Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67777 

the vision requirements in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers 

of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a 

two-year period 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 

procedures for requesting an exemption 

(including renewals) are set out in 49 

CFR part 381. This notice addresses 22 

individuals who have requested renewal 

of their exemptions in a timely manner. 

FMCSA has evaluated these 22 

applications for renewal on their merits 

and decided to extend each exemption 

for a renewable two-year period. They 

are: 

Terry J. Aldridge 

Jerry D. Bridges 

Roosevelt Bryant, Jr. 

Thomas P. Cummings 

Ralph E. Eckels 

Marion R. Fox, Jr. 

Gary R. Gutschow 

Richard J. Hanna 

James J. Hewitt 

Carl M. Hill 

John K. Love 

Albert E. Malley 

Roger J. Mason 

David L. Menken 

Richard L. Messinger 

Eldon Miles 

Rodney M. Mimbs 

Walter F. Moniowczak 

Ronald L. Roy 

Thomas E. Walsh 

Kevin P. Weinhold 

Thomas A. Wise 

These exemptions are renewed 

subject to the following conditions: (1) 

That each individual have a physical 

examination every year (a) by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) 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 (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file and retain a copy of the certification 

on his/her person while driving for 

presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. Each exemption will be valid 

for two years unless rescinded earlier by 

FMCSA. 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rescinded if: (1) The person fails to 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. 31315 and 

31136(e). 

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 

for additional two year periods. In 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 

31136(e), each of the 22 applicants has 

satisfied the eligibility requirements for 

obtaining an exemption from the vision 

standard (64 FR 27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 

FR 48504; 68 FR 54775; 64 FR 68195; 

65 FR 20251; 67 FR 17102; 65 FR 45817; 

65 FR 77066; 68 FR 1654; 66 FR 17743; 

66 FR 33990; 66 FR 30502; 66 FR 41654; 

67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 10301; 

68 FR 19596; 68 FR 52811; 68 FR 

61860). Each of these 22 applicants has 

requested timely renewal of the 

exemption and has submitted evidence 

showing that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard specified 

at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the 

vision impairment is stable. In addition, 

a review of each record of safety while 

driving with the respective vision 

deficiencies over the past two years 

indicates each applicant continues to 

meet the vision exemption standards. 

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 renewal applicant for a period 

of two years is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. 

Comments 

FMCSA will review comments 

received at any time concerning a 

particular driver’s safety record and 

determine if the continuation of the 

exemption is consistent with the 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 

31136(e). However, FMCSA requests 

that interested parties with specific data 

concerning the safety records of these 

drivers submit comments by December 

8, 2005. 

In the past FMCSA has received 

comments from Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressing 

continued opposition to FMCSA’s 

procedures for renewing exemptions 

from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10). Specifically, Advocates 

objects to the agency’s extension of the 

exemptions without any opportunity for 

public comment prior to the decision to 

renew, and reliance on a summary 

statement of evidence to make its 

decision to extend the exemption of 

each driver. 

The issues raised by Advocates were 

addressed at length in 69 FR 51346 

(August 18, 2004). FMCSA continues to 

find its exemption process consistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements. 

Issued on: November 3, 2005. 

Rose A. McMurray, 

Associate Administrator, Policy and Program 

Development. 

[FR Doc. 05–22263 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2001–9800] 

Qualification of Drivers; Eligibility 

Criteria and Applications; Diabetes 

Exemption 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of revised final 

disposition. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces 

FMCSA’s decision to revise the terms 

and conditions of its previous decision 

to issue exemptions to certain insulintreated diabetic drivers of commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) from the 

diabetes mellitus prohibitions contained 

in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs). This action is in 

response to section 4129 of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users (SAFETEA-LU) which requires 

FMCSA within 90 days of enactment to 

modify its exemption program to allow 

individuals who use insulin to treat 

diabetes mellitus to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce, without having to 

demonstrate safe driving experience 

operating a CMV while using insulin, 

while at the same time implementing 

certain other requirements contained in 

section 4129. These changes will remain 

in effect until FMCSA completes a 

rulemaking to revise the FMCSRs to 

allow drivers with insulin-treated 

diabetes mellitus (ITDM) to operate 

CMVs in interstate commerce in 

accordance with the applicable statutory 

standards. 

