[Federal Register: March 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 54)]
[Notices]
[Page 13647-13653]
[DOCID:fr22mr10-136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0322]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 53 individuals
for exemptions from the prohibition against 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 April 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0322 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 acknowledgement 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 53
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

Deanna R. Alvarado

    Ms. Alvarado, age 48, has had ITDM since 2002. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2009 and certified that she 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 her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Alvarado meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
ophthalmologist examined her in 2009 and certified that she does not
have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) from Arizona.

Howard H. Armstrong

    Mr. Armstrong, 45, has had ITDM since 1969. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Armstrong 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
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from California.

Samuel D. Bentle

    Mr. Bentle, age 56, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Bentle 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.

Mark S. Boettcher

    Mr. Boettcher, 53, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boettcher 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 Minnesota.

Steven C. Boudreau

    Mr. Boudreau, 53, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boudreau 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 Massachusetts.

Charles Boulware, Jr.

    Mr. Boulware, 34, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Boulware 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 Washington, DC.

Roy L. Brokaw

    Mr. Brokaw, 68, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brokaw 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 Wisconsin.

Chris D. Chambers

    Mr. Chambers, 54, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Chambers 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 chauffeur's license from
Louisiana.

Charles A. Cinert, Sr.

    Mr. Cinert, 61, has had ITDM since 1998. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cinert 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.

John D. Clark, IV

    Mr. Clark, 30, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clark 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 New
Jersey.

Dale J. Cleaver

    Mr. Cleaver, 41, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cleaver 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 Pennsylvania.

James H. Collins

    Mr. Collins, 49, has had ITDM since 1986. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Collins 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 Florida.

William A. Donais

    Mr. Donais, 45, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Donais 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 Washington.

Lance L. Fuller

    Mr. Fuller, 34, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fuller 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 Minnesota.

Johnny Gardner, Jr.

    Mr. Gardner, 45, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gardner 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
South Carolina.

Gregory S. Ghent

    Mr. Ghent, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ghent 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.

Mark D. Golden

    Mr. Golden, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Golden 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 CDL from Michigan.

Nathaniel W. Gorham

    Mr. Gorham, 21, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gorham 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 Indiana.

Younge W. Hooper

    Mr. Hooper, 63, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hooper 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 Carolina.

Eugene H. Johannes

    Mr. Johannes, 65, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johannes 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 Nebraska.

Reginald K. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson 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
Maryland.

Sheldon R. Koehn

    Mr. Koehn, 32, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Koehn 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 Kansas.

David L. Kreitzer

    Mr. Kreitzer, 57, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kreitzer 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 Minnesota.

Jason R. Kropp

    Mr. Kropp, 28, has had ITDM since 2003. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kropp 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
Oklahoma.

Joseph A. Laperle

    Mr. Laperle, 62, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Laperle 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
Massachusetts.

David W. Letto

    Mr. Letto, 67, has had ITDM since 1986. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Letto 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 Wisconsin.

Robert D. Marquart

    Mr. Marquart, 56, has had ITDM since 1957. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Marquart 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
Wisconsin.

Francis E. Martinez

    Mr. Martinez, 26, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martinez 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
New Mexico.

Stephen A. Miles

    Mr. Miles, 50, has had ITDM since 1975. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Miles 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
proliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Ohio.

Raymond A. Montoya

    Mr. Montoya, 60, 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 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
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Mexico.

Adolfo Moreno, Jr.

    Mr. Moreno, 38, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Moreno 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
Washington.

Chad D. Morrison

    Mr. Morrison, 26, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morrison 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 Minnesota.

Kevin R. Murphy

    Mr. Murphy, 42, has had ITDM since 1978. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Murphy 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 an operator's license
from Michigan.

Kenneth S. Napieralski

    Mr. Napieralski, 57, has had ITDM since 1984. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Napieralski 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
Minnesota.

Lowell G. Neumann

    Mr. Neumann, 64, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Neumann 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 Iowa.

John T. Oliver, Jr.

    Mr. Oliver, 50, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Oliver 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 C operator's
license from Georgia.

Steven G. Petersen

    Mr. Petersen, 40, has had ITDM since 2003. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Petersen 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 Minnesota.

Edgar R. Polk

    Mr. Polk, 57, 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 using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Polk 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 Pennsylvania.

Damian J. Porter

    Mr. Porter, 37, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Porter 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 York.

Robert W. Prabucki

    Mr. Prabucki, 50, has had ITDM since 1989. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Prabucki 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 C operator's
license from Oregon.

Edward R. Ramm

    Mr. Ramm, 63, 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 using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ramm 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 B CDL from New York.

Wayne F. Richards

    Mr. Richards, 34, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Richards 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 C operator's license from
Pennsylvania.

George H. Rollins

    Mr. Rollins, 49, 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 using insulin, and is able to
drive a CMV safely. Mr. Rollins 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 New Hampshire.

Jo Ellen Roshak

    Ms. Roshak, 45, has had ITDM since 2000. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2009 and certified that she 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 her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Roshak meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
optometrist examined her in 2009 and certified that she does not have
diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio.

Gary G. Sironen

    Mr. Sironen, 66, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sironen 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 Montana.

Rodney L. Stoltenberg

    Mr. Stoltenberg, 42, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stoltenberg 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 Iowa.

David Switala

    Mr. Switala, 53, has had ITDM since 1981. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Switala 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
Colorado.

Stanley C. Tarvidas

    Mr. Tarvidas, 40, has had ITDM since 1980. 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tarvidas 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 C operator's
license from Illinois.

