[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34738]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OMS-2020-0454; FRL-10025-79-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Public Health Emergency Workplace Response
System (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Public Health Emergency Workplace
Response System (EPA ICR Number 2676.02, OMB Control Number 2030-0049)
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed
extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30,
2021. Public comments were previously requested, via the Federal
Register, on May 12, 2020 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 30, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OMS-2020-0454, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Coogan, Office of Resource and
Business Operations, Office of Mission Support, Environmental
Protection Agency; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: Because of the substantial risk to life, safety, or
health of the workforce and the public, EPA requests an emergency
approval to collect the necessary information from Federal employees,
detailees, interns, volunteers, grantee recipients and contractors that
perform work in EPA facilities to implement an effective COVID-19
Contact Tracing program.
    Each item of information requested is based on CDC and industry
best practice for Contact Tracing. This information is necessary to
identify individuals in the workforce who are COVID-19 positive and to
notify and trace persons in the workforce who were in close contact
with the COVID-19 positive employee. Including contractors, interns,
grantees, and volunteers, enables EPA to capture the total workforce
and take appropriate action.
    The following information will be collected for COVID Contact
Testing:

--Name;
--Work location;
--Contact information;
--Supervisor;
--Health status;
--Close contacts (as defined by CDC) when in the office; and
--Building and floors visited during period of possible transmission
(as defined by CDC).

    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: EPA's Contract Tracing Program
participants, including detailees, interns, volunteers, grantee
recipients and contractors.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 250 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 63 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), which includes annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by OMB.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-13947 Filed 6-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TO:	EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0146

FROM:	Bob Lucas, EPA/SPPD

DATE:	July 27, 2007

SUBJECT:	Equipment Leaks:  Control Options and Impact Estimates

I.	Purpose

This memorandum documents the methodology used to identify the equipment
leak control options and estimate the costs and environmental impacts
for those options.

II.	Background

Section 112(f) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA) directs the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess source categories
regulated under Section 112(d) of the CAA and determine whether any
human health or environmental risks remain from the continued emissions
of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) following implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards.  The CAA further states
that if the MACT standards do not reduce lifetime excess cancer risk to
the most exposed individual to less than one in one million, EPA must
set additional standards to protect human health and the environment, in
accordance with the interpretation set forth in the Benzene NESHAP.
Additionally, the EPA is required to review these technology-based
standards and to revise them “as necessary (taking into account
developments in practices, processes and control technologies)” no
less frequently than every 8 years, under CAA section 112(d)(6).  The
Refinery MACT 1 (40 CFR Part 63 Subpart CC) was promulgated over 8 years
ago and is now being reviewed.

III.	Summary of Existing Refinery MACT 1 Equipment Leak Control
Requirements

Refinery MACT 1 requires sources to follow a leak detection and repair
(LDAR) program for components (e.g., valves, pumps) in HAP service.
Existing sources as of July 14, 1994 (proposal of Refinery MACT 1) have
the option of complying with the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for equipment leaks in the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing
industry (SOCMI) (40 CFR part 60, subpart VV; petroleum refineries are
subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart GGG, which references subpart VV) or
a modified version of the hazardous organic NESHAP (HON) (40 CFR part
63, subpart H).  New sources must comply with the modified HON.
Modifications to the HON for Refinery MACT 1 sources include leak
definitions of 1,000 ppm for valves and 2,000 ppm for pumps as well as
less restrictive requirements on when regularly scheduled monitoring
events may be skipped based on the number of leaks found.

IV.	Identification of Control Options

EPA recently proposed amendments to the NSPS for equipment leaks in the
SOCMI and petroleum refineries (71 FR 65302, November 7, 2006).  These
amendments included monitoring of valves at 500 ppm and pumps at 2,000
ppm as well as monitoring of open-ended lines.  For this analysis,
Option 1 was identified as baseline, or no proposed changes to the
current MACT requirements.  Option 2 was identified as requiring both
new and existing sources subject to comply with the proposed amendments
to the NSPS subparts VV and GGG.

