[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 85 (Thursday, May 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20966-20968]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09004]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0035]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 46 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on May 13, 2016. The exemptions
expire on May 13, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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., e.t., 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 April 12, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 46 individuals and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 21649.) The public comment period
closed on May 12, 2016, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 46 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 requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes 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 46 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 51 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the April 12, 2016, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 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) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual 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 certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 46 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

William M. Adams (SC)
Gerald L. Beideck (OR)
John J. Bizanos (NY)
Joseph T. Bohnert (PA)
Phillip J. Boruszewski (IL)
Harold F. Braithwaite (OH)
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)
Donald Fleming (IL)
Sergio Garza (IL)
Stanley L. Gear (MO)
Ira S. Gelb (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)
Brandon T. A. Maines (MT)
Robert J. Marnell (IA)
Clayton E. McCoy (TX)
Andrew J. Neset (ND)
Scott A. Newell (MI)
Braydon D. Paytas (UT)
Edward C. Pisiakowski (CT)
William J. Pratt (MN)
Juan Rangel (CA)

Kyle L. Roy (OH)
Nicola D. Santopietro (CT)
Gary R. Silver (FL)
Ryan D. Simmons (WA)
Jerry G. Smith (NC)
William J. Taylor (IN)
Roy E. Tompkins (NY)
Vasilios Tsimis (NY)
Craig J. Voudren (VA)
Donald L. Yamauchi (MN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (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. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: April 27, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-09004 Filed 5-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 9, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78724-78728]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0058]
RIN 2127-AL24

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Tire Selection and Rims

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 110 to make it clear that special trailer (ST) tires are
permitted to be installed on new trailers with a gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR) of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. It also excludes these
trailers from a requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim
when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a
controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). The agency proposed these
changes and, after a review of the comments received, has determined
that these two revisions are appropriate and will not result in any
degradation of motor vehicle safety.

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 9, 2016.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received by December 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must refer
to the docket number set forth above and be submitted to the
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may contact
Patrick Hallan, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, by telephone at
(202) 366-9146, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues, you may
contact David Jasinski, Office of the Chief Counsel, by telephone at
(202) 366-2992, and by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may send mail to both
of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the March 2013 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 26, 2003, the agency published a final rule amending
several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) related to
tires and rims.\1\ That rulemaking was completed as part of a
comprehensive upgrade of existing safety standards and the
establishment of new safety standards to improve tire safety, as
required by the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and
Documentation Act of 2000 (TREAD Act). That final rule included
extensive revisions to the tire standards and to the rim and labeling
requirements for motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 68 FR 38116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That final rule expanded the applicability of FMVSS No. 110 to
include all motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of
4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, except for motorcycles. Prior to the
enactment of the TREAD Act, FMVSS No. 110 only applied to passenger
cars and to non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies for use on passenger
cars. In an effort to coordinate the upgraded vehicle standard,
intended to apply to all vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000
pounds) or less, with the standards used on tires for vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the language in FMVSS No. 110
was amended to require the use of tires meeting the new FMVSS No. 139,
New pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles. The only exceptions
provided in FMVSS No. 110 were for the use of spare tire assemblies
with pneumatic spare tires meeting the requirements of FMVSS No. 109 or
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies meeting the requirements of FMVSS
No. 129.
    With the expansion of FMVSS No. 110 to include all motor vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less, the performance tests
and criteria within the standard became applicable to all light
vehicles, including light trucks, multipurpose passenger vehicles,
buses, and trailers that had previously been subject to the
requirements of FMVSS No. 120. However, FMVSS No. 110 specified a
minimum performance requirement for rim retention among its many

requirements. This requirement was not previously included in FMVSS No.
120 and, therefore, was not applicable to light trucks, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, buses, and trailers. The effective date for these
requirements was September 1, 2007, which provided approximately four
years of lead time from publication of the final rule.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 71 FR 877 (Jan. 6, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After the 2003 rule took effect, the Recreational Vehicle Industry
Association (RVIA) shared two concerns with NHTSA that the trailer
manufacturing industry had with FMVSS No. 110. First, RVIA and its
members stated, from a literal reading of S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110, that
special trailer (ST) tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or
below cannot be equipped on new trailers that are under 4,536 kg
(10,000 pounds) or less because that section only permits FMVSS No.
139-compliant tires to be equipped on trailers. Second, RVIA and its
members questioned the need for the rim retention requirement for
trailers in S4.4.1(b) and whether the dynamic rapid tire deflation test
specified in that section could be conducted on trailers.
    After reviewing these concerns, NHTSA issued, on its own
initiative, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) of March 13, 2013,
proposing amendments to FMVSS No. 110 to address RVIA's concerns.\3\
Specifically, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to make clear that
ST tires and tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below can be
installed on new trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or
less. Second, NHTSA proposed to amend FMVSS No. 110 to exclude these
trailers from the requirement that a tire must be retained on its rim
when subjected to a sudden loss of tire pressure and brought to a
controlled stop from 97 km/h (60 mph). NHTSA tentatively determined
that these two revisions would be appropriate and would not result in
any degradation of motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 78 FR 15920.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of Comments

