[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25919-25924]
[DOCID:fr10my10-108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0083]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions from the diabetes
mellitus standard; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 33 individuals
for exemptions from the prohibition for persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2010-0083 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line 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.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 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 acknowledgment page that appears after submitting comments
on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>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 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-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 statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 33
individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption
from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to
drivers of CMV in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will
evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether
granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety
mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Spencer W. Alexander

    Mr. Alexander, age 28, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Alexander meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Utah.

Nelson Alvarez

    Mr. Alvarez, 44, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Alvarez
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial Driver's
license (CDL) from Massachusetts.

Cody R. Anderson

    Mr. Anderson, 26, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Anderson
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Montana.

Ronnie L. Barker

    Mr. Barker, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Barker
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Georgia.

Eric D. Benham

    Mr. Benham, 21, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Benham
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana.

Brian C. Blevins

    Mr. Blevins, 23, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Blevins
meets the

requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Charles E. Bonner, Sr.

    Mr. Bonner, 62, has had ITDM since 1982. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bonner
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has
stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL
from Maryland.

Michael J. Brieske

    Mr. Brieske, 50, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brieske
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Washington.

Frederick Brown

    Mr. Brown, 59, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brown
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Mexico.

William D. Elam, Jr.

    Mr. Elam, 37, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes mellitus using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Elam meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Devin S. Gibson

    Mr. Gibson, 49, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gibson
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah.

Lewis M. Hendershott

    Mr. Hendershott, 60, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Hendershott meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
New Jersey.

Mark E. Henning

    Mr. Henning, 51, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Henning
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Duane C. Jackson

    Mr. Jackson, 63, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jackson
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

John J. Long

    Mr. Long, 49, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes mellitus using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Long meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from California.

Jerry A. McMurdy

    Mr. McMurdy, 70, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McMurdy
meets

the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Steven L. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 52, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miller
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota.

Joe E. Montoya

    Mr. Montoya, 73, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Montoya
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Mexico.

Jonathan A. Morisoli

    Mr. Morisoli, 32, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morisoli
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California.

Timothy J. Nowak

    Mr. Nowak, 46, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Nowak
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Georgia.

Lawrence W. Patterson, Jr.

    Mr. Patterson, 57, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Patterson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Missouri.

Peter J. Pendola

    Mr. Pendola, 36, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pendola
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from
Virginia.

Frederick E. Robinson

    Mr. Robinson, 63, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Robinson
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.

Larry D. Schweisberger

    Mr. Schweisberger, 57, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Schweisberger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Missouri.

Joseph C. Shaw

    Mr. Shaw, 61, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes mellitus using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shaw meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Indiana.

Michael Shuler

    Mr. Shuler, 39, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus

using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Shuler meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Washington, D.C.

Kevin C. Simerick

    Mr. Simerick, 27, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Simerick
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has
stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's
license from Michigan.

Matthew E. Sipel

    Mr. Sipel, 37, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sipel
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Michael S. Tanko

    Mr. Tanko, 53, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tanko
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class R operator's license from
Colorado, which allows him to operate any motor vehicle with a gross
weight of less than 26,001 pounds.

James P. Tomasik

    Mr. Tomasik, 23, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tomasik
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Leonard D. Tournear

    Mr. Tournear, 53, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tournear
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

Booker T. Ware

    Mr. Ware, 60, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management
and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes mellitus using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ware meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi.

Joseph H. Watkins

    Mr. Watkins, 57, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes
mellitus using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Watkins
meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the Notice.
    FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-
LU) requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program
established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must
provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus,
and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) The elimination of the requirement for
three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with
insulin; and (2) the establishment of a specified minimum period of
insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being
allowed to operate a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).

    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 concluded that all of the
operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September
3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section
4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3,
2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the Federal Register
on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: April 26, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-10942 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


       Proposed Amendments to 40 CFR Part 75 Shown as Redline-Strikeout

Support Document for the Proposed Federal Implementation Plan Addressing Regional Ozone Transport for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
                        Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0668
                                 February 2022

Note: While EPA has taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this redline-strikeout document, it is not an official version of either the existing regulations or the proposed amended regulations. For the official text of the existing regulations, please see the Code of Federal Regulations. For the amendatory language proposed in this action, please see the proposal published in the Federal Register, available in the docket for this action.