V.	Impact Estimates for Equipment Leaks

The general methodologies for determining the emission reductions and
the costs of both options are documented in two memoranda:  Data and
Assumptions used in the Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis for Petroleum
Refineries, or “NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis” (Parrish et. al.,
2006) and Analysis of Additional Data on Leaks from Open-Ended Lines, or
“Open-Ended Line Analysis” (Randall and Parrish, 2007).  Option 1
and Option 2 in this memorandum correspond to Baseline and Option 1 in
the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis, respectively.  This memorandum
focuses on the assumptions and calculations that were developed
specifically for this analysis or revised from the previous analyses.

Equipment Leak Models

The NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis describes four models, two of which
group sources that are subject to a consent decree and sources subject
to Refinery MACT 1.  Upon further review, these sources are subject to
different requirements and utilize different monitoring frequencies.  In
addition, this analysis considers existing sources subject to MACT
whereas the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis considers only sources
constructed, reconstructed, and modified in the next five years.
Therefore, this analysis includes the following assumptions in addition
to those described in the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis:

If 60 percent of the 10 large and 5 small refineries’ worth of process
units estimated in the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis are new and 40
percent are reconstructed, then 6 large and 3 small refineries’ worth
of process units will be constructed in the future.

The growth rate of 3 refineries’ worth of process units per year can
be extrapolated back 13 years to the date of promulgation of Refinery
MACT 1.  Therefore, 26 large and 13 small refineries’ worth of process
units have been constructed or modified since 1994.

There are approximately 150 operating refineries; using the assumptions
in the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis, there are 100 large refineries
and 50 small refineries.  Therefore, 74 large and 37 small refineries’
worth of process units were constructed or last modified prior to 1994.

About 36 percent of the total components and process units in volatile
organic compound (VOC) service process non-HAP VOC, so the remaining 64
percent are estimated to be in HAP service.  Therefore, as an example,
there are 75 process units in HAP service that will be constructed in
the next five years, 325 process units in HAP service that have been
constructed or modified since 1994, and 926 process units in HAP service
that were constructed or last modified prior to 1994, for a total of
1,326 process units.  Similar estimates were calculated for each type of
component as well.

These assumptions were used to develop five models, all of which include
process units and components that process HAP:

“New Future CD” – This model represents new components and process
units built during the next five years at petroleum refineries that are
subject to a consent decree.  On a refining capacity basis, 76.5 percent
of the petroleum refining industry is subject to a consent decree;
therefore, this model includes the 76.5 percent of the components and
process units in HAP service that are subject to a consent decree.  As
an example, the total number of process units included in this model is
57, or 76.5 percent of the 75 process units described in the previous
paragraph.

“New Future MACT” – This model represents new components and
process units built during the next five years at petroleum refineries
that are not subject to a consent decree.  Therefore, this model
includes the 23.5 percent of the components and process units in HAP
service that are not subject to a consent decree.  As an example, the
total number of process units included in this model is 18, or 23.5
percent of the 75 process units described in the previous paragraph.

“New MACT” – This model represents the components and process
units built during the last 13 years (i.e., since July 1994) at
petroleum refineries that are not subject to a consent decree and that
process HAP.  As an example, the total number of process units included
in this model is 77, or 23.5 percent of the 325 process units described
in the previous paragraph.

“Existing MACT” – This model represents the components and process
units constructed or last modified or reconstructed prior to 1994 at
petroleum refineries that are not subject to consent decree.  As an
example, the total number of process units included in this model is
218, or 23.5 percent of the 926 existing process units described in the
previous paragraph.

“Existing CD” – This model represents the existing components and
process units at petroleum refineries that are subject to a consent
decree, regardless of whether the process unit was constructed prior to
or after 1994.  Therefore, this model includes 76.5 percent of the
existing components and process units in HAP service.  As an example,
the total number of process units included in this model is 957.

See Attachment A for the numbers of components characterized by each
model.

