Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Notices 72753 

affect small businesses during and upon 

termination of the franchise agreement? 

(4) Should 13 CFR 121.103(i) be 

modified to specifically address the 

provisions SBA has determined 

evidence excessive control by the 

franchisor? 

(5) Should 13 CFR 121.103(i) be 

modified to incorporate a reference to 

‘‘Loan Program Requirements, as 

defined in 13 CFR 120.10,’’ because 

SBA’s policies in this area are explained 

in the Loan Program Requirements, and 

more particularly in SBA’s SOP 50 10? 

(6) Should SBA develop a process to 

accept a certification of non-affiliation 

from a franchisor and/or its counsel, 

based on standards established by SBA, 

in lieu of SBA or lender review of the 

franchise agreement and related 

documents? 

(7) If so, should that process be 

available only with respect to ‘‘renewal 

requests’’—i.e., only for franchisors that 

have had franchise agreements reviewed 

and approved by SBA in a prior year? 

(8) If an applicant is not a franchisee 

but has an affiliate that is a franchisee, 

should SBA continue to review the 

affiliate’s franchise agreement and 

related documents as part of the small 

business size determination of the 

applicant? 

(9) Should SBA continue to list 

agreements on a central registry and, if 

so, where should that registry be 

maintained and by whom? 

(10) If there is a cost associated with 

the maintenance of the registry, who 

should bear that cost? Should there be 

a charge for listing of agreements on a 

registry and, if so, who should bear the 

cost for such listing? SBA notes that 

there are statutory limitations on SBA’s 

current authority to charge, retain and 

use fees. 

(11) In light of the fact that SBA lists 

approved franchises on its Web site, is 

there a need to continue to post the 

Franchise Findings List as well? 

(12) Should the franchise agreement 

review process be streamlined and/or 

simplified and, if so, in what way? 

(13) Should the franchise appeal 

process be changed and, if so, in what 

way? 

Dated: December 2, 2014. 

Linda S. Rusche, 

Director, Office of Financial Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28698 Filed 12–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Highway Administration 

Supplemental Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement; Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), DOT. 

ACTION: Revised Notice of Intent (NOI). 

SUMMARY: FHWA is issuing this revised 

NOI as a correction to advise agencies 

and the public that a Supplemental 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(SDEIS) will be prepared for the South 

Capitol Street Project (the Project). The 

Project proposes to make major changes 

to the South Capitol Street Corridor 

from Firth Sterling Avenue SE. to 

Independence Avenue and the Suitland 

Parkway from Martin Luther King, Jr. 

Avenue SE. to South Capitol Street, 

including replacing the existing 

Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge 

over the Anacostia River. This notice 

revises the NOI that was published in 

the Federal Register on July 28, 2014 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Federal Highway Administration, 

District of Columbia Division: Mr. 

Michael Hicks, Environmental/Urban 

Engineer, 1990 K Street NW., Suite 510, 

Washington, DC 20006–1103, (202) 219– 

3513, email: michael.hicks@dot.gov; or 

the District of Columbia Department of 

Transportation: Mr. E.J. Simie, PE, 

Project Manager, 55 M Street SE., Suite 

400, Washington, DC 20003, (202) 671– 

2800, email: ej.simie@dc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In March 

2011, the FHWA in conjunction with 

the District Department of 

Transportation (DDOT) approved 

release of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Project. 

The availability of the FEIS was 

announced in the April 8, 2011 Federal 

Register. The alternatives examined in 

detail in the FEIS included a No Build 

Alternative and three build alternatives: 

Build Alternatives 1 and 2 and the 

Preferred Alternative, which was a 

modification of Build Alternative 2. A 

movable arched bascule was selected for 

the new Frederick Douglass Memorial 

Bridge. The alignment of the new bridge 

would be at an angle from the existing 

bridge to allow the swing span on the 

existing bridge to remain operational 

during construction, which meant that 

right-of-way would be needed from Joint 

Base Anacostia-Bolling (JBAB). Build 

Alternatives 1 and 2 were eliminated 

from consideration in the FEIS and, 

therefore, will not be considered in the 

SDEIS. 

Since publication of the FEIS, FHWA 

and DDOT have considered major 

changes regarding the design of the FEIS 

Preferred Alternative. Most notably, 

DDOT reconsidered the need to obtain 

right-of-way from JBAB, which resulted 

in changing the alignment of the 

proposed new Frederick Douglass 

Memorial Bridge to a location 

immediately south of and parallel to the 

existing bridge. In addition, new 

information about current and planned 

navigation along the Anacostia River, 

including the navigation requirements 

of the U.S. Navy (USN), led to the 

decision to make the new bridge a fixed 

span structure instead of a movable 

span structure. Other notable design 

revisions made to the FEIS Preferred 

Alternative include the conversion of 

the east side traffic circle to a traffic oval 

similar in size to the proposed west 

traffic oval, and changes to the proposed 

ramps or ramp modifications between 

South Capitol Street and I–695, Suitland 

Parkway and I–295, and Martin Luther 

King, Jr. Avenue SE. and Suitland 

Parkway. Due to these and other design 

changes, a Revised Preferred Alternative 

was developed. 

