[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14319-14320]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4100-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2013-0001]

Arkansas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas (FEMA-4100-DR), dated January 29, 2013, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Arkansas is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of January 29, 2013.

    Clark County for Public Assistance.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-04979 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 45429-45431]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18611]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0330; FRL-9931-46-Region 10]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Washington:
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each State Implementation
Plan (SIP) to contain adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions
that will have certain adverse air quality effects in other states. On
May 11, 2015, the State of Washington submitted a SIP revision to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address certain interstate
transport requirements with respect to the 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). The EPA has determined that Washington adequately
addressed these CAA interstate transport requirements for the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective August 31, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0330. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information the disclosure of which
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA
Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. The EPA requests that
if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the
docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact Jeff
Hunt at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by using the above EPA,
Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On June 10, 2015, the EPA proposed to find that Washington
adequately addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
(80 FR 32870). An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed
analysis of the submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were
provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated
here. The public comment period for this proposed rule ended on July
10, 2015. The EPA received no comments on the proposal.

II. Final Action

    The EPA has determined that the Washington SIP meets the CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport requirements for the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Washington's SIP
is approved to apply on non-trust land within the exterior boundaries
of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873 Survey Area.
Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of 1989, 25 U.S.C.
1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local agencies in
Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands within the 1873
Survey Area.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 28, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 15, 2015.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470, table 2 in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the
entry ``Interstate Transport for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS'' to the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e)* * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, And Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
                                  geographic or         State
     Name of SIP provision        nonattainment    submittal date     EPA approval date           Comments
                                       area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
                                110(a)(2) Infrastructure and Interstate Transport

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport for the    Statewide........         5/11/15  7/30/15...............  This action addresses
 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.                                         [Insert Federal          CAA
                                                                    Register citation].     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-18611 Filed 7-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 206)]
[Notices]
[Page 65618-65620]
[DOCID:fr26oc10-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-725B-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-725B); Comment
Request; Extension

October 19, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
(Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission
or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed information
collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due December 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an original of their comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed either
on paper or on CD/DVD, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-725B-000.
Documents must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in
compliance with Commission submission guidelines at http://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. eFiling and eSubscription are
not available for Docket No. IC11-725B-000, due to a system issue.
    All comments and FERC issuances may be viewed, printed or
downloaded remotely through FERC's eLibrary at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching on Docket No. IC11-725B. For
user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free),
or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected by the FERC-725B,
Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure Protection (OMB
Control No. 1902-0248), is required to implement the statutory
provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C.
824o). On August 8, 2005, the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005,
which is Title XII, Subtitle A,