Model Unit Emission Reductions

As in the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis, emissions estimates were based
on data that the American Petroleum Institute (API) summarized in the
1997 report Analysis of Refinery Screening Data (API, 1997).  The
calculation of the revised of leak frequency estimates can be grouped in
five general steps:

Developing leak frequencies for valves at 1,000 ppm

Developing leak frequencies for valves at 500 and 1,000 ppm for
semiannual and annual monitoring

Revising the leak frequency for valves at 10,000 ppm and developing leak
frequencies for other monitoring frequencies

Developing leak frequencies for monthly monitoring of pumps at 1,000 ppm

Revising the leak frequency for pumps at 10,000 ppm and developing a
leak frequency estimate for monthly monitoring

The results of these calculations are presented in Table 1.

Valves – 1,000 ppm

To account for the cost and emission reduction for Refinery MACT 1 new
source requirements, leak frequencies and emission factors were
developed for valves at a leak definition of 1,000 ppm.  For quarterly
monitoring of valves at 1,000 ppm, the leak frequency values were
selected directly from the API data.

Valves – 500 and 1,000 ppm

To estimate leak frequencies for valves at monitoring frequencies other
than quarterly for leak definitions of 500 and 1,000 ppm, the numbers of
components leaking more than once in four consecutive quarters as
provided in the API Report (API, 1997) were used to determine the number
of unique leaks found during a particular monitoring event.  This
examination helped to determine that one leak is not counted twice
during a semiannual or annual monitoring event.  The calculations can be
described by Equations 1 and 2:

 	Equation 1

where

VFS 	= Leak frequency for semiannual monitoring, percent

VFQ	= Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

VLQ	= Number of valves leaking per quarter

VR2	= Number of valves leaking twice in four consecutive quarters

VR3	= Number of valves leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

VR4	= Number of valves leaking four times in four consecutive quarters

 	Equation 2

where

VFA	= Leak frequency for annual monitoring, percent

VFQ	= Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

VLQ	= Number of valves leaking per quarter

VR2	= Number of valves leaking twice in four consecutive quarters

VR3	= Number of valves leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

VR4	= Number of valves leaking four times in four consecutive quarters

Valves – 10,000 ppm

The NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis estimated annual leak frequencies of
1.18 percent for gas valves and 1.38 percent for light liquid valves
based on data from the U.S. EPA National Enforcement Investigations
Center (NEIC) (EPA, 1999).  Further consideration of those data, as well
as information provided by industry representatives (Dee, 2006),
suggests that the average monitoring frequency for valves subject to
NSPS subpart GGG is semiannual rather than annual.  Therefore, this
analysis assumes that the values of 1.18 and 1.38 percent for gas and
light liquid valves, respectively, correspond to semiannual monitoring.
The ratio of the leak frequencies for quarterly monitoring to semiannual
monitoring at 1,000 ppm was assumed to be equal to the ratio of leak
frequencies for quarterly monitoring to semiannual monitoring at 10,000
ppm.  Likewise, the ratio of the leak frequencies for annual monitoring
to semiannual monitoring at 1,000 ppm was assumed to be equal to the
ratio of leak frequencies for annual to semiannual monitoring at 10,000
ppm.

Pumps – 1,000 ppm

For quarterly monitoring of pumps at 1,000 ppm, the leak frequency value
was selected directly from the API data.  Similar to valves, the numbers
of components leaking more than once in a year as provided in the API
Report (API, 1997) were used to estimate the leak frequencies for pumps
at monitoring frequencies other than quarterly.  However, since the
desired monitoring frequency of monthly for pumps is more frequent than
quarterly rather than less frequent as for valves, the API data were
examined to include pumps assumed to be leaking more than one month in a
quarter.  Assuming repeat leakers are distributed evenly throughout the
consecutive four-month period, Equation 3 was developed:

