                             SUPPORTING STATEMENT
                                EPA ICR 2159.05
              RENEWAL BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR CONTRACTOR EMPLOYEES

1.  IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

      (a) Title of the Information Collection

      This information collection request is for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirement entitled "Background Checks for Contractor Employees (Renewal)," EPA ICR Number 2159.05 and OMB Control Number 2030-0043.  The Agency requires background checks for specified contractor employees working in sensitive locations or sensitive projects who are not otherwise covered by a background check in accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive -12 (HSPD12).

      (b) Short Characterization

      The EPA uses contractors to perform services throughout the nation with regard to environmental emergencies involving the release, or threatened release, of oil, radioactive materials or hazardous chemicals that may potentially affect communities and the surrounding environment.  Releases may be accidental, deliberate, or may be caused by natural disasters.  The Agency may request contractors responding to any of these types of incidents to conduct background checks and apply Government-established suitability criteria in determining whether employees are acceptable to perform on given sites or on specific projects.  In addition to emergency response contractors, EPA may require background checks for contractor personnel working in sensitive sites or on sensitive projects.  The background checks and application of the Government's suitability criteria must be completed prior to contract employee performance.  The contractor shall maintain records associated with all background checks.

2.  NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

      (a) Need/authority for the Collection

      The legal authority for this collection is Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 731, 732, and 736.  The EPA has a responsibility to protect the public, Agency employees, and contractors through a background check and application of Government-established suitability criteria to ensure reliability, trustworthiness, and good conduct and character.  This process is necessary to allow the EPA to meet its responsibilities and mitigate any threat to the public health, welfare and the environment.

      (b) Uses/users of the Data

      Information collected by contractors for performing background checks is necessary for applying the Government-established suitability criteria on contract employees before the individual employees perform contractual services for the EPA.

3.  NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATION, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

      (a) Nonduplication

      Information requested from a contractor's employee to determine suitability to perform on a response contract is unique to a specific individual; this information cannot be obtained from any other source.

      (b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR submission to the Office of Management and Budget.

      The information collection request was initially published as a Notice in the Federal Register on June 10, 2005, and for renewal on November 13, 2008 and October 31, 2011.  There were no comments received on the initial notice or the first renewal; however, there were two comments received on the October 31, 2011 notice of renewal.  Both comments are related to equal employment opportunities.  The first comment stated that in accordance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) guidance, in order to exclude a person from employment based on a criminal conviction, the criminal conduct must be recent enough and sufficiently job-related to be predictive of performance in the position sought.  The current EPA policy states that individuals must not have a weapons offense in the last five years or a felony conviction in the last three years in order to be qualified to work at an EPA response site. At sensitive sites, the individual cannot have a weapons offense in the past ten years, a felony conviction in the last seven years, or a misdemeanor conviction in the last five years.  The commenter urged the EPA to narrow its exclusions to focus on specific misdemeanor and felony convictions that relate to the work and the site of the contract.
      The EPA recognizes the merit in this comment; however, because the nature and location of work varies, it would be difficult to list only certain misdemeanors and convictions which would be applicable without leaving the Agency at undue risk.  Current EPA procedures, which have been communicated to our contractors, allow for a waiver process if a contractor feels an individual is otherwise qualified and the nature of the conviction or misdemeanor does not pose a risk to the current work.  The EPA is currently in the process of rewriting its policies regarding background checks and will ensure that the language is revised to add a statement that specifies that the individual cannot have a felony or misdemeanor conviction that poses unreasonable risk to the work or Agency, rather than blankly stating no misdemeanors or convictions are allowed.  The new policy will also spell out the current procedures for obtaining a waiver.
      The second comment was a recommendation that the EPA implement a waiver process so that individuals or contractors can request an individualized assessment. As stated above, this process is already in place and will be clearly identified in the upcoming policy revision.

      (c) Consultations

      To determine contractor burden associated with the information collection identified in this request, the following vendors were contacted:

_Representative__		               Firm___________	          ____Phone___
Lisa Friday		            Weston Solutions<PHONE_NUMBER>
Jack Jemsek	  		Sovereign Consulting<PHONE_NUMBER>
Joe Baer	  		Tech Law<PHONE_NUMBER>
Chrystal Guthrie		Chenega<PHONE_NUMBER>
Amy Clark			Tetra Tech<PHONE_NUMBER>
Chuck Baker			URS Corp<PHONE_NUMBER>
Franceska Parkman		G2<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mark Ruck			Environmental Restoration<PHONE_NUMBER>
Sherry Maule			Guardian Environmental<PHONE_NUMBER>
John Mount			Kemron<PHONE_NUMBER>
Greg Sulan			WRS<PHONE_NUMBER>
Dhroov Shivjiani		Ecology & Environment<PHONE_NUMBER>

      Each individual consulted indicated that he/she understood the need for the information collection and did not find the collection burdensome.  The majority of respondents stated that their organization performs Background Checks of new hires as standard practice.  Estimated time to complete the information collection is described in section 6, "Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection."

      (d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

      The information provided by the contractors' employees is collected once prior to the employee performing work for EPA.  The requirement for a background check and application of the Government's suitability criteria cannot be met with a less frequent collection.