Jim D. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 72, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thomas 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.

Florence E. Thompson

    Ms. Thompson, 62, has had ITDM since 2008. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2009 and certified that she 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 her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Thompson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her
ophthalmologist examined her in 2009 and certified that she does not
have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey.

Joshua C. Thompson

    Mr. Thompson, 31, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Thompson 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
Arizona.

Phillip M. Vinson

    Mr. Vinson, 35, 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 using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Vinson 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 South
Carolina.

Camella C. Wilkins

    Ms. Wilkins, 26, has had ITDM since 2009. Her endocrinologist
examined her

in 2009 and certified that she 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 her diabetes using insulin,
and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Wilkins meets the requirements
of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist
examined her in 2009 and certified that she does not have diabetic
retinopathy. She holds a chauffeur's license 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: March 12, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-6230 Filed 3-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


(ii) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the HCl CPMS measurement to within the established value; and
(iii) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the HCl CPMS operating limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct additional testing for any exceedances that occur between the time of the original exceedance and the HCl emissions compliance test required under this paragraph.
(iv) HCl CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required performance tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this subpart.
(m) Parameter monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a CMS, you must install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) according to the procedures in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4) of this section by the compliance date specified in § 63.1351. You must also meet the applicable specific parameter monitoring requirements in paragraphs (m)(5) through (11) that are applicable to you.
(1) The CMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period. You must have a minimum of four successive cycles of operation to have a valid hour of data.
(2) You must conduct all monitoring in continuous operation at all times that the unit is operating.
(3) Determine the 1-hour block average of all recorded readings.
(4) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and validation check.
(5) Liquid flow rate monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(5)(i) through (iv) of this section.
(i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a position that provides a representative flow.
(ii) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of the flow rate.
(iii) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream disturbances.
(iv) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
(6) Specific pressure monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pressure measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(6)(i) through (vi) of this section.
(i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
(ii) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and external corrosion.
(iii) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 1.27 centimeters of water or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the pressure range.
(iv) Check pressure tap pluggage daily.
(v) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and transducer calibration monthly.
(vi) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a new pressure sensor.
(7) Specific pH monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of a pH measurement device, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(7)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a representative measurement of wet scrubber or tray tower effluent pH.
(ii) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the fluid to be measured.
(iii) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 hours of process operation.
(8) [Reserved]
(9) Mass flow rate (for sorbent injection) monitoring requirements. If you have an operating limit that requires the use of equipment to monitor sorbent injection rate (e.g., weigh belt, weigh hopper, or hopper flow measurement device), you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (m)(9)(i) through (iii) of this section. These requirements also apply to the sorbent injection equipment of a dry scrubber.
(i) Locate the device in a position(s) that provides a representative measurement of the total sorbent injection rate.
(ii) Install and calibrate the device in accordance with manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(iii) At least annually, calibrate the device in accordance with the manufacturer's procedures and specifications.
(10) Bag leak detection monitoring requirements. If you elect to use a fabric filter bag leak detection system to comply with the requirements of this subpart, you must install, calibrate, maintain, and continuously operate a BLDS as specified in paragraphs (m)(10)(i) through (viii) of this section.
(i) You must install and operate a BLDS for each exhaust stack of the fabric filter.
(ii) Each BLDS must be installed, operated, calibrated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations and in accordance with the guidance provided in EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997.
(iii) The BLDS must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations of 10 or fewer milligrams per actual cubic meter.
(iv) The BLDS sensor must provide output of relative or absolute PM loadings.
(v) The BLDS must be equipped with a device to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
(vi) The BLDS must be equipped with an alarm system that will alert an operator automatically when an increase in relative PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located such that the alert is detected and recognized easily by an operator.
(vii) For positive pressure fabric filter systems that do not duct all compartments of cells to a common stack, a BLDS must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
(viii) Where multiple bag leak detectors are required, the system's instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
(11) For each BLDS, the owner or operator must initiate procedures to determine the cause of every alarm within 8 hours of the alarm. The owner or operator must alleviate the cause of the alarm within 24 hours of the alarm by taking whatever corrective action(s) are necessary. Corrective actions may include, but are not limited to the following:
(i) Inspecting the fabric filter for air leaks, torn or broken bags or filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in PM emissions;
(ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media;
(iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise repairing the control device;
(iv) Sealing off a defective fabric filter compartment;
(v) Cleaning the BLDS probe or otherwise repairing the BLDS; or
(vi) Shutting down the process producing the PM emissions.
(n) Continuous Flow Rate Monitoring System. You must install, operate, calibrate, and maintain instruments, according to the requirements in paragraphs (n)(1) through (10) of this section, for continuously measuring and recording the stack gas flow rate to allow determination of the pollutant mass emissions rate to the atmosphere from sources subject to an emissions limitation that has a pounds per ton of clinker unit and that is required to be monitored by a CEMS.
(1) You must install each sensor of the flow rate monitoring system in a location that provides representative measurement of the exhaust gas flow rate at the sampling location of the mercury CEMS, taking into account the manufacturer's recommendations. The flow rate sensor is that portion of the system that senses the volumetric flow rate and generates an output proportional to that flow rate.