DATES: This notice is effective on 

November 8, 2005. FMCSA will begin 

accepting applications for exemptions 

under the new criteria on November 8, 

2005. 

67778 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

1Added by section 4007 of Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21), Public Law 105–

178, 112 Stat. 401 (June 9, 1998). 

ADDRESSES: Drivers with insulin-treated 

diabetes mellitus (ITDM) who meet the 

modified criteria contained in this 

notice may now request an exemption 

from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) by sending an 

exemption application request to: 

Federal Diabetes Exemption Program 

(MC–PSP), Office of Bus and Truck 

Standards and Operations, Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001, calling 703–448–3094, 

or faxing a request to 703–448–3077. 

You may submit comments on the 

limited issue of the information 

collection burden in this notice. FMCSA 

must receive your information 

collection burden comments by January 

9, 2006. You may submit information 

collection burden comments identified 

by any of the following methods. Please 

identify your comments by the DOT 

DMS Docket Number FMCSA–2001–

9800. Please also note the paragraph 

under the subheading Privacy Act later 

in this notice about how your comments 

will be available to the public. 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on the DOT electronic docket 

site. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, 

Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on 

the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number for this notice. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http://dms.dot.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided. Please see the Privacy Act 

heading under Regulatory Notices. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–

401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 

Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., 

Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and 

Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 

366–4001, FMCSA, Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., 

e.t., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

FMCSA established the current 

physical qualification standard for 

drivers with ITDM in 1970 because 

several risk studies indicated that such 

drivers had a higher rate of accident 

involvement than the general 

population. The standard states 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). 

Since 1970, the agency has considered 

the diabetes requirement and 

undertaken studies to determine if its 

diabetes standard for commercial 

drivers in interstate commerce should 

be amended. It is FMCSA’s view that its 

physical qualification standards should 

be based on sound medical, scientific 

and technological grounds, and that 

individual determinations should be 

made to the maximum extent possible 

consistent with FMCSA’s responsibility 

to ensure safety on the Nation’s 

highways. FMCSA discussed the 

regulatory history and research activity 

addressing the issue of diabetes and 

CMV operation in a prior notice in this 

proceeding. 66 FR 39548, 39549 (July 

31, 2001) 

In 1998, section 4018 of the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century, Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 

413–4 (TEA–21) (set out as a note to 49 

U.S.C. 31305) directed the Secretary of 

Transportation (the Secretary) to 

determine if it is feasible to develop ‘‘a 

practicable and cost-effective screening, 

operating and monitoring protocol’’ for 

allowing drivers with ITDM to operate 

CMVs in interstate commerce ‘‘that 

would ensure a level of safety equal to 

or greater than that achieved with the 

current prohibition on individuals with 

insulin treated diabetes mellitus driving 

such vehicles.’’ As directed by section 

4018, the agency compiled and 

evaluated the available research and 

information. It assembled a panel of 

medical experts in the treatment of 

diabetes to investigate and report on the 

issues concerned with the treatment, 

medical screening and monitoring of 

ITDM individuals in the context of 

operating CMVs. FMCSA then 

submitted to Congress in July 2000 a 

report entitled ‘‘A Report to Congress on 

the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify 

Individuals with Insulin Treated 

Diabetes Mellitus to Operate 

Commercial Motor Vehicles in Interstate 

Commerce as Directed by the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century,’’ (TEA–21 Report to Congress). 

It concluded that it is feasible to 

establish a safe and practicable protocol 

with three components that would 

allow some drivers with ITDM to 

operate CMVs. The three components 

included screening of qualified drivers, 

operational requirements to ensure 

proper disease management by such 

drivers, and monitoring of safe driving 

behavior and proper disease 

management (refer to pages 64–65). For 

a detailed discussion of the report’s 

findings and conclusions, refer to the 

prior notice in this proceeding. 66 FR 

39548, 39549–51 (July 31, 2001). The 

TEA–21 Report to Congress can be 

accessed in docket FMCSA–2001–9800, 

item 87, in the DOT Docket 

Management System at: http:// 

dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p64/ 

139973.tif; http://dmses.dot.gov/ 

docimages/pdf71/139973_web.pdf; or 

on FMCSA’s Web site at: http:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/ 

research-technology/publications/ 

medreports.htm. 