      (e) General Guidelines

      The information contained in this ICR is in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget's general guidelines for Federal data collection, except that small entities have to follow the same collection procedures as other respondents.

      (f) Confidentiality

      The EPA contractor is responsible for collecting and maintaining information under this collection of information; therefore, each contractor will have his own procedures for ensuring confidentiality.

      (g) Sensitive Questions

      Information requested is commonly collected as a normal business practice.  The contractor will collect and maintain employee information.  The EPA will not collect contractor employee information nor maintain it.  The Agency is responsible for receiving the suitability notification from contractors.

      If a contractor employee's background check does not meet the suitability criteria, but the contractor wants the employee to work on the response site, the contractor must submit a waiver request to the Director, Superfund/RCRA Regional Procurement Operations Division (SRRPOD).  The information submitted to SRRPOD is maintained and protected in accordance with Privacy Act requirements.

4.  THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION RECEIVED

      (a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System Codes

      Information is collected for employees of the contractors and subcontractors who perform
work in sensitive sites or sensitive projects.  All contractor employees who will perform on response actions are subject to a background check and must meet the Government-established suitability criteria prior to contract performance.  Typically, these contractor respondents fall into the following North American Industry Classification System code: 562910 Remediation Services. Other contractors may be subject to background check requirements if they are working at sensitive sites.

      (b) Information Requested

      (i) Data items

      The contractor's employees will be required to provide information such as name, social security number, proof of US citizenship or legal resident status, employment history, education, military service, and address of residence.

      (ii) Respondent Activities

      After performing a background check and applying the Government's suitability criteria for an employee, the contractor must notify the contracting officer that the background checks and the application for the Government's suitability criteria have been completed and that named individuals are suitable to work on a specific contract.

5.  THE INFORMATION COLLECTED:  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

      (a) Agency Activities

      EPA contracting officers are responsible for ensuring that they have received notification from the contractor that all of its employees working at sensitive sites have undergone a background check and have met the Government-established suitability criteria.

      (b) Collection Methodology and Management

      The information is collected by each contractor from each employee who will be working at sensitive sites or in sensitive positions which could involve law enforcement activities, indoor cleanups (including occupied household residences), drug lab cleanups, and emergency response actions at geographically sensitive locations such as military installations and Government buildings.  Submissions are accepted in any format so long as they include the requested data.  No information is submitted to the Agency, but compliance is mandatory and no employee may work on a response site without meeting the Government-established suitability criteria, unless the requirement has been waived by the contracting officer.  On a case-by-case basis, contracting officers may either temporarily or permanently waive the requirements if they determine in writing that these requirements are not necessary at a specific location, or for a specific individual, in order to protect the Government's interests.  The suitability criteria has been developed by the Government to determine that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual will likely be able to perform the contract requirements on a sensitive site or in a sensitive position without undue risk to the interests of the Government.  Once the contractor has applied the criteria, and the employee has met the requirements as prescribed in the Statement of Work, contractors must notify the EPA contracting officer.  Contractors must maintain the records of their background checks and application of the Agency's suitability criteria.

      (c) Small Entity Flexibility

      Separate or further simplified requirements for small entities are not practical because the stated objectives cannot be met under such alternatives.  The requirements of the information collection apply to the awardees of the contract.  Reasonable expense associated with the EPA background checks is reimbursable; therefore, small businesses are not expected to experience financial difficulties in fulfilling these requirements.  Additionally, there are numerous commercial sources that perform background checks.

      (d) Collection Schedule

      Information will be collected periodically as individuals are requested to work at a sensitive site or in a sensitive position under new or existing contracts.

6.  ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

      (a) Estimation of Respondent Burden

      Respondent burden estimates for this collection are based upon interviews with the contractors identified in 3(c) above and discussions with Agency personnel.  The Agency anticipates that the contractor burden for complying with this requirement includes the time it takes for employees to provide the required information, the time to manage a subcontract for background checks, the administrative time to apply the Government's suitability criteria, the time to notify the Agency, and the effort to maintain the records.

      (b) Estimation of Respondent Costs

            (i) Estimating Labor Costs

                           Respondent Cost Estimate

Respondent Cost Estimate
                                          	Burden	 Loaded
Step	Collection Activity  	     	  Labor Cat.		   Hours__       Rate__	    Cost_
   1.  Time to fill out information	  Employees		.25   hour       $ 58.30	$   14.58
   2.  Cost to perform Background							$   75.00
        Check (Third party/Subcontractor)
   3.  Review/apply	     	   	 HR Manager		.25   hour       $168.35	$   42.09
        suitability criteria
   4.  Submit notification 		 HR Manager		.25 hour         $168.35	 $   42.09
   5.  Maintain files		       	 Admin. Support 	.25 hour         $  51.88  $   12.97
 								1 hour
            Estimated Respondent Cost per Background Check	 $  186.73

      Step 1 of the information collection is completed by a contractor employee working at a sensitive site.  On average, respondents stated this process normally takes the employee about 15 minutes to complete.  The cost for Step 2, having a third party perform a background check, is based upon market research and input from the vendors surveyed.  Vendors' costs for this activity ranged from $25 to $175.  Websites like www.hireright.com and www.monster.com show prices ranging from $30-$100.  The cost varies depending on the number of background checks purchased per year, the parameters of the check, as well as the individual employee.  A background check for an employee who has only lived in one state will be less than the cost for an employee who has lived in multiple jurisdictions.  The median price of the research performed is $75 which is the figure used for the purpose of this ICR.  Steps 3 and 4, reviewing suitability and notifying EPA, are performed by a human resource type manager and/or a security manager responsible for personnel management.  Administrative support personnel are responsible for completing step 5, which includes filing the background check in personnel records.

