[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44548-44549]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039]

Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance
Certification Record); Extension of the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection (Paperwork)
Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning the proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements specified in the Portable Fire
Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal e-
Rulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-
3653, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., ET.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number (OSHA-2010-0039) for the Information Collection
Request (ICR). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, such as social security number and date of birth, are placed
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information on submitting
comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of
this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download from the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Theda Kenney at
the below phone number to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney or Seleda Perryman,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of the continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information
is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal,
collection

instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the
information collection burden is accurate. The Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes
information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for
enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing information regarding the
causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and
accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain
such information with minimum burden upon employers, especially those
operating small businesses, and to reduce to the maximum extent
feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining information
(29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard specifies that employers must
subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance
inspection and record the date of the inspection. In addition, this
provision requires employers to retain the inspection record for one
year after the last entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is
less, and to make the record available to OSHA on request. This
recordkeeping requirement assures workers and agency compliance
officers that portable fire extinguishers located in the workplace will
operate normally in case of fire; in addition, this requirement
provides evidence to OSHA compliance officers during an inspection that
the employer performed the required maintenance checks on the portable
fire extinguishers.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend the approval of the collection
of information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Portable Fire
Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record). OSHA
will retain the current number of burden hours of 293,496 for this
Information Collection Request.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance
Certification Record Portable Fire Extinguishers Standard. (29 CFR
1910.157(e)(3)).
    OMB Number: 1218-0238.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; farms.
    Number of Respondents: 5,869,911.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Total Responses: 586,991.
    Average Time per Response: 30 minutes
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 293,496.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $101,432,062.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
e-Rulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039).
You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
``ADDRESSES''). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as your social security number and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download from this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and
access the docket is available at the website's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available from the website, and for assistance in using the internet to
locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 20, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-15961 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 163)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49353-49354]
[DOCID:fr21au08-9]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0008, Notice 3; FRL-8706-1]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the Double Eagle Refinery Co. Superfund
Site From the National Priorities List.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 announces
the deletion of the Double Eagle Refinery Co. Superfund Site (Site)
located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, from the National Priorities List
(NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is found at Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Oklahoma, through the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation,
maintenance, and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective August 21, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0008, Notice 3. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
whose disclosure 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 http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the site information
repositories. Locations, contacts, phone numbers and viewing hours are:

U.S. EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>, by appointment only Monday through Friday 9 a.m.
to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Ralph Ellison Library, 2000 Northeast 23, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
73111,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through Wednesday 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
Thursday and Friday 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 707 North
Robinson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through
Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bartolome Canellas (6SF-RL), Remedial
Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, U.S.
EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-
533-3508 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Double

Eagle Refinery Co., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. A Notice of Intent to
Delete for this Site was published in the Federal Register on June 13,
2008.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
July 14, 2008. One public comment was received. The commenter
questioned the completeness of the response action based on information
found in non-EPA Internet Web sites. EPA believes the deletion is
appropriate, since the response action has been implemented, as
documented in the Deletion Docket. A responsiveness summary was
prepared and placed in the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-1986-0008, Notice 3, on
http://www.regulations.gov, and in the local repositories listed above.
    EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to present a
significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial action.
Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted from the
NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without application of
the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not
affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event that future
conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: August 12, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the entry
under OK for ``Double Eagle Refinery Co.'', ``Oklahoma City''.

[FR Doc. E8-19420 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


>> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 1613.02 DATA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE AND LOCAL VEHICLE EMISSION INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE ( I/ M) PROGRAMS February 23, 2004 >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

TABLE OF CONTENTS [ REMINDER: Need to update page numbers and titles for final draft of ICR]

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION ............................. 1 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection .............................................. 1 1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection ................................................ 1 2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION ................................................... 1 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection ............................................................. 1 2( b) Use and Users of the Data ................................................................................ 2 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA ............................................................................................................... 3 3( a) Non Duplication ............................................................................................... 3 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB................................ 3 3( c) Consultations .................................................................................................... 3 3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection ................................................................. 4 3( e) General Guidelines ........................................................................................... 4 3( f) Confidentiality .................................................................................................. 4 3( g) Sensitive Questions ........................................................................................... 4 4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ..................... 4 4( a) State and Local Respondents............................................................................. 4 4( b) Information Requested ..................................................................................... 5 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIONS, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ............................. 12 5( a) Federal Agency Activities ................................................................................ >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

1 12 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management ...................................................... 12 5( c) Small Entity Flexibility .................................................................................... 13 5( d) Collection Schedule ......................................................................................... 13 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION .................. 13 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden ........................................................................ 13 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ........................................................................... 14 6( c) Estimated Agency Burden and Cost ................................................................. 17 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs ............................................................. 18 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden ......................................................................... 19 6( f) Burden Statement .............................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection This information collection request ( ICR) is entitled " Data Reporting Requirements for State and Local Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) Programs," ICR number 1613.02.