               40 CFR Part 75 -- Continuous Emission Monitoring *
             Subpart H -- NOX Mass Emissions Provisions [excerpts]

§ 72.72 -- Determination of NOX mass emissions for common stack and multiple stack configurations.
§ 72.73 -- Recordkeeping and reporting.
§ 72.75 -- Additional ozone season calculation procedures.
* The proposed amendments to 40 CFR part 75, appendix F (Conversion Procedures) are not included in this document.

§ 75.72 Determination of NOX mass emissions for common stack and multiple stack configurations.
   The owner or operator of an affected unit shall either: calculate hourly NOX mass emissions (in lbs) by multiplying the hourly NOX emission rate (in lbs/mmBtu) by the hourly heat input rate (in mmBtu/hr) and the unit or stack operating time (as defined in § 72.2), or, as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, calculate hourly NOX mass emissions from the hourly NOX concentration (in ppm) and the hourly stack flow rate (in scfh). Only one methodology for determining NOX mass emissions shall be identified in the monitoring plan for each monitoring location at any given time. The owner or operator shall also calculate quarterly and cumulative year-to-date NOX mass emissions and cumulative NOX mass emissions for the ozone season (in tons) by summing the hourly NOX mass emissions according to the procedures in section 8 of appendix F to this part.
      (a) Unit utilizing common stack with other affected unit(s).
         When an affected unit utilizes a common stack with one or more affected units, but no nonaffected units, the owner or operator shall either:
            (1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system and a flow monitoring system in the common stack, record the combined NOX mass emissions for the units exhausting to the common stack, and, for purposes of determining the hourly unit heat input rates, either:
               (i) Apportion the common stack heat input rate to the individual units according to the procedures in § 75.16(e)(3); or
               (ii) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system and diluent monitor in the duct to the common stack from each unit; or
               (iii) If any of the units using the common stack are eligible to use the procedures in appendix D to this part,
                  (A) Use the procedures in appendix D to this part to determine heat input rate for that unit; and
                  (B) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system and a diluent monitor in the duct to the common stack for each remaining unit; or
            (2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system in the duct to the common stack from each unit and, for purposes of heat input determination, either:
               (i) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct to the common stack from each unit; or
               (ii) For any unit using the common stack and eligible to use the procedures in appendix D to this part,
                  (A) Use the procedures in appendix D to determine heat input rate for that unit; and
                  (B) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct to the common stack for each remaining unit.
      (b) Unit utilizing common stack with nonaffected unit(s).
         When one or more affected units utilizes a common stack with one or more nonaffected units, the owner or operator shall either:
            (1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system in the duct to the common stack from each affected unit and, for purposes of heat input determination,
               (i) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct to the common stack from each affected unit; or
               (ii) For any affected unit using the common stack and eligible to use the procedures in appendix D to this part,
                  (A) Use the procedures in appendix D to determine heat input for that unit; however, for a common pipe configuration, the heat input apportionment provisions in section 2.1.2 of appendix D to this part shall not be used to meet the NOX mass reporting provisions of this subpart unless all of the units served by the common pipe are affected units and have similar efficiencies; and
                  (B) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct to the common stack for each remaining affected unit that exhausts to the common stack; or
            (2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system in the common stack; and
               (i) Designate the nonaffected units as affected units in accordance with the applicable State or federal NOX mass emissions reduction program and meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
               (ii) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the common stack and a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system in the duct to the common stack from each nonaffected unit. The designated representative shall submit a petition to the permitting authority and the Administrator to allow a method of calculating and reporting the NOX mass emissions from the affected units as the difference between NOX mass emissions measured in the common stack and NOX mass emissions measured in the ducts of the nonaffected units, not to be reported as an hourly value less than zero. The permitting authority and the Administrator may approve such a method whenever the designated representative demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the permitting authority and the Administrator, that the method ensures that the NOX mass emissions from the affected units are not underestimated. In addition, the owner or operator shall also either:
                  (A) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct from each nonaffected unit or,
                  (B) For any nonaffected unit exhausting to the common stack and otherwise eligible to use the procedures in appendix D to this part, determine heat input rate using the procedures in appendix D for that unit. However, for a common pipe serving both affected and non-affected units, the heat input rate apportionment provisions in section 2.1.2 of appendix D to this part shall not be used to meet the NOX mass reporting provisions of this subpart. For any remaining nonaffected unit that exhausts to the common stack, install, certify, operate, and maintain a flow monitoring system in the duct to the common stack; or
               (iii) Install a flow monitoring system in the common stack and record the combined emissions from all units as the combined NOX mass emissions for the affected units for recordkeeping and compliance purposes, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section; or