      The cost associated with this effort was estimated using an hourly rate based upon the National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, May 2010 published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and represents the most current survey data available.  The categories used included the following: Hazardous Materials Removal Workers, Human Resource Manager, and Office and Admin Support.

      Since the labor rates used in this estimate are from 2010, an escalation factor of 3% was applied for each year to determine an average wage for the respective year.  The cost for each labor category was determined by multiplying the escalated hourly labor rate by an estimated loading factor of 2.95 to reflect industries' overhead, fringe benefits, and general and administrative costs for each year (2012-2014) that the ICR will be in effect.  The 2.95 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of average labor related burdens experienced by EPA contractors.  The loaded labor costs for 2012 thru 2014 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) to arrive at an annualized labor cost for each labor category.

      The following are the loaded labor rates used in the calculations in the table above:

Employees:
2010 = $18.08
2011 = ($18.08 x 1.03) $18.62
2012 = ($18.62 x 1.03) $19.18 x 2.95 = $ 56.58
2013 = ($19.18 x 1.03) $19.76 x 2.95 = $ 58.29
2014 = ($19.76 x 1.03) $20.35 x 2.95 = $ 60.03
                                  $174.90/3 = $58.30

Human Resource Manager:
2010 = $52.21
2011 = ($52.21 x 1.03) $53.78
2012 = ($53.78 x 1.03) $55.39 x 2.95 = $ 163.40
2013 = ($55.39 x 1.03) $57.05 x 2.95 = $ 168.30
2014 = ($57.05 x 1.03) $58.76 x 2.95 = $ 173.34
                                  $ 505.04/3 = $168.35

Administrative Support:
2010 = $16.09
2011 = ($16.09 x 1.03) $16.57
2012 = ($16.57 x 1.03) $17.07 x 2.95 = $ 50.36
2013 = ($17.07 x 1.03) $17.58 x 2.95 = $ 51.86
2014 = ($17.58 x 1.03) $18.11 x 2.95 = $ 53.42
                                 $155.64/3 = $51.88

      (ii)  Capital/ Start-up Costs

      Respondents will not be required to acquire capital goods to provide the requested information; therefore, capital start-up costs have not been included in this estimate.

      (iii)  Operating and Maintenance Costs

      Operating and maintenance costs, which include such items as file storage, photocopying, and postage, will be nominal.

      (c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

      Agency burden for responses to background check and application of Government suitability criteria.

                          Agency Burden Cost Estimate
                                 Labor			    Loaded
Step	Collection Activity		Category        Burden Hours	   _Rate_	Cost

   1.  Ensure Compliance and		GS-13		.25 hour	   $87.26	$21.82
        document file
				     Estimated Agency cost per background check $21.82
      Performing background checks and applying the Government's suitability criteria are the responsibility of the EPA contractor.  The Agency is primarily responsible for ensuring that contractors notify the Agency that a background check and application of the suitability criteria have been completed for all applicable employees.  The Agency's current effort is estimated to be approximately 15 minutes and performed by an employee at the GS-13 level.  This is less than previous years, which was estimated at thirty minutes.  After interviewing contracting officers, it was apparent that the process has become more efficient and takes less time. The GS-13 per hour salary for 2011 with a locality pay for "Rest of US" is $39.21.  Since government wages are frozen for 2012, an escalation factor has only been applied for 2013 and 2014 using a factor of 3.0% based upon historical cost of living increases for federal workers.  These wage rates were then multiplied by a factor of 2.16 to reflect Federal employee benefits. The 2.16 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens for government employees.  The loaded labor costs for 2012 thru 2014 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) for an annualized loaded rate of $87.26 for the three years the ICR is in effect.

2011 = 		   $39.21
2012 = 		   $39.21 x 2.16     =$84.69
2013 = ($39.21 x 1.03) $40.39 x 2.16     = $87.24
2014 = ($40.39 x 1.03) $41.60 x 2.16    =  $89.86
                                       $261.79/3 = $87.26

      (d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden

      All EPA contractor personnel performing on a response site must provide the required background information unless this requirement is waived by the contracting officer.  The number of contractor employees expected to submit the requested information for background checks for the life of this ICR (3 years) is 3,000.  This number was derived by estimating the number of currently performing contract employees under emergency response contracts.  The Agency estimated this number of employees by reviewing current contract databases, interviews with contractors and information received from the regions.