of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), was enacted into law.\1\
EPAct 2005 added a new section 215 to the FPA, requiring a Commission-
certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory
and enforceable Reliability Standards, which are subject to Commission
review and approval. Once approved, the Reliability Standards may be
enforced in the United States by the ERO subject to Commission
oversight, or the Commission can independently enforce Reliability
Standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law No. 109-58, Title XII,
Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005), 16 U.S.C. 824o.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued Order No. 672,
implementing section 215 of the FPA. Pursuant to Order No. 672, the
Commission certified one organization, North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC), as the ERO. The Reliability Standards
developed by the ERO and approved by the Commission apply to users,
owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System, as set forth in each
Reliability Standard.
    On January 18, 2008, the Commission issued order 706, approving
eight Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards
submitted by the NERC for Commission approval.\3\ The CIP Reliability
Standards require certain users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-
Power System to comply with specific requirements to safeguard critical
cyber assets.\4\ These standards help protect the nation's Bulk-Power
System against potential disruptions from cyber attacks.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CIP-002-1, CIP-003-1, CIP-004-1, CIP-005-1, CIP-006-1, CIP-
007-1, CIP-008-1, and CIP-009-1.
    \4\ In addition, in accordance with section 215(d)(5) of the
FPA, the Commission proposed to direct NERC to develop modifications
to the CIP Reliability Standards to address specific concerns
identified by the Commission.
    \5\ For a description of the CIP Reliability Standards, see the
Critical Infrastructure Protection Section at NERC's Web site at
http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=2/20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The eight CIP Reliability Standards address the following topics:
     Critical Cyber Asset Identification.
     Security Management Controls.
     Personnel and Training.
     Electronic Security Perimeters.
     Physical Security of Critical Cyber Assets.
     Systems Security Management.
     Incident Reporting and Response Planning.
     Recovery Plans for Critical Cyber Assets.
    The CIP Reliability Standards include one actual reporting
requirement and several recordkeeping requirements. Specifically, CIP-
008-1 requires responsible entities to report cyber security incidents
to the Electricity Sector-Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ES-
ISAC). In addition, the eight CIP Reliability Standards require
responsible entities to develop various policies, plans, programs, and
procedures. For example, each responsible entity must develop and
document a risk-based assessment methodology to identify critical
assets, which is then used to develop a list of critical cyber assets
(CIP-002-1). A responsible entity that identifies any critical cyber
assets must also document: A cyber security policy (CIP-003-1); a
security awareness program (CIP-004-1, Requirement R1); a personnel
risk assessment program (CIP-004-1, Requirement R3); an electronic
security perimeter and processes for control of electronic access to
all electronic access points to the perimeter (CIP-005-1, Requirements
R1 and R2); a physical security plan (CIP-006-1); procedures for
securing certain cyber assets (CIP-007-1); and recovery plans for
critical cyber assets (CIP-008-1). To demonstrate compliance with the
CIP Reliability Standards, responsible entities are required to
maintain various lists and access logs. All responsible entities are
required to be auditably compliant with the CIP Reliability Standards
by the end of 2010, including all required documentation.
    The CIP Reliability Standards do not require a responsible entity
to report to the Commission, ERO or Regional Entities, the various
policies, plans, programs and procedures. However, a showing of the
documented policies, plans, programs and procedures is required to
demonstrate compliance with the CIP Reliability Standards.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
FERC-725B reporting requirements, with no changes.
    Burden Statement: The extent of the reporting burden is influenced
by the number of identified critical assets and related critical cyber
assets pursuant to CIP-002. An entity identifying one or more critical
cyber assets, including assets located at remote locations, will likely
require more resources to demonstrate compliance with the CIP
Reliability Standards compared to an entity that identifies no critical
assets. The Commission has developed estimates using data from NERC's
compliance registry as well as a 2009 survey that was conducted by NERC
to asses the number of entities reporting Critical Cyber Assets.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average No.  of
                                                   No. of      Average No.  of   Burden  hours    Total  annual
               Data collection                respondents \6\   responses  per   per  response        hours
                                                                  respondent          \7\
                                                         (1)              (2)              (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725B...................................
Estimate of U.S. Entities that have                      345                1              320          110,400
 identified Critical Cyber Assets...........
Estimate of U.S. Entities that have not                1,156                1                8            9,248
 identified Critical Cyber Assets...........
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals..................................           1,501   ...............  ...............         119,648
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The NERC Compliance Registry as of 9/28/2010 indicated that 2,079 entities were registered for NERC's
  compliance program. Of these, 2,057 were identified as being U.S. entities. Staff concluded that of the 2,057
  U.S. entities, only 1,501 were registered for at least one CIP related function. According to an April 7, 2009
  memo to industry, NERC's VP and Chief Security officer noted that only 31% of entities responded to an earlier
  survey and reported that they had at least one Critical Asset, and only 23% reported having a Critical Cyber
  Asset. Staff applied the 23% reporting to the 1,501 figure to obtain an estimate.
\7\ This figure relates to NERC's audit schedule which requires NERC to engage in a compliance Audit once every
  3 to 5 years. For simplicity, staff has divided the total number of hours by 3 to reflect the amount of time
  annually spent preparing documents. Staff assumed that each CIP audit or spot check would require four
  individuals 6 weeks to prepare and demonstrate compliance with CIP standards for entities that have identified
  Critical Cyber Assets. Staff estimated that entities that do not have Critical Cyber Assets would still be
  required to demonstrate compliance with CIP-002, which would require one individual approximately three days
  to execute.

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is:
     Entities that have identified Critical Assets = 110,400
hours@$96 = $10,598,400.
     Entities that have not identified Critical Assets = 9,248
hours@$96 = $887,808.
    The hourly rate of $96 is the average cost of legal services ($230
per hour), technical employees ($40 per hour) and administrative
support ($18 per hour), based on hourly rates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) and the 2009 Billing Rates and Practices Survey
Report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Bureau of Labor Statistics figures were obtained from http:/
/www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm, and 2009 Billing Rates
figure were obtained from http://www.marylandlawyerblog.com/2009/07/
average_hourly_rate_for_lawyer.html. Legal services were based
on the national average billing rate (contracting out) from the
above report and BLS hourly earnings (in-house personnel). It is
assumed that 25% of respondents have in-house legal personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26988 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81181-81184]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0814]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Pontchartrain, Slidell, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is modifying the method of operation for the
Norfolk Southern Railroad (Norfolk Southern or NSRR) Bascule Bridge
across Lake Pontchartrain, mile 4.80, near Slidell, St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana. The bridge owner, Norfolk Southern, requested in writing to
operate the draw of the bridge remotely. This interim rule codifies the
change in method of operation and increases the efficiency of railroad
operations, allowing for the operation of the draw from another
location, while allowing for comments regarding remote operations
during the interim period.

