U. S. A. CUN2003/ 055  Fruit Tree ( Orchard) Nurseries ORCHARD NURSERIES GROWN OUTDOORS AFTER BROADCAST FUMIGATION UNDER PLASTIC TARPS. INCLUDING AVOCADO, CITRUS, DECIDUOUS TREES AND RASPBERRIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Critical Need for Methyl Bromide........................................................................................................ 2 Economic Impacts............................................................................................................................... 2 Response to Questions from MBTOC/ TEAP....................................................................................... 2 Definitions........................................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Region, Key Pests, and Critical Need for Methyl Bromide.............................................. 2 Table 2. Historical use of methyl bromide in the orchard replant sector*. .................................... 4 Table 3. Calculation of the nominated amount of methyl bromide in the orchard replant sector. .. 5 Page 2 INTRODUCTION Methyl bromide is needed for orchard nursery production ( CUN 2003/ 055) to produce disease and pest free plants to meet certification standards. The diseases and pests found in these areas are listed in Table 1. The registered alternatives do not provide acceptable control to meet the certification standards and require additional pest sampling for verification against those standards. In addition, there are no markets for plants that do not meet the certification standards, which can lead to extreme economic loss. Further, incomplete disinfestations can lead to severe loss caused by uncontrolled pests in orchard production fields.

CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE TABLE 1. REGION, KEY PESTS, AND CRITICAL NEED FOR METHYL BROMIDE U. S. Region / States Key Pests Critical Need for Methyl Bromide Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium ( CUE02 0010)

Washington California Nematodes: Meloidogyne spp., Pratylenchus spp., Trichodorus spp., Xiphinema spp., and Criconemella spp., Tylenchulus semipenetrans, and Radopholus similes Only methyl bromide can effectively control the nematodes found in Washington and California to meet the state certification requirements.

California Assoc. of Nurseryment   Deciduous Furit and Nut Tree Growers ( CUE 02 0035)

California Association of Nurseryment   Citrus and Avocado Growers ( CUE02 0036) Nematodes: Meloidogyne spp., Pratylenchus spp., Trichodorus spp., Xiphinema spp., and Criconemella spp., Tylenchulus semipenetrans, and Radopholus similes Diseases: ( Phytophthora citrophthora, P. parasitica, P. cinnamomi, Verticillium spp., and Armillaria mellea)

Weeds: Yellow and purple nutsedge, common purslane, lambsquarter, little mallow, watergrass, field bindweed, and ragweed. Only methyl bromide can effectively control the target pests found in California to meet the state certification requirements.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS None of the alternatives were considered technically feasible; therefore no economic analysis was conducted.

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM MBTOC/ TEAP Page 3 1. Provide details of the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount of methyl bromide required for those areas where 1,3 D is not available through local restrictions ( e. g. township caps).

The details of the reasoning and assumptions used to calculate the nominated amount are shown in Table 3.

The methodology used by the U. S. carefully scrutinized applications from the user community and took out ( 1) double counting; ( 2) any requested growth beyond historical acreage planted, and ( 3) requested amounts that fall under QPS. Furthermore, the USA adjusted the requests from the user community, when they had not already done so, to change the amount of methyl bromide nominated to account for ( 1) only the area where pest pressure cannot be controlled by alternatives, ( 2) the area where regulatory constraints limit adoption of alternatives, such as buffers near inhabited areas, and ( 3) the area where soil/ geological features limit use of alternatives, such as groundwater contamination in areas with karst topography. The nominated amount incorporates minimum efficacious use rates, mixtures of methyl bromide with chloropicrin, and the use of tarps to improve efficacy and reduce emissions.

2. It is also requested that the Party consider recalculating the quantity nominated, consistent with the use of emission control technologies coupled with minimising MB dosages, such as when applied in conjunction with chloropicrin where feasible, for those applications where alternatives are not feasible in 2005.