(2) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to measure the exhaust flow rate over a range that extends from a value of at least 20 percent less than the lowest expected exhaust flow rate to a value of at least 20 percent greater than the highest expected exhaust flow rate.
(3) [Reserved]
(4) The flow rate monitoring system must be equipped with a data acquisition and recording system that is capable of recording values over the entire range specified in paragraph (n)(2) of this section.
(5) The signal conditioner, wiring, power supply, and data acquisition and recording system for the flow rate monitoring system must be compatible with the output signal of the flow rate sensors used in the monitoring system.
(6) The flow rate monitoring system must be designed to complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for each successive 15-minute period.
(7) The flow rate sensor must have provisions to determine the daily zero and upscale calibration drift (CD) (see sections 3.1 and 8.3 of Performance Specification 2 in appendix B to Part 60 of this chapter for a discussion of CD).
(i) Conduct the CD tests at two reference signal levels, zero (e.g., 0 to 20 percent of span) and upscale (e.g., 50 to 70 percent of span).
(ii) The absolute value of the difference between the flow monitor response and the reference signal must be equal to or less than 3 percent of the flow monitor span.
(8) You must perform an initial relative accuracy test of the flow rate monitoring system according to Section 8.2 of Performance Specification 6 of appendix B to part 60 of the chapter with the exceptions in paragraphs (n)(8)(i) and (n)(8)(ii) of this section.
(i) The relative accuracy test is to evaluate the flow rate monitoring system alone rather than a continuous emission rate monitoring system.
(ii) The relative accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system shall be no greater than 10 percent of the mean value of the reference method data.
(9) You must verify the accuracy of the flow rate monitoring system at least once per year by repeating the relative accuracy test specified in paragraph (n)(8).
(10) You must operate the flow rate monitoring system and record data during all periods of operation of the affected facility including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for periods of monitoring system malfunctions, repairs associated with monitoring system malfunctions, and required monitoring system quality assurance or quality control activities (including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments).
(o) Alternate monitoring requirements approval. You may submit an application to the Administrator for approval of alternate monitoring requirements to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart subject to the provisions of paragraphs (o)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) The Administrator will not approve averaging periods other than those specified in this section, unless you document, using data or information, that the longer averaging period will ensure that emissions do not exceed levels achieved during the performance test over any increment of time equivalent to the time required to conduct three runs of the performance test.
(2) If the application to use an alternate monitoring requirement is approved, you must continue to use the original monitoring requirement until approval is received to use another monitoring requirement.
(3) You must submit the application for approval of alternate monitoring requirements no later than the notification of performance test. The application must contain the information specified in paragraphs (o)(3)(i) through (iii) of this section:
(i) Data or information justifying the request, such as the technical or economic infeasibility, or the impracticality of using the required approach;
(ii) A description of the proposed alternative monitoring requirement, including the operating parameter to be monitored, the monitoring approach and technique, the averaging period for the limit, and how the limit is to be calculated; and
(iii) Data or information documenting that the alternative monitoring requirement would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard.
(4) The Administrator will notify you of the approval or denial of the application within 90 calendar days after receipt of the original request, or within 60 calendar days of the receipt of any supplementary information, whichever is later. The Administrator will not approve an alternate monitoring application unless it would provide equivalent or better assurance of compliance with the relevant emission standard. Before disapproving any alternate monitoring application, the Administrator will provide:
(i) Notice of the information and findings upon which the intended disapproval is based; and
(ii) Notice of opportunity for you to present additional supporting information before final action is taken on the application. This notice will specify how much additional time is allowed for you to provide additional supporting information.
(5) You are responsible for submitting any supporting information in a timely manner to enable the Administrator to consider the application prior to the performance test. Neither submittal of an application, nor the Administrator's failure to approve or disapprove the application relieves you of the responsibility to comply with any provision of this subpart.
(6) The Administrator may decide at any time, on a case-by-case basis that additional or alternative operating limits, or alternative approaches to establishing operating limits, are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the emission standards of this subpart.
(p) Development and submittal (upon request) of monitoring plans. If you demonstrate compliance with any applicable emissions limit through performance stack testing or other emissions monitoring, you must develop a site-specific monitoring plan according to the requirements in paragraphs (p)(1) through (4) of this section. This requirement also applies to you if you petition the EPA Administrator for alternative monitoring parameters under paragraph (o) of this section and § 63.8(f). If you use a BLDS, you must also meet the requirements specified in paragraph (p)(5) of this section.
(1) For each CMS required in this section, you must develop, and submit to the permitting authority for approval upon request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses paragraphs (p)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. You must submit this site-specific monitoring plan, if requested, at least 30 days before your initial performance evaluation of your CMS.
(i) Installation of the CMS sampling probe or other interface at a measurement location relative to each affected process unit such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
(ii) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, and the data collection and reduction systems; and
(iii) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria (e.g., calibrations).
(2) In your site-specific monitoring plan, you must also address paragraphs (p)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(c)(1), (c)(3), and (c)(4)(ii);
(ii) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.8(d); and
(iii) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), (e)(1), and (e)(2)(i).
(3) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CMS in accordance with your site-specific monitoring plan.
(4) You must operate and maintain the CMS in continuous operation according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
(5) BLDS monitoring plan. Each monitoring plan must describe the items in paragraphs (p)(5)(i) through (v) of this section. At a minimum, you must retain records related to the site-specific monitoring plan and information discussed in paragraphs (m)(1) through (4), (m)(10) and (11) of this section for a period of 5 years, with at least the first 2 years on-site;
(i) Installation of the BLDS;
(ii) Initial and periodic adjustment of the BLDS, including how the alarm set-point will be established;
(iii) Operation of the BLDS, including quality assurance procedures;
(iv) How the BLDS will be maintained, including a routine maintenance schedule and spare parts inventory list;
(v) How the BLDS output will be recorded and stored.
§ 63.1351   Compliance dates.
(a) The compliance date for any affected existing source subject to any rule requirements that were in effect before December 20, 2006, is:
