Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision, 28100-28101 [E9-13786]

Download as PDF 28100 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices Timothy G. Walls He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. John E. Spano Mr. Spano, 52, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no 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 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Spano meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts. Delton N. Stewart Mr. Stewart, 49, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he has had no 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 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stewart meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. Mark S. Sundberg Mr. Sundberg, 51, has had ITDM since 1966. His endocrinologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no 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 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sundberg meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator’s license from Michigan. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:53 Jun 11, 2009 Jkt 217001 Mr. Walls, 45, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no 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 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walls meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator’s license from West Virginia. Kelly R. Winslow Mr. Winslow, 49, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no 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 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Winslow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. 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 (SAFETEA–LU) 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). Section 4129 requires: (1) The elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and (2) the establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV. In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect. Issued on: June 5, 2009. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E9–13833 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7165; FMCSA– 2000–7918; FMCSA–2000–8398; FMCSA– 2002–12294; FMCSA–2002–13411; FMCSA– 2004–17984; FMCSA–2004–19477; FMCSA– 2005–20027; FMCSA–2005–20560; FMCSA– 2007–27333] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 112 / Friday, June 12, 2009 / Notices Regulations for 24 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 exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 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 and 31315. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202) 366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, 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: Issued on: June 5, 2009. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E9–13786 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document Management System (FDMS) at https:// www.regulations.gov Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2year 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 comment period ended on May 28, 2009. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding. Conclusion The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its evaluation of the 24 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal vision exemptions for Carl W. Adams, Charles C. Chapman, Jeffrey W. Cotner, Everett A. Doty, John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher, Heather M.B. Gordon, Randolph D. Hall, Raymond G. Hayden, Robert E. Hendrick, Gene A. Lesher, Jr., Wallace F. Mahan, Sr., Anthony R. Miles, Kenneth L. Nau, David W. Peterson, Randel G. Pierce, Steven A. Proctor, Frederick G. Robbins, Manuel H. Sanchez, Jose C. SanchezSanchez, David M. Stout, Kenneth E. Suter, Jr., Thaddeus E. Temoney, and Daniel R. Viscaya. 17:53 Jun 11, 2009 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Maritime Administration [Docket No. MARAD–2009 0053] Electronic Access VerDate Nov<24>2008 BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P Jkt 217001 Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws AGENCY: Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation. ACTION: Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel TRIBUTE II. SUMMARY: As authorized by 46 U.S.C. 12121, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below. The complete application is given in DOT docket MARAD–2009– 0053 at https://www.regulations.gov. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 12121 and MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (68 FR 23084; April 30, 2003), that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels in that business, a waiver will not be granted. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter’s interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD’s regulations at 46 CFR Part 388. PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 28101 DATES: Submit comments on or before July 13, 2009. ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to docket number MARAD–2009–0053. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M–30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at https:// www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joann Spittle, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W21–203, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202– 366–5979. As described by the applicant the intended service of the vessel TRIBUTE II is: Intended Use: ‘‘1 hour trips in Santa Monica Bay, off Los Angeles county, for family witnessed scatterings of cremains.’’ Geographic Region: ‘‘California.’’ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Privacy Act Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). Dated: May 28, 2009. By Order of the Maritime Administrator. Christine Gurland, Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. [FR Doc. E9–13824 Filed 6–11–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–81–P E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM 12JNN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 112 (Friday, June 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28100-28101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13786]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7165; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2002-13411; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; 
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27333]


Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the 
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety

[[Page 28101]]

Regulations for 24 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 
exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, 
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions 
for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 
Programs, (202) 366-4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, 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: 

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document 
Management System (FDMS) at https://www.regulations.gov

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption 
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 comment 
period ended on May 28, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these 
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its 
evaluation of the 24 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal 
vision exemptions for Carl W. Adams, Charles C. Chapman, Jeffrey W. 
Cotner, Everett A. Doty, John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher, Heather M.B. 
Gordon, Randolph D. Hall, Raymond G. Hayden, Robert E. Hendrick, Gene 
A. Lesher, Jr., Wallace F. Mahan, Sr., Anthony R. Miles, Kenneth L. 
Nau, David W. Peterson, Randel G. Pierce, Steven A. Proctor, Frederick 
G. Robbins, Manuel H. Sanchez, Jose C. Sanchez-Sanchez, David M. Stout, 
Kenneth E. Suter, Jr., Thaddeus E. Temoney, and Daniel R. Viscaya.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal 
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. 
The exemption will be revoked 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 and 31315.

    Issued on: June 5, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-13786 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.