The SDEIS will be prepared in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

4371, et seq.), Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), 

FHWA Code of Federal Regulations (23 

CFR 771.101–771.137, et seq.), and all 

applicable Federal, State, and local 

government laws, regulations, and 

policies. The SDEIS will describe the 

revised preferred alternative, update the 

affected environment, and describe the 

anticipated environmental impacts of 

the Revised Preferred Alternative in 

comparison to the anticipated 

environmental impacts disclosed in the 

FEIS for the FEIS Preferred Alternative. 

The Purpose and Need of the Project did 

not change from the FEIS. The U.S. 

Navy; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; 

U.S. Coast Guard; the National Park 

Service; and the District of Columbia 

Department of the Environment will 

continue to serve as Cooperating 

Agencies for the Project. 

A 45-day review period will be 

provided following the Notice of 

Availability of the SDEIS in the Federal 

Register, and a public meeting will be 

held within this review period. The 

public meeting will be conducted by 

DDOT and announced a minimum of 15 

days in advance of the meeting. DDOT 

will provide information for the public 

meeting, including date, time and 

location through a variety of means 

including the Project Web site (http://

www.southcapitoleis.com) and by 

newspaper advertisement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

72754 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 235 / Monday, December 8, 2014 / Notices 

To ensure that the full range of issues 

is identified early in the process, 

comments are invited from all interested 

and/or potentially affected parties. 

Comments or questions concerning this 

Notice should be directed to the FHWA 

and DDOT at the addresses provided 

above. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 20.205 Highway Planning 

and Construction. The regulations and 

implementing Executive Order 12372 

regarding intergovernmental consultation on 

Federal programs and activities apply to this 

program.) 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48. 

Issued on: November 17, 2014. 

Joseph C. Lawson, 

Division Administrator, District of Columbia 

Division, Federal Highway Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2014–28720 Filed 12–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2014–0296] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt 33 individuals from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the 

vision requirement in one eye for 

various reasons. The exemptions will 

enable these individuals to operate 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 

interstate commerce without meeting 

the prescribed vision requirement in 

one eye. The Agency has concluded that 

granting these exemptions will provide 

a level of safety that is equivalent to or 

greater than the level of safety 

maintained without the exemptions for 

these CMV drivers. 

DATES: The exemptions were granted 

October 31, 2014. The exemptions 

expire on October 31, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elaine M. Papp, R.N., Chief, Medical 

Programs Division, (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. If you have questions 

on viewing or submitting material to the 

docket, contact Docket Services, 

telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http://

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. 

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 www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. 

II. Background 

On September 30, 2014, FMCSA 

published a notice of receipt of 

exemption applications from certain 

individuals, and requested comments 

from the public (79 FR 58856). That 

notice listed 33 applicants’ case 

histories. The 33 individuals applied for 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who 

operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 

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. 

Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 

33 applications on their merits and 

made a determination to grant 

exemptions to each of them. 

III. Vision and Driving Experience of 

the Applicants 

The vision requirement in the 

FMCSRs provides: 

A person is physically qualified to 

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that 

person has distant visual acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye 

without corrective lenses or visual 

acuity separately corrected to 20/40 

(Snellen) or better with corrective 

lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 

20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or 

without corrective lenses, field of vision 

of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian 

in each eye, and the ability to recognize 

the colors of traffic signals and devices 

showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10)). 

FMCSA recognizes that some drivers 

do not meet the vision requirement but 

have adapted their driving to 

accommodate their vision limitation 

and demonstrated their ability to drive 

safely. The 33 exemption applicants 

listed in this notice are in this category. 

They are unable to meet the vision 

requirement in one eye for various 

reasons, including amblyopia, macular 

scar, histoplasmosis, retinal 

detachment, glaucoma, complete loss of 

vision, refractive amblyopia, central 

serous retinopathy, enucleation, 

macular scar, central suppression 

consistent with amblyopia, strabismic 

amblyopia, end stage maculopathy from 

toxoplasmosis, central retinal artery 

occlusion, exotropia, prosthetic eye, and 

a cataract. In most cases, their eye 

conditions were not recently developed. 

Twenty-three of the applicants were 

either born with their vision 

impairments or have had them since 

childhood. 

The 10 individuals that sustained 

their vision conditions as adults have 

had it for a range of two to 42 years. 

Although each applicant has one eye 

which does not meet the vision 

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 

each has at least 20/40 corrected vision 

in the other eye, and in a doctor’s 

opinion, has sufficient vision to perform 

all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. 

Doctors’ opinions are supported by the 

applicants’ possession of valid 

commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or 

non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before 

issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to 

knowledge and skills tests designed to 

evaluate their qualifications to operate a 

CMV. 

All of these applicants satisfied the 

testing requirements for their State of 

residence. By meeting State licensing 

requirements, the applicants 

demonstrated their ability to operate a 

CMV, with their limited vision, to the 

satisfaction of the State. 

While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 33 drivers have been 

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate 

commerce, even though their vision 

disqualified them from driving in 

interstate commerce. They have driven 

CMVs with their limited vision in 

careers ranging from 2.5 to 50 years. In 

the past three years, two of the drivers 

were involved in crashes and one was 

convicted of a moving violation in a 

CMV. 

The qualifications, experience, and 

medical condition of each applicant 

were stated and discussed in detail in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES