge Wind, LLC, Granite State Electric Company, Minonk Wind,
LLC, GSG 6, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Change in Status of Algonquin Energy
Services Inc., et al.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1341-000.
    Applicants: Air Energy TCI, Inc.
    Description: Air Energy TCI, Inc. submits Petition for Waiver of
Tariff Requirements, and Request for Shortened Notice Period and
Expedited Review.
    Filed Date: 4/25/13.
    Accession Number: 20130425-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/10/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1346-000
    Applicants: Mesa Wind Power Corporation.
    Description: MBR Tariff to be effective 4/29/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1347-000.
    Applicants: MeadWestvaco Coated Board, LLC.
    Description: MeadWestvaco Coated Board, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: MeadWestvaco Coated Board, LLC MBR application package to be
effective 9/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1348-000.
    Applicants: Gainesville Renewable Energy Center.
    Description: Rate Schedule No. 1 to be effective 4/26/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5133.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1349-000.
    Applicants: WSPP Inc.
    Description: WSPP Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii:
Revisions to List of Members to be effective 5/9/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1350-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2198R6 Kansas Power Pool NITSA and NOA to be effective
4/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1351-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Development LLC.
    Description: Florida Power Development LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Florida Power Development LLC Market-Based Rate Application
to be effective 6/25/2013.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:
    Docket Numbers: RR13-5-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for Approval of Amendments to Delegation Agreement with
Midwest Reliability Organization--Amendments to the MRO Regional
Reliability Standards Process Manual.
    Filed Date: 4/26/13.
    Accession Number: 20130426-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/17/13.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or 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: April 26, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10469 Filed 5-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30103-30105]
[DOCID:fr28my10-153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard; Ford Motor Company

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the Explorer vehicle line in accordance
with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from the Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541). Ford
requested confidential treatment for the attachments it submitted in
support of its petition. The agency will address Ford's request for
confidential treatment by separate letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2011 model year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated December 11, 2009, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541) for the MY 2011 Ford Explorer
vehicle line. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking
pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention
Standard, based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard
equipment for an entire vehicle line.
    Under Sec.  543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to grant
exemptions for one vehicle line per model year. In its petition, Ford
provided a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device for the Explorer
vehicle line. Ford will install its SecuriLock antitheft device (also
known as the Passive Antitheft System or PATS) on the 2011 Explorer as
standard equipment. Ford stated that it will also offer its Intelligent
Access with Push Button Start (IAwPB) antitheft device as optional
equipment. Ford stated that both systems are passive, electronic
immobilizer devices that use encrypted transponder technology. Key
components of the Securilock/PATS antitheft device will include an
electronic transponder key, transceiver module, ignition lock, and a
passive immobilizer. Key components of the IAwPB device is an
electronic keyfob, remote function actuator, body control module, power
train control module and a passive immobilizer. Ford stated that its MY
2011 Explorer vehicle line will also be equipped with several other
standard antitheft features common to Ford vehicles, (i.e., counterfeit
resistant VIN labels; secondary VINs, cabin accessibility through the
use of a valid key fob or keycode). Ford further stated that there will
also be a separate visible and audible perimeter alarm available on its
Explorer vehicle line. The alarm will be available as an option on
vehicles with the Securilock/PATS device and included as standard
equipment on vehicles with the IAwPB device. Ford's submission is
considered