    NHTSA received six comments on the proposal.\4\ RVIA, the National
Marine Manufacturers Association, and the National Association of
Trailer Manufacturers were fully supportive of the proposal. The Tire
and Rim Association (TRA) suggested two revisions to the proposal, both
of which were also supported by the Rubber Manufacturers Association
(RMA). First, TRA suggested the addition of farm implement (FI) tires
to the list of tire types that are allowed to be equipped on trailers.
Second, TRA suggested that, with respect to ST tires, FI tires, and
tires with rim diameter codes of 12 or below, NHTSA require such tires
to be compliant with FMVSS No. 119 rather than FMVSS No. 109. NHTSA
also received a comment from an individual, Mr. Steve Brady. Mr. Brady
expressed concern about the safety impact from excluding trailers from
the rim retention requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All of the comments may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

A. Use of ST Tires on Trailers With a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 Pounds)
or Less

    As stated in the March 2013 NPRM, NHTSA believes that S4.1
unnecessarily and unintentionally restricts the types of tires that can
be used on light trailers. None of the commenters who addressed the
issue opposed allowing ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of
12 of less to be used on light trailers. NHTSA has not identified any
increased safety risk associated with the use of ST tires and tires
with rim diameter code of 12 or less on light trailers. Accordingly,
NHTSA is finalizing its proposal to allow ST tires and tires with a rim
diameter code of 12 or less to be equipped on light trailers.
    TRA's comments, supported by RMA, suggest two additions to the
proposal that require brief explanation. First, TRA suggested that FI
tires be added to the list of tires that can be equipped on light
trailers. We agree that, as with ST and tires with a rim diameter code
of 12 or less, NHTSA did not intend to exclude the use of FI tires on
light trailers. Nor have we identified any risks associated with the
use of FI tires on light trailers. Accordingly, this final rule adds FI
tires to the list of tires that may be equipped on light trailers
contained in FMVSS No. 110.
    Second, TRA suggested that the language of the proposal requiring
that ST tires and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less be
compliant with FMVSS No. 109 be changed to refer to FMVSS No. 119
instead. TRA's rationale behind this comment was that these tires could
not be tested using FMVSS No. 109 because FMVSS No. 109 does not
contain inflation pressures to use during testing.
    After submitting its comments on this issue, in June 2013, TRA
submitted a petition for rulemaking requesting that NHTSA clarify that
ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less
are subject to the requirements of FMVSS No. 119 and not those in FMVSS
No. 109.\5\ The broader issue of whether and how ST tires, FI tires,
and tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or less can meet FMVSS No. 109
are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. That issue may be addressed in
NHTSA's response to TRA's petition. For now, NHTSA believes it is
sufficient to refer to both FMVSS No. 109 and FMVSS No. 119 as the
standards under which ST tires, FI tires, and tires with a rim diameter
code of 12 or less may comply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we have revised our proposal to allow ST tires and tires
with a rim diameter code of 12 of less that comply with FMVSS No. 109
to be used on light trailers by adding FI tires to the list of
allowable tires and by also noting that such tires may also be
compliant with FMVSS No. 119.

B. Rim Retention Requirement for Trailers

    The commenters, with the exception of Mr. Brady, expressed support
for the proposed amendment to exclude trailers from the rim retention
requirement. Mr. Brady opposed excluding trailers from the rim
retention requirement. He stated that the test could be performed by
towing trailers at 60 mph. He also expressed concern with the number of
tire failures identified in the NPRM. He directed NHTSA to complaints
about a single ST tire model with 85 complaints. Further, he noted that
even if injury rates are low, there can be significant property damage
resulting from blowouts. He stated that the proposal appears to have
been made to lower costs to manufacturers while exposing the public to
risk.
    In the NPRM, NHTSA noted that 963 complaints had been received
containing both the words ``tire'' and ``trailer'', but 942 of those
complaints were related to the towing vehicle. Only 10 complaints were
related to the tire issues the towed vehicle and 11 were not
sufficiently specific to determine whether the complaint was related to
the towing vehicle or the trailer.\6\ Of the 10 complaints relating to
trailer tires, the agency found that only nine complaints are related
to tire failure (either blowout or tread separation) of one or more
trailer tires. None of the nine VOQs appear to be related to the rim
retention requirement, and there were no reported injuries or
fatalities mentioned in any of these cases. The 85 complaints about the
single model that Mr. Brady referred to in his comments were among the
963 complaints that