               (iv) Submit a petition to the permitting authority and the Administrator to allow use of a method for apportioning NOX mass emissions measured in the common stack to each of the units using the common stack and for reporting the NOX mass emissions. The permitting authority and the Administrator may approve such a method whenever the designated representative demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the permitting authority and the Administrator, that the method ensures that the NOX mass emissions from the affected units are not underestimated.
      (c) Unit with a main stack and a bypass stack.
         Whenever any portion of the flue gases from an affected unit can be routed through a bypass stack to avoid the installed NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system or NOX concentration monitoring system, the owner and operator shall either:
            (1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain separate NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring systems and flow monitoring systems on the main stack and the bypass stack and calculate NOX mass emissions for the unit as the sum of the NOX mass emissions measured at the two stacks;
            (2) Monitor NOX mass emissions at the main stack using a NOX-diluent CEMS and a flow monitoring system and measure NOX mass emissions at the bypass stack using the reference methods in § 75.22(b) for NOX concentration, flow rate, and diluent gas concentration, or NOX concentration and flow rate, and calculate NOX mass emissions for the unit as the sum of the emissions recorded by the installed monitoring systems on the main stack and the emissions measured by the reference method monitoring systems; or
            (3) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent CEMS and a flow monitoring system only on the main stack. If this option is chosen, it is not necessary to designate the exhaust configuration as a multiple stack configuration in the monitoring plan required under § 75.53, since only the main stack is monitored. For each unit operating hour in which the bypass stack is used and the emissions are either uncontrolled (or the add-on controls are not documented to be operating properly), report NOX mass emissions as follows. If the unit heat input is determined using a flow monitor and a diluent monitor, report NOX mass emissions using the maximum potential NOX emission rate, the maximum potential flow rate, and either the maximum potential CO2 concentration or the minimum potential O2 concentration (as applicable). The maximum potential NOX emission rate may be specific to the type of fuel combusted in the unit during the bypass (see § 75.33(c)(8)). If the unit heat input is determined using a fuel flowmeter, in accordance with appendix D to this part, report NOX mass emissions as the product of the maximum potential NOX emission rate and the actual measured hourly heat input rate. Alternatively, for a unit with NOX add-on emission controls, for each unit operating hour in which the bypass stack is used but the add-on NOX emission controls are not bypassed, the owner or operator may report the maximum controlled NOX emission rate (MCR) instead of the maximum potential NOX emission rate provided that the add-on controls are documented to be operating properly, as described in the quality assurance/quality control program for the unit, required by section 1 in appendix B to this part. To provide the necessary documentation, the owner or operator shall record parametric data to verify the proper operation of the NOX add-on emission controls as described in § 75.34(d). Furthermore, the owner or operator shall calculate the MCR using the procedure described in section <IP_ADDRESS>(b) of appendix A to this part by replacing the words "maximum potential NOX emission rate (MER)" with the words "maximum controlled NOX emission rate (MCR)" and by using the NOX MEC in the calculations instead of the NOX MPC.
      (d) Unit with multiple stack or duct configuration.
         When the flue gases from an affected unit discharge to the atmosphere through more than one stack, or when the flue gases from an affected unit utilize two or more ducts feeding into a single stack and the owner or operator chooses to monitor in the ducts rather than in the stack, the owner or operator shall either:
            (1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emission monitoring system and a flow monitoring system in each of the multiple stacks and determine NOX mass emissions from the affected unit as the sum of the NOX mass emissions recorded for each stack. If another unit also exhausts flue gases into one of the monitored stacks, the owner or operator shall comply with the applicable requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, in order to properly determine the NOX mass emissions from the units using that stack;
            (2) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system and a flow monitoring system in each of the ducts that feed into the stack, and determine NOX mass emissions from the affected unit using the sum of the NOX mass emissions measured at each duct; or
            (3) If the unit is eligible to use the procedures in appendix D to this part and if the conditions and restrictions of § 75.17(c)(2) are fully met, install, certify, operate, and maintain a NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system in one of the ducts feeding into the stack or in one of the multiple stacks, (as applicable) in accordance with § 75.17(c)(2), and use the procedures in appendix D to this part to determine heat input rate for the unit.
      (e) Units using a NOX concentration monitoring system and a flow monitoring system to determine NOX mass.
         The owner or operator may use a NOX concentration monitoring system and a flow monitoring system to determine NOX mass emissions for the cases described in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section and in paragraph (d)(1) or paragraph (d)(2) of this section (in place of a NOX-diluent continuous emissions monitoring system and a flow monitoring system). However, this option may not be used for the case described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. When using this approach, calculate NOX mass according to sections 8.2 and 8.3 in appendix F to this part. In addition, if an applicable State or federal NOX mass reduction program requires determination of a unit's heat input, the owner or operator must either:
