[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29843-29846]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10563]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0064; FRL-9460-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-ZA16

Hypochlorous Acid; Exemption From the Requirement of a Pesticide
Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to exempt residues of the antimicrobial
pesticide ingredient hypochlorous acid from the requirement of a
tolerance when used on or applied to food-contact surfaces in public
eating places. This rulemaking is proposed on the Agency's own
initiative under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to
address residues identified as part of the Agency's registration review
program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0244 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
    For the latest status information on EPA/DC services, docket
access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division
(7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
202-566-0737; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

 Crop production (NAICS code 111).
 Animal production (NAICS code 112).
 Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
 Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.govor email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to establish an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of the antimicrobial pesticide hypochlorous
acid on food-contact surfaces in public eating places. EPA is proposing
this exemption to cover residues of hypochlorous acid that may be found
in food as a result of the use of these antimicrobials on food-contact
surfaces.
    As noted in the December 2020 Hypochlorous Acid Interim
Registration Review Decision (available at https://www.regulations.gov
in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0244), hypochlorous acid is
registered for use as a disinfectant on food-contact surfaces in public
eating places. As a

result of that use, residues of hypochlorous acid may be found in food
that comes into contact with treated surfaces.
    According to the Agency's 2016 Antimicrobial Use Site Index
(https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/antimicrobial-pesticide-use-site-index), EPA categorizes that use as an ``indirect food use.''
40 CFR 158W requires a tolerance or exemption for direct and indirect
food uses. Historically, EPA did not require a tolerance or tolerance
exemption for the registered uses of hypochlorous acid because the
labels required a potable water rinse after application. EPA's
scientific assumption had been that if an antimicrobial pesticide use
required a potable water rinse on the label, residues of the pesticide
would be rinsed away. With no residues available to transfer to foods
coming into contact with the treated food surface, the use was
considered nonfood; and therefore, no tolerance or tolerance exemption
was needed. The presumption that there would be no available residues
for transfer to food is no longer supportable because available data
now suggest that a potable water rinse may not be 100% efficient in
removing residues; therefore, the Agency no longer considers a use to
be ``nonfood'' just because the label requires a potable water rinse.
Absent information supporting a conclusion that no residues would be
available for transfer to food from the use, a tolerance or tolerance
exemption is required. At this time, the Agency has not received any
information supporting a conclusion that residues of hypochlorous acid
would not be available for transfer to food after application to food
surfaces.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    A ``tolerance'' represents the maximum level for residues of
pesticide chemicals legally allowed in or on raw agricultural
commodities and processed foods. Section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346(a), authorizes the establishment of tolerances, exemptions from
tolerance requirements, modifications in tolerances, and revocation of
tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on raw
agricultural commodities and processed foods. Without a tolerance or
exemption, food containing pesticide residues are considered unsafe and
therefore ``adulterated'' under FFDCA section 402(a), 21 U.S.C. 342(a).
Such food may not be distributed in interstate commerce, 21 U.S.C.
331(a).
    Section 408(e)(1)(B) of the FFDCA authorizes EPA to issue an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative. 21
U.S.C. 346a(e)(1)(B). It is under section 408(e) of the FFDCA that EPA
is proposing to establish the exemption in this rulemaking. The
standard for establishing an exemption is found in section 408(c)(2)(A)
of the FFDCA and is discussed below. 21 U.S.C. 346a(c)(2)(A).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(c)(2)(B) requires EPA to take into
account, among other things, the considerations set forth in section
408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Specifically, section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA
requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and
children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance
and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide
chemical residue . . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure to support the establishment
of exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
hypochlorous acid.
    As noted in the Hypochlorous Acid Interim Decision, there are
tolerances under 40 CFR 180.940 (b) and (c), which state that solutions
containing hypochlorous acid may be applied to dairy-processing
equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils, with the
limitation that the end-use concentration of hypochlorous acid does not
exceed 200 ppm determined as total available chlorine. Because the
current tolerance exemptions do not cover the antimicrobial products
registered for use in public eating areas, the Agency is now
establishing a tolerance exemption under section 40 CFR 180.940(a),
which would cover all food-contact uses of hypochlorous acid pesticide
products in public eating areas not to exceed 200 ppm determined as
total available chlorine. EPA's safety determination for establishing a
hypochlorous acid tolerance exemption under section 40 CFR 180.940(a)
is based on chemical similarity to sodium, calcium, and potassium
hypochlorites. Hypochlorous acid risk conclusions, including those
related to dietary and aggregate exposure, can be bridged to the risk
conclusions from the reevaluation of the sodium, calcium, and potassium
hypochlorites (see docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0004 at https://www.regulations.gov). Because the Agency did not identify any dietary
or aggregate risks of concern for the sodium, calcium, and potassium
hypochlorites, due to the lack of toxicity of these substances, there
are no dietary or aggregate risks of concern for hypochlorous acid due
to a lack of toxicity for hypochlorous acid. For further information,
the Hypochlorous Acid Interim Decision can be found at https://www.regulations.gov in docket identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-
0244.
    Based on the lack of any aggregate risks of concern, EPA concludes
that the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
hypochlorous acid is safe, i.e., there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result from aggregate exposures to hypochlorous acid.