      There are both small and large businesses working in the field with diverse response site situations that require large variations in the number of employees.  Contractors may be on-site for a few days or many years depending on the situation.  Per the EPA Office of Acquisition Management's active contract list, there are currently 44 contracts which include a requirement for contractors to perform background checks on employees working at sensitive sites.  The number of employees with background checks for each contract ranges from 5-350 per year, not counting subcontracts.  Many contracts require employees to be prepared to report to work locations with no notice.  Therefore, these employees must have background checks and meet the Government's suitability criteria even if not continuously located on-site.

      Additionally, there are contractors working at their own facilities or at other than government locations who work on sensitive locations or on sensitive projects.  These may include, but are not limited to, maintenance of anti-terrorism equipment warehouses, water systems, environmental information, private laboratories working on genetically modified herbicides and pathogens, and law enforcement activities.

        The number of employees needed at each sensitive site varies depending on the size and nature of the cleanup.  Therefore, it is very difficult to ascertain the exact number of employees on which background checks are being performed.  The estimate of 1,000 represents our best estimate given current information.

      (e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

            (i) Respondent Tally

      The annual respondent cost for this ICR is 1,000 hours at an estimated cost of $186,730.  The hours were calculated by multiplying the number of hours per occurrence, which is one, by the number of annual occurrences, 1,000.  The cost was calculated by multiplying the respondent burden cost of $186.73 per background check by the number of annual occurrences, 1,000. The estimated respondent cost over the life of the ICR, three years, is $560,190 ($186,730 x 3).  The previous estimate for respondent cost was $81,410 per year.  There are several reasons for the increase.  The previous ICR estimated the cost of a background check at $35; however, interviews with contractors and online market research shows that while basic checks can be

$35, more in depth searches can run two to three times this cost.  Also, the basic rate used for a general type manager in the previous estimate was $50 less an hour than that used in today's calculations.  Interviews with contractors showed that the type of manager who performs work associated with background checks is a Human Resource Manager; therefore, the rate for a Human Resource Manager was used for current calculations.  Lastly, the previous ICR calculations underestimated the required effort which resulted in unrecognized overall costs.

(ii) The Agency Tally

      The annual Agency burden for this collection request is estimated at 250 hours.  This is calculated by multiplying the estimated burden hours per background check, which is .25, by the number of annual occurrences, 1,000 to arrive at 250 hours.  The previous ICR calculation was 500 hours.  This is because the government estimated that the Agency processed waiver requests on approximately 25% of the background checks performed.  However, interviews with both contractors and EPA contracting officers revealed that to date no waivers have been requested or processed.  It is possible an occurrence could arise where a waiver would be necessary, but it would be rare, and the contracting officer could likely perform this work in the course of his or her normal duties.

      The total annual Agency cost for this collection request is estimated at $21,815.  This amount is calculated by multiplying the number of hours, 250, by the contracting officer's loaded rate of $87.26 per hour.  The estimated Agency cost over the life of the ICR, three years, is $65,445.

      (f) Reasons for Change in Burden

      As detailed above, there are a number of differences between the previous estimate and the current estimate.  The previous calculations for the contractor burden resulted in unrecognized costs.  Also, the rate for the manager in the previous estimate was substantially lower than the 2010 estimate for a human resource manager, and the rate for a background check was substantially lower than the estimates confirmed by current market research.  Lastly, the previous estimate accounted for costs associated with waivers; however, research showed no waivers have been required to date.

      (g) Burden Statement

      The annual public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated on average to be one hour per response.  Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

      To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0803, which is available for online viewing at www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental Information in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office of Environmental Information is<PHONE_NUMBER>.  An electronic version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.  When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.  Please include the EPA Docket ID Number    EPA-HQ-OARM-2011-0803 and OMB Control Number 2030-0043 in any correspondence.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

		  WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF 	CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

									February 13, 2012

Docket Number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0539

www.regulations.gov

Errata Sheet for the d-Phenothrin Summary Document (12/19/2011)

In the version of the d-phenothrin Summary Document which was posted in
the public docket, the bullet beginning at the bottom of page 7 is
missing several words of text.  The corrected bullet is provided here
with the missing text underlined.  This typographical error will be
corrected in the Final Workplan for d-phenothrin.

The uncertainty factor (UF) for d-phenothrin for the RED was
1000X for adults (10X for inter-species extrapolation, 10X for
intra-species variation, and 10X for database uncertainty factor for
the inadequate toxicology database i.e., absence of acceptable
neurotoxicity studies).  Under FQPA, the Agency is required to apply a
10X safety factor (SF) to be protective of infants and children unless
there are data to support a reduction or removal.  However, EPA’s
current position is that there is sufficient evidence to reduce the FQPA
SF to 1X for adults and 3X for children <6 years of age.  The 3X is
based on age-dependent-pharmacokinetics and is further supported by
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PK) model predictions of a 3-fold
increase of pyrethroid concentration in juvenile target tissue compared
to adults.  A more complete description of the Agency’s reasoning
behind a 3X FQPA SF for children can be found at  HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov/" www.regulations.gov ;
EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0746-0011.  These UFs are subject to review and
possible revision during the registration review.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 26 (Thursday, February 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8985]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02777]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1926

[Docket No. OSHA-2012-0025]
RIN 1218-AC75

Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Revising the Exemption for
Digger Derricks

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA published a direct final rule and a companion notice of
proposed rulemaking on November 9, 2012, to broaden the exemption for
digger derricks in its construction standard for cranes and derricks.
OSHA received a significant adverse comment on the direct final rule
and is, therefore, withdrawing the direct final rule. OSHA will issue a
final rule at a later date based on the notice of proposed rulemaking.