            (1) Install, certify, operate, and maintain a CO2 or O2 diluent monitor in the same location as each flow monitoring system. In addition, the owner or operator must provide heat input rate values for each unit utilizing a common stack. The owner or operator may either:
               (i) Apportion heat input rate from the common stack to each unit according to § 75.16(e)(3), where all units utilizing the common stack are affected units, or
               (ii) Measure heat input rate to each affected unit, using a flow monitor and a CO2 or O2 diluent monitor in the duct from each affected unit; or
            (2) For units that are eligible to use appendix D to this part, use the procedures in appendix D to this part to determine heat input rate for the unit. However, the use of a fuel flowmeter in a common pipe header and the provisions of sections <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of appendix D to this part are not applicable to any unit that is using the provisions of this subpart to monitor, record, and report NOX mass emissions under a State or federal NOX mass emission reduction program and that shares a common pipe with a nonaffected unit.
      (f) Procedures for apportioning hourly NOX mass emission rate to the unit level.
         If the owner or operator of a unit determining hourly NOX mass emission rate at a common stack under this section is subject to a State or federal NOX mass emissions reduction program under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter or under a state implementation plan approved pursuant to § 52.38(b)(12) of this chapter, then on and after January 1, 2024, solely for purposes of such program, the owner or operator shall apportion the hourly NOX mass emission rate at the common stack to each unit using the common stack based on the ratio of the hourly heat input rate for each such unit to the total hourly heat input rate for all such units, in conjunction with the appropriate unit and stack operating times, according to the procedures in section 8.5.3 of appendix F to this part.
      (g) Procedures for apportioning heat input to the unit level.
         If the owner or operator of a unit using the common stack monitoring provisions in paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section does not monitor and record heat input at the unit level and the owner or operator is required to do so under an applicable State or federal NOX mass emission reduction program, apportion heat input from the common stack to each unit according to § 75.16(e)(3).
§ 75.73 Recordkeeping and reporting.
   (a) General recordkeeping provisions.
      The owner or operator of any affected unit shall maintain for each affected unit and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii) a file of all measurements, data, reports, and other information required by this part at the source in a form suitable for inspection for at least three (3) years from the date of each record. Except for the certification data required in § 75.57(a)(4) and the initial submission of the monitoring plan required in § 75.57(a)(5), the data shall be collected beginning with the earlier of the date of provisional certification or the compliance deadline in § 75.70(b). The certification data required in § 75.57(a)(4) shall be collected beginning with the date of the first certification test performed. The file shall contain the following information:
         (1) THE INFORMATION REQUIRED IN §§ 75.57(a)(2), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), (b), (c)(2), (d), (g), and (h).
         (2) The information required in §§ 75.58(b)(2) or (b)(3) (for units with add-on NOX emission controls), as applicable, (d) (as applicable for units using Appendix E to this part), and (f) (as applicable for units using the low mass emissions unit provisions of § 75.19).
         (3) For each hour when the unit is operating, NOX mass emission rate, calculated in accordance with section 8 of appendix F to this part.
         (4) During the second and third calendar quarters, cumulative ozone season heat input and cumulative ozone season operating hours.
         (5) Heat input and NOX methodologies for the hour.
         (6) Specific heat input record provisions for gas-fired or oil-fired units using the procedures in appendix D to this part.
            In lieu of the information required in § 75.57(c)(2), the owner or operator shall record the information in § 75.58(c) for each affected gas-fired or oil-fired unit and each non-affected gas- or oil-fired unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii) for which the owner or operator is using the procedures in appendix D to this part for estimating heat input.
         (7) Specific NOX record provisions for gas-fired or oil-fired units using the optional low mass emissions excepted methodology in § 75.19.
            In lieu of recording the information in §§ 75.57(b), (c)(2), (d), and (g), the owner or operator shall record, for each hour when the unit is operating for any portion of the hour, the following information for each affected low mass emissions unit for which the owner or operator is using the low mass emissions excepted methodology in § 75.19(c):
               (i) Date and hour;
               (ii) If one type of fuel is combusted in the hour, fuel type (pipeline natural gas, natural gas, residual oil, or diesel fuel) or, if more than one type of fuel is combusted in the hour, the fuel type which results in the highest emission factors for NOX;
               (iii) Average hourly NOX emission rate (in lb/mmBtu, rounded to the nearest thousandth); and
               (iv) Hourly NOX mass emissions (in lbs, rounded to the nearest tenth).
         (8) Formulas from monitoring plan for total NOX mass.
   (b) Certification, quality assurance and quality control record provisions.
      The owner or operator of any affected unit shall record the applicable information in § 75.59 for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii).
   (c) Monitoring plan recordkeeping provisions -
      (1) General provisions.
         The owner or operator of an affected unit shall prepare and maintain a monitoring plan for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii). Except as provided in paragraph (d) or (f) of this section, a monitoring plan shall contain sufficient information on the continuous emission monitoring systems, excepted methodology under § 75.19, or excepted monitoring systems under appendix D or E to this part and the use of data derived from these systems to demonstrate that all the unit's NOX emissions are monitored and reported.
      (2) Monitoring plan updates.