1( b) Characterization of the Information Collection To provide general oversight and support to state and local I/ M programs, the Transportation and Regional Programs Division ( TRPD), Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, requires that state or local program management for both basic and enhanced I/ M programs submit two varieties of reports to EPA. The first reporting requirement is the submittal of an annual report providing general program operating data and summary statistics, addressing the program's current design and coverage, a summary of testing data, enforcement program efforts, quality assurance and >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

2 quality control efforts, and other miscellaneous information allowing for an assessment of the program's relative effectiveness; the second is a biennial report on any changes to the program over the previous two year period and the impact of such changes, including any weaknesses discovered and corrections made or planned.

General program effectiveness is determined by the degree to which a program misses, meets, or exceeds the emission reductions committed to in the state's approved SIP, which, in turn, must meet or exceed the minimum emission reductions expected from the relevant performance standard, as promulgated under EPA's revisions to 40 CFR, Part 51, in response to requirements established in section 182 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ( Act). This information will be used by EPA to determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51, as well as to assess national trends in the area of basic and enhanced I/ M programs and to provide background information in support of periodic site visits and evaluations.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need and Authority for the Collection The collection of a wide variety of program operating and summary data is essential to the assessment of an I/ M program's overall effectiveness and the degree to which it complies with requirements established in response to sections 182( a)( 2)( b)( ii); 182( b)( 4); and 182( c)( 3) of the Act, under which EPA is authorized to impose these collection and recordkeeping requirements. The specific program data to be collected is listed in EPA's I/ M rule; 40 CFR Part 51, subpart S, section 366. A copy of the relevant sections from the I/ M rule is contained in Attachment 1 to this ICR.

2( b) Use and Users of the Data There are, in effect, three users of the information required by this collection  the primary user, represented by the state or local agency or department in charge of managing the I/ M program itself ( hereafter referred to generically as " the state" and/ or " the respondent"), the secondary user, represented by EPA [ including EPA Regional Offices], and, finally, the interested public, to which the gathered information will be made available upon request. We will address these three users separately.

The State For the purpose of effectively managing its I/ M program, the state must gather a wide range of program data, including data from the testing program, quality control and assurance efforts, and the enforcement program. For example, sufficient test data must be gathered to unambiguously link specific test results to a specific vehicle, I/ M program registrant, test site, and >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

3 inspector, to help determine whether or not the correct test parameters were observed for the specific vehicle in question. This programmatic need  which is distinct from any need and/ or burden imposed by this ICR  is reflected in the fact that current analyzer specifications include extensive data capture requirements to serve just this purpose ( see Attachment 2 for samples of the data collection portions from a variety of state analyzer specifications). In turn, the state can analyze this data and compare it to the registration database ( in programs enforced through registration denial, per the Clean Air Act) or otherwise use it to establish a vehicle's compliance with program requirements. Owners of vehicles found to be out of compliance are not allowed to register said vehicle( s) ( again, in programs enforced through registration denial) or must be otherwise prevented from operating the non complying vehicle( s) in the program area. Penalties may also be assessed for non compliance with program requirements.

Data collected as part of the testing program can also be used to target audits of inspection stations and inspectors, with irregularities such as unusually high pass or fail rates, mismatched vehicle information, etc. acting as flags to possible problems. In addition, the state must gather and analyze quality control data to ensure that motorists are given accurate and consistent measurements. In the interest of effectively managing its enforcement and quality assurance efforts, the program must keep records of such efforts, including the number of investigations conducted ( including internal control reviews to detect weaknesses within the program itself, as well as investigations of testing sites and inspectors), the methodology used, and the results of investigations and other enforcement and quality assurance activities.

EPA For the purposes of complying with this information collection, the state must summarize and report the above data to the respective Regional Offices of EPA, either electronically or via hardcopy text. To provide the state with maximum flexibility to use pre existing, internal reporting mechanisms, EPA will allow the state to decide the format used in reporting this information, provided the relevant data points listed in section 4( b) of this collection request are addressed. EPA will use this information to assess specific state programs and their success in complying with the I/ M rulemaking requirements. Periodically, this assessment will lead to follow up site visits and audits of the programs in question. In addition, this information will be used to assess trends in I/ M program development and implementation, and to determine the effectiveness of various program strategies for the sake of I/ M policy development, assessment, and periodic revision in the most cost efficient manner possible.