DATES: OSHA published the direct final rule for revising the exemption
for digger derricks on November 9, 2012 (77 FR 67270), and is
withdrawing that direct final rule as of February 7, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General information and press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger,
Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:
(202) 693-1999.
    Technical information: Mr. Garvin Branch, Directorate of
Construction, Room N-3468, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-
2020; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 9, 2012, OSHA published a direct
final rule (77 FR 67270) and a companion notice of proposed rulemaking
(77 FR 67313) to broaden the exemption for digger derricks in its
construction standard for cranes and derricks. In those documents, OSHA
stated that if it received a significant adverse comment, the Agency
would ``publish a timely withdrawal of this direct final rule'' and
determine whether to proceed with the rulemaking on the basis of the
proposed rule. OSHA received one significant adverse comment on the
direct final rule (Docket ID OSHA-2012-0025-0008) and is, therefore,
withdrawing the direct final rule. The Agency will treat the comment on
the direct final rule as a comment on the proposed rule and publish a
final rule at a later date.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the
withdrawal of the direct final rule. OSHA is withdrawing the direct
final rule pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 653, 655, and 657, 40 U.S.C. 3701 et
seq., 5 U.S.C. 553, Secretary of Labor's Order 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and
29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC on February 1, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-02777 Filed 2-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80457-80458]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32487]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2015-0210]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal pipeline safety laws, PHMSA is
publishing this notice of a special permit request we have received
from a pipeline operator, seeking relief from compliance with certain
requirements in the Federal pipeline safety regulations. This notice
seeks public comments on this request, including comments on any safety
or environmental impacts. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment
period, PHMSA will evaluate the request and determine whether to grant
or deny a special permit.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
January 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for the specific
special permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Docket Management System: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Max Kieba by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA has received a request for a special
permit from a pipeline operator seeking relief from compliance with
certain

pipeline safety regulations. The request includes a technical analysis
provided by the operator. The request has been filed at
www.Regulations.gov and assigned docket number PHMSA-2015-0210. We
invite interested persons to participate by reviewing this special
permit request and draft environmental assessment docketed at http://www.Regulations.gov, and by submitting written comments, data or other
views. Please include any comments on potential environmental impacts
that may result if this special permit is granted.
    Before acting on this special permit request, PHMSA will evaluate
all comments received on or before the comments closing date. Comments
will be evaluated after this date if it is possible to do so without
incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each
relevant comment we receive in making our decision to grant or deny a
request.
    PHMSA has received the following special permit request:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Docket No.                     Requester              Regulation(s)       Nature of special permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHMSA-2015-0210....................  Hess Corporation.......  49 CFR 195.100; 112;    To authorize Hess North
                                                               200; 202; 204; 206;     Dakota Pipelines, LLC
                                                               248; 260; 300; and      (``Hess'') to commission
                                                               304.                    and operate two sections
                                                                                totaling approximately
                                                                                14.5 miles of 6-inch
                                                                                crude oil intrastate
                                                                                gathering pipelines made
                                                                                of material other than
                                                                                steel in Mountrail
                                                                                County, North Dakota at a
                                                                                maximum operating
                                                                                pressure (MOP) of 1,050
                                                                                pounds per square inch.
                                                                                The pipelines are
                                                                                manufactured by FlexSteel
                                                                                Pipeline Technologies of
                                                                                Houston, Texas. The two
                                                                                sections are affiliated
                                                                                with projects Hess refers
                                                                                to as EN Johnson Phase 2
                                                                                and the EN VP&R. The
                                                                                Special Permit request
                                                                                seeks to waive compliance
                                                                                from certain Federal
                                                                                regulations found in 49
                                                                                CFR 195.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60118(c)(1) and 49 CFR 1.97.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 21, 2015, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy and Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-32487 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: June 28, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37650]
[DOCID:fr28jn11-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG 2011-0403]

Safety Zone; Northern California Annual Fireworks Events, Fourth
of July Fireworks, South Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the annual
Fourth of July Fireworks, South Lake Tahoe Gaming Alliance (Lights on
the Lake Fireworks Display). This action is necessary to control vessel
traffic and to ensure the safety of event participants and spectators.
During the enforcement period, unauthorized persons or vessels are
prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or anchoring in the
safety zone, unless authorized by the Patrol Commander (PATCOM).