         Whenever the owner or operator makes a replacement, modification, or change in the certified continuous emission monitoring system, excepted methodology under § 75.19, excepted monitoring system under appendix D or E to this part, or alternative monitoring system under subpart E of this part, including a change in the automated data acquisition and handling system or in the flue gas handling system, that affects information reported in the monitoring plan (e.g., a change to a serial number for a component of a monitoring system), then the owner or operator shall update the monitoring plan.
      (3) Contents of the monitoring plan.
         Each monitoring plan shall contain the information in § 75.53(g)(1) in electronic format and the information in § 75.53(g)(2) in hardcopy format. In addition, to the extent applicable, each monitoring plan shall contain the information in § 75.53(h)(1)(i) and (h)(2)(i) in electronic format and the information in § 75.53(h)(1)(ii) and (h)(2)(ii) in hardcopy format. For units using the low mass emissions excepted methodology under § 75.19, the monitoring plan shall include the additional information in § 75.53(h)(4)(i) and (h)(4)(ii). The monitoring plan also shall include a seasonal controls indicator and an ozone season fuel-switching flag.
   (d) General reporting provisions.
      (1) The designated representative for an affected unit shall comply with all reporting requirements in this section and with any additional requirements set forth in an applicable State or federal NOX mass emission reduction program that adopts the requirements of this subpart.
      (2) The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit the following for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii):
         (i) Initial certification and recertification applications in accordance with § 75.70(d);
         (ii) Monitoring plans in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section; and
         (iii) Quarterly reports in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section.
      (3) Other petitions and communications.
         The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit petitions, correspondence, application forms, and petition-related test results in accordance with the provisions in § 75.70(h).
      (4) Quality assurance RATA reports.
         If requested by the permitting authority, the designated representative of an affected unit shall submit the quality assurance RATA report for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii) by the later of 45 days after completing a quality assurance RATA according to section 2.3 of appendix B to this part or 15 days of receiving the request. The designated representative shall report the hardcopy information required by § 75.59(a)(9) to the permitting authority.
      (5) Notifications.
         The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit written notice to the permitting authority according to the provisions in § 75.61 for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii).
      (6) Routine appendix E retest reports.
         If requested by the applicable EPA Regional Office, appropriate State, and/or appropriate local air pollution control agency, the designated representative shall submit a hardcopy report within 45 days after completing a required periodic retest according to section 2.2 of appendix E to this part, or within 15 days of receiving the request, whichever is later. The designated representative shall report the hardcopy information required by § 75.59(b)(5) to the applicable EPA Regional Office, appropriate State, and/or appropriate local air pollution control agency that requested the hardcopy report.
   (e) Monitoring plan reporting -
      (1) Electronic submission.
         The designated representative for an affected unit shall submit to the Administrator a complete, electronic, up-to-date monitoring plan file for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii), no later than 21 days prior to the initial certification test; at the time of a certification or recertification application submission; and whenever an update of the electronic monitoring plan is required, either under § 75.53 or elsewhere in this part.
      (2) Hardcopy submission.
         The designated representative of an affected unit shall submit all of the hardcopy information required under § 75.53, for each affected unit or group of units monitored at a common stack and each non-affected unit under § 75.72(b)(2)(ii), to the permitting authority prior to initial certification. Thereafter, the designated representative shall submit hardcopy information only if that portion of the monitoring plan is revised. The designated representative shall submit the required hardcopy information as follows: no later than 21 days prior to the initial certification test; with any certification or recertification application, if a hardcopy monitoring plan change is associated with the recertification event; and within 30 days of any other event with which a hardcopy monitoring plan change is associated, pursuant to § 75.53(b). Electronic submittal of all monitoring plan information, including hardcopy portions, is permissible provided that a paper copy of the hardcopy portions can be furnished upon request.
   (f) Quarterly reports -
      (1) Electronic submission.
         The designated representative for an affected unit shall electronically report the data and information in this paragraph (f)(1) and in paragraphs (f)(2) and (3) of this section to the Administrator quarterly, unless the unit has been placed in long-term cold storage (as defined in § 72.2 of this chapter). Each electronic report must be submitted to the Administrator within 30 days following the end of each calendar quarter. Each electronic report shall include the information provided in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (x) of this section and shall also include the date of report generation. A unit placed into long-term cold storage is exempted from submitting quarterly reports beginning with the calendar quarter following the quarter in which the unit is placed into long-term cold storage, provided that the owner or operator shall submit quarterly reports for the unit beginning with the data from the quarter in which the unit recommences operation (where the initial quarterly report contains hourly data beginning with the first hour of recommenced operation of the unit).
            (i) Facility information:
               (A) Identification, including:
                  (1) Facility/ORISPL number;
                  (2) Calendar quarter and year data contained in the report; and
                  (3) Electronic data reporting format version used for the report.
               (B) [Reserved]