The Public EPA will make the gathered information available to the public upon request. We foresee this information being of use to a wide range of interest groups, including environmental organizations, state and local governments, and industry groups, such as automotive vehicle and aftermarket parts manufacturers, and the inspection and repair industries. >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

4 3. NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication EPA has made an effort to ensure that the data collection efforts associated with this ICR are not duplicated. EPA has consulted State and Local environmental programs, other Federal agencies. To the best of EPA's knowledge, data currently required by EPA ( and its implementing regulations codified at 40 CFR Parts 51) are not available from any other source.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB ( This section is reserved for the final version of ICR Supporting Document)

3( c) Consultations EPA requested burden hour information from our regional offices and some state and local programs to prepare this ICR. Specifically, we collected information on the number of hours required to complete the following under the current I/ M rule data reporting requirement:

° Submit an annual test data report;

° Submit an annual quality assurance report;

° Submit an annual quality control report;

° Submit an annual enforcement report;

° Submit a biennial report on any changes to the program and the impact of such changes, including any weaknesses discovered and corrections made or planned;

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection The I/ M Rule requires annual reporting and biennial reporting by the States who wish to implement the I/ M program in order to accomplish their SIP plans. Submitting these report less frequently than annually or biennially would severely limit EPA's capability to determine a program's progress toward meeting requirements under 40 CFR, Part 51, as well as to assess national trends in the area of basic and enhanced I/ M programs. Less frequent reporting would delay identification of possible problems undercutting the program's benefit. >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

1" United States Motor Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) Programs", November 2003, Sierra Research, Inc..

5 3( e) General Guidelines This ICR was prepared in accordance with the February 1999 version of EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) of 1995 ( or " ICR Handbook") prepared by EPA's Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Collection, Collection Strategies Division. The ICR Handbook provides the most current instructions for ICR preparation to ensure compliance with the 1995 PRA amendments and Office of Management and Budget's ( OMB's) implementing guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality No confidential information will be collected as a result of this ICR.

3( g) Sensitive Questions No information of a sensitive nature will be collected as a result of this ICR.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) State and Local Respondents The respondents to this information collection are the state governmental agencies or departments responsible for oversight and operation of the I/ M programs ( SIC# 91). Thirty three states plus the District of Columbia1 will be affected by I/ M program requirements. This category of respondent was selected because it represents the entities most comprehensively involved in gathering the information which must be summarized for this collection ( i. e., those parties responsible for establishing, maintaining, and analyzing the program's central database, or overseeing contractor personnel responsible for such activities). Although I/ M programs can and do vary by type ( i. e., basic I/ M programs versus enhanced I/ M programs), the data elements to be addressed by this information collection remain consistent across program types, and hence the burden does not vary by program type.

4( b) Information Requested Under current I/ M program practice, various internal analyses and reports are routinely generated using the data collected on vehicle tests, as well as quality control, quality assurance, >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

6 and enforcement efforts ( see Attachment 3 for examples of internal state data reports). The information requested in this ICR is, in fact, based upon the data items currently collected in and the reports currently generated in many of the better run I/ M programs. These reports are used primarily as management tools for internal monitoring and evaluation of the program. The purpose of this ICR is to formalize the process through which this data is reported to EPA, as well as to standardize the reporting schedule.

( i) Data items A. Recordkeeping Requirements In fulfilling the requirements of this information collection, respondents will need to gather and maintain records on the following data items per vehicle inspected as part of the I/ M program. As stated previously, similar information is currently collected by existing I/ M programs and is written into the data recording requirements of their analyzer specifications ( see Attachment 2). As stated in the introduction to this section, these records represent information which a program needs to gather and maintain as part of the day to day administration and enforcement of the program, and, as such, do not constitute an additional burden triggered by this information collection.