a complete petition as required by 49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the
general requirements contained in Sec.  543.5 and the specific content
requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    Ford stated that the devices integration of the transponder into
the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the
system. Ford further stated that both devices are always active and
require no other operator action. Specifically, in the SecuriLock
device, when the ignition key is turned to the ``start'' position, the
transceiver module reads the ignition key code and transmits an
encrypted message from the keycode to the control module, which then
determines key validity and authorizes engine starting by sending a
separate encrypted message to the powertrain contol module (PCM). In
the IAwPB device, when the ``startstop'' button is pressed, the
transceiver module reads the key code and transmits an encrypted
message from the keycode to the control module to determine validity
and authorizes engine starting by sending a separate encrypted message
to the body control module (BCM), the PEP/RFA module and the PCM. Ford
pointed out that in addition to the programmed key, the three modules
that must be matched to allow start of the vehicle adds even an
additional level of security to the IAwPB device and in both devices,
if the codes do not match, the powertrain engine starter, spark and
fuel will be disabled.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is
reliable and durable since the device complied with its specified
requirements for each test.
    Ford also stated that incorporation of several features in both
devices further support reliability and durability of the devices.
Specifically, some of those features include: encrypted communication
between the transponder, control function and the power train control
module; no moving parts; inability to mechanically override the device
to start the vehicle; and the body control module/remote function
actuator and the power train control module share security data that
during vehicle assembly form matched modules that if separated from
each other will not function in other vehicles.
    Ford compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the parts-
marking requirements. Ford stated that it believes that the standard
installation of either the SecuriLock device or the IAwPB device would
be an effective deterrent against vehicle theft.
    Ford stated that it installed the SecuriLock device on all MY 1996
Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models and other selected models. Ford stated
that in the 1997 model, the SecuriLock device was extended to the
complete Ford Mustang vehicle line as standard equipment. Ford also
stated that according to the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB)
theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs installed with the SecuriLock device
showed a 70% reduction in theft rate compared to the MY 1995 Mustangs.
Ford also reported that the SecuriLock device is currently offered as
standard equipment on most of its North American Ford, Lincoln and
Mercury vehicles but is offered as optional equipment on its F-series
Super Duty pickups, Econoline and Transit Connect vehicles. Ford stated
that with MY 2011, the IAwPB device will be offered as standard
equipment on the Lincoln MKT and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, MKX,
Taurus, Edge and the Explorer vehicles.
    Ford also referenced theft rate data published by NHTSA showing
that the theft rate for the Explorer is lower than the median theft
rate for all vehicles from MY's 2000-2006. Ford stated that the 2011
Explorer will be comparable in vehicle segment, size and equipment
(including the SecuriLock device) to those Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer
vehicles for which theft rate data is currently available (between MYs
2004 and 2006). Ford stated that since either the SecuriLock device or
the IAwPB device is the primary theft deterrent on Ford Explorer
vehicles, it believes that theft rates for the Explorer will improve or
continue comparatively lower in the future than the theft rates
experienced by its Explorer/Mercury Mountaineer vehicles between MYs'
2004-2006. The theft rate for the Ford Explorer using two MYs' data
(2004-2005) data is 1.6797 and theft rate for the Mercury Mountaineer
using three MYs data is 1.3361.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices in other vehicle lines for which the agency has already granted
exemptions. Based on the evidence submitted by Ford, the agency
believes that the antitheft device for the Explorer vehicle line is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard (49 CFR Part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Ford Explorer vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR Part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Ford
provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide four of the five
types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting activation;
preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Explorer vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR Part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
Part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR Part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.
    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR Parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line

exempted under this part and equipped with the antitheft device on
which the line's exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides
for the submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the
use of an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one
specified in that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: May 25, 2010.
Stephen R. Kratzke,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2010-12948 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

									          August 3, 2005

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND

TOXIC SUBSTANCES

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Response to Comments from Stakeholders on Analysis of
Rodenticide Bait Use

FROM:	Angel A. Chiri, Entomologist

Biological Analysis Branch

THRU:	Arnet Jones, Chief

Biological Analysis Branch

TO:		Kelly White, Chemical Review Manager

		Laura Parsons, Team Leader

Reregistration Branch I

Special Review and Reregistration Division

PRP Date:	06/19/05

Introduction

The Agency received comments from numerous sources on its Analysis of
Rodenticide Bait Use posted in EPA’s EDOKET on September 02, 2004.
Many stakeholders provide useful critique and/or data that could be used
in the preparation of a benefits assessment of rodenticide bait use.
Some of the comments, while not specifically addressing the Rodenticide
Bait Use document, discuss the benefits of rodenticide bait use in
rodent control.  Numerous letters from pest control operators (PCOs),
growers, and other stakeholders encourage the Agency to retain the uses
of rodenticide baits, but do not provide data that can be used in the
preparation of a benefit assessment.  General comments and testimonials
that did not contribute specific rodenticide bait use information are
addressed as a group (see 1. below).

1.  General Comments and Testimonials

Comment: Over one hundred stakeholders (Docket number #OPP-2004-0033,
response numbers #0023-0038, #0040-0054, #0056, #0058, #0060-0078,
#0080-0090, #0093-0098, #0100-0103, #0107-0116, #0118, #0119-0120,
#0122, #0125-0129, #0131-0133, #0138-0140, #0142, #0144-0148, #0152, and
#0159) submitted short testimonials highlighting the value of
rodenticides for controlling rodents that affect humans, their
structures, and crops.  These stakeholders urge the Agency to
realistically consider the many benefits of rodenticide baits when
considering mitigation measures.  While the vast majority of these
generic comments were filed by pest control professionals, a few were
contributed by rodenticide manufacturers, growers, and private citizens.
 Most of these comments provided limited information on types of
products used and species of rodents controlled.

Response:  The Agency does weigh the risks and benefits of pesticides
when considering any potential regulatory action that may affect its
use.  As a first step in this process, the Agency posted its Analysis of
Rodenticide Use Baits in EPA’s EDOCKET, along with the ecological risk
assessment.  This bait use analysis document describes in some detail
the various ways in which rodents may endanger humans and damage their
crops and belongings.  The document also discusses how the nine
rodenticides currently being reviewed by the Agency are used to manage
rodent pests.