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1191 will be enforced from 9 a.m.
on July 1, 2011 through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Liezl Nicholas U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
for the annual Lights on the Lake Fireworks in 33 CFR 165.1191 on July
1, 2011, from 9 a.m. through 10 p.m. on July 4, 2011. The fireworks
launch site is approximately 600 feet offshore of Stateline Beach,
South Lake Tahoe, CA in position 38[deg]57'56'' N, 119[deg]57'21'' W
(NAD83), and extends approximately 1,000 ft radius surrounding the
launch site.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.1191, unauthorized persons or
vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring in the safety zone during all applicable effective dates and
times, unless authorized to do so by the PATCOM. Additionally, each
person who receives notice of a lawful order or direction issued by an
official patrol vessel shall obey the order of direction. The PATCOM is
empowered to forbid and control the regulated area. The PATCOM shall be
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco. The
PATCOM may, upon request, allow the transit of commercial vessels
through regulated areas when it is safe to do so.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1191 and 5
U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance
notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to
Mariners.
    If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the regulated area.

    Dated: June 16, 2011.
Cynthia L. Stowe,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2011-16097 Filed 6-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 249 (Friday, December 27, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78703-78705]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30779]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0706; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-067-AD;
Amendment 39-17708; AD 2013-25-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model DC-9-10, DC-9-30, and DC-9-40 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead web area is
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires modifying
the aft pressure bulkhead. The modification includes inspecting for
cracks around the rivet holes, and repair of any cracking. We are
issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracking of the aft pressure
bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective January 31, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 31,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0706; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: (562)
627-5348; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 11, 2013 (78 FR
55662). The NPRM proposed to require modifying the aft pressure
bulkhead. The modification includes inspecting for cracks around the
rivet holes, and repair of any cracking.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 55662, September
11, 2013) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Change Made to this AD

    We have revised the service information citations throughout this
final rule to correctly identify the manufacturer name specified on the
service information.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the change described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 55662, September 11, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 55662, September 11, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 6 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification (includes inspection)..  542 work-hours x $85             $4,680          $50,750         $304,500
                                       per hour = $46,070.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

    2013-25-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17708; Docket No.
FAA-2013-0706; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-067-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 31, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model DC-9-11, DC-9-12,
DC-9-13, DC-9-14, DC-9-15, and DC-9-15F airplanes, DC-9-31, DC-9-32,
DC-9-32 (VC-9C), DC-9-32F, DC-9-33F, DC-9-34, DC-9-34F, and DC-9-32F
(C-9A, C-9B) airplanes, and DC-9-41 airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service
Bulletin A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 5312, Fuselage Main
Bulkhead.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the fuselage bulkhead web area is
subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD
to prevent fatigue cracking of the bulkhead, which could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

 (g) Modification

    For airplanes on which the modification (AD4 rivets replaced
with AD5 rivets) required by AD 85-01-02 R1, Amendment 39-5241 (51
FR 6101, dated February 20, 1986), has not been done: Before the
accumulation of 72,000 total flight cycles, or within 18 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, modify
the aft pressure bulkhead by removing all affected AD4 rivets and
doing either a fluorescent penetrant or eddy current inspection
around the rivet holes for cracks, repairing any cracking, and
installing five-leaf doublers with AD5 rivets, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert
Service Bulletin A53-144, Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984;
except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:  Information on additional
procedures for the modification can be found in Notes 4, 5, and 6,
as applicable, of paragraph 1.D., ``Compliance'' of McDonnell
Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-144, Revision 2, dated
February 23, 1984.

 (h) Exception to Service Information

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD,
and McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-144, Revision
2, dated February 23, 1984, specifies to contact the manufacturer
for appropriate action: Before further flight, repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(j) of this AD.

 (i) No Reporting Required

    Sheet 1 of Service Sketch 3109, and Sheet 7 of Service Sketch
3110B of McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-144,
Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984; specify reporting the details
of any cracks found; however, this AD does not require reporting.

 (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the Los Angeles ACO, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by
Structures Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been
authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings.
For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet the
certification basis of the airplane, and 14 CFR 25.571, Amendment
45, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,
CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) McDonnell Douglas DC-9 Alert Service Bulletin A53-144,
Revision 2, dated February 23, 1984.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800-0019, Long Beach, CA 90846-0001;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, extension 2; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet
https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 10, 2013.
John P. Piccola,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-30779 Filed 12-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17889-17892]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08514]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0322; FMCSA-2010-0051; FMCSA-2012-0042; FMCSA-
2012-0043; FMCSA-2014-0012; FMCSA-2014-0013; FMCSA-2014-0014; FMCSA-
2014-0015; FMCSA-2016-0035; FMCSA-2016-0036]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 197
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before May 24,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0322; FMCSA-2010-0051;
FMCSA-2012-0042; FMCSA-2012-0043; FMCSA-2014-0012; FMCSA-2014-0013;
FMCSA-2014-0014; FMCSA-2014-0015; FMCSA-2016-0035; FMCSA-2016-0036
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 e.t.,
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 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30
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
for five years 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 physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.
    The 197 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    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.