were reviewed. Based on all of those complaints, NHTSA tentatively
concluded that there was no continued safety need to justify the
requirement that trailers comply with the rim retention requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These complaints were discussed in more detail in the NPRM.
See 78 FR 15922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the TREAD Act rulemaking, only vehicles such as passenger
cars were subject to the tire retention requirement in FMVSS No. 110,
which requires that a tire must be retained on its rim when subjected
to a sudden loss of tire pressure. Light trailers were not included
because they were covered by FMVSS No. 120. However, after the TREAD
Act rulemaking, light trailers and other vehicles such as light trucks
and vans were added to FMVSS No. 110. Although the agency only
expressly stated its intent to extend the applicability of the rim
retention requirement to light trucks and vans, there was no limitation
in the regulatory text that excluded trailers or any other vehicle type
subject to FMVSS No. 110 from this requirement. The extension of the
applicability of this requirement to trailers resulted in the
implementation of the first on-road compliance test that NHTSA would
conduct on light trailers.
    Although Mr. Brady stated that NHTSA could simply require that a
trailer be towed at 60 mph in order to conduct the test, the agency
notes that neither the text of S4.4.1(b), nor NHTSA's compliance test
procedure contemplate the use of a towing vehicle. Without specificity,
light trailer manufacturers cannot know how NHTSA would perform
compliance testing of the rim retention requirement on trailers.
Consequently, light trailer manufacturers would be responsible for
certifying that their trailers comply with the rim retention
requirement in any towing-towed vehicle configuration, which creates
testing and certification issues.
    Based upon NHTSA's review of the nine cases of trailer tire
failures discussed in the NPRM, the agency found no injuries or
fatalities nor was it apparent that any of these cases could be
addressed by the rim retention requirement. Based on that information,
NHTSA concludes that there are no data available to document a safety
problem related to rim retention of trailer tires. NHTSA also concludes
that there is no continued safety need for trailers to comply with the
rim retention requirements in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. Accordingly,
this final rule implements the proposal to exclude trailers from the
rim retention requirement. NHTSA does not believe that this change will
have any measurable effect on the safety of light trailers.

IV. Effective Date

    This final rule clarifies which tires can be installed on new light
trailers and removes the requirement that trailers meet the rim
retention requirement in S4.4.1(b) of FMVSS No. 110. It does not impose
any substantive requirements. Instead it removes a restriction on the
manufacture of light trailers. Consequently, these amendments may be
given immediate effect pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
    Similarly, good cause exists for these amendments to be made
effective immediately pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(d). These amendments
would allow light trailers to be equipped with tires designated for use
on trailers, and it would relieve trailers from a performance
requirement for which NHTSA has no associated test for compliance. We
do not believe that these amendments will have any measurable effect on
the safety of light trailers.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking is
not considered significant and was not reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.'' The rulemaking action has also been determined not to be
significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
The agency has further determined that the impact of this final rule is
so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory
evaluation.
    This final rule will not impose costs upon manufacturers. It
clarifies the types of tires that can be installed on new light
trailers and removes the rim retention requirement for light trailers.
This final rule might result in cost savings to manufacturers
associated with the certification of compliance with the rim retention
requirement. However, we are unable to quantify any such cost savings.
This final rule is not expected to have any impact on safety.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency is required to publish a notice
of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions).
The Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR part 121
define a small business, in part, as a business entity ``which operates
primarily within the United States.'' (13 CFR 121.105(a)). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of
the factual basis for certifying that a rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    NHTSA has considered the effects of this final rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This final rule would directly impact manufacturers of
trailers with a GVWR of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less. Although we
believe many manufacturers affected by this final rule are considered
small businesses, we do not believe this final rule will have a
significant economic impact on those manufacturers. This final rule
will not impose any costs upon manufacturers and may result in cost
savings. This final rule will relieve light trailer manufacturers of
the burden and costs associated with the rim retention requirement.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    NHTSA has examined today's final rule pursuant to Executive Order
13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and concluded that no additional
consultation with States, local governments or their representatives is
mandated beyond the rulemaking process. The agency has concluded that
the rulemaking would not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation
of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule would not have
``substantial direct effects 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.''
    NHTSA rules can preempt in two ways. First, the National Traffic
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act contains an express preemption provision:
When a

motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State
or a political subdivision of a State may prescribe or continue in
effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is
identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. 49 U.S.C.
30103(b)(1). It is this statutory command by Congress that preempts any
non-identical State legislative and administrative law addressing the
same aspect of performance.
    The express preemption provision described above is subject to a
savings clause under which ``[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety
standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from
liability at common law.'' 49 U.S.C. 30103(e). Pursuant to this
provision, State common law tort causes of action against motor vehicle
manufacturers that might otherwise be preempted by the express
preemption provision are generally preserved. However, the Supreme
Court has recognized the possibility, in some instances, of implied
preemption of such State common law tort causes of action by virtue of
NHTSA's rules, even if not expressly preempted. This second way that
NHTSA rules can preempt is dependent upon there being an actual
conflict between an FMVSS and the higher standard that would
effectively be imposed on motor vehicle manufacturers if someone
obtained a State common law tort judgment against the manufacturer,
notwithstanding the manufacturer's compliance with the NHTSA standard.
Because most NHTSA standards established by an FMVSS are minimum
standards, a State common law tort cause of action that seeks to impose
a higher standard on motor vehicle manufacturers will generally not be
preempted. However, if and when such a conflict does exist--for
example, when the standard at issue is both a minimum and a maximum
standard--the State common law tort cause of action is impliedly
preempted. See Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000).
    Pursuant to Executive Order 13132 and 12988, NHTSA has considered
whether this rule could or should preempt State common law causes of
action. The agency's ability to announce its conclusion regarding the
preemptive effect of one of its rules reduces the likelihood that
preemption will be an issue in any subsequent tort litigation.
    To this end, the agency has examined the nature (e.g., the language
and structure of the regulatory text) and objectives of today's rule
and finds that this rule, like many NHTSA rules, prescribes only a
minimum safety standard. As such, NHTSA does not intend that this rule
preempt state tort law that would effectively impose a higher standard
on motor vehicle manufacturers than that established by today's rule.
Establishment of a higher standard by means of State tort law would not
conflict with the minimum standard announced here. Without any
conflict, there could not be any implied preemption of a State common
law tort cause of action.

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    With respect to the review of the promulgation of a new regulation,
section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR
4729; Feb. 7, 1996), requires that Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies
the preemptive effect; (2) clearly specifies the effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct, while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) clearly specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) specifies
whether administrative proceedings are to be required before parties
file suit in court; (6) adequately defines key terms; and (7) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. This document is
consistent with that requirement.
    Pursuant to this Order, NHTSA notes as follows. The issue of
preemption is discussed above. NHTSA notes further that there is no
requirement that individuals submit a petition for reconsideration or
pursue other administrative proceedings before they may file suit in
court.

E. Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19855, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental,
health, or safety risk that the agency has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the agency.
    This notice is part of a rulemaking that is not expected to have a
disproportionate health or safety impact on children. Consequently, no
further analysis is required under Executive Order 13045.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), a person is not
required to respond to a collection of information by a Federal agency
unless the collection displays a valid OMB control number. There is not
any information collection requirement associated with this final rule.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) requires NHTSA to evaluate and use existing voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would
be inconsistent with applicable law (e.g., the statutory provisions
regarding NHTSA's vehicle safety authority) or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. Technical standards
are defined by the NTTAA as ``performance-based or design-specific
technical specification and related management systems practices.''
They pertain to ``products and processes, such as size, strength, or
technical performance of a product, process or material.''
    Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary consensus
standards bodies include ASTM International, the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).
If NHTSA does not use available and potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards, we are required by the Act to provide Congress,
through OMB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such
standards.
    There are no voluntary consensus standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards bodies pertaining to this final rule.

H. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
requires federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of

1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the agency to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives
and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the agency to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the agency publishes with the final rule an explanation
of why that alternative was not adopted.
    This final rule would not result in any expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100
million, adjusted for inflation.

I. National Environmental Policy Act

    NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that
implementation of this action would not have any significant impact on
the quality of the human environment.

J. Regulation Identifier Number (RIN)

    The Department of Transportation assigns a regulation identifier
number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of
Federal Regulations. The Regulatory Information Service Center
publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may
use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document
to find this action in the Unified Agenda.

K. Privacy Act

    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Parts 571

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Tires.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA amends 49 CFR part 571 as
follows:

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 571 of Title 49 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

0
2. Amend Sec.  571.110 by revising S4.1 and S4.4.1(b) introductory text
to read as follows:

Sec.  571.110  Tire selection and rims and motor home/recreation
vehicle trailer load carrying capacity information for motor vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less.