DATES: This interim rule is effective December 29, 2015.
    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before February 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or view documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type [USCG-2015-0814]. in the ``SEARCH'' box and
click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated
with this rulemaking.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or email Ms. Geri Robinson; Bridge Administration Branch,
Eighth Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
U.S.C. United States Code
NSRR Norfolk Southern Railroad

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because there will be no change to the
operating schedule of

the bridge. The modification for the bridge owner to open the draw by
remote operation does not change the existing operating schedule. This
rule will impose no new restrictions or requirements on the mariner.
Thus, publishing an NPRM is impracticable as mariners are not expected
to experience any changes in the operation of the draw for the purposes
of vessel passage. Delaying this rule to provide for the notice and
comment period would also unnecessarily delay the bridge owner in
transitioning to the more efficient remote operation method. We are
requesting comments to this interim rule to ensure participation in the
rulemaking based on real-time experience while the draw operates under
the new remote operation method.
    We are issuing this rule and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective in less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule
to provide 30-day notice is unnecessary as mariners will experience no
changes in transiting through the bridge site. Making this rule
effective without providing 30-day notice imposes no impact on the
mariner but allows for the bridge owner to transition to the more
efficient remote operation method without unnecessary delay.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under the authority of 33
U.S.C. 499. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bascule Bridge across Lake
Pontchartrain at mile 4.80, near Slidell, St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana, has a horizontal clearance of 151 feet between fenders and a
vertical clearance of 4.0 feet above Mean High Water, elevation 2.0
feet Mean Sea Level in the closed-to-navigation position. The vertical
clearance of the bascule bridge in the open-to-navigation position is
68 feet for the full 151-foot horizontal clearance and unlimited from
the tip of the bascule to the north fender system, a distance of 106
feet. Currently, the bridge opens on signal under 33 CFR 117.5.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.42, the District Commander may
authorize a drawbridge to operate under an automated system or from a
remote location. The purpose of this rule is to allow the draw of this
bridge to operate from a remote location. The draw will continue to
open on signal for the passage of vessels, and mariners should not
experience any changes in the level of service.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard, at the request of Norfolk Southern, is changing
the method of operation for the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bascule
Bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, mile 4.80, near Slidell, St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana. Due to the need for increased efficiency in railroad
operations, Norfolk Southern requested a change to the method of
operating the draw from on-site to a drawtender operating the bridge
remotely.
    Presently, the draw is maintained in the open-to-navigation
position and closed only for the passage of trains or maintenance. The
bridge owner would like to operate the draw remotely using a drawtender
at another drawbridge in Decatur, Alabama, rather than maintaining the
current on-site operation and drawtender. The implementation of this
rule, in effect, removes the requirement that a drawtender be present
on site at all times.
    Under the new remote operation procedure, the draw will continue to
be maintained in the open-to-navigation position and lowered only for
the passage of trains or for maintenance. There will be no
modifications to the operation of the bridge as it relates to the
passage of vessels. Instead, this change will allow the bridge owner to
increase efficiency of bridge operations and vessel transit by
including this bridge in its current remote operation procedures
located in Decatur, AL.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss
First Amendment rights of protesters.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action because
the draw will be maintained in the open-to-navigation position and when
closed to pass trains it will continue to open on signal as scheduled.
Therefore, mariners will experience no changes in transiting through
the bridge site. No new restrictions on or actions from the mariner are
required by this rule.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit the bridge may be small entities, because the draw will be
maintained in the open-to-navigation position and when closed to pass
trains it will continue to open on signal as scheduled, no new
restrictions or responsibilities are imposed on the mariner. Therefore,
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel
owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a
determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do
not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or
procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from
further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the
Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in
our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by
following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the
online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when
comments are posted or a final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. In Sec.  117.467, redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (c); and
add new paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  117.467  Lake Pontchartrain.