The U. S. CUN for fruit tree nurseries, assessed and described the use of three chemical alternatives to MB   1,3 dichloropropene ( 1,3 D) + chloropicrin, 1,3 D + metam sodium, and 1,3 D + metam sodium + chloropicrin ( see Section 6c, p. 8 of the Nomination). In addition, the CUN addressed numerous non chemical alternatives ( see Table 1, p. 8 of the nomination). All applications of MB for this industry include the use of emission reducing tarps and the addition of some amount of chloropicrin; the specific amount is determined by efficacy against target pests. The calculation of MB needs took into consideration these practices, as well as township restrictions on the use of 1,3 D. The request for MB considered that further reduction of MB rates, through dilution with chemicals, such as chloropicrin, could also reduce efficacy to the level that certification of nursery stock would be impossible. Furthermore, calculation for MB needs took into account differences in soil types and the amount requested reflected the efficacy of some alternatives in sandy soils, but not in heavy, clay soils ( e. g., see Section 7 " Critical Use Exemption Nomination for Orchard Nurseries" of the Nomination, p. 14). In addition, Sections 6c [" Technical Feasibility of In Kind ( Chemical) Alternatives", p. 8] and 6e (" Technical Feasibility of Not In Kind MBTOC Alternatives", p. 12) discuss the various chemical and non chemical alternatives and the practice of concurrent use of these alternatives, as well as MB, that serves to reduce overall MB use in the production of fruit tree stock. Page 4 TABLE 2. HISTORICAL USE OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE ORCHARD REPLANT SECTOR*.

Historical Use Average Use Rates ( kg/ ha) Total Amount ( kg) Area Treated ( ha)

1997 303 1,549,418 7,136 1998 296 895,007 5,033 1999 301 1,219,716 6,888 2000 247 653,874 4,032 2001 359 1,218,144 3,944 * Acres planted in U. S. and percent of U. S. acres requested is not available. Page 5 TABLE 3. CALCULATION OF THE NOMINATED AMOUNT OF METHYL BROMIDE IN THE ORCHARD REPLANT SECTOR.

Calculation of Nominated Amount 0010   Western Raspberry Nursery Consortium 0035   CA Assoc. of Nurserymen   Deciduous Fruit and Nut Tree Growers 0036   CA Assoc. of Nurserymen   Citrus and Avocado Growers Hectares ( ha) 185 668 42 % of Regional hectares ( ha)( A) N/ A N/ A N/ A Applicant Request for 2005 Kilograms ( kg) of MB 46,510 224,528 19,051 Double Counted hectares ( ha)( B)       Growth / Increasing Production ( ha)( C) 85 35 2 Quarantine and Pre Shipment hectares ( ha )( D) 60 538 35 Adjustments to Request Adjusted Hectares Requested ( ha)( E) 40 95 5 Key Pest Impacts (%)( F) 100 100 100 Regulatory Impacts (%)( G) 0 0 0 Soil Impacts (%)( H) 0 0 0 Impacts to Adjusted Hectares Total Combined Impacts (%)( I) 100 100 100 Qualifying Area ( ha)( J) 40 95 5 Use Rate ( kg/ ha)( K) 252 336 448 CUE Amount Nominated ( kg)( L) 10,047 31,903 2,749 % Reduction from Initial Request ( M) 78 86 88 Sum of all CUE Nominations in Sector ( kg)( N) 44,699 Multiplier for Margin of Error( O) 1.0244 Total U. S. Sector Nomination ( kg)( P) 45,789 Page 6 Footnotes for Table 3:

Values may not sum exactly due to rounding.