            (ii) The information and hourly data required in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, except for:
               (A) Descriptions of adjustments, corrective action, and maintenance;
               (B) Information which is incompatible with electronic reporting (e.g., field data sheets, lab analyses, quality control plan);
               (C) For units with NOX add-on emission controls that do not elect to use the approved site-specific parametric monitoring procedures for calculation of substitute data, the information in § 75.58(b)(3);
               (D) Information required by § 75.57(h) concerning the causes of any missing data periods and the actions taken to cure such causes;
               (E) Hardcopy monitoring plan information required by § 75.53 and hardcopy test data and results required by § 75.59;
               (F) Records of flow polynomial equations and numerical values required by § 75.59(a)(5)(vi);
               (G) Daily fuel sampling information required by § 75.58(c)(3)(i) for units using assumed values under appendix D to this part;
               (H) Information required by § 75.59(b)(2) concerning transmitter or transducer accuracy tests;
               (I) Stratification test results required as part of the RATA supplementary records under § 75.59(a)(7);
               (J) Data and results of RATAs that are aborted or invalidated due to problems with the reference method or operational problems with the unit and data and results of linearity checks that are aborted or invalidated due to operational problems with the unit; and
               (K) Supplementary RATA information required under § 75.59(a)(7), except that:
                  (1) The applicable data elements under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (M) shall be reported for flow RATAs at circular or rectangular stacks (or ducts) in which angular compensation for yaw and/or pitch angles is used (i.e., Method 2F or 2G in appendices A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter), with or without wall effects adjustments;
                  (2) The applicable data elements under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(A) through (T) and under § 75.59(a)(7)(iii)(A) through (M) shall be reported for any flow RATA run at a circular stack in which Method 2 in appendices A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter is used and a wall effects adjustment factor is determined by direct measurement;
                  (3) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ii)(T) shall be reported for all flow RATAs at circular stacks in which Method 2 in appendices A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter is used and a default wall effects adjustment factor is applied; and
                  (4) The data under § 75.59(a)(7)(ix)(A) through (F) shall be reported for all flow RATAs at rectangular stacks or ducts in which Method 2 in appendices A-1 and A-2 to part 60 of this chapter is used and a wall effects adjustment factor is applied.
            (iii) Average NOX emission rate (lb/mmBtu, rounded to the nearest thousandth) during the quarter and cumulative NOX emission rate for the calendar year.
            (iv) Tons of NOX emitted during quarter, cumulative tons of NOX emitted during the year, and, during the second and third calendar quarters, cumulative tons of NOX emitted during the ozone season.
            (v) During the second and third calendar quarters, cumulative heat input for the ozone season.
            (vi) Unit or stack or common pipe header operating hours for quarter, cumulative unit, stack or common pipe header operating hours for calendar year, and, during the second and third calendar quarters, cumulative operating hours during the ozone season.
            (vii) Reporting period heat input.
            (viii) New reporting frequency and begin date of the new reporting frequency (if applicable).
            (ix) Starting on January 1, 2024, for a unit subject to subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter or a state implementation plan approved under § 52.38(b)(12) of this chapter and determining NOX mass emission rate at a common stack, apportioned hourly NOX mass emission rate for the unit, lb/hr.
            (x) Starting on January 1, 2024, for a unit subject to a backstop daily NOX emissions rate under subpart GGGGG of part 97 of this chapter or under a state implementation plan approved under § 52.38(b)(12) of this chapter:
               (A) Daily NOX emissions (lbs) for each day of the reporting period;