As a result of the conclusions found 

in the TEA–21 Report to Congress, in 

2001, FMCSA proposed to implement 

those conclusions and 

recommendations by issuing 

exemptions from the FMCSRs to allow 

operations of CMVs by drivers treating 

their diabetes mellitus with insulin. 

After receiving and considering 

comments on the proposed use of 

exemptions to implement the TEA–21 

Report to Congress, in 2003, FMCSA 

issued a Notice of Final Disposition 

establishing the procedures and 

protocols for implementing the 

exemptions. 68 FR 52441 (September 3, 

2003) (‘‘2003 Notice’’). In order to obtain 

an exemption, a CMV driver with ITDM 

must follow the basic requirements for 

obtaining an exemption set out in 49 

CFR part 381, subpart C. FMCSA may 

not grant an exemption unless it would 

maintain a level of safety equivalent to, 

or greater than, the level achieved 

without the exemption. 49 U.S.C. 31315 

and 49 CFR 381.305(a). This is the same 

basic standard applicable to the 

determination under TEA–21 section 

4018(a) of a protocol for CMV drivers 

with ITDM. Relying on the legislative 

history of this section,1 FMCSA 

previously stated that the level of safety 

would be equivalent if there is a 

reasonable expectation that safety will 

not be compromised if an exemption is 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67779 

2Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a 

‘‘final rule.’’ However, the 2003 Notice did not issue 

a ‘‘final rule,’’ but did establish the procedures and 

standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with 

ITDM. 

granted. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations; Waivers, Exemptions and 

Pilot Programs, 69 FR 51589, 51592 

(Aug. 20, 2004). See also House Conf. 

Report 105–550 (May 22, 1998) at 489. 

In conformity with the conclusions of 

the TEA–21 Report to Congress, the 

2003 Notice implemented, with a few 

modifications, the three components of 

the protocol recommended in the report, 

to allow drivers with ITDM to be 

qualified with an exemption from the 

FMCSRs to operate CMVs (refer to pages 

65–69). Notice of the grant of the first 

such exemptions to four drivers who 

use insulin to treat their diabetes was 

published on September 2, 2005. 70 FR 

52465. 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act 

Section 4129 of SAFETEA–LU, Public 

Law 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1742–43 

(Aug. 10, 2005) requires the Secretary to 

begin, within 90 days of enactment, to 

revise the 2003 Notice to allow drivers 

who use insulin to treat diabetes to 

operate CMVs in interstate commerce.2

The revision must provide for 

individual assessment of diabetic 

mellitus drivers, and be consistent with 

the criteria described in section 4018 of 

TEA–21, discussed above. 

Section 4129 requires two substantive 

changes to be made in the current 

exemption process set out in the 2003 

Notice. As required by section 4129(b)–

(c), the changes are: (1) Elimination of 

the requirement for three years of 

experience operating CMVs while being 

treated with insulin; and (2) 

establishment of a specified minimum 

period of insulin use to demonstrate 

stable control of diabetes before being 

allowed to operate a CMV. 

In order to accomplish these changes 

within the 90-day time frame 

established by section 4129, FMCSA 

will make immediate revisions to the 

current diabetes exemption program 

established by the 2003 Notice. These 

revisions are those that are necessary to 

respond to the specific changes 

mandated by section 4129 while 

continuing to ensure that operation of 

CMVs by drivers with ITDM will 

achieve the necessary level of safety as 

also required by section 4129(a). The 

revisions will include: (1) Elimination 

of the requirement for three years of 

experience operating CMVs while being 

treated with insulin; and (2) definition 

of stable control, using the TEA–21 

Report to Congress. Both of those 

changes are discussed in more detail 

below. 

Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA 

to ensure that drivers of CMVs with 

ITDM are not held to a higher standard 

than other drivers, with the exception of 

limited operating, monitoring and 

medical requirements that are deemed 

medically necessary. FMCSA concludes 

that all of the operating, monitoring and 

medical requirements set out in the 

2003 Notice, except as modified here, 

are in compliance with section 4129(d). 

All of the requirements set out in the 

2003 Notice, except as modified here, 

will remain in effect. 

These changes to the exemption 

program will be effective upon 

publication of this Notice in the Federal 

Register. FMCSA is also commencing 

the process for considering revisions to 

the current physical qualification 

standards for drivers with ITDM, and 

will be issuing an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the 

near future. Interested parties are urged 

to submit comments on this Notice and 

its implementation of the statutory 

directives in their comments in 

response to FMCSA’s upcoming 

ANPRM. 

Revisions to the Exemption Eligibility 

Criteria 

Driving Experience While Using Insulin 

The TEA–21 Report to Congress states 

that a necessary component of the 

feasible program should be screening of 

qualified drivers. It is recommended 

that criteria for screening a driver with 

ITDM should include a review of 

driving experience and driving record to 

ensure that there was a level of safety 

present that did not compromise public 

safety. 

Section 4129(b) of SAFETEA-LU 

requires the removal of using driving 

experience as screening criteria for 

approving or disapproving an 

exemption from the physical 

qualifications standards for drivers with 

ITDM operating a CMV while using 

insulin. Therefore, FMCSA will 

immediately discontinue use of the 3- 

year criterion for drivers with ITDM. 

Applications from drivers with ITDM 

will no longer be denied because the 

drivers do not have 3 years of 

experience operating CMVs, while using 

insulin. FMCSA will also no longer 

require submission of a driving record 

in order to determine exemption 

eligibility. The requirement for drivers 

with ITDM to provide proof of valid 

operator’s license will remain in effect. 

Definition of Stable Control and 

Minimum Period of Insulin Use 

Section 4129(c) of SAFETEA-LU 

requires drivers with ITDM to have a 

minimum period of insulin use to 

demonstrate stable control of diabetes 

before operating a CMV in interstate 

commerce, consistent with the findings 

of the expert medical panel reported in 

the TEA–21 Report to Congress. For 

individuals who have been newly 

diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes, the 

minimum period of insulin use may not 

exceed 2 months, unless directed by the 

treating physician. For individuals who 

have Type 2 diabetes and are converting 

to insulin use, the minimum period of 

insulin use may not exceed 1 month, 

unless directed by the treating 

physician. 

The TEA–21 Report to Congress states 

that insulin treatment seems to pose a 

dilemma with respect to resolving the 

issue of allowing individuals with ITDM 

to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 

From a positive standpoint, insulin 

therapy clearly improves the health of 

individuals who have diabetes mellitus, 

which should contribute to the safe 

operation of CMVs. Conversely, the use 

of insulin can cause the onset of 

hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia, as some 

of the literature tends to argue, is seen 

as a serious risk factor in crash 

causation. If individuals with ITDM are 

to be allowed to operate CMVs in 

interstate commerce, the risk for 

hypoglycemia and procedures for 

controlling that risk cannot be ignored. 

Any process focused on allowing ITDM 

individuals to operate commercial 

vehicles must clearly have procedures 

for controlling that potential for risk and 

its influence on the level of safety (refer 

to pages 27–28). 

The TEA–21 Report to Congress found 

that the primary means for determining 

whether a driver of a CMV with ITDM 

has stable control or proper disease 

management is to consider information 

on any recurrent hypoglycemic 

reactions experienced by the driver 

(refer to page 52). In addition to the 

evaluation of hypoglycemic reactions, 

the TEA–21 Report to Congress also 

found that the extreme values of 

glycosylated hemoglobin (HgA1C) may 

be evidence of unstable control and 

poor disease management. For drivers 

who exhibit proper disease 

management, HgA1C results can be 

combined with the results of blood 

glucose monitoring to obtain a better 

insight into individual diabetes 

management (refer to pages 52–53). 