* * * * *
    S4.1 General (a) Subject to the exceptions set forth in S4.1(b),
vehicles shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of
Sec.  571.139.
    (b) Notwithstanding the requirement in S4.1(a),
    (1) Passenger cars may be equipped with pneumatic T-type temporary
spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of Sec.  571.109 or
non-pneumatic spare tire assemblies that meet the requirements of Sec.
571.129 and S6 and S8 of this standard. Passenger cars equipped with a
non-pneumatic spare tire assembly shall also meet the requirements of
S4.3(e), S5, and S7 of this standard.
    (2) Trailers may be equipped with ST tires, FI tires, or tires with
a rim diameter code of 12 or below that meet the requirements of Sec.
571.109 or Sec.  571.119.
* * * * *
    S4.4.1 * * *
    (b) Except for trailers, in the event of rapid loss of inflation
pressure with the vehicle traveling in a straight line at a speed of 97
km/h (60 mph), retain the deflated tire until the vehicle can be
stopped with a controlled braking application.
* * * * *

    Issued on November 3, 2016 in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.5.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-27051 Filed 11-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9369-9370]
[DOCID:fr01mr07-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55335; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-005]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify the Date for Compliance With Regulation NMS

February 23, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 2, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq. The
Exchange has filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to modify certain of its rules that become
effective upon the compliance date for Regulation NMS under the Act.
The Commission has established March 5, 2007, as the date of compliance
for all automated trading centers such as Nasdaq.\5\ Accordingly,
Nasdaq proposes to modify its approved rules to demonstrate compliance
with Regulation NMS by March 5, 2007, to conform with the Commission's
scheduled compliance date. The text of the proposed rule change is
available at Nasdaq, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nasdaq.com
.

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

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55160 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4202 (January 30, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Nasdaq proposes to modify certain of its rules that become
effective upon the compliance date for Regulation NMS under the Act.
The Commission has established March 5, 2007, as the date of compliance
for all automated trading centers such as Nasdaq.\6\ Accordingly,
Nasdaq proposes to modify its approved rules to demonstrate compliance
with Regulation NMS by March 5, 2007, to conform with the Commission's
scheduled compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
clarifies certain terms in Nasdaq's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the forgoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30 days
after the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\11\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \12\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is

consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because such waiver would permit the Exchange to immediately update its
rules to reflect that the compliance date for Regulation NMS has been
changed to March 5, 2007. For this reason, the Commission designates
the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Commission has decided to waive the five-day
pre-filing notice requirement.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-005 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-005.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-005 and should be submitted on or before
March 22, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3554 Filed 2-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15666-15667]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land Use Assurance,
Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal
from the City of Arlington Airport Director to change certain portions
of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at
Arlington Municipal Airport, Arlington, WA. The proposal consists of
approximately 52,500 square feet on the west side of the airfield
adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication
of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments can be
provided to Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Seattle Airports District Office, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. David M. Ryan, Airport Director,
City of Arlington, 18204 59th Avenue NE, Arlington, WA, 98223; or Ms.
Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Seattle Airports
District Office, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, 98198, (206) 231-
4130. Documents reflecting this FAA action may be reviewed at the above
locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), and 47107(h)(2),
the FAA is considering a proposal from the Airport Director, City of
Arlington, to change a portion of the Arlington Municipal Airport from
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The proposal consists of
approximately 52,000 square feet on the west side of the airport
adjacent to 51st Avenue, Northeast.
    The property consists of two oddly shaped triangular section of
land that are not large enough to support construction of an aircraft
hangar or ramp. It is currently an unused parking area. The airport is
proposing an Airport Observation Area for aviation educational
purposes. The airport will continue to own the property so there will
be no proceeds associated with this release from a land use provision.
The FAA concurs that the parcels are no longer needed for aeronautical
purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with other
airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures
Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in Federal Register on
February 16, 1999.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on April 5, 2018.
Mat Wilder,
Acting Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2018-07476 Filed 4-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/22/2011 12:16 PM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Joseph L. Suchecki"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |02/22/2011 11:51 AM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |EMA Response to Question on IMO Allowance Comment
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

TO:                  Melanie King
                        US EPA

FROM:           Joe Suchecki
                        EMA

DATE:            February 22, 2011

RE:                 Request for Clarification on Comment Regarding IMO
Allowances

            In an email dated February 16, 2011, you asked for clarification
of a comment that EMA submitted on proposed changes to the NSPS for
Compression Ignition engines.  The subject comment stated that certain
stipulated allowances for temperature and humidity correction from IMO ANNEX
VI, Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.13 should be incorporated into the NSPS.  More
specifically you asked for clarification as to whether EMA was asking to be
able to use different reference temperature and humidity values when testing
engines greater than 30 L/cyl.