1) Test record number 2) Inspection station and inspector number 3) Test system number 4) Date of the test 5) Emission test start time and the time final emission scores are determined 6) Vehicle Identification Number ( VIN) 7) License plate number 8) Test certificate number 9) Gross Vehicle Weight Rating ( GVWR) 10) Vehicle model year, make, and type 11) Number of cylinders or displacement 12) Transmission type 13) Odometer reading 14) Type of test performed ( i. e., initial test, first retest, or subsequent retest) 15) Fuel type of the vehicle ( i. e., gas, diesel, or other fuel) 16) Type of vehicle preconditioning performed ( if any) 17) Emission test sequence( s) used 18) Hydrocarbon emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode 19) Carbon monoxide emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode 20) Carbon dioxide emission scores ( CO+ CO2) and standards for each applicable test mode 21) Nitrogen oxides emission scores and standards for each applicable test mode >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

7 22) Results ( Pass/ Fail/ Not Applicable) of the applicable visual inspections for the catalytic converter, air system, gas cap, evaporative system, positive crankcase ventilation ( PCV) valve, and fuel inlet restrictor 23) Results of the evaporative pressure test expressed as a pass or fail 24) Results of the evaporative system purge test expressed as a pass or fail along with the total purge flow in liters achieved during the test 25) Results of the on board diagnostic check expressed as pass or fail along with the diagnostic trouble codes revealed ( where applicable).

In addition, the program shall gather and maintain records on the results of all quality control checks conducted in response to 40 CFR 51, subpart S, section 359, identifying each check by station number, system number, date, and start time. The record shall also contain the concentration values of the calibration gases used to perform the gas characterization portion of the quality control checks. Raw test data ( both vehicle inspections and quality control checks) shall be saved for a minimum of two complete inspection cycles ( i. e., two years in annual programs, and four years in biennial programs), and submitted to EPA electronically upon request.

B. Reporting Requirements ( 1) Annual Report Internal data analysis and reporting are currently, voluntarily employed in better run I/ M programs as management tools to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation of the program by program management. This ICR requests that EPA be formally included as a recipient of this information. To be considered complete, these reports shall include information regarding the types of program activities performed and their final outcomes, including summary statistics and effectiveness evaluations of the enforcement mechanism, the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the testing element. Under this ICR, respondents will be required to provide EPA with the following data annually. Again, as previously stated, these reporting requirements are based upon the current reporting practices of better run I/ M programs, and, as such, do not constitute an additional respondent burden ( see Attachment 3 for examples of internal program reports currently generated as part of the California program, and which address information similar to that required below).

Test Data Summary The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the testing program for January through December of the previous year, including:

1) The number of vehicles tested by model year and vehicle type 2) By model year and vehicle type, the number and percentage of vehicles: >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

8 i) Failing the emissions test initially, per test type ii) Failing the first retest per test type iii) Passing the first retest per test type iv) Initially failed vehicles passing the second or subsequent retest per test type v) Initially failed vehicles receiving a waiver, and vi) Vehicles with no known final outcome ( regardless of reason) vii) Passing the on board diagnostic check viii) Failing the on board diagnostic check ix) Failing the on board diagnostic check and passing the tailpipe test ( if applicable) x) Failing the on board diagnostic check and failing the tailpipe test ( if applicable) xi) Passing the on board diagnostic check and failing the I/ M gas cap evaporate system test ( if applicable) xii) Failing the on board diagnostic check and passing the I/ M gas cap evaporate system test ( if applicable) xiii) Passing both the on board diagnostic check and the I/ M gas cap evaporate system test ( if applicable) xiv) Failing both the on board diagnostic check and the I/ M gas cap evaporate system test ( if applicable) xv). MIL is commanded on and no codes are stored xvi) MIL is not commanded on and codes are stored xvii) MIL is commanded on and codes are stored xviii) MIL is not commanded on and codes are not stored xix) Readiness status indicates that the evaluation is not complete for any models supported by on board diagnostic systems 3) The initial test volume by model year and test station 4) The initial test failure rate by model year and test station 5) The average increase or decrease in vehicle emission levels after repairs by model year, and vehicle type for vehicles receiving a mass emissions test Quality Assurance Summary The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality assurance program for January through December of the previous year, including:

1) Number of inspection stations and lanes: i) Operating throughout the year ii) Operating for only part of the year >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