IV. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method for residue is not required for enforcement
purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for
residues of hypochlorous acid in or on any food commodities. EPA is
establishing limitations on the amount of hypochlorous acid that may be
used in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact
surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, food-
processing equipment and utensils. These limitations will be enforced
through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136
et seq. EPA will not register any antimicrobial pesticide formulation
applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-
processing equipment, food-processing equipment and utensils that
allows for the end-use concentration of the ready to use product to
exceed the 200 ppm limit for residues of total available chlorine.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, EPA is proposing to establish an exemption under 40 CFR
180.940(a) from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
hypochlorous acid when used in antimicrobial formulations applied to
food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing
equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils not to exceed 200
ppm determined as total available chlorine. Because the existing
entries in paragraph (b) and (c) are duplicative of the new exemption
in paragraph (a) of section 40 CFR 180.940, EPA is removing the
tolerance exemptions for hypochlorous acid in paragraphs (b) and (c),
as unnecessary.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    In this document, EPA is proposing to establish exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(e). The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this proposed rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack
of significance, this proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order
13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001). This proposed rule does not contain any information collection
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), or impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). Nor does it require any
special considerations as required by Executive Order 12898, entitled
``Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994); or OMB review or any other Agency action under Executive Order
13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed
rule does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency
consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
(15 U.S.C. 272 note).
    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Agency previously assessed whether establishment of
tolerances, exemptions from tolerances, raising of tolerance levels,
expansion of exemptions, or revocations might significantly impact a
substantial number of small entities and concluded that, as a general
matter, these actions do not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. These analyses for tolerance
establishments and modifications, and for tolerance revocations were
published in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950) and
December 17, 1997 (62 FR 66020), respectively, and were provided to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Taking
into account this analysis, and available information concerning the
pesticides listed in this proposed rule, the Agency hereby certifies
that this proposed rule will not have a significant negative economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Furthermore, for the
pesticides named in this proposed rule, the Agency knows of no
extraordinary circumstances that exist as to the present proposed rule
that would change EPA's previous analysis. Any comments about the
Agency's determination should be submitted to the EPA along with
comments on the proposed rule and will be addressed prior to issuing a
final rule.
    In addition, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule will
not have a substantial direct effect on 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the executive order to include regulations
that 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.'' This proposed rule directly regulates growers, food
processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States. This
proposed rule does not alter the relationships or distribution of power
and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption
provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). For these same reasons, the
Agency has determined that this proposed rule does not have any
``tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to develop
an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is
defined in the executive order to include regulations that have
``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.'' This proposed rule will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 9, 2022.
Edward Messina,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Amend Sec.  180.940, by:
0
a. Adding in alphabetical order the pesticide chemical ``Hypochlorous
Acid'' to the table in Table 1 to Paragraph (a).
0
b. Removing the entry ``Hypochlorous Acid'' from the table in paragraph
(b).
0
c. Removing the entry ``Hypochlorous Acid'' from the table in paragraph
(c).
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  180.940   Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

                        Table 1 to Paragraph (a)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Pesticide chemical           CAS Reg. No.            Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Hypochlorous Acid.............          7790-92-3  When ready for use,
                                                    the end-use
                                                    concentration of all
                                                    hypochlorous acid
                                                    chemicals in the
                                                    solution is not to
                                                    exceed 200 ppm
                                                    determined as total
                                                    available chlorine.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-10563 Filed 5-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72651-72652]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25377]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0043]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 47 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 September 7, 2016. The
exemptions expire on September 7, 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., 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 August 4, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 47 individuals and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 51541. The public comment period closed
on September 6, 2016, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 47 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 47 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 36 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. The
qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and
discussed in detail in the August 4, 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 47 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41 (b)(3), subject to the requirements cited above in 49 CFR
391.64(b):

Larry S. Ankerson (WI)
Kenneth D. Beatty (MS)
Christopher R. Bianco (PA)
John J. Bittner (ND)
Brandon J. Brown (TN)
Justin D. Campbell (AL)
Anthony Cicciari (NY)
Noah F. Cockman (NC)
Vito J. Dambra (PA)
Linda D. Davis (IN)
Frank A. DeCarolis (KS)
Orlando Dominguez (CA)
Scott L. Fetzer (PA)
Carl E. Fisher (PA)
Ryan A. Gehrke (MN)
Davy O. Glanville (DC)
George S. Goanos (GA)
Shane R. Gousie (MA)
Randal E. Hampton (NV)
Lindell O. Hart (MI)
Reginald M. Hart (GA)
David R. Holbert (NY)
Robert J. King (SC)
Dennis J. Kniffen (SD)
Scott D. Lazzell (AZ)
Allen E. Lemaster (SC)
Wayne F. Leonard (IL)
Joshua W. Lockwood (MD)
Ryan D. Mace (WA)
Brian P. McCabe (WA)
Charles M. McKenzie (OH)
Michael C. McNamara (SC)
Michael S. Meulenberg (MI)
Adam P. Neppl (ND)
Timothy J. Newton (IA)
Harold N.J. Pennington III (PA)
David T. Petty (CA)
William T. Phipps, Jr. (MD)
Ronald K. Roe (PA)
Harry W. Roebuck (TX)
Jeffrey M. Shipley (SD)
Glenn M. Shockley, Jr. (MD)
Carl G. Stafford (WV)
James D. Tichnor (NJ)
Scott W. Waterman (SD)
Richard A. Wojciak (CT)
Ricky L. Young (PA)

    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: October 14, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-25377 Filed 10-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P