               (B) Daily heat input (mmBtu) for each day of the reporting period;
               (C) Daily average NOX emissions rate (lb/mmBtu, rounded to the nearest thousandth) for each day of the reporting period;
               (D) Daily NOX emissions (lbs) exceeding the applicable backstop daily NOX emissions rate for each day of the reporting period; and
               (E) Cumulative NOX emissions (tons, rounded to the nearest tenth) exceeding the applicable backstop daily NOX emissions rate during the ozone season.
      (2) Verification of identification codes and formulas.
         The designated representative shall certify that the component and system identification codes and formulas in the quarterly electronic reports submitted to the Administrator pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section represent current operating conditions.
      (3) Compliance certification.
         The designated representative shall submit and sign a compliance certification in support of each quarterly emissions monitoring report based on reasonable inquiry of those persons with primary responsibility for ensuring that all of the unit's emissions are correctly and fully monitored. The certification shall state that:
            (i) The monitoring data submitted were recorded in accordance with the applicable requirements of this part, including the quality assurance procedures and specifications; and
            (ii) With regard to a unit with add-on emission controls and for all hours where data are substituted in accordance with § 75.34(a)(1), the add-on emission controls were operating within the range of parameters listed in the monitoring plan and the substitute values do not systematically underestimate NOX emissions.
      (4) Electronic format, method of submission, and explanatory information.
         The designated representative shall comply with all of the quarterly reporting requirements in § 75.64(d), (f), and (g).
§ 75.75 Additional ozone season calculation procedures.
   (a) The owner or operator of a unit that is required to calculate daily or ozone season heat input shall do so by summing the unit's hourly heat input determined according to the procedures in this part for all hours in which the unit operated during the day or ozone season.
   (b) The owner or operator of a unit that is required to determine daily or ozone season NOX emission rate (in lbs/mmBtu) shall do so by dividing daily or ozone season NOX mass emissions (in lbs) determined in accordance with this subpart, by daily or ozone season heat input determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11567-11568]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-46-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on February 3, 2017, Southern Natural Gas Company,
L.L.C. (SNG), filed in Docket No. CP17-46-000 an application pursuant
to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) requesting authorization
to construct and operate its Fairburn Expansion Project to add 343,164
dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to its existing
pipeline system. Specifically, SNG proposes to: (i) Construct a new
4.9-mile, 30-inch-diameter pipeline that will interconnect with the
existing Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company pipeline in Fayette
County, Georgia; (ii) construct a 1.6-mile, 30-inch-diameter extension
of the South Main Line System in Monroe County, Georgia; (iii) acquire
an existing 19.7-mile, 30-inch-diameter pipeline lateral in Cobb and
Fulton Counties, Georgia; (iv) install 18,000 horsepower of compression
at a new compressor station in Fulton County, Georgia; (v) construct
three new meter stations in Fayette, Fulton, and Cobb Counties,
Georgia; and (vi) modify two existing meter stations in Fulton and
Clayton Counties, Georgia. SNG estimates the cost of the project to be
approximately $240 million, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    All questions should be directed to Brooks Henderson, Director,
Rates & Regulatory Affairs, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., 569
Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209, by phone (205)
325-3843 or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the

proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the
proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: March 10, 2017.

    Dated: February 17, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03591 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P