The 2003 Notice recognized the 

importance of using the HgA1C 

measurements as part of the evidence to 

67780 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 

be submitted to demonstrate stable 

control of the driver’s diabetes. In 

accordance with the standard clinical 

protocol, two measurements taken 90 

days apart were required. No particular 

level for the measurement was 

specified. 68 FR 52443. 

The American Diabetes Association 

(ADA) recommends the use of <7% as 

a normal HgA1C and recognizes that a 

more stringent level of <6% may be 

used at the discretion of the physician 

to reduce microvascular and 

neuropathic complications of diabetes. 

However, as discussed above, the TEA–

21 Report to Congress suggests that this 

lower level may not be in the best 

interest of safety when related to a 

driver with ITDM operating a CMV, as 

it may cause hypoglycemic reactions in 

some individuals. Therefore, the Report 

to Congress suggests that the normal 

range as defined by the ADA is not the 

goal and that there is the assumption 

that a level exists above this normal 

range in which the driver with ITDM 

would not be at risk for hypoglycemia 

(refer to page 56). Several members of 

the expert medical panel involved in the 

TEA–21 Report to Congress thought that 

the HgA1C was only relevant at extreme 

values at the high end of the range at 10 

or 11% (refer to page 57). In light of all 

these considerations, FMCSA has 

determined that the appropriate 

measure of HgA1C to demonstrate stable 

control of diabetes while using insulin 

is in the range of 7% and 10%. 

Acceptable blood glucose ranges were 

also discussed in the TEA–21 Report to 

Congress, indicating that the acceptable 

range for blood glucose falls between 

100 to 400 mg/dl (refer to page 58). The 

panel endorsed a protocol for 

monitoring glucose before and during 

the operation of a CMV. This protocol, 

including those elements relating to 

documentation of stable control of 

diabetes, such as a minimum period of 

insulin use, were incorporated into 

screening and monitoring components 

and are currently required by the 2003 

Notice as part of the Federal diabetes 

exemption process (68 FR 52443–45). 

The TEA–21 Report to Congress states 

that defining a period of insulin use 

depended on circumstances 

surrounding the history of diabetes that 

a driver include in the application 

process. It was also noted that drivers 

with Type 1 diabetes, with intrastate 

driving experience while using insulin, 

probably have a well established history 

of his/her diabetes and its treatment. 

Setting a period for insulin use, then, 

would be necessary mainly for drivers 

that have Type 2 diabetes or are newly 

diagnosed with either type. If the driver 

had Type 2 diabetes requiring insulin 

use, the panel thought that a one-month 

period would be sufficient to provide 

adequate individual disease 

management skills. If the driver were a 

newly diagnosed patient with Type 1 

diabetes, the panel was satisfied with a 

two month period. However, if the 

treating physician concluded that the 

patient needed adjustment in the 

insulin dose or had not adequately 

learned about diabetes and its 

management, the period could be 

extended to a third month or longer, 

depending on individual circumstances 

(refer to page 53). This is the specific 

criterion referred to in SAFETEA-LU 

section 4129(c). 

Based on the TEA–21 Report to 

Congress under TEA–21 section 4018, 

and to ensure that exemptions from the 

diabetes program continue to achieve 

the requisite level of safety, FMCSA 

therefore continues to define stable 

control as specified in the 2003 Notice, 

with the exception that, FMCSA will no 

longer require the submission of two 

HgA1C results 90 days apart from driver 

with ITDM. FMCSA will now require 

submission with the application of only 

one HgA1C result within the range of 

≥7% and ≤10% to meet the minimum 

period of insulin use requirements, as 

modified by section 4129(c). All other 

requirements related to hypoglycemic 

episodes, blood glucose levels, patient 

education, and definition of treating 

physician currently specified in the 

2003 Notice, 68 FR 52443, will remain 

in effect. 

Changes in Application Information 

Interested applicants with ITDM 

seeking an exemption are no longer 

required to provide documentation to 

support driving experience, and will be 

required to submit only one instead of 

two HgA1C results as part of the Federal 

diabetes application. 