(1) June 14, 2002, for sources that commenced construction before or on March 24, 1998, or
(2) June 14, 1999 or startup for sources that commenced construction after March 24, 1998.
(b) The compliance date for any affected existing source subject to any rule requirements that became effective on December 20, 2006, is:
(1) December 21, 2009, for sources that commenced construction after December 2, 2005 and before or on December 20, 2006, or
(2) Startup for sources that commenced construction after December 20, 2006.
(c) The compliance date for existing sources for all the requirements that became effective on February 12, 2013, except for the open clinker pile requirements will be September 9, 2015.
(d) The compliance date for new sources is February 12, 2013, or startup, whichever is later.
(e) The compliance date for existing sources with the requirements for open clinker storage piles in § 63.1343(c) is February 12, 2014.
§ 63.1352   Additional test methods.
(a) If you are conducting tests to determine the rates of emission of HCl from kilns and associated bypass stacks at portland cement manufacturing facilities, for use in applicability determinations under § 63.1340, you may use Method 320 or Method 321 of appendix A of this part.
(b) Owners or operators conducting tests to determine the rates of emission of specific organic HAP from raw material dryers, and kilns at Portland cement manufacturing facilities, solely for use in applicability determinations under § 63.1340 of this subpart are permitted to use Method 320 of appendix A to this part, or Method 18 of appendix A to part 60 of this chapter.
Notification, Reporting and Recordkeeping
§ 63.1353   Notification requirements.
(a) The notification provisions of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A that apply and those that do not apply to owners and operators of affected sources subject to this subpart are listed in Table 1 of this subpart. If any State requires a notice that contains all of the information required in a notification listed in this section, the owner or operator may send the Administrator a copy of the notice sent to the State to satisfy the requirements of this section for that notification.
(b) Each owner or operator subject to the requirements of this subpart shall comply with the notification requirements in § 63.9 as follows:
(1) Initial notifications as required by § 63.9(b) through (d). For the purposes of this subpart, a Title V or 40 CFR part 70 permit application may be used in lieu of the initial notification required under § 63.9(b), provided the same information is contained in the permit application as required by § 63.9(b), and the State to which the permit application has been submitted has an approved operating permit program under part 70 of this chapter and has received delegation of authority from the EPA. Permit applications shall be submitted by the same due dates as those specified for the initial notification.
(2) Notification of performance tests, as required by §§ 63.7 and 63.9(e).
(3) Notification of opacity and visible emission observations required by § 63.1349 in accordance with §§ 63.6(h)(5) and 63.9(f).
(4) Notification, as required by § 63.9(g), of the date that the continuous emission monitor performance evaluation required by § 63.8(e) is scheduled to begin.
(5) Notification of compliance status, as required by § 63.9(h).
(6) Within 48 hours of an exceedance that triggers retesting to establish compliance and new operating limits, notify the appropriate permitting agency of the planned performance tests. The notification requirements of §§ 63.7(b) and 63.9(e) do not apply to retesting required for exceedances under this subpart.
§ 63.1354   Reporting requirements.
(a) The reporting provisions of subpart A of this part that apply and those that do not apply to owners or operators of affected sources subject to this subpart are listed in Table 1 of this subpart. If any State requires a report that contains all of the information required in a report listed in this section, the owner or operator may send the Administrator a copy of the report sent to the State to satisfy the requirements of this section for that report.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected source shall comply with the reporting requirements specified in § 63.10 of the general provisions of this part 63, subpart A as follows:
(1) As required by § 63.10(d)(2), the owner or operator shall report the results of performance tests as part of the notification of compliance status.
(2) As required by § 63.10(d)(3), the owner or operator of an affected source shall report the opacity results from tests required by § 63.1349.
(3) As required by § 63.10(d)(4), the owner or operator of an affected source who is required to submit progress reports as a condition of receiving an extension of compliance under § 63.6(i) shall submit such reports by the dates specified in the written extension of compliance.
(4)-(5) [Reserved]
(6) As required by § 63.10(e)(2), the owner or operator shall submit a written report of the results of the performance evaluation for the continuous monitoring system required by § 63.8(e). The owner or operator shall submit the report simultaneously with the results of the performance test.
(7) As required by § 63.10(e)(2), the owner or operator of an affected source using a continuous opacity monitoring system to determine opacity compliance during any performance test required under § 63.7 and described in § 63.6(d)(6) shall report the results of the continuous opacity monitoring system performance evaluation conducted under § 63.8(e).
(8) As required by § 63.10(e)(3), the owner or operator of an affected source equipped with a continuous emission monitor shall submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report for any event when the continuous monitoring system data indicate the source is not in compliance with the applicable emission limitation or operating parameter limit.
(9) The owner or operator shall submit a summary report semiannually within 60 days of the reporting period to the EPA via the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI). (CEDRI can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (www.epa.gov/cdx).) You must use the appropriate electronic report in CEDRI for this subpart. Instead of using the electronic report in CEDRI for this subpart, you may submit an alternate electronic file consistent with the extensible markup language (XML) schema listed on the CEDRI Web site (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri), once the XML schema is available. If the reporting form specific to this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is due, you must submit the report the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. You must begin submitting reports via CEDRI no later than 90 days after the form becomes available in CEDRI. The excess emissions and summary reports must be submitted no later than 60 days after the end of the reporting period, regardless of the method in which the reports are submitted. The report must contain the information specified in § 63.10(e)(3)(vi). In addition, the summary report shall include:
(i) All exceedances of maximum control device inlet gas temperature limits specified in § 63.1346(a) and (b);
(ii) Notification of any failure to calibrate thermocouples and other temperature sensors as required under § 63.1350(g)(1)(iii) of this subpart; and
(iii) Notification of any failure to maintain the activated carbon injection rate, and the activated carbon injection carrier gas flow rate or pressure drop, as applicable, as required under § 63.1346(c)(2).
(iv) Notification of failure to conduct any combustion system component inspections conducted within the reporting period as required under § 63.1347(a)(3).
(v) Any and all failures to comply with any provision of the operation and maintenance plan developed in accordance with § 63.1347(a).
(vi) For each PM CPMS, HCl, Hg, and THC CEMS, SO2 CEMS, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring system, within 60 days after the reporting periods, you must report all of the calculated 30-operating day rolling average values derived from the CPMS, CEMS, CMS, or Hg sorbent trap monitoring systems.
(vii) In response to each violation of an emissions standard or established operating parameter limit, the date, duration and description of each violation and the specific actions taken for each violation including inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results of those actions.