            I have checked with EMA members that provide stationary engines of
that size to clarify the intent of the comment.  After some discussion, and
now having a better understanding of both the CI NSPS and IMO regulations, we
believe that it is not necessary to incorporate those IMO allowances for
stationary engines.  EMA now believes that those allowances add a complicating
set of factors that are not needed.

            EMA withdraws the request in our previous comments related to
incorporating allowances from Sections 6.3.11 and 6.4.13.  EMA believes that
EPA does not need to take any action on this specific comment.

Joseph L. Suchecki
Director, Public Affairs
Engine Manufacturers Association
333 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60606
312-929-1978


                           ICR SUPPORTING STATEMENT                         ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 Identification of Information Collection    	1(a) Title of Information Collection    Contractor Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation (Renewal), EPA ICR No. 0246.13, OMB Control No. 2030-0016.      	1(b) Short Characterization     	The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 4.804-5 states that the office administering a contract is responsible for initiating administrative close out following physical completion of the contract. Funds status review is a mandatory part of contract closeout and includes settlement of interim or disallowed costs and settlement of indirect cost rates.    	  	After a contract completion under a cost reimbursement type contract, the contractor submits EPA Form 1900-10 which summarizes all cost incurred in performance of the contract and sets forth the final indirect rates. This form is reviewed by the contracting office to determine the final costs reimbursable to the contractor. A copy of the form is attached to this request.      2. 	Need and Use of the Collection    	2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection    	FAR 52.216-7 states that the Government will pay only the costs determined to be                                                                allowable by the contracting officer in accordance with FAR Subpart 31.2. Furthermore, FAR 52.216-7 states that indirect cost rates shall be established for each fiscal year at the close of a contractor's fiscal year. EPA Form 1900-10 summarizes this information for the entire contract period and provides a basis for cost review by contracting, finance, and audit personnel. As stated above FAR 4.804-5 requires that the office administering the contract shall ensure that the costs and indirect cost rates are settled.      	2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data    	Information collected on the 1900-10 will be used by the contracting, financial, and audit personnel to determine the final amount of costs reimbursable to the contractor. EPA personnel and auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), if requested, will review the information in order to determine the final contract costs prior to final payment under the contract.

 Non-Duplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria                3(a)	Non-Duplication          Information collected is contract-specific. Cumulative contract cost information, as requested, is not available from any other source.                3(b)	Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB               A notice to renew this information collection was posted to the Federal Register on April 25, 2018.  One comment was received that was irrelevant.               3(c) Consultations

      To determine contractor burden associated with the information collection identified in this request, the following vendors were contacted but did not respond; therefore the estimated burden figures from the existing ICR are considered to still be applicable.  Estimated time to process the information collection is described in Section 6, Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection.

_Representative__		               Firm___________	          ____Phone___ Joe Baer	  		Tech Law<PHONE_NUMBER> Lisa Friday		            Weston Solutions<PHONE_NUMBER> Eric Simpson	  		Sovereign Consulting<PHONE_NUMBER>

	3(d)	Effects of Less Frequent Collection    	The information is collected only once at contract closeout. This information is required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation to be collected at that time.

	3(e)	General Guidelines

      This ICR does not exceed any of the OMB guidelines found 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2).

	3(f)	Confidentiality/Sensitive Questions

       Information collected under this request, particularly cost and pricing data, is treated as CBI. This information is protected from public release in accordance with the Agency's confidentially regulation, 40 C.F.R. Part 2.201 et seq.  No questions concerning sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, or other matters usually considered private are included in this information collection.          4.	The Respondents and the Information Requested         (a) Respondents/North American Industry Classification System Codes