9 2) The number of inspection stations and lanes operating throughout the year: i) Receiving overt performance audits in the year ii) Not receiving overt performance audits in the year iii) Receiving covert performance audits in the year iv) Not receiving covert performance audits in the year v) That has been shut down as a result of overt performance audits 3) The number of covert audits: i) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail per test type ii) Conducted with the vehicle set to fail any combination of two or more test type iii) Resulting in a false pass per test type iv) Resulting in a false pass for any component checks of two or more test types 4) The number of inspectors and stations: i) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing as a result of covert audits ii) That were suspended, fired, or otherwise prohibited from testing for other causes iii) That received fines 5) The number of inspectors licensed or certified to conduct testing 6) The number of hearings: i) Held to consider adverse actions against inspectors and stations ii) Resulting in adverse actions against inspectors and stations 7) The total amount collected in fines from inspectors and stations by type of violation 8) The total number of covert vehicles available for undercover audits over the year 9) The number of covert auditors available for undercover audits Quality Control Summary The program shall submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the quality control program for January through December of the previous year, including:

1) The number of emission testing sites and lanes in use in the program 2) The number of equipment audits by station and lane 3) The number and percentage of stations that have failed equipment audits 4) The number and percentage of stations and lanes shut down as a result of equipment audits Enforcement Summary >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

10 1) All varieties of enforcement programs shall, at a minimum, submit to EPA by July of each year a report providing basic statistics on the enforcement program for January through December of the previous year, including: i) An estimate of the number of vehicles subject to the inspection program, including the results of an analysis of the registration data base ii) The percentage of motorist compliance based upon a comparison of the number of valid final tests with the number of subject vehicles iii) The total number of compliance documents issued to inspection stations iv) The number of missing compliance documents v) The number of time extensions and other exemptions granted to motorists vi) The number of compliance surveys conducted, number of vehicles surveyed in each, and the compliance rates found 2) Registration denial based enforcement programs shall provide the following additional information: i) A report of the program's efforts and actions to prevent motorists from falsely registering vehicles out of the program area or falsely changing fuel type or weight class on the vehicle registration, and the results of special studies to investigate the frequency of such activity ii) The number of registration file audits, number of registrations reviewed, and compliance rates found in such audits 3) Computer matching based enforcement programs shall provide the following additional information: i) The number and percentage of subject vehicles that were tested by the initial deadline, and by other milestones in the cycle ii) A report on the program's efforts to detect and enforce against motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity iii) The number of enforcement system audits, and the error rate found during those audits 4) Sticker based enforcement systems shall provide the following information in addition to the general requirements: i) A report on the program's efforts to prevent, detect, and enforce against sticker theft and counterfeiting, and the frequency of this type of activity ii) A report on the program's efforts to detect and enforce against motorists falsely changing vehicle classifications to circumvent program requirements, and the frequency of this type of activity iii) The number of parking lot sticker audits conducted, the number of vehicles surveyed in each, and the noncompliance rate found during those audits ( 2) Biennial Report >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

11 In addition to the above annual reports, programs shall submit to EPA by July of every other year, biennial reports addressing:

1) Changes made in program design, funding, personnel levels, procedures, regulations, and legal authority, with detailed discussion and evaluation of the impact on the program of all such changes 2) Any weaknesses or problems identified in the program within the two year reporting period, what steps have already been taken to correct those problems, the results of those steps, and any future efforts planned ( ii) Respondent Activities In preparing to submit the first round of the above listed summary data for this information collection, the respondent program must pursue the following activities. Several of these activities are essentially one time efforts ( such as pursuing legal authority and constructing testing sites) required to comply with the Act's mandate that such programs be implemented in the first place, while others are activities that are currently, voluntarily conducted in better run I/ M programs for the sake of program implementation, management, and enforcement, and would therefore be pursued regardless of this information collection ( see Attachment 3). Such activities have been identified here as common business practice ( CBP), even though, properly speaking, the respondent entities are representatives of state government agencies or departments. Respondent activities have been separated for the annual and biennial reports, and separate burden estimates are provided for each in section 6 of this submittal.

Annual Report ! Read the I/ M regulation ( CBP)

! Review the regulatory provisions addressing the annual reporting requirement and assess respondent responsibility ! Gather test and quality control information and review for accuracy ( CBP)

! Analyze the test and quality control data.( CBP)

! Based upon analysis of data, begin enforcement efforts against motorists, stations, and inspectors ( CBP)

! Complete written or electronic " paperwork" associated with enforcement and program oversight efforts ( CBP) >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

12 ! Store, file, and maintain all relevant program records and information ( CBP)

! Assemble existing quarterly and other relevant reports in preparation for summarization ! Prepare annual summaries of program operating statistics for the enforcement mechanism, the quality assurance system, the quality control program, and the testing element based upon existing, internal quarterly reports ! Review summary information for accuracy ! Prepare and submit annual report to EPA Biennial Report In addition to the above activities associated with the submittal of the annual information collection, under the current I/ M rule, all I/ M programs, both basic and enhanced, must also submit a biennial report assessing any program change, including weaknesses identified and improvements made since the previous report. Again, many of these activities, given their importance in the areas of effective program management and helping to ensure that program resources are not wasted or abused, will need to be pursued internally regardless of this external reporting requirement. As such, many of these activities are designated as CBP.