III. 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. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 197 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the diabetes requirement (75 FR 13647; 75 FR 14652;
75 FR 27616; 75 FR 28684; 77 FR 17111; 77 FR 18302; 77 FR 27841; 77 FR
29446; 79 FR 10612; 79 FR 14579; 79 FR 18400; 79 FR 22573; 79 FR 27685;
79 FR 28590; 79 FR 29262; 79 FR 35855; 81 FR 21649; 81 FR 24161; 81 FR
59723; 82 FR 20966; 82 FR 24434). They have maintained their required
medical monitoring and have not exhibited any medical issues that would
compromise their ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous
two-year exemption period. 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 of these drivers for a period of two years is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of May and
are discussed below:
    As of May 11, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (77 FR 17111; 77 FR
27841; 82 FR 24434):

John G. Hager, Jr. (NJ)
Charles C. Carver (MN)
Benjamin Kimbrough (KS)
Jeffery J. Lawrie (OH)
Raymond Pittman, Jr. (IL)
Robert J. Socha (NE)
Thomas C. Torbett (MO)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0042. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 11, 2018, and will expire on May
11, 2020.
    As of May 13, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 30 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 21649; 82 FR
20966):

William M. Adams (SC)
Phillip J. Boruszewski (IL)
Kenneth H. Brown (NY)
Alfred S. Church, Jr. (IN)
James R. Conley (IN)
Irvin L. Davis (VA)
Richard J. Dudzenski (PA)
William M. Dutton (ND)
Richard W. Favier (CT)
Richard G. Fiscus, Jr. (MA)
Raymond C. Hartill (WA)
Todd E. Himebauch (IL)
John R. Hofmann, Jr. (IL)
Matthew E. Ingham (WA)
Grant L. Jensen (SD)
Victor E. Kaneps (CO)
Albert J. Laubauskas (NJ)
Michael M. Lillie (MI)
Barrington F. Mahabee (NY)
Robert J. Marnell (IA)
Clayton E. McCoy (TX)
Scott A. Newell (MI)
Braydon D. Paytas (UT)
William J. Pratt (MN)
Kyle L. Roy (OH)
Jerry G. Smith (NC)
William J. Taylor (IN)
Roy E. Tompkins (NY)
Vasilios Tsimis (NY)
Craig J. Voudren (VA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0035. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 13, 2018, and will expire on May
13, 2020.
    As of May 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 19 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 10612; 79 FR
27685; 82 FR 24434):

Todd L. Brandt (IL)
Dean G. Brekhus (ND)
Angie M. Carrington (IL)
Samuel J. Desmond (RI)
John F. Fedorchak, Jr. (PA)
Derek W. Frazier (IA)
Michael G. Haugen (WI)
Timothy S. Hinkhouse (NE)
Douglas R. Lane (NY)
Jonathon W. Luebke (WI)
Brion T. Maguire (PA)
Jacob R. Martin (MO)
John C. May (NE)
Angel F. Morales (CO)
Slobodan Pavlovich (WA)
Darryl W. Peppers (IN)
Bradley S. Pletcher (PA)
Hank D. Rose, Jr. (NC)
Joshua R. Wiery (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0012. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 14, 2018, and will expire on May
14, 2020.
    As of May 16, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 14579; 79 FR
28590; 82 FR 24434):

Schylor M. Altenhofen (IA)
Don R. Anderson, III (IN)
Thomas A. Barnes (MI)
Alvin L. Carpenter (MT)
Richard J. D'Ambrosia (NY)
Jefferey F. Deane (MA)
Bradley J. Frazier (IL)
Carl R. Gentry (WA)
Robert M. Hutchison (NY)
Craig A. Keese, Jr. (NY)
Amos L. Lapp (PA)
Edward J. Lulay (IL)
Donald S. Middleton (MO)
Alva D. Moffatt (WA)
Antonio Pepiciello (NY)
James K. Popp (MN)
Dustin P. Russell (PA)
Sean L. Shidell (WI)
Randall L. Schultz (MO)
Chad B. Spidell (PA)
Cameron M. Sprinkle (IN)
Douglas E. Stewart (MS)
Thomas L. Williams (MN)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0013. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 16, 2018, and will expire on May
16, 2020.

    As of May 17, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 13647; 75 FR
27616; 77 FR 18302; 77 FR 29446; 82 FR 24434):

Mark S. Boettcher (MN)
Steven C. Boudreau (MA)
Roy L. Brokaw (WI)
Chris D. Chambers (LA)
Charles A. Cinert, Sr. (IL)
Dale J. Cleaver (PA)
Bert R. Duncan, II (UT)
Lance L. Fuller (MN)
Johnny Gardner, Jr. (SC)
Mark D. Golden (MI)
Nathaniel W. Gorham (IN)
DeVere E. Hansen (UT)
Grant C. Huftalin (IA)
Steven M. Janczak (WI)
Sheldon R. Koehn (KS)
Jason R. Kropp (OK)
Adolfo Moreno, Jr. (WA)
John W. Morrison (CA)
Bruce V. Oppegard (MN)
Steven G. Petersen (MN)
Damian J. Porter (NY)
David L. Rice (ME)
Wayne F. Richards (PA)
Gary G. Siornen (MT)
Rodney L. Stoltenberg (IA)
Wade D. Street (MT)
Stanley C. Tarvidas (IL)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2009-0322; FMCSA-
2012-0043. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 17, 2018, and will
expire on May 17, 2020.
    As of May 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 42 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (75 FR 14652; 75 FR
28684; 79 FR 18400; 79 FR 29262; 82 FR 24434):

Douglas L. Atkins (GA)
Bradley E. Bradshaw (NC)
Robert L. Buol (IA)
Carlos V. Candelaria (NM)
Suellen M. Civiello (ME)
Michael T. Clements (WI)
Daniel G. Conery (NJ)
James R. Crawford (WA)
Alan Curtis (UT)
David P. Dengate (PA)
Alan D. Ekberg (NE)
Neil G. Ford (PA)
Alden J. Haskins, Sr. (MD)
James Herrada (NE)
Gary W. Hochstein (MN)
Harold D. Hoggard, II (PA)
Terry L. Horn (NC)
Gerald A. Johnson (WI)
Frank J. Katzbeck (IL)
Cory M. Kobernick (KY)
Thomas G. Lamberton (WA)
James K. Libke (IN)
Gordon E. Lindley (WY)
Edwin H. Maranville (OR)
Joseph R. Marcelewski (OH)
David R. Norton (OH)
Eugene P. OQuendo (MA)
Curtis J. Pitt (OR)
Larry J. Reese (PA)
William O. Ruiz, III (AZ)
James P. Rushing, Jr. (VA)
Harold D. Russman (SD)
Hector M. Sanchez (NM)
Scott W. Shindledecker (IN)
Shirliann F. Skroch (NV)
Ross L. Smith, Sr. (NJ)
Christopher Starghill (DC)
Richard L. Stark (OH)
Philip E. Stegeman (ID)
Brandon L. Weaver (PA)
Matthew G. Williams (KY)
Michael B. Wilson (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2010-0051; FMCSA-
2014-0014. Their exemptions are applicable as of May 21, 2018, and will
expire on May 21, 2020.
    As of May 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Derald E. Moenning, (NE) has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM
from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 22573; 79 FR 35855; 82
FR 24434).
    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0015. The
exemption is applicable as of May 23, 2018, and will expire on May 23,
2020.
    As of May 26, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 48 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (81 FR 24161; 81 FR
59723):

Thomas H. Adams, Jr. (PA)
Spencer L. Bates (VT)
Hobert P. Bates (TX)
Erik E. Baumgart (NE)
Robert T. Birch (PA)
Frank A. Borchers (NJ)
Nathan P. Broussard (KS)
Rodney J. Brown (VA)
Nicholas M. Catizone (MA)
Michael J. Christians (MN)
William R. Faller (PA)
Stephen L. Fehr (IL)
Stephen P. Glenning (FL)
Kevin B. Green (TN)
Dusty R. Grover (ID)
Robert W. Guccion (IA)
Andy H. Harnden (WA)
Russell D. Hartley (KS)
Eric D. Hulst (SD)
Stephen J. Hyde, Sr. (MA)
Steven G. Jackson (IN)
Michelle Jenkins (MA)
Robert C. Jones (VA)
Paul M. Joyce (MA)
Steven W. Keech (PA)
David O. Ludwig (ND)
Marvin D. Mitchell (WA)
Jack D. Moore (WV)
Matthew A. Neidermeier (FL)
Thomas M. Noon (MI)
Ronald A. Ortiz (CA)
Michael V. Palmer (NY)
LeRonne Pegues (IL)
John D. Penrod (SD)
Thomas M. Peterson (NE)
Gregory S. Potter (MO)
Lisa M. Reynolds (CO)
Martina M. Sanchez (NY)
Daniel J. Sing (OH)
Mark W. Smith (PA)
Larry E. Sorrells (VA)
Michael R. Thomen (OH)
Charles E. Tillman, Jr. (FL)
Monte D. Trout (WA)
Aaron M. Trudeau (MT)
Thomas M. Waldron (MA)
David M. Wilfeard II (NY)
Deborah C. Williams (NJ)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0036. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 26, 2018, and will expire on May
26, 2020.

IV. Conditions and Requirements:

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a
comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each driver must report within
two business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia,
significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any
involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or
personal vehicle, whether or not it is related to an episode of
hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an annual ophthalmologist's
or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver must provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. 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.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 197 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: April 18, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-08514 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 18363]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06354]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2023-0020]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on February 13, 2023, the
Regional Transportation District RTDC N Line and Amalgamated Transit
Union Local 1001 jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification
and Certification of Locomotive Engineers) and part 242 (Qualification
and Certification of Conductors). FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2023-0020.
    Specifically, petitioners request relief as part of their proposed
implementation of and participation in FRA's Confidential Close Call
Reporting System (C\3\RS) Program. Petitioners seek to shield reporting
employees and the railroad from mandatory punitive sanctions that would
otherwise arise as provided in Sec. Sec.  240.117(e)(1)-(4);
240.305(a)(l)-(4) and (a)(6); 240.307; 242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4),
(e)(6)-(11), (f)(l)-(2); and 242.407. The C\3\RS Program encourages
certified operating crew members to report close calls and protects the
employees and the railroad from discipline or sanctions arising from
the incidents reported per the C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of
Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by May 30, 2023 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. 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 https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2023-06354 Filed 3-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P