A. Percent of Regional Hectares is the area in the applicant's request divided by the total area planted in that crop in the region covered by the request. B. Double counted hectares is the area counted in more than one application or rotated within one year of an application to a crop that also uses methyl bromide. C. Growth / increasing production hectares is the amount of area requested by the applicant that is greater than that historically treated or treated at a higher use rate. Values in parentheses indicate negative values and are shown to demonstrate a trend, but are not used in further calculations. D. Quarantine and pre shipment ( QPS) hectares is the area in the applicant's request subject to QPS treatments. E. Adjusted hectares requested is the hectares in the applicant's request minus the acreage affected by double counting, growth / increasing production, and quarantine and pre shipment. F. Key pest impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area with moderate to severe pest problems. Key pests are those that are not adequately controlled by methyl bromide alternatives. G. Regulatory impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be legally used ( e. g., township caps). H. Soil impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to soil type ( e. g., heavy clay soils may not show adequate performance). I. Total combined impacts is the percent (%) of the requested area where alternatives cannot be used due to key pest, regulatory, or soil impacts. In each case the total area impacted is the area which is impacted by one or more of the individual impacts. For each application the assessment was made by biologists familiar with the specific situation and able to make judgements about the extent of overlap of the impacts. For example, in some situations the impacts are mutually exclusive   in heavy clay soils 1,3D will not be effective because it does not penetrate these soils evenly, but none of the heavy soil areas will be impacted by township ( regulatory) caps because no one will use 1,3D in this situation, so this soils impact must be added to the township cap regulatory impact in a California application. In other words there is no overlap. In other situations one area of impact might be a subset of another impact. In these cases, the combined impact is equal to the largest individual impact. J. Qualifying area is calculated by multiplying the adjusted hectares requested by the total combined impacts. K. Use rate is the requested use rate for 2005. This rate is typically based on historical averages. In some cases, the use rate has been adjusted downward to reflect current conditions. L. CUE amount nominated is calculated by multiplying the qualifying area by the use rate. M. Percent reduction from initial request is the percentage of the initial request that did not qualify for the CUE nomination. N. Sum of all CUE nominations in sector. Self explanatory. O. Multiplier for margin of error. This amount is one percentage point of the original ( 1991) baseline amount. This factor is intended to compensate for the compounding influence of using the low end of the range for all input parameters in the calculation of the US nomination ( i. e., using the lowest percent impact on the lowest number of acres at the lowest dosage is likely to result in values that are unrealistically too small). The U. S. nominated included some sectors for 100% of the amount requested, therefore the portion of the multiplier from these sectors were added equally across all other sectors resulting in a final multiplier of 1.0244, or a 2.44% increase from the calculated amount, to these remaining sectors. P. Total U. S. sector nomination is calculated by multiplying the summed sector nominations by the margin of error multiplier. Page 7 DEFINITIONS THAT MAY BE RELEVANT TO THIS CUN Source of yield loss estimates Where published studies of yield losses under conditions of moderate to severe key pest pressure were not available ( the situation for which the U. S. is requesting continued use of methyl bromide), the U. S. developed such estimates by contacting university professors conducting experiments using methyl bromide alternatives in the appropriate land grant institutions. The experts were asked to develop such an estimate based on their experience with methyl bromide and with alternatives. The results of this process were used when better data were not available.

Source of buffer restriction implications for methyl bromide use Estimates of the impact of buffers required when using some methyl bromide alternatives on the proportion of acreage where such alternatives could be used were developed from confidential information submitted to EPA in support of a registration application for a methyl bromide alternative. Because at the time of the analysis, a request to reduce the size of the required buffer for some alternatives was under consideration, a smaller buffer was selected for the analysis. Since that time the size of the regulatory buffer has been reduced so that it now conforms to the buffer selected for this analysis.

Source of area impacted by key pests estimates One of the important determinants of the amount of methyl bromide requested has been the extent of area infested with ` key pests', that is, pests that cannot be controlled by alternatives to methyl bromide when such pests are present at moderate to severe levels. Because there are few surveys that cover substantial portions of the areas for which methyl bromide is requested, we have relied on a variety of sources in addition to the surveys. These sources include websites of land grant universities; discussions with researchers, both those employed by USDA in the Agricultural Research Service ( ARS) and those at land grant universities; discussions with growers whose operations cover widely different locations encompassing different incidences of key pests; information from pesticide applicators; and, information taken from the applications themselves.