* * * * *
    (b) The draw of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge across Lake
Pontchartrain, mile 4.80 near Slidell, St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
shall be maintained as follows:
    (1) The draw shall be maintained in the fully open-to-navigation
position for vessels at all times, except during periods when it is
closed for the passage of rail traffic or to perform periodic
maintenance authorized in accordance with subpart A of this part.
    (2) The draw shall be remotely operated by the drawtender at
Norfolk Southern's drawbridge in Decatur, Alabama. The estimated
duration that the bridge will remain closed for the passage of rail
traffic is 10 to 15 minutes per operation.
    (3) When a train approaches the bridge, the drawtender will
initiate the bridge closing warning signal, consisting of radio calls
via VHF-FM-channels 13 and 16 and activation of flashing red warning
lights at each end of the span. The radio calls will be broadcast at
five (5) minutes prior to bridge closing and at two (2) minutes prior
to bridge closing. Photoelectric (infrared) boat detectors will monitor
the waterway beneath the bridge for the presence of vessels.
    (4) The drawtender will continuously monitor waterway traffic in
the area using closed-circuit cameras mounted on the bridge. The draw
will only be closed if the drawtender's visual inspection indicates
that the channel is clear and there are no vessels transiting in the
area. The drawtender will maintain constant surveillance of the
navigation channel to ensure that no conflict with maritime traffic
exists. Additionally, the draw will not be closed if the S11 bascule
bridge that is located immediately west of the railroad bridge is in
the open-to-navigation position. If two or more closed-circuit cameras
are inoperable or if there is inclement weather, the draw will only be
operated by a drawtender located on site at the bridge.
    (5) At the end of the two-minute warning period, if no vessels have
been detected by the drawtender, the draw closing sequence will
automatically proceed.
    (6) Upon passage of the train, the draw will be returned to the
fully open-to-navigation position to allow marine

traffic to pass. The warning lights will continue to flash red until
the draw has returned to the fully open-to-navigation position at which
time they will deactivate.
    (7) After the passage of each train, the draw must be returned to
its fully open-to-navigation position.
    (8) To request openings of the draw when the bascule span is in the
closed-to-navigation position, mariners may contact Norfolk Southern
Railway via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed
on the signs posted at the bridge.
    (9) The draw will be operated locally if:
    (i) Communication is lost between the drawbridge and the drawtender
in Decatur, Alabama;
    (ii) More than two closed-circuit cameras are not working;
    (iii) The marine radio is inoperable;
    (iv) Weather conditions warrant; or
    (v) Ordered by the Coast Guard.
* * * * *

    Dated: December 11, 2015.
D.R. Callahan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-32736 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24581-24584]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11431]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0071; FMCSA-2012-0044; FMCSA-2012-0107; FMCSA-
2014-0015; FMCSA-2014-0016; FMCSA-2016-0037; FMCSA-2016-0039]

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 133
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 June 28,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0071; FMCSA-2012-0044;
FMCSA-2012-0107; FMCSA-2014-0015; FMCSA-2014-0016; FMCSA-

2016-0037; FMCSA-2016-0039 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 133 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 133 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the diabetes requirement (73 FR 16946; 73 FR 31734;
77 FR 20876; 77 FR 27842; 77 FR 33264; 77 FR 38383; 79 FR 22573; 79 FR
29484; 79 FR 35855; 79 FR 42628; 81 FR 25486; 81 FR 28121; 81 FR 59728;
81 FR 66733; 81 FR 96176). 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 June and
are discussed below:
    As of June 1, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 33 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 25486; 81 FR
66733):

Christopher R. Barwick (NC)
Jeffrey C. Bergen (MA)
Christopher J. Burgess (ID)
Edward D. Burman (MA)
Lynn J. Clark (UT)
Kenneth W. Day (TN)
Horace Dickinson (GA)
James R. Fifield (MI)
Scott A. Figert (OH)
Larry D. Funk (KS)
Steven S. Gray (CT)
Donald F. Greel, Jr. (MA)
John A. Jung (OH)
Jerry H. Kahn (MN)
Sean T. Lewis (NJ)
Edwin Lozada (FL)
Kevin S. Martin (MN)
Allysa B. Meirowitch (NY)
Brian L. Murray (WA)
Thomas V. Noyes (MA)
Benny M. Perez (PA)
Gregory S. Pethtel (OH)
Thomas J. Price (WY)
Theodore D. Reagle (PA)
Eric A. Richie (AZ)
Keith E. Shumake (CO)
William G. Simpson (CO)
Stirling H.C. Sowerby (PA)
John J. Steele (AL)
Ryan M. Stumbaugh (PA)
David J. Walker (IA)
Shawn D. Weigel (KS)
William H. Yocom (MO)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0037. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 1, 2018, and will expire on June
1, 2020.
    As of June 3, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following eight individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce

(73 FR 16946; 73 FR 31734; 81 FR 96176):