       	All contractors who have completed an EPA cost reimbursement type contract will be required to submit EPA Form 1900-10. These contractors represent a wide range of industries corresponding with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code which include, but are not limited to: 541511, Custom Computer Programming Services; 621511, Medical Laboratories; and 541380, Testing Laboratories.    	4(b) 	Information Requested    A copy of the EPA Form 1900-10 is attached as Attachment A.   	        (i) 	Data Items    	Data requested in EPA Form 1900-10 has not changed since the last OMB review. This information includes major cost elements such as direct labor, direct material and supplies, equipment, travel, subcontract costs, consultant fees, indirect costs and fixed fees.  Indirect costs are broken down showing base year and rate for each cost center for each year of contract performance.            Please note that EPA has omitted the expiration date from form 1900-10. As stipulated in 5 CFR 1320.8(b)(1), the collection of information should display a currently valid OMB Control Number and, if appropriate, an expiration date. Because this form has been in use for a number of years without change, and since the collection activity and use of the form continue to be required, it is not appropriate to include the expiration date on the form.    		(ii) 	Respondent Activities    	In order to complete the EPA Form 1900-10, respondents must total all costs incurred under the contract, including costs for direct labor, all equipment, materials and supplies, travel, subcontracts, consulting fees, indirect costs, and fees. During contract performance, this information is included on the contractor's monthly invoice for reimbursement. To calculate total contract costs, the contractor adds the cost from each invoice submitted under the contract. If costs were claimed on an invoice that was disallowed, the contractor would subtract the disallowed amount from the total.      	Negotiated indirect cost rates are applied to the base costs in order to determine the indirect costs for each cost center. This information is also contained in the contractor's invoices, and in correspondence concerning allowable costs and negotiated agreements on indirect rates. None of the information collected under this ICR needs to be created or researched; instead the data is compiled from various existing sources and summarized for this information collection. After the data is compiled, it must be reviewed for accuracy against existing records. It is customary business practice for a contractor to maintain the type of financial performance information required to complete EPA Form 1900-10.     5.	 The Information Collected  -  Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management    	5(a) 	Agency Activities     	Once EPA Form 1900-10 is reviewed by the Agency, the data is reconciled with Agency records, and audited. If the information collected is correct, final contract payment is made.     	5(b) 	Collection Methodology and Management    	Information submitted is checked against Agency records such as invoices, correspondence, and negotiated agreements. Respondents have the option of reporting in their own computerized format provided all the required data is present. Completed forms, after review, become part of the contract files and will not be disclosed outside the Government.      	5(c)	 Small Entity Flexibility    	Data requested is required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation. It is not possible to develop separate or simplified requirements for small businesses or other small entities because the information required is necessary to complete the closing out of a contract, an alternate collection of information for small businesses is not appropriate.           5(d)	Collection Schedule    	Data is collected once at contract completion. Generally, this is after a five-year period of performance.    6. 	Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection    	The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 2.5 labor hours (for estimated five respondents/year) at a cost of $221.60 per year.    		6(a) 	Estimating Respondent Burden Hours     Respondent burden hours are estimated at 6.3 hrs/respondent.    		6(b)	Estimating the Respondent Burden Costs  			  Respondent burden costs are estimated at $920.37/respondent.    		(i)   Estimating Labor Costs    The annual labor cost to all respondents is estimated at $4,601.85 based on the following calculations. Contractors may claim the cost of completing this form under the appropriate contract.        ACTIVITY                    TIME TO COMPLETE	         AVG RATE/HR    	     COST  1. Gather information		       105.0 minutes		    $160.29	           $280.51  2. Compile data	  	       135.0 minutes		    $160.29	           $360.65  3. Review data	  		         82.5 minutes		    $160.29	           $220.40  4. Complete form	  60.0 minutes	$58.81  	                $  58.81              Total	382.5 minutes		                  $920.37    Step 1 thru 3 of the collection activity is normally performed by an Administrative Services Manager, and administrative support personnel are responsible for completing step 4. The cost associated with this effort was estimated using hourly rates based upon the May 2017 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The occupational categories used are Administrative Services Manager and Office and Administrative Support.

 	Since the labor rates used in this estimate are from 2017, 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 (2018-2020) that the ICR will be in effect.  The 2.95 estimate was provided by an EPA cost analyst as representative of labor related burdens experienced by EPA contractors.  The loaded labor costs for 2018 thru 2020 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:    Administrative Services Manager: 2017 = ($49.70 x 1.03) = $51.20 2018 = ($51.20 x 1.03) = $52.74 x 2.95 = $155.58 2019 = ($52.74 x 1.03) = $54.32 x 2.95 = $160.24 2020 = ($54.32 x 1.03) = $55.95 x 2.95 = $165.05                                      $480.87/3 = $160.29                                 Office and Administrative Support: 2017 = ($18.24 x 1.03) = $18.79 2018 = ($18.79 x 1.03) = $19.35 x 2.95 = $ 57.08 2019 = ($19.35 x 1.03) = $19.93 x 2.95 = $ 58.79 2020 = ($19.93 x 1.03) = $20.53 x 2.95 = $ 60.56                                       $176.43/3 = $58.81    	EPA processed approximately five contract closeouts per year using EPA Form 1900-10. As indicated above, each form takes 382.5 minutes, or about 6.3 hours to process. The five yearly actions, multiplied by the cost to process one action, $920.37, are used to determine the above annual cost burden to the respondents. The five yearly actions, multiplied by 6.3 hours equates to an annual hourly burden of 31.5 hours. The total annual respondent burden is $920.37 x 5 contracts/year = $4,601.85.  Respondents have pointed out that the complexity of the contracts to be closed out increases the amount of time needed to gather the required information. Most firms keep all of their financial data required for completion of this form in a computer database.     	(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.    		(iv)   Annualizing Capital Costs    		6(c)	Estimating Agency Burden and Cost    	Once the Agency receives the information, it is reviewed by the employee conducting contract close-out. Annual Agency burden is estimated at $221.60 calculated as follows:      ACTIVITY	TIME REQUIRED	RATE	COST    1. Review data against	30 minutes	$88.64	$44.32      Agency records         	The Agency's current effort is estimated to be performed by an employee at the GS-12 level and will take approximately thirty minutes, which is about the same as previous years. The GS-12 hourly salary for 2018 with a locality pay for "Rest of US" is $39.85, and a 3 percent escalation factor has been applied for any cost-of-living increases given to federal workers in 2019 or 2020.  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 2018 thru 2020 were added together then divided by three (number of years for the ICR) for an annualized loaded rate of $88.64 for the three years the ICR is in effect.  The annual Agency burden is $44.32 x 5 contracts/year = $221.60.