(10) If the total continuous monitoring system downtime for any CEM or any CMS for the reporting period is 10 percent or greater of the total operating time for the reporting period, the owner or operator shall submit an excess emissions and continuous monitoring system performance report along with the summary report.
      (11)(i) You must submit the information specified in paragraphs (b)(11)(i)(A) and (B) of this section no later than 60 days following the initial performance test. All reports must be signed by a responsible official.
      (A) The initial performance test data as recorded under § 63.1349(a) of this section.
      (B) The values for the site-specific operating limits or parameters established pursuant to § 63.1349 (b)(1), (3), (6), (7), and (8), as applicable, and a description, including sample calculations, of how the operating parameters were established during the initial performance test.
(C) As of December 31, 2011, and within 60 days after the date of completing each performance evaluation or test, as defined in § 63.2, conducted to demonstrate compliance with any standard covered by this subpart, you must submit the relative accuracy test audit data and performance test data, except opacity data, to the EPA by successfully submitting the data electronically via CEDRI and by using the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert). For any performance evaluations with no corresponding RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web site, you must submit the results of the performance evaluation to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13.
(ii) For PM performance test reports used to set a PM CPMS operating limit, the electronic submission of the test report must also include the make and model of the PM CPMS instrument, serial number of the instrument, analytical principle of the instrument (e.g. beta attenuation), span of the instruments primary analytical range, milliamp value equivalent to the instrument zero output, technique by which this zero value was determined, and the average milliamp signals corresponding to each PM compliance test run.
      (12) All reports required by this subpart not subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(9) introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of this section must be sent to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in § 63.13. The Administrator or the delegated authority may request a report in any form suitable for the specific case (e.g., by commonly used electronic media such as Excel spreadsheet, on CD or hard copy). The Administrator retains the right to require submittal of reports subject to paragraph (b)(9) introductory text and (b)(11)(i) of this section in paper format.
(c) Reporting a failure to meet a standard due to a malfunction. For each failure to meet a standard or emissions limit caused by a malfunction at an affected source, you must report the failure in the semi-annual compliance report required by § 63.1354(b)(9). The report must contain the date, time and duration, and the cause of each event (including unknown cause, if applicable), and a sum of the number of events in the reporting period. The report must list for each event the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the amount of each regulated pollutant emitted over the emission limit for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions. The report must also include a description of actions taken by an owner or operator during a malfunction of an affected source to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.1348(d), including actions taken to correct a malfunction.
§ 63.1355   Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator shall maintain files of all information (including all reports and notifications) required by this section recorded in a form suitable and readily available for inspection and review as required by § 63.10(b)(1). The files shall be retained for at least five years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective action, report, or record. At a minimum, the most recent two years of data shall be retained on site. The remaining three years of data may be retained off site. The files may be maintained on microfilm, on a computer, on floppy disks, on magnetic tape, or on microfiche.
(b) The owner or operator shall maintain records for each affected source as required by § 63.10(b)(2) and (b)(3) of this part; and
(1) All documentation supporting initial notifications and notifications of compliance status under § 63.9;
(2) All records of applicability determination, including supporting analyses; and
(3) If the owner or operator has been granted a waiver under § 63.8(f)(6), any information demonstrating whether a source is meeting the requirements for a waiver of recordkeeping or reporting requirements.
(c) In addition to the recordkeeping requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, the owner or operator of an affected source equipped with a continuous monitoring system shall maintain all records required by § 63.10(c).
(d) [Reserved]
(e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates according to the clinker production monitoring requirements in § 63.1350(d).
(f) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each startup or shutdown period for any affected source that is subject to a standard during startup or shutdown that differs from the standard applicable at other times, and the quantity of feed and fuel used during the startup or shutdown period.
(g)(1) You must keep records of the date, time and duration of each malfunction that causes an affected source to fail to meet an applicable standard; if there was also a monitoring malfunction, the date, time and duration of the monitoring malfunction; the record must list the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the volume of each regulated pollutant emitted over the standard for which the source failed to meet a standard, and a description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
(2) You must keep records of actions taken during periods of malfunction to minimize emissions in accordance with § 63.1348(d) including corrective actions to restore malfunctioning process and air pollution control and monitoring equipment to its normal or usual manner of operation.
(h) For each exceedance from an emissions standard or established operating parameter limit, you must keep records of the date, duration and description of each exceedance and the specific actions taken for each exceedance including inspections, corrective actions and repeat performance tests and the results of those actions.
Other
§ 63.1356   Sources with multiple emissions limit or monitoring requirements.
If you have an affected source subject to this subpart with a different emissions limit or requirement for the same pollutant under another regulation in title 40 of this chapter, once you are in compliance with the most stringent emissions limit or requirement, you are not subject to the less stringent requirement. Until you are in compliance with the more stringent limit, the less stringent limit continues to apply.
§ 63.1357   [Reserved]
§ 63.1358   Implementation and enforcement.
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA, or a delegated authority such as the applicable State, local, or Tribal agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or Tribal agency, then that agency, in addition to the U.S. EPA, has the authority to implement and enforce this subpart. Contact the applicable U.S. EPA Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to a State, local, or Tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this subpart to a State, local, or Tribal agency under subpart E of this part, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the Administrator of U.S. EPA and cannot be transferred to the State, local, or Tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that cannot be delegated to State, local, or Tribal agencies are as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Approval of alternatives to the requirements in §§ 63.1340, 63.1342 through 63.1348, and 63.1351.
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under § 63.8(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting under § 63.10(f), as defined in § 63.90, and as required in this subpart.
§ 63.1359   [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 -- Applicability of General Provisions
Citation
Requirement
Applies to subpart LLL
Explanation
63.1(a)(1)-(4)
Applicability
Yes