! Track and record all changes made in program design, funding, personnel levels, procedures, regulations, and legal authority ! Conduct an evaluation of the impact on the program of all such changes ( CBP)

! Conduct periodic internal investigations to discover and correct weaknesses ( CBP)

! Track and record all such weaknesses or problems identified in the program within the two year reporting period, and the steps taken to correct those problems ! Evaluate the results of those steps ( CBP)

! Assemble and report the above required information, including any future efforts planned >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

13 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Federal Agency Activities In reinstating this information collection, it is estimated that EPA will need to:

! Prepare ICR reinstatement ( one time activity)

! Answer respondent questions ! Audit or review data submissions ! Store data 5( b) Collection Methodology and Management A portion of this information has been assembled in one form or another since the inception of I/ M programs as a result of the Clean Air Act Amendments of l977 which required urban areas failing to meet the National Air Quality Standards to implement in use vehicle I/ M programs. Historically, the sources of this information have included, among other things, on site audits by EPA personnel, internal program data reports courtesy copied to EPA ( see Attachment 2) and raw program data submitted to EPA for analysis.

Respondents will have the option to supply their data either in hardcopy or electronically, and are free to adopt whatever reporting format results in the least burden for the respondent, while also addressing the data elements listed in this ICR.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility This section is not applicable. Our respondents are not small business entities but state governments and their representatives.

5( d) Collection Schedule The first annual report due under this reinstated ICR shall be submitted during the first July following approval of reinstatement, and shall be submitted annually thereafter. The first biennal report shall be due one year following the first annual report, and shall be submitted biennally thereafter. >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

14 6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION In simple terms, EPA calculated the additional burden and cost estimates for this ICR based on the following equation:

Number of state x number of burden hours x cost per hour implementing I/ M for each state to comply with Program I/ M ICR The following paragraphs in Section 6( a) describe the information relied upon for the first two variables in this ICR for state and local burden hour estimates. Section 6( b) describes how state and local costs were estimated. Section 6( c) describes how the federal burden hours and costs were estimated for this ICR.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden The burden estimates for both the recordkeeping and annual reporting requirements were made using professional judgement. Recordkeeping activities are assumed to be routine, automated, and conducted primarily for the effective management of the program. Nonetheless, an hour of burden has been assumed for this category. The estimate of the burden for information gathering by technical staff for the annual report is a conservative one based upon an informal interview with a representative of the Louisville, Kentucky state I/ M program. Responses were based upon the representative's experience with compiling similar, internal quarterly and annual reports, as well as pre audit data submissions for EPA.

Estimates of respondent burden for the biennial report are based upon OTAQ program management staff experience with the assemblage and compilation of materials for the office's annual Assurance Letter under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act ( FMFIA). In many ways, the biennial report most resembles the Assurance Letter in its requirement that program changes and internal control activities be tracked, evaluated, and reported.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Given that the respondents to this ICR will be state government employees, in managerial, technical, and clerical positions, the General Schedule on Federal employee pay system was adopted as a yardstick for estimating hourly labor rates. To ensure that our estimates are conservative, only the higher ranges of these categories were used. For the clerical category, GS 8 was used, while GS 13 was selected to represent the technical position, and GS 15 was >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

2 January 2004 U. S. Office of Personal Management, Salary Table 2004 GS, 2004 General Schedule, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs_ h. asp 15 used as the base for calculating management labor rates. First, EPA is assuming that state and local burden hours would be completed by an experienced staff person being paid hourly rates at a GS 8, step 3, GS 13, Step 3 and GS 15, step 3 of federal government employee salary. 2 Second, EPA multiplied these hourly rates by the standard government overhead factor of 1.6. This calculation results in a state and local cost of $ 26.69/ burden hour, $ 50.83/ burden hour, and $ 70.67/ burden hour, respectively. Calendar year 2004 was chosen as the base year. The resulting labor rates are shown in the table below:

Table 1. Hourly Labor Rates, By Category, Adjusted for Overhead Factor Hours Rates Clerical ( GS 8.3) Technical ( GS 13.3) Managerial ( GS 15.3)