Edward F. Connole (MA)
Gary D. Coonfield (MO)
Shannon D. Hanson (SD)
Aundra Menefield (MS)
James T. Rothwell (TN)
Dalton T. Smith, Jr. (IL)
Marvin D. Webster (KY)
Travis S. Wolfe (WV)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2008-0071. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 3, 2018, and will expire on June
3, 2020.
    As of June 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following nine 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 20876; 77 FR
33264; 81 FR 96176):

Steven W. Beaty (SD)
David D. Brown (MI)
Evan P. Hansen (WI)
John M. Kennedy, Jr. (NC)
Jeremy A. Ludolph (KS)
Gerald N. Martinson (ND)
Glenn D. Taylor (NY)
Thomas R. Toews (OR)
James E. Waller, III (GA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0044. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 5, 2018, and will expire on June
5, 2020.
    As of June 9, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 40 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 28121; 81 FR
59728):

Matthew P. Ambrose (OH)
Steven E. Beining (OH)
Steven Belback (PA)
Roger D. Bragg (WV)
John Ciesmelewski (NJ)
Ernest W. Collett (TX)
Daniel C. Crider (MN)
Charla J. Donahy (TX)
Richard D. Florio, Jr. (NY)
Tyler J. Francis (KS)
Calvin L. Frew (ID)
Juda Friedman (NY)
Dean Gage (NY)
William Gallagher (PA)
Harvey E. Gordon (MA)
James W. Gorman, Jr. (MD)
Christopher L. Greene (WY)
Gregor C. Guisewhite (PA)
Dennis T. Harding (MN)
Brandon R. Hart (TX)
Stephen E. Hochmiller (CO)
Jack V. Holloway (IL)
Richard L. Hubbard (MN)
Stephen A. Kinney (MI)
Russell L. Koehn (IL)
Timothy C. LaRue (FL)
Joseph M. Lopes (NH)
William B. Onimus (PA)
Victor M. Orta (TX)
William D. Powell (IL)
Lee A. Pulda (WI)
William K. Sawyer II (NM)
Jeffrey J. Schnacker (NE)
Jeffrey D. Smith (MD)
Anthony G. Stellatos (NJ)
Trent A. Stuber (IL)
LaDon L. Wallin (MN)
Richard D. Webb (NY)
Grady L. Wilson, Jr. (FL)
Karl S. Yauneridge (MD)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2016-0039. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 9, 2018, and will expire on June
9, 2020.
    As of June 20, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Gary R. Harper, (IN) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 29484; 79 FR 42628; 81 FR
96176).
    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0016. The
exemption is applicable as of June 20, 2018, and will expire on June
20, 2020.
    As of June 24, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 35 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 22573; 79 FR
35855; 81 FR 96176):

Joshua T. Adams (OH)
Dennis W. Athey II (KS)
John M. Behan, Jr. (MD)
Kirk B. Berridge (KS)
Francis P. Bourgeois (LA)
Randall T. Buffkin (NC)
Heladio Castillo (WA)
Purvis J. Chesson (VA)
Jeff T. Enbody (WA)
Larry S. Gibson, II (NC)
James M. Halapchuk (PA)
Jeffery A. Hall (ME)
Henry W. Hartman (NY)
Marlin R. Hein (IA)
Vincenzo Ingrassellino (NY)
Davis Jansen van Beek (MT)
Baek J. Kim (MD)
Shawn N. Kimble (PA)
Darrel G. Klauer (WI)
Stephen D. Lewis (NY)
Alvin McClain (OR)
Kenneth D. Mehmen (IA)
Kyle B. Mitchell (CA)
Michael A. Murrell (KY)
Ryan R. Ong (CA)
Gregory Paradiso (OH)
Brian K. Patenaude (MA)
William A. Schimpf (CA)
Frank J. Sciulli (PA)
Bryan J. Smith (ND)
Edward L. Stauffer (PA)
Kyle G. Streit (TX)
Joseph D. Stutzman (PA)
Raymond J. Vaillancourt (OH)
Robert L. Weiland (PA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0015. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 24, 2018, and will expire on June
24, 2020.
    As of June 26, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, Tommy R. Riley, (IL) has satisfied the renewal conditions for
obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers with ITDM from
driving CMVs in interstate commerce (79 FR 29484; 79 FR 42628; 81 FR
96176).
    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0016. The
exemption is applicable as of June 26, 2018, and will expire on June
26, 2020.
    As of June 27, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following six 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 27842; 77 FR
38383; 81 FR 96176):

Matthew R. Bagwell (NY)
Eric J. Bright (IL)
Kyle D. Dale (MO)
Donald L. Philpott (WA)
John Randolph (OK)
Courtney R. Schiebout (IA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0107. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 27, 2018, and will expire on June
27, 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 133 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.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-11431 Filed 5-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P