 	Equation 3

where

PFM	= Leak frequency for monthly monitoring, percent

PFQ	= Leak frequency for quarterly monitoring, percent

PLQ	= Number of pumps leaking per quarter

PR2	= Number of pumps leaking twice in four consecutive quarters

PR3	= Number of pumps leaking three times in four consecutive quarters

PR4	= Number of pumps leaking four times in four consecutive quarters

Pumps – 10,000 ppm

The quarterly leak frequency value for pumps at 10,000 ppm is calculated
using the assumption that the ratio of the leak frequency for valves
leaking greater than 10,000 ppm at a leak definition of 10,000 ppm to
the leak frequency for valves leaking greater than 10,000 ppm at a leak
definition of 1,000 ppm is equal to the same ratio for pumps (all
monitored quarterly).  Specifically, this value was calculated using
Equation 4:

 	Equation 4

where all variables are for components leaking greater than 10,000 ppm
and monitored quarterly and

	PF10,000	= Leak frequency for pumps with a leak definition of 10,000
ppm, percent

	PF1,000	= Leak frequency for pumps with a leak definition of 1,000 ppm,
percent

	VFG;10,000	= Leak frequency for gas valves with a leak definition of
10,000 ppm, percent

	VFG;1,000	= Leak frequency for gas valves with a leak definition of
1,000 ppm, percent

	VFLL;10,000	= Leak frequency for light liquid valves with a leak
definition of 10,000 ppm, percent

	VFLL;1,000	= Leak frequency for light liquid valves with a leak
definition of 1,000 ppm, percent

The ratio of leak frequency values for pumps at a leak definition of
10,000 ppm monitored monthly to those monitored quarterly was assumed to
be equal to the ratio of pumps monitored at those frequencies with a
leak definition of 1,000 ppm.

Table 1.  Summary of Leak Frequency Values

Monitoring Frequency	Monthly	Quarterly	Semiannual	Annual

Component and Leak Definition	Leak Frequency, percent

Pumps

10,000 ppm	0.88	2.47

1,000 ppm	0.98	2.77

Gas Valves

10,000 ppm

0.61	1.18	2.32

1,000 ppm

0.88	1.69	3.31

500 ppm

1.00	1.91	3.73

Light Liquid Valves

10,000 ppm

0.72	1.38	2.70

1,000 ppm

0.86	1.65	3.23

500 ppm

1.03	1.97	3.83

Emission factors and initial leak frequencies were calculated from these
values as explained in the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis.  Emission
factor values were then multiplied by 20 percent to convert the factors
from kilograms of light liquid VOC per hour per component to kilograms
of HAP per hour per component or by 10 percent for components in gas
service (Coburn, 2007).  See Attachment B for these values.

Emission reductions from open-ended lines were calculated assuming
quarterly monitoring.  The numbers of open-ended lines for each model
were presented in Attachment A, and Attachment C shows the emission
reductions and costs for each model.

Model Unit Control Costs

All of the constant values from the NSPS Refinery Impacts Analysis
remained unchanged except for the labor costs, which were updated to the
values in the May 2006 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment and
Wage Estimates as follows (DOL, 2007):

Wage (refinery maintenance) and overhead factor: maintenance and repair:
 The value of $23.30 per hour is the mean wage rate for Standard
Occupational Classification (SOC) Code 49-9012 (control and valve
installers, except mechanical doors) in NAICS 324 (Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing).  This wage rate is for refinery personnel, not
contractors, so it is likely to be higher than the actual wage rate.

Planning and training labor charge:  The value of $68.78 is an update of
the weighted average for technical, management, and clerical labor.  The
weighted average assumes 5 hours of management time and 10 hours of
clerical effort per 100 hours of technical labor.  The technical rate is
based on the mean wage for environmental engineers ($38.29), the
management rate is based on the mean wage for general and operations
managers ($59.15), and the clerical rate is based on the mean for all
office and administrative support occupations ($17.46).  A 60 percent
overhead factor was added to these rates.