2004 base year 16.68 31.77 44.17 Adjusted by the overhead factor 1.6 26.69 50.83 70.67 Table 2. Respondent Burden Hours & Cost for Annual Report Collection Activity Managerial Hours Technical Hours Clerical Hours Burden Hours Annual Costs 1. Read regulatory provisions 1 1 2 $ 121.50 2. Assess data requirements 8 8 $ 406.64 >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

16 3. Assemble reports & data 16 16 $ 813.28 4. Review information for accuracy 8 8 $ 406.64 5. Summarize information 4 4 $ 203.32 6. Prepare and submit report 4 1 5 $ 230.01 7. Record, store, & maintain files 1 1 $ 50.83 Total 1 42 1 43 $ 2,232 Table 3. Respondent Burden Hours & Cost for Biennal Report Collection Activity Managerial Hours Technical Hours Clerical Hours Burden Hours Annual Costs 1. Track/ record program change 16 16 $ 813.28 2. Track/ record weakness/ correction 16 16 $ 813.28 3. Assemble/ report findings/ future plans 16 32 4 52 $ 2,864.04 Total 16 64 4 84 $ 4,491 Annual burden hours per respondent = ( Hr. of annual report) + ( Hr of biennial report)/ 2 = 43 + 84/ 2 = 85 Annual burden cost >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

3 Page 1 1, " United Satates Motor vehicle Inspection and Maintenance ( I/ M) Programs," by Sierra Research, Inc. November 2003.

17 per respondent = $ 2,232 + ($ 4,491) / 2 = $ 4,478 Annual total burdent hours for all respondents: = ( annual burdent hours per respondent) x ( total number of respondents3) = 85 x 34 = 2,890 Annual total burden costs for all respondents = ( annual burden cost per respondent) x ( total number of respondents) = $ 4,478 X 34 = $ 152,252 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The estimates of each class of hours needed to handle the burdens associated with this ICR are based upon the experience EPA has had in handling similar tasks such as assembling and processing pre audit information from individual states on an as needed basis. The labor categories and hourly labor rates are the same as those used for the respondent burden estimates, and are decidedly conservative.

Table 4. Agency Burden for One Time ICR Costs One time Activity Managerial Hours Technical Hours Clerical Hours Burden Hours Annual Costs ICR reinstatement 2 80 1 83 $ 4,234.43 Total 2 80 1 83 $ 4,234.43 Table 5. Agency Burden Hours & Cost per Annual & Biennial Report >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

18 Collection Activity Manag erial Hours Technical Hours Clerical Hours Burden Hours Annual Costs 1. Answer questions 4 34 38 $ 2,010.9 2. Review data submissions 34 34 $ 1,728.22 3. Record data submission 34 34 $ 907.46 4. Store data 34 34 $ 1,728.22 Total 4 102 34 140 $ 6,374.80 Annual total burdent hours for agency = ( annual agency burden hours) + ( average start up hours over 3 years) = 140 + 83/ 3 = 168 Annual total burden cost for agency = ( annual agency burden costs) + ( Average start up cost over 3 years) = $ 6,375 + $ 4,235/ 3 = $ 7,787 6( d) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs The bottom line burden hours and costs appear in Table 6. Total annnual respondent burden associated with this ICR is estimated to be approxmately 2,890 burden hours. The corresponding total annual respondent costs are estimated to be $ 152,252. Total national burden, including respondent burden and EPA burden, is estimated to be 3,058 hours annually. The total national cost, for respondents and EPA, is estimated to be $ 160,039 annually.

Table 6. Bottom Line Annual Burden and Cost >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

19 number of respondents 34 33 states plus D. C. ( 2003)

total annual respondents 34 one response per respondent hours per respondent 85 table 2 and 3 cost per respondent $ 4,478 table 2 and 3 total respondent hours 2890 hours per resp. x 34 total respondent cost $ 152,252 cost per resp. x 34 total agency hours 168 table 5 total agency cost $ 7,787 table 5 total burden hours ( resp. + agency) 3058 total respondent hours + total EPA hours total burden cost ( resp. + agency) $ 160,039 total respodent cost + total EPA cost 6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden The total annual burden estimated in 1992, I/ M Program Proposed Rule ICR, approved by OMB, was 2,282 hours. The annual burden hours per respodent was 85 hours. As indicated in Table 6, the annual burden hours per respondent is estimated to be 85 hours in this ICR but the estimate of total respondents burden has changed to 2890 hours. The reason for this change is due to the fact that the original ICR reflected phased in program inplementation, while the current reinstatement reflects full program implementation.