2.  Use Information and/or Critique Provided to the Agency

Comment: As requested by the Agency, information and comments on a wide
range of bait use issues were submitted by numerous stakeholders,
including: the Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District
(OPP-2004-0033-0079), Schramm, Williams & Associates, Inc. in behalf of
the California Pistachio Commission (No. OPP-2004-0033-0100) and the
Fresh Carrot Advisory Board of California (No. OPP-2004-0033-0105), The
Central Oregon Hay Grower’s Association (OPP-2004-0033-0118), the San
Francisco Department  of the Environment (OPP-2004-0033-0123), the
California Department of Food and Agriculture (OPP-2004-0033-0136 and
-0137), the Animal Protection Institute  (OPP-2004-0033-0141), the
California Alfalfa and Forage Association (OPP-2004-0033-0143), Bill
Lowe, Organization of Kittitas County Timothy Hay Growers & Suppliers
(OPP-2004-0033-0151), the Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Defenders of
Wildlife, American Bird Conservancy, TEDX, Inc., Beyond
Pesticides/NCAMP, Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides,
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, and Rachel Carson Council, Inc.
(OPP-2004-0033-0155), the California Farm Bureau Federation
(OPP-2004-0033-0156), Global Environmental Options (OPP-2004-0033-0158),
Reckitt Benckiser Inc. (OPP-2004-0033-0160).

Response: The Agency appreciates receiving the comments and information
provided by these stakeholders.  We will take them into consideration
when we refine the rodenticide bait use analysis.

3.  The Agency’s Benefits Assessment is Weak or Lacking

Comment:  Several stakeholders, including Syngenta
(OPP-2004-0033-0091), Ronald D. Grant D. V. M. on behalf of PM
Resources, Inc. (OPP-2004-0033-0101, OPP-2004-0033-0121), and HACCO,
Inc. (OPP-2004-0033-0124), remarked that an in-depth benefits assessment
for rodenticides was either deficient or lacking altogether.  Examples
of such comments are: “EPA’s benefits analysis does not fully
address the many public health, welfare, and economic benefits that
rodenticides make possible.” and “EPA’s summary of the benefits
offered by these nine rodenticides is entirely lacking and fails to
summarize accurately the enormous public health benefits offered by
these rodenticides.”  Some stakeholders provided suggestions on
specific rodenticide benefits that, in their view, an EPA benefit
assessment should address.

Response: The Agency has not completed its benefits analysis for
rodenticide baits.  The summary of benefits found in the ecological risk
assessment document was not intended to be a benefits assessment.
However, a related document, Analysis of Rodenticide Bait Use, posted in
the electronic docket along with the ecological risk assessment, does
discuss at some length the many benefits of rodenticide bait use, thus
addressing most of the benefits-related issues and concerns expressed by
these stakeholders.  As this analysis is refined, the benefits aspect of
rodenticide baits will be addressed in greater detail by the Agency.  If
any quantitative data on benefits was submitted by stakeholders, that
information will be taken into consideration in the refined document.

4.  Integrated Pest Management (IPM)

Comment: the San Francisco Department of the Environment (Docket No.
OPP-2004-0033-0123) felt that the IPM approach to rodent control is not
discussed in sufficient detail and that non-chemical approaches are not
given the importance that they deserve in the Agency’s bait use
assessment.  According to this stakeholder, over-emphasizing chemical
control while downplaying IPM and non-chemical control alternatives is
an Agency policy shortcoming.  The Rodenticide Registrants Task Force
(RRTF) (Docket No. OPP-2004-0033-0157) and Reckitt Benckiser Inc.
(OPP-2004-0033-0160) question the accuracy and validity of  the
IPM-compatibility characterization for rodenticide baits that appears in
the use matrix (Table 1) of the bait use analysis.

Response: EPA acknowledges that, under an IPM approach, pesticides
represent one of several measures available for managing pests in
general, including small mammals.  IPM and the numerous nonchemical
management techniques available to manage rodents were indeed discussed
in the use analysis document.  However, since this analysis attempted to
characterize the use of the nine rodenticide baits that are at present
undergoing review by EPA, rather than rodent management in general, the
emphasis of the analysis was on bait use.  As this analysis is refined,
these comments will be taken into consideration, and the discussion of
IPM and nonchemical approaches to rodent control will likely be
expanded.  As explained in page 32 of the use analysis, the IPM
characterization column was included in Table 1 to stimulate public
comments and further discussion.  At this time, the Agency has not made
any determinations regarding IPM compatibility issues for rodenticide
baits.

 PAGE  1