Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision, 4621-4622 [2010-1764]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2010 / Notices mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES freeway network. Commuters desiring to park-and-ride at the Warrensville—Van Aken Blue Line terminus must first deal with navigating the local street network, and then must park over 1⁄4-mile from the station. • Travelers who do use the existing roadway system experience significant congestion. Congestion occurs on all local freeways, with I–480 experiencing a LOS of F during both AM and PM peak periods. This congestion results in a loss of time and productivity for those traveling to and from the study area. Many of the arterials also experience LOS of D or worse. • Outbound commuters who live along the existing Blue Line corridor in both Cleveland and Shaker Heights have connectivity issues using transit to connect to jobs and retail located within the study area. III. Alternatives The scoping meetings, other community meetings, and written comments will be a major source of alternatives for consideration in the Alternatives Analysis. Transportation alternatives proposed for consideration in the Blue Line Extension will include: 1. No Action Alternative—Existing and planned transit service and programmed new transportation facilities to the year 2030 with no new change to transportation services or facilities in the area beyond already committed projects. 2. Light Rail Build Alternative— Extension of the Blue Line south and west of the existing Warrensville—Van Aken Station site at the northwest corner to the southeast corner of Chagrin Avenue and WarrensvilleCenter Road; from the existing location south to the area of Interstate 480; or from the existing location east to south east to the area of Interstate 271. 3. Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative—Other technology alternatives: TSM will include signal prioritization of bus transit corridor(s) through the use of GPS chips and signal controller upgrades. Based on public and agency input received during scoping, variations of the above alternatives and other transportation-related improvement options, both transit and non-transit, will be considered for the Blue Line Extension project. IV. Probable Effects/Potential Impacts for Analysis The FTA and RTA will consider probable effects and potentially significant impacts to social, economic and environmental factors associated VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 with the alternatives under evaluation in the EIS. Potential environmental issues to be addressed will include: land use, historic and archaeological resources, traffic and parking, noise and vibration, environmental justice, regulatory floodway/floodplain encroachments, coordination with transportation and economic development projects, and construction impacts. Other issues to be addressed in the EIS include: natural areas, ecosystems, rare and endangered species, water resources, air/surface water and groundwater quality, energy, potentially contaminated sites, displacements and relocations, and parklands. The potential impacts will be evaluated for both the construction period and the long-term operations period of each alternative considered. In addition, the cumulative effects of the proposed project alternatives will be identified. Measures to avoid or mitigate any significant adverse impacts will be developed. Evaluation criteria will include consideration of the local goals and objectives established for the study, measures of effectiveness identified during scoping, and criteria established by FTA for ‘’’New Start’’ transit projects. V. FTA Procedures In accordance with the regulations and guidance established by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), as well as the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Part 771 (23 CFR 771) of the FHWA/FTA environmental regulations and policies, the EIS will include an analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of each of the alternatives selected for evaluation. The EIS will also comply with the requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and with Executive Order 12898 regarding Environmental Justice. After its approval, the DEIS will be available for public and agency review and comment. Public hearings will be held on the DEIS. The DEIS will also constitute the Alternative Analysis required by the New Starts regulations. The Final EIS will consider comments received during the DEIS public review and will identify the preferred alternative. Opportunity for additional public comment will be provided throughout all phases of project development. Issued on: January 20, 2010. ´ Marisol Simon, Regional Administrator. PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration Notice of a Public Meeting on the Draft Solicitation for a Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of a public meeting. SUMMARY: The FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation will hold a public meeting to discuss the FAA Centers of Excellence Program and the technical requirements for the proposed Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation (COE CST). A Draft Solicitation for the COE CST is available for public review. For a copy of the Draft Solicitation, contact Dr. Patricia Watts (the Contact Person listed below). DATES: The meeting will take place on Tuesday, February 9, 2010 from 9 a.m. until 2:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the Crystal Gateway Marriott, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, Telephone: (703) 920–3230. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Patricia Watts, National Program Director, FAA Centers of Excellence Program Office, FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405; Telephone: (609) 485–5043; E-mail: patricia.watts@faa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include an overview of the FAA Centers of Excellence Program, discussions on the proposed COE CST and the Draft Solicitation, and open discussion and Q & A period on the Draft Solicitation. Issued in Washington, DC, January 22, 2010. George C. Nield, Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. [FR Doc. 2010–1771 Filed 1–27–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–13–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7363; FMCSA– 2001–10578; FMCSA–2003–16241] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision [FR Doc. 2010–1707 Filed 1–27–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P 4621 AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1 4622 ACTION: Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 18 / Thursday, January 28, 2010 / Notices Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 10 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 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 January 11, 2010 (74 FR 65846). mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 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 10 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal vision exemptions for Ronald G. Austin, Rickey C. Dalton, Martiniano L. Espinosa, James G. LaBair, Dennis A. Leschke, Lonnie Lomax, Jr., Eugene C. Murphy, Carl W. Skinner, Jr., John H. Voigts and Daniel G. Wilson. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:16 Jan 27, 2010 Jkt 220001 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: January 22, 2010. Charles A. Horan III, Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. 2010–1764 Filed 1–27–10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA–2009–0290] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt forty-six individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. DATES: The exemptions are effective January 28, 2010. The exemptions expire on January 30, 2012. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs, (202) 366–4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Room W64–224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to https:// www.regulations.gov and/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. PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT’s 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, or other entity). You may review DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at https://Docketinfo.dot.gov. Background On December 11, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from forty-six individuals and requested comments from the public (74 FR 65836). The public comment period closed on January 11, 2010, and no comments were received. FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the forty-six applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that ‘‘A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control’’ (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency’s July 2000 study entitled ‘‘A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.’’ The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal Register Notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. These forty-six applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 34 years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in loss of consciousness or seizure, that E:\FR\FM\28JAN1.SGM 28JAN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4621-4622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1764]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2003-16241]


Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

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

[[Page 4622]]


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 Regulations for 10 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 January 11, 2010 (74 FR 65846).

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 10 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal 
vision exemptions for Ronald G. Austin, Rickey C. Dalton, Martiniano L. 
Espinosa, James G. LaBair, Dennis A. Leschke, Lonnie Lomax, Jr., Eugene 
C. Murphy, Carl W. Skinner, Jr., John H. Voigts and Daniel G. Wilson.
    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: January 22, 2010.
Charles A. Horan III,
Acting Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-1764 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.