Source of area impacted by regulations estimates There are two main sources used to develop the estimate of area impacted by regulations. First, for the impact of Township caps in California we have used a series of papers by Carpenter, Lynch, and Trout, supplemented by discussions with Dr. Trout to ensure that any recent regulatory changes have been properly accounted for. Second, the estimate of the area impacted by buffers, is described above.

Source of area impacted by soil type estimates First, for the area impacted by karst topography, estimates were developed and mapped by he Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The area of California used for agriculture and which is made of clay soils unsuitable for pest control with a methyl bromide alternative has been determined by discussions with agricultural researchers and agricultural extension agents in California, and discussion with other knowledgeable individuals such as pesticide applicators. The Page 8 estimates for California understate the areas in which alternatives to methyl bromide are not suitable because no effort was made to estimate the extent of hilly terrain where currently available substitutes cannot be applied at uniform dosages.

Source of area impacted by combined impacts estimate Combined impacts were determined on a case by case basis for each specific crop/ location combination after consultation with individuals knowledgeable with the specific circumstances. The nature of the individual impacts is such that in some situations they are independent of each other, in some they are mutually exclusive, and in some cover identical areas. It was not, therefore, possible to have a formula that would arrive at an appropriate estimate of combined impacts. A more complete description is found in the footnotes to the ` calculation' table.


[Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2490-2491]
[DOCID:fr15ja08-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0015; FRL-8516-2]

Workshop To Discuss Policy-Relevant Science To Inform EPA's
Integrated Plan for the Review of the Primary Carbon Monoxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is announcing that a workshop entitled ``Workshop to
Discuss Policy-Relevant Science to Inform EPA's Integrated Plan for the
Review of the Primary Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' is being organized by EPA's National Center for
Environmental Assessment (NCEA), Office of Research and Development and
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Office of
Air and Radiation. The workshop will be held on January 28-29, 2008 in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The workshop will be open to
attendance by interested public observers on a first-come, first-served
basis up to the limits of available space.

DATES: The workshop will be held on January 28 and 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. An EPA contractor, E.H.
Pechan & Associates, Inc., is providing logistical support for the
workshop. For further information on the workshops, contact Ms. Barbara
Bauer, E.H. Pechan Conference Coordinator, 3622 Lyckan Parkway, Durham,
NC 27707, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 188; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding information,
registration, and logistics for the workshop should be directed to the
E.H. Pechan conference coordinator listed in ADDRESSES above or from
the following

Web site: http://projects.pechan.com/epa/coreview/.

    Additional questions regarding the workshop should be directed to
Ms. Chris Trent, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
919-541-0237; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Dr. Tom Long, U.S. EPA,
NCEA, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Workshop

    The Agency's last review of the carbon monoxide (CO) national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) was completed on August 1, 1994
with a final determination that no revision of the CO standard was
appropriate (59 FR 38906). This review of the CO NAAQS is consistent
with the Clean Air Act's requirement that the Agency periodically
review the latest scientific information and the standards. In
completing this review, the Agency will apply the Agency's new NAAQS
review process.\1\ This workshop is a key step in this new process. The
workshop will provide an opportunity for internal and external experts
to highlight significant new and emerging CO research, and to make
recommendations to the Agency regarding the design and scope of the
review for the primary (health-based) CO standard to ensure that it
addresses key policy-relevant issues and considers the new science
relevant to informing our understanding of these issues.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information on the NAAQS review process, please see
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/.

    \2\ This workshop will not address a secondary welfare-based
standard as the CO NAAQS includes only a primary standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We intend that workshop discussions will build upon three prior
publications or events:
    1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Carbon Monoxide:
Final Rule (59 FR 38906, August 1, 1994). The preamble to the final
rule included detailed discussions of policy-relevant issues central to
the last review.
    2. Air Quality Criteria for Carbon Monoxide (EPA 600/P-99/001F,
June 2000).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Please see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/co/s_co_index.html
 to obtain a copy of the 2000 Air Quality Criteria