6( f) Burden Statement Public reporting burden for collections included in this ICR is detailed above. The annual burden per respondent is estimated to be 85 hours, and the total annual respondent burden imposed by these collections is estimated to be 2,890 hours ( 34 respondents). These estimates include time for summarizing data as well as reporting summaries. 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 >> DRAFT: February 23, 2004 <<

20 or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2004 0012, which is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. 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 ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742. 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. ( OAR 2004 0012) and OMB control number ( 2060 0252) in any correspondence.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6692-6694]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03056]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0368; FMCSA-2011-0381; FMCSA-2013-0192; FMCSA-
2013-0193]

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 77
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 March 16,
2018.

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>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management

System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2011-0368; FMCSA-2011-0381; FMCSA-2013-
0192; FMCSA-2013-0193 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.

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 77 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 77 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the diabetes requirement (77 FR 3549; 77 FR 5870; 77 FR
13685; 77 FR 17116; 78 FR 78479; 78 FR 79062; 79 FR 12567; 79 FR 13086;
81 FR 14210). 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 March and
are discussed below:
    As of March 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 31 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 79062; 79 FR
12567; 81 FR 14210):

David E. Ames (IL)
Christopher D. Burks (MA)
Larry D. Burton (IL)
Anthony D. Chrisley (CA)
Henry Collins (MO)
John B. Conway, Jr. (NC)
Douglas E. Erney (IN)
William C. Flom (IA)
Brian A. Griep (IA)
Ronnie Harrington (MS)
Andrew P. Hines (OH)
Aaron C. Kaplan (CA)
Sigmund E. Keller (NY)
Derl T. Martin (MO)
Ronald E. Mullard (AL)
Justin C. Orr (OH)
Kevin L. Otto (OH)
Larry H. Painter (PA)
Robert K. Patterson (IA)
Albert M. Purdy (PA)
Adam Ranzy (MO)
Thomas F. Scanlon (NJ)
Harrison G. Simmons (MO)
Scott A. Stout (FL)
Walter D. Strang, IV (CT)
Mark A. Torres (MA)
Eric A. Vernon (IA)
Marvin L. Vonk (IA)
Kelly J. Walstad (MN)
John R. Wappes (OH)
Rickey A. Wulf (IA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0193. Their
exemptions are applicable as of March 5, 2018, and will expire on March
5, 2020.
    As of March 7, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 34 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 3549; 77 FR
13685; 78 FR 78479; 79 FR 13086; 81 FR 14210):

Chad E. Anger (WI)
Edward Blake (GA)
Brian Chase (VA)
Nicholas P. Dube (RI)
James W. Dusing (MN)
Manel Elizondo (TX)
Michael K. Farris (IN)
Menino Fernandes (IL)
Craig J. Gadley, Sr. (NY)
Mary F. Guilfoy (IN)
Matthew E. Hay (TX)
Edward S. Ionescu (IL)

Jeffrey P. James (AR)
Tracy N. Jenkins (DE)
Gregory A. King (NC)
Matthew R. Linehan (NY)
Cory A. Meadows (OH)
Ashun R. Merritt (GA)
Herbert A. Morton (CA)
Jayrome B. Rimolde (MN)
Gale Roland (PA)
John L. Scherette (WA)
Kelly T. Scholl (MN)
James P. Shurkus (NH)
Gregory G. Sisco (IA)
Travers L. Stephens (GA)
Brittany K. Tomasko (CA)
Daren Warren (NY)
Alan T. Whalen (NY)
Thomas L. Whitley (IN)
Randall S. Williams (PA)
Tomme J. Wirth (IA)
Joshua C. Wyse (OH)
Rowland P. Yee (HI)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2011-0368; FMCSA-
2013-0192. Their exemptions are applicable as of March 7, 2018, and
will expire on March 7, 2020.
    As of March 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 12 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 5870; 77 FR
17116; 81 FR 14210):

Roger L. Arcan, Jr. (MA)
Marsha M. Colberg (WA)
Robert D. Crissinger (MN)
Scott W. Forsyth, Jr. (CO)
Fritz D. Gregory (UT)
Anthony P. Kesselring (FL)
Don R. Kivi (ND)
Vincent Ligotti (NY)
Michael R. Miller (PA)
Jack L. Phippen (WI)
Richard A. Purk (CA)
Jack A. Tidey (AR)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0381. Their
exemptions are applicable as of March 23, 2018, and will expire on
March 23, 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 77 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 7, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03056 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P