63.1(a)(5)

No
[Reserved].
63.1(a)(6)-(8)
Applicability
Yes

63.1(a)(9)

No
[Reserved].
63.1(a)(10)-(14)
Applicability
Yes

63.1(b)(1)
Initial Applicability Determination
No
§ 63.1340 specifies applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3)
Initial Applicability Determination
Yes

63.1(c)(1)
Applicability After Standard Established
Yes

63.1(c)(2)
Permit Requirements
Yes
Area sources must obtain Title V permits.
63.1(c)(3)

No
[Reserved].
63.1(c)(4)-(5)
Extensions, Notifications
Yes

63.1(d)

No
[Reserved].
63.1(e)
Applicability of Permit Program
Yes

63.2
Definitions
Yes
Additional definitions in § 63.1341.
63.3(a)-(c)
Units and Abbreviations
Yes

63.4(a)(1)-(3)
Prohibited Activities
Yes

63.4(a)(4)

No
[Reserved].
63.4(a)(5)
Compliance date
Yes

63.4(b)-(c)
Circumvention, Severability
Yes

63.5(a)(1)-(2)
Construction/Reconstruction
Yes

63.5(b)(1)
Compliance Dates
Yes

63.5(b)(2)

No
[Reserved].
63.5(b)(3)-(6)
Construction Approval, Applicability
Yes

63.5(c)

No
[Reserved].
63.5(d)(1)-(4)
Approval of Construction/Reconstruction
Yes

63.5(e)
Approval of Construction/Reconstruction
Yes

63.5(f)(1)-(2)
Approval of Construction/Reconstruction
Yes

63.6(a)
Compliance for Standards and Maintenance
Yes

63.6(b)(1)-(5)
Compliance Dates
Yes

63.6(b)(6)

No
[Reserved].
63.6(b)(7)
Compliance Dates
Yes

63.6(c)(1)-(2)
Compliance Dates
Yes

63.6(c)(3)-(4)

No
[Reserved].
63.6(c)(5)
Compliance Dates
Yes

63.6(d)

No
[Reserved].
63.6(e)(1)-(2)
Operation & Maintenance
No
See § 63.1348(d) for general duty requirement. Any reference to § 63.6(e)(1)(i) in other General Provisions or in this subpart is to be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1348(d).
63.6(e)(3)
Startup, Shutdown Malfunction Plan
No
Your operations and maintenance plan must address periods of startup and shutdown. See § 63.1347(a)(1).
63.6(f)(1)
Compliance with Emission Standards
No
Compliance obligations specified in subpart LLL.
63.6(f)(2)-(3)
Compliance with Emission Standards
Yes

63.6(g)(1)-(3)
Alternative Standard
Yes

63.6(h)(1)
Opacity/VE Standards
No
Compliance obligations specified in subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(2)
Opacity/VE Standards
Yes

63.6(h)(3)

No
[Reserved].
63.6(h)(4)-(h)(5)(i)
Opacity/VE Standards
Yes

63.6(h)(5)(ii)-(iv)
Opacity/VE Standards
No
Test duration specified in subpart LLL.
63.6(h)(6)
Opacity/VE Standards
Yes

63.6(h)(7)
Opacity/VE Standards
Yes

63.6(i)(1)-(14)
Extension of Compliance
Yes

63.6(i)(15)

No
[Reserved].
63.6(i)(16)
Extension of Compliance
Yes

63.6(j)
Exemption from Compliance
Yes

63.7(a)(1)-(3)
Performance Testing Requirements
Yes
§ 63.1349 has specific requirements.
63.7(b)
Notification period
Yes
Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See § 63.1353(b)(6).
63.7(c)
Quality Assurance/Test Plan
Yes

63.7(d)
Testing Facilities
Yes

63.7(e)(1)
Conduct of Tests
No
See § 63.1349(e). Any reference to 63.7(e)(1) in other General Provisions or in this subpart is to be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1349(e).
63.7(e)(2)-(4)
Conduct of tests
Yes

63.7(f)
Alternative Test Method
Yes

63.7(g)
Data Analysis
Yes

63.7(h)
Waiver of Tests
Yes

63.8(a)(1)
Monitoring Requirements
Yes

63.8(a)(2)
Monitoring
No
§ 63.1350 includes CEMS requirements.
63.8(a)(3)

No
[Reserved].
63.8(a)(4)
Monitoring
No
Flares not applicable.
63.8(b)(1)-(3)
Conduct of Monitoring
Yes

63.8(c)(1)-(8)
CMS Operation/Maintenance
Yes
Temperature and activated carbon injection monitoring data reduction requirements given in subpart LLL.
63.8(d)
Quality Control
Yes, except for the reference to the SSM Plan in the last sentence

63.8(e)
Performance Evaluation for CMS
Yes

63.8(f)(1)-(5)
Alternative Monitoring Method
Yes
Additional requirements in § 63.1350(l).
63.8(f)(6)
Alternative to RATA Test
Yes

63.8(g)
Data Reduction
Yes

63.9(a)
Notification Requirements
Yes

63.9(b)(1)-(5)
Initial Notifications
Yes

63.9(c)
Request for Compliance Extension
Yes

63.9(d)
New Source Notification for Special Compliance Requirements
Yes

63.9(e)
Notification of performance test
Yes
Except for repeat performance test caused by an exceedance. See § 63.1353(b)(6).
63.9(f)
Notification of VE/Opacity Test
Yes
Notification not required for VE/opacity test under § 63.1350(e) and (j).
63.9(g)
Additional CMS Notifications
Yes

63.9(h)(1)-(3)
Notification of Compliance Status
Yes

63.9(h)(4)

No
[Reserved].
63.9(h)(5)-(6)
Notification of Compliance Status
Yes

63.9(i)
Adjustment of Deadlines
Yes

63.9(j)
Change in Previous Information
Yes

63.10(a)
Recordkeeping/Reporting
Yes

63.10(b)(1)
General Recordkeeping Requirements
Yes

63.10(b)(2)(i)-(ii)
General Recordkeeping Requirements
No
See § 63.1355(g) and (h).
63.10(b)(2)(iii)
General Recordkeeping Requirements
Yes

63.10(b)(2)(iv)-(v)
General Recordkeeping Requirements
No

63.10(b)(2)(vi)-(ix)
General Recordkeeping Requirements
Yes

63.10(c)(1)
Additional CMS Recordkeeping
Yes
PS-8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(1)
Additional CMS Recordkeeping
Yes
PS-8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(2)-(4)

No
[Reserved].
63.10(c)(5)-(8)
Additional CMS Recordkeeping
Yes
PS-8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(c)(9)

No
[Reserved].
63.10(c)(10)-(15)
Additional CMS Recordkeeping
Yes
PS-8A supersedes requirements for THC CEMS.
63.10(d)(1)
General Reporting Requirements
Yes

63.10(d)(2)
Performance Test Results
Yes

63.10(d)(3)
Opacity or VE Observations
Yes

63.10(d)(4)
Progress Reports
Yes

63.10(d)(5)
Startup, Shutdown, Malfunction Reports
No
See § 63.1354(c) for reporting requirements. Any reference to § 63.10(d)(5) in other General Provisions or in this subpart is to be treated as a cross-reference to § 63.1354(c).
63.10(e)(1)-(2)
Additional CMS Reports
Yes

63.10(e)(3)
Excess Emissions and CMS Performance Reports
Yes
Exceedances are defined in subpart LLL.
63.10(e)(3)(v)
Due Dates for Excess Emissions and CMS Performance Reports
No
§63.1354(b)(9) specifies due date.
63.10(e)(3)(vii) and (viii)
Excess Emissions and CMS Performance Reports
No
Superseded by 63.1354(b)(10).
63.10(f)
Waiver for Recordkeeping/Reporting
Yes

63.11(a)-(b)
Control Device Requirements
No
Flares not applicable.
63.12(a)-(c)
State Authority and Delegations
Yes

63.13(a)-(c)
State/Regional Addresses
Yes

63.14(a)-(b)
Incorporation by Reference
Yes

63.15(a)-(b)
Availability of Information
Yes

Table 2 to Subpart LLL of Part 63 -- 1989 Toxic Equivalency Factors (TEFs)
Dioxins/Furans
                                                                      TEFs 1989
2,3,7,8-TCDD
                                                                              1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
                                                                            0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
                                                                           0.01
OCDD
                                                                          0.001
2,3,7,8-TCDF
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
                                                                           0.05
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
                                                                            0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
                                                                            0.1
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
                                                                            0.1
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
                                                                           0.01
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
                                                                           0.01
OCDF
                                                                          0.001