Document, the notice of final rulemaking from 1994, and other
related documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. December 2006 workshop sponsored by NCEA, entitled
``Interpretation of Epidemiologic Studies of Multi-pollutant Exposure
and Health Effects.'' The workshop dealt with important issues relevant
to this review, such as the interpretation and understanding of
criteria air pollutant health effects analyses in population-level
epidemiologic studies, with a focus on multi-pollutant exposures (71 FR
67566, November 22, 2006).
    Workshop participants are encouraged to review each of these
documents and/or supporting materials thoroughly before the meeting
begins, as they provide important insights into new scientific advances
and key policy-relevant questions.
    Based in large part on the input received during this workshop, EPA
will develop a draft integrated CO NAAQS review plan that will outline
the schedule, process, and approaches for evaluating the relevant
scientific information and addressing the key policy-relevant issues to
be considered in this review. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory
Committee (CASAC) will be asked to conduct a consultation with the
Agency on the draft integrated plan later this year, and the public
will have the opportunity to comment on it as well. The final
integrated plan will be used to frame each of the major elements of the
CO review under the new NAAQS process: an integrated science assessment
document, a risk/exposure assessment report, and a policy assessment to
be published as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR).

II. Workshop Information

    Members of the public may attend the workshop as observers. Space
is limited, and reservations will be accepted on a first-come, first-
served basis.

    Dated: January 8, 2008.
Jenny N. Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E8-543 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12641-12643]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05861]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0050]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from seven individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with a clinical diagnosis
of epilepsy or any other condition that is likely to cause a loss of
consciousness or any loss of ability to control a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) to drive in interstate commerce. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 23, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0050 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) 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., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-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
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The seven individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8). 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 statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist Medical Examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The advisory criteria states the following:
    If an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic
seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require
anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to
control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the Medical
Examiner in consultation with the treating physician. Before
certification is considered, it is suggested that a six-month waiting
period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting
period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete
neurological examination. If the results of the examination are
negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver
may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has recovered fully from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication.
    Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure
medication and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a
CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a
single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate
commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a five-
year period or more.
    As a result of Medical Examiners misinterpreting advisory criteria
as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a
CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or
more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an
individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified Medical
Examiner based on the physical qualification standards and medical best
practices.
    On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications;
Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders, (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant
requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory
requirement that interstate CMV drivers have ``no established

medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of
ability to control a CMV.'' Since the January 15, 2013 notice, the
Agency has published additional notices granting requests from
individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding
epilepsy found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure
disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the
criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP) (78 FR 3069).

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Brian Lee Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 59, has a history of generalized seizure disorder and
has been seizure free since 1984. He takes anti-seizure medication,
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1984. His
physician states that she is supportive of Mr. Johnson receiving an
exemption.

Gerald Klein Jr.

    Mr. Klein, 43, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2009. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Klein receiving an exemption.

Shane W. Martinek

    Mr. Martinek, 40, has a history of seizure disorder and has been
seizure free since 1991. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1991. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Martinek receiving an exemption.

Sean P. Plover

    Mr. Plover, 29, has a history of provoked seizures and has been
seizure free since 2006. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2006. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Plover receiving an exemption.

Stephen M. Soden

    Mr. Soden, 27, has a history of epilepsy and has been seizure free
since 2009. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same since 2015. His physician states that he
is supportive of Mr. Soden receiving an exemption.

Leon A. Stannard

    Mr. Stannard, 70, has a history of a single unprovoked seizure and
has been seizure free since 1980. He takes anti-seizure medication,
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1998. His
physician states that he is supportive of Mr. Stannard receiving an
exemption.

William P. Swick

    Mr. Swick, 63, has a history of a seizure disorder and has been
seizure free since 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication, with the
dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2009. His physician
states that he is supportive of Mr. Swick receiving an exemption.

III. 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 dates
section of the notice.

IV. 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 number FMCSA-2018-0050 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 materials received during the
comment period. FMCSA may issue a final determination at any time after
the close of the comment period.

V. 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-2018-0050 and click ``Search.'' Next, click
``Open Docket Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments
related to this notice.

    Issued on: March 16, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-05861 Filed 3-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P