Conclusion 

FMCSA reviewed the monitoring 

protocol specified in the 2003 Notice 

and determined it to be adequate under 

section 4129 of SAFETEA-LU. 

Therefore, monitoring requirements will 

remain in effect as specified. 

The agency has begun review of all 

previously denied applications for 

Federal diabetes exemptions. The 

agency has notified these individuals by 

letter that the 3-year criterion and 

driving record criterion were 

eliminated, and provided instructions 

for updating medical information 

previously submitted to the agency. 

In addition to initiating the 

rulemaking referred to above to revise 

the FMCSRs to allow certain insulintreated diabetic drivers to operate CMVs 

in interstate commerce, FMCSA is 

currently evaluating the Federal medical 

exemption and certificate programs to 

identify areas for improvement. The 

agency is currently developing new 

web-based public education pages, as 

well as an on-line application system. 

Refer to the new FMCSA medical 

program page for additional 

information, http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

rules-regulations/topics/medical/ 

medical.htm. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), 

Federal agencies must obtain approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for each collection of 

information they conduct, sponsor, or 

require through regulations. 

In the 2003 Notice, FMCSA estimated 

that approximately 700 applications for 

exemption would be filed annually, and 

that it would take an average of 90 

minutes to complete an application, for 

a total burden of 1,050 hours. The 

number of applications actually filed 

has been substantially less. However, 

with the changes made in the exemption 

program by this revised Notice, the 

number of applications could increase 

substantially, and may approximate, at 

least initially, the level estimated in 

2003. The amount of information to be 

collected for this exemption program 

has decreased because applicants with 

insulin treated diabetes mellitus would 

not have to provide information 

regarding their history of operating 

commercial motor vehicles while 

undergoing such treatment and the 

associated three-year driving record. 

FMCSA determined there will be no 

change in the burden in the currentlyapproved information collection (OMB 

Control No. 2126–0006), titled ‘‘Medical 

Qualifications Requirements,’’ which 

includes the diabetes exemption 

program as a result of the action in this 

notice. OMB approved the information 

collection on December 18, 2003. The 

approval will expire on December 31, 

2006. 

Interested parties are invited to send 

comments regarding any aspect of this 

information collection requirement, 

including, but not limited to: (1) 

Whether the collection of information is 

necessary for the performance of the 

functions of the FMCSA, including 

whether the information has practical 

utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated 

burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the collected 

information, and (4) ways to minimize 

the collection burden without reducing 

the quality of the information collected. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 215 / Tuesday, November 8, 2005 / Notices 67781 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19477) or you may visit http:// 

dms.dot.gov. 

Issued on: November 2, 2005. 

Annette M. Sandberg, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–22264 Filed 11–7–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping 

Requirements; Agency Information 

Collection Activity Under OMB Review 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501), this notice announces that 

the Information Collection Request (ICR) 

abstracted below has been forwarded to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and comment. The 

ICR describes the nature of the 

information collections and their 

expected burden. The Federal Register 

Notice with a 60-day comment period 

was published on May 9, 2005 (70 FR 

24462). 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before December 8, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori 

Summers, the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, Office of 

Rulemaking (NVS–112), (202) 366–4917, 

400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 5320, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

Title: Consolidated Vehicle Owner’s 

Manual Requirements for Motor 

Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment. 

OMB Number: 2127–0541. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Abstract: In order to ensure that 

manufacturers are complying with 

FMVSS and regulations, NHTSA 

requires a number of information 

collections in FMVSS Nos. 108, 110, 

202, 205, 208, 210, and 213, and Part 

575 Sections 103 and 105. 

FMVSS No. 108, ‘‘Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment.’’

This standard requires that certain 

lamps and reflective devices with 

certain performance levels be installed 

on motor vehicles to assure that the 

roadway is properly illuminated, that 

vehicles can be readily seen, and the 

signals can be transmitted to other 

drivers sharing the road, during day, 

night and inclement weather. Since the 

specific manner in which headlamp aim 

is to be performed is not regulated (only 

the performance of the device is), 

aiming devices manufactured or 

installed by different vehicle and 

headlamp manufacturers may work in 

significantly different ways. As a 

consequence, to assure that headlamps 

can be correctly aimed, instructions for 

proper use must be part of the vehicle 

as a label, or optionally, in the vehicle 

owner’s manual. 