As previously mentioned, the assumptions surrounding the Option 1
monitoring frequency for existing Refinery MACT 1 sources were revised;
therefore, the Option 1 costs for these sources are for semiannual
monitoring rather than annual monitoring.  The leak frequencies for
valves subject to new source MACT requirements are less than 3 percent,
so Option 1 costs for those sources also assume semiannual monitoring.
For Option 2, the calculated leak frequencies for semiannual monitoring
of gas and light liquid valves at 500 ppm are below 2 percent (it was
previously assumed that these values were likely to be above 2 percent).
 Therefore, semiannual monitoring was assumed for all sources not
subject to a consent decree under Option 2.  Table 2 summarizes the
revised values and parameters defined for each model.  See Attachment D
for detailed costs for each of the five models.

Table 2.  Model Parameters for Each of the Petroleum Refinery Models

Model	New Future MACT	New Future CD	New MACT	Existing MACT	Existing CD

Option 1	Leak definition:

  Pumpsa

  Valves

2,000

1,000

2,000

500

2,000

1,000

10,000

10,000

2,000

500

	Monitoring frequency:

  Pumps

  Valves

Quarterly

Semiannual

Monthly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Semiannual

Monthly

Semiannual

Monthly

Quarterly

	Initial leak frequency/ costs	Yes – Program starts at set leak
definitions; initial leak frequency is same as subsequent leak frequency
Yes – Program starts at set leak definitions; initial leak frequency
is same as subsequent leak frequency	No – Initial costs would have
been incurred at construction	No – Initial costs would have been
incurred at construction	No – Initial costs would have been incurred
at construction

	Planning and training costs	330 hours per process unit	330 hours per
process unit	330 hours per process unit	320 hours per process unit	330
hours per process unit

	Administrative report costs	95 hours per process unit	95 hours per
process unit	95 hours per process unit	85 hours per process unit	95
hours per process unit

Option 2	Leak definition:

  Pumpsa

  Valves

2,000

500

2,000

500

2,000

500

2,000

500

2,000

500

	Monitoring frequency:

  Pumps

  Valves

Monthly

Semiannual

Monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

Semiannual

Monthly

Semiannual

Monthly

Quarterly

	Initial leak frequency/ costs	Yes – Program starts at set leak
definitions; initial leak frequency is same as subsequent leak frequency
Yes – Program starts at set leak definitions; initial leak frequency
is same as subsequent leak frequency	Partial – Only includes initial
costs associated with lowering valve leak definition from 1,000 ppm
Partial – Only includes initial costs associated with lowering leak
definitions from 10,000 ppm	No – Initial costs would have been
incurred at construction

	Planning and training costs	330 hours per process unit	330 hours per
process unit	330 hours per process unit	330 hours per process unit	330
hours per process unit

	Administrative report costs	95 hours per process unit	95 hours per
process unit	95 hours per process unit	95 hours per process unit	95
hours per process unit

VI.	Nationwide Impact Estimates for Equipment Leaks

Nationwide impacts were developed by summing the costs and emission
reductions for each of the five models.  These impacts are summarized in
Table 3 and presented in more detail in Attachment E.  Benzene emission
reductions were assumed to be 1 percent of VOC reductions (Coburn,
2007), or about 2.8 tons per year, for a cost-effectiveness of $360,000
per ton.

Table 3.  Summary of Nationwide Impacts of Refinery Equipment Leak
Control Options

Control Option	Total Capital Investment  (million $)	Total Annual Costs
 (million $/yr)	HAP Emission Reduction from Baseline

(tpy)	HAP Cost-Effectiveness ($/ton)

1.  No proposed changes	2.4	15	0	0

2.  Proposed amendments to NSPS subpart VV/GGG	3.1	16	42	24,000

VI.	References

American Petroleum Institute, Health and Environmental Affairs
Department (API).  1997.  Analysis of Refinery Screening Data.  Prepared
by Hal Taback Company.  Publication Number 310.  November.

Coburn, J.  2007.  Average Refinery Stream Composition

Dee, Norbert.  2006.  NSPS VV GGG industry cost-effectiveness data.
Email to Karen Rackley, USEPA.  March 16.  Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0002.