2018 = 		     $39.85 x 2.16 = $86.07  2019 = ($39.85 x 1.03) = $41.02 x 2.16 = $88.61 2020 = ($41.02 x 1.03) = $42.25 x 2.16 = $91.26                                      $265.94/3 = $88.64         		6(d)	Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden Costs    	EPA estimates that it will process approximately five respondent forms/year during the next three years for a total of fifteen respondent forms.    		6(e)	Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables  			  			(i)   Respondent Tally    		The average annual respondent burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 31.5 labor hours (for estimated five respondents/year) at a cost of $4,601.85 per year.     			(ii)   The Agency Tally  	  	The average annual Agency burden and cost over the next three years is estimated to be 2.5 labor hours (for estimated five respondents/year) at a cost of $221.60 per year.   		  		6(f)	Reasons for Change in Burden         There is no change of hours in the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.  The loaded labor costs were adjusted upwards to account for inflation. 		  		6(g)	Burden Statement   	The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 382.5 minutes 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 EPA Acquisition Regulation (EPAAR) 1501.370, OMB Approvals Under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

 	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-2018-0124, which is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket 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 OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets (EDOCKET) at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Use EDOCKET 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. Once 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, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0124 and OMB Control Number 2030-0016 in any correspondence.   EPA Form 1900-10 (Rev. 3-06) Previous Edition is Obsolete            EPA   United States Environmental Protection Agency     Contractor's Cumulative Claim and Reconciliation              OMB No. 2030 - 0016 1. Contractor's Address (include zip code) 2. Contract No. 3. Total amounts claimed under this contract (less disallowances concurred by the contractor and disallowances not subject to appeal) and approved on Public Vouchers Nos.	to	(including completion vouchers).                         Item                                                                          Amount Direct Labor  $ Direct Material and Supplies  $ Equipment  $ Travel  $ Subcontract Costs  $ Other Direct Costs  $ Consultant Fees  $ Fixed Fee  $ Indirect Costs (Total From Section 4)  $ Total Amount Claimed  $ 4. Reconciliation of Indirect Costs Claimed.  Record the amount of indirect costs calculated, for each cost center, using negotiated final indirect cost rate(s).  Use provisional rate(s) if final rates are not negotiated for any fiscal year period(s).  Use the reverse side of this form, if necessary, to display all years and cost centers.           Cost Center   Cost Center    Cost Center     Cost Center                                                                     Cost Center FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

Totals

No monies or other benefits may be paid unless this report is completed and filed as required in the EPA billing instructions.   I certify that the information provided on this form and attachments thereto are accurate and complete.  I acknowledge that any knowingly false or misleading information may be punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under applicable law. Name and Title (Print or Type) Signature Date

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice       Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.3 hours per response, including the time for searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing data.  Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information (including suggestions for reducing this burden) to:                                           (1)   Manager, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center (mail code 3803R)                                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency                                  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                                  Washington, DC 20460; and

 Paperwork Reduction Project (OMB No. 2030-0016)                      Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs                      Office of Management and Budget                      Washington, DC 20503.

 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.  200503.

                                  Cost Center    Cost Center                                   Cost Center                                   Cost Center                                   Cost Center FY

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -                                          Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

FY -

Base

Rate

Indirect Costs

      Totals                                       No monies or other benefits may be paid unless this report is completed and filed as required in the EPA billing instructions.