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 9604]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0096]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Umpqua River, Reedsport, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the U.S. 101 Highway Bridge across the
Umpqua River, mile 11.1, at Reedsport, OR. The deviation is necessary
to accommodate steel bracing repair and electrical station repair on
the bridge. This deviation allows the U.S. 101 Umpqua River Bridge to
remain in the closed position during repairs.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on February 23, 2015 to
11 p.m. on March 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0096] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email the Bridge Administrator, Coast Guard Thirteenth
District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Oregon Department of Transportation
requested that the U.S. 101 Umpqua River drawbridge, near Reedsport
Oregon, remain in the closed-to-navigation position to facilitate steel
bracing and stanchion repair. The U.S. 101 Bridge crosses the Umpqua
River at mile 11.1 and provides 36 feet of vertical clearance above
mean high water when in the closed position. Currently, the U.S. 101
Umpqua River Bridge is operating under a Temporary Final Rule (TFR), 33
CFR 117.898(d), 78 FR 70222, that allows the bridge to open once at 7
a.m. and once at 6 p.m., if an opening is requested at least six hours
in advance. This TFR is effective from December 1, 2013 to September
30, 2015.
    This deviation period is from 6 a.m. on February 23, 2015 to 11
p.m. March 6, 2015. The deviation allows the U.S. 101 Umpqua River
Bridge, mile 11.1, to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and
need not open for maritime traffic from 6 a.m. on February 23, 2015 to
11 p.m. March 06, 2015, except that, in approximately the second week
of the project, the bridge will open at 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on one day
only if a minimum of 6 hours advanced notice is given. Mariners needing
an opening, approximately half way through this project, are requested
to coordinate with the bridge repair Project Inspector, Don Hyatt, at
541-297-8804, with as much advanced notice as possible.
    Waterway usage on this stretch of the Umpqua River includes vessels
ranging from occasional commercial tug and barge to small pleasure
craft. Mariners will be notified and kept informed of the bridge's
operational status via the Coast Guard Notice to Mariners publication
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners as appropriate. The draw span will not
be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate
route for vessels to pass. Vessels which do not require an opening of
the bridge may continue to transit beneath the bridge during this
repair period.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 13, 2015.
Steven M. Fischer,
Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-03681 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


<!DOCTYPE html>

    <meta charset="utf-8" />
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.govinfo.gov/error" />
<meta name="description" content="Error occurred. The page you requested cannot be found. Please report this error to askGPO. Provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred. Thank you for your patience. Homepage" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="GovInfo" />
<meta property="og:type" content="Government" />
<meta property="og:url" content="https://www.govinfo.gov/error" />
<meta property="og:title" content="Page Not Found" />
<meta property="og:description" content="Error occurred. The page you requested cannot be found. Please report this error to askGPO. Provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred. Thank you for your patience. Homepage" />
<meta property="og:image" content="https://www.govinfo.gov/media/govinfo_eagle_homepage.png" />
<meta property="og:updated_time" content="2022-03-01T20:10:18+00:00" />
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
<meta name="twitter:description" content="Error occurred. The page you requested cannot be found. Please report this error to askGPO. Provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred. Thank you for your patience. Homepage" />
<meta name="twitter:title" content="Page Not Found" />
<meta name="twitter:url" content="https://www.govinfo.gov/error" />
<meta name="twitter:image" content="https://www.govinfo.gov/media/govinfo_eagle_homepage.png" />
<meta name="Generator" content="Drupal 9 (https://www.drupal.org)" />
<meta name="MobileOptimized" content="width" />
<meta name="HandheldFriendly" content="true" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0" />
<link rel="icon" href="/sites/default/files/favicon.ico" type="image/vnd.microsoft.icon" />

    <title>Page Not Found | GovInfo</title>
	<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Lato:700|Roboto:400,700" rel="stylesheet" />
    <link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/ajax-progress.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/align.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/autocomplete-loading.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/fieldgroup.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/container-inline.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/clearfix.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/details.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/hidden.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/item-list.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/js.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/nowrap.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/position-container.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/progress.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/reset-appearance.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/resize.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/sticky-header.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/system-status-counter.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/system-status-report-counters.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/system-status-report-general-info.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/tabledrag.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/tablesort.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/modules/system/css/components/tree-child.module.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/bootstrap/css/bootstrap.min.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/font-awesome/css/font-awesome.min.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/css/local.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/css/style.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/css/system.menus.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/core/themes/classy/css/components/node.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/css/components/primary-menu.css%3Frn7tfn" />
<link rel="stylesheet" media="all" href="/themes/contrib/bootstrap_fdsys/css/components/to-top.css%3Frn7tfn" />

	 <link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="57x57" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-57.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="114x114" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-114.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="144x144" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-144.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="60x60" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-60.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="120x120" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-120.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="76x76" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-76png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="167x167" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-167.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="152x152" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-152.png">
	<link rel="apple-touch-icon" sizes="180x180" href="../../../../../apple-touch-icon-180.png">

      Skip to main content

Menu

                 Search

                Browse

A to Z

Category

Date

Committee

Author

                About

About

Policies

Authentication

Digital Preservation

History

Agency Submission

U.S. Government Information

FDsys Retirement

                Developers

Developer Hub

API

Bulk Data Repository

Link Service

Feeds

Sitemaps

System Design

                Features

All Features

Featured Content

News

Release Notes

Finding Publications

                Help

Help

Finding Information

What's Available

Tutorials and Handouts

Other Resources

                Feedback

Submit Feedback

Contact Us

                Toggle the Search Widget
                Search

Page Not Found

					Help

Error occurred. The page you requested cannot be found.

Please report this error to askGPO.

Provide the following information to help us resolve this problem: the URL of the page you were trying to access, the steps you followed to produce the error, specific search or browse terms, and/or a screenshot of the page where the error occurred.

Thank you for your patience.

Homepage

Search Tips

Skip back to top

Skip back to top

Browse

A to Z

Category

Date

Committee

Author

About

About

Policies

Authentication

Digital Preservation

History

Agency Submission

U.S. Government Information

FDsys Retirement

Developers

Developer Hub

API

Bulk Data Repository

Link Service

Feeds

Sitemaps

System Design

Features

All Features

Featured Content

News

Release Notes

Finding Publications

Help

Help

Finding Information

What's Available

Tutorials and Handouts

Other Resources

Feedback

Submit Feedback

Contact Us

U.S. Government Publishing Office