FMVSS No. 110, ‘‘Tire selection and 

rims.’’ This standard specifies 

requirements for tire selection to 

prevent tire overloading. The vehicle’s 

normal load and maximum load on the 

tire shall not be greater than applicable 

specified limits. The standard requires a 

permanently affixed vehicle placard 

specifying vehicle capacity weight, 

designated seating capacity, 

manufacturer recommended cold tire 

inflation pressure, and manufacturer’s 

recommended tire size. The standard 

further specifies rim construction 

requirements, load limits of 

nonpneumatic spare tires, and labeling 

requirements for non-pneumatic spare 

tires, including a required placard. 

Owner’s manual information is required 

for ‘‘Use of Spare Tire.’’ FMVSS No. 110 

will require additional owner’s manual 

information on the revised vehicle 

placard and tire information label, on 

revised tire labeling, and on tire safety 

and load limits and terminology. 

FMVSS No. 202, ‘‘Head restraints.’’

This standard specifies requirements for 

head restraints. The standard, which 

seeks to reduce whiplash injuries in rear 

collisions, currently requires head 

restraints for front outboard designated 

seating positions in passenger cars and 

in light multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks and buses. In a final 

rule published on December 14, 2004 

(69 FR 74880), the standard requires 

that vehicle manufacturers include 

information in owner’s manuals for 

vehicles manufactured on or after 

September 1, 2008. The owner’s manual 

must clearly identify which seats are 

equipped with head restraints. If the 

head restraints are removable, the 

owner’s manual must provide 

instructions on how to remove the head 

restraint by a deliberate action distinct 

from any act necessary for adjustment, 

and how to reinstall head restraints. The 

owner’s manual must warn that all head 

restraints must be reinstalled to 

properly protect vehicle occupants. 

Finally, the owner’s manual must 

describe, in an easily understandable 

format, the adjustment of the head 

restraints and/or seat back to achieve 

appropriate head restraint position 

relative to the occupant’s head. 

FMVSS No. 205, ‘‘Glazing materials.’’

This standard specifies requirement for 

all glazing material used in windshields, 

windows, and interior partitions of 

motor vehicles. Its purpose is to reduce 

the likelihood of lacerations and to 

minimize the possibility of occupants 

penetrating the windshield in a crash. 

More detailed information regarding the 

care and maintenance of such glazing 

items, as the glass-plastic windshield, is 

required to be placed in the vehicle 

owner’s manual. 

FMVSS No. 208, ‘‘Occupant crash 

protection.’’ This standard specifies 

requirements for both active and passive 

occupant crash protection systems for 

passenger cars, multipurpose passenger 

vehicles, trucks and small buses. Certain 

safety features, such as air bags, or the 

care and maintenance of air bag 

systems, are required to be explained to 

the owner by means of the owner’s 

manual. For example, the owner’s 

manual must describe the vehicle’s air 

bag system and provide precautionary 

information about the proper 

positioning of the occupants, including 

children. The owner’s manual must also 

warn that no objects, such as shotguns 

carried in police cars, should be placed 

over or near the air bag covers. 

FMVSS No. 210, ‘‘Seat belt assembly 

anchorages.’’ This standard specifies 

requirements for seat belt assembly 

anchorages to ensure effective occupant 

restraint and to reduce the likelihood of 

failure in a crash. The standard requires 

that manufacturers place the following 

information in the vehicle owner’s 

manual: 

a. An explanation that child restraints 

are designed to be secured by means of 

the vehicle’s seat belts, and, 

b. A statement alerting vehicle owners 

that children are always safer in the rear 

seat. 

FMVSS No. 213, ‘‘Child restraint 

systems.’’ This standard specifies 

requirements for child restraint systems 

and requires that manufacturers provide 

consumers with detailed information 

relating to child safety in air bagequipped vehicles. The vehicle owner’s