Parrish, K., D. Randall, and J. Coburn.  2006. Data and Assumptions used
in the Equipment Leaks Cost Analysis for Petroleum Refineries.
Memorandum to Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD.  October 30.  Docket ID
EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0699-0034.

Randall, D., and K. Parrish.  2007.  Analysis of Additional Data on
Leaks from Open-Ended Lines.  Memorandum to Karen Rackley, EPA/SPPD.
June 18.  Docket ID EPA-HQ-2006-0699-0074.

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics.  2007.
Occupational Employment Statistics:  May 2006 Employment and Wage
Estimates.  http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm; accessed in
June.

U.S. EPA, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  1999.
Enforcement Alert: Proper Monitoring Essential to Reducing 'Fugitive
Emissions' Under Leak Detection and Repair Programs.  October.

Technical Memorandum – Equipment Leaks:  Control Options and Impact
Estimates

July 27, 2007

Page   PAGE  10

Technical Memorandum


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:i had used tobacco products for over 30 years. I have attempted to stop this use a number of times but always returned to using them. Until I tried using e cigarettes my attempts were unsuccessful. I started using e cigarettes in combination with tobacco products over a year ago and for the past 6 months have been tobacco free. I have reduced the nicotine level continually with no ill effects. I feel a benefit to my health and well being as do those around me. I would urge that comment period remain open for 180 days to enable a others to share their experiences. Thank you.


[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37288-37293]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID. FMCSA-2009-0174]

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 41 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 August 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0174 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 statutes also allow the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 41
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 CMVs 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

Michael D. Arnold

    Mr. Arnold, age 56, 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. Arnold 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 Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) from Ohio.

Michael F. Arthur

    Mr. Arthur, 43, has had ITDM since 2001. 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. Arthur meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have

diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Maine.

Roelf F. Aufforth

    Mr. Aufforth, 35, has had ITDM since 1983. 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. Aufforth 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 A CDL from
Minnesota.

Gerald L. Bell

    Mr. Bell, 57, 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. Bell meets the requirements of
the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined
him in 2009 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Steven H. Bergheger

    Mr. Bergheger, 54, 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. Bergheger 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
Illinois.

Kevin N. Bigham

    Mr. Bigham, 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. Bigham 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 Pennsylvania.

Blaine T. Boellstroff

    Mr. Boellstroff, 31, 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. Boellstroff 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.

Dane R. Broach

    Mr. Broach, 52, has had ITDM since mid 1990's. 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. Broach 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 Arizona.

Richard B. Brookshire

    Mr. Brookshire, 56, 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. Brookshire 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 Alaska.

David J. Campbell

    Mr. Campbell, 45, 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. Campbell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Colorado.

Christopher S. Cate

    Mr. Cate, 50, 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. Cate 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 New
Hampshire.

Lynne M. Childers

    Ms. Childers, 46, 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. Childers 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 A CDL from Arizona.

Moses O. Crespo

    Mr. Crespo, 29, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 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. Crespo meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from New
York.

Raymond A. Dietz

    Mr. Dietz, 39, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dietz 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.

Steven C. Ellenberger

    Mr. Ellenberger, 52, 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. Ellenberger meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    His optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he has
stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL
from Nebraska.

Ralph M. Ellis

    Mr. Ellis, 57, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ellis meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Indiana.

Troy E. Freeman

    Mr. Freeman, 47, 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. Freeman 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 Mississippi.

Glenn T. Grace

    Mr. Grace, 54, 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. Grace 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
Michigan.

Byron K. Hicks

    Mr. Hicks, 50, 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. Hicks meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Dori A. Hoffman

    Ms. Hoffman, 47, 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. Hoffman 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 O operator's license from
Nebraska, which allows her to drive any non-commercial vehicle except
motorcycles.

William C. Howard

    Mr. Howard, 60, 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. Howard meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Virginia.

Adam C. Hyatt

    Mr. Hyatt, 26, 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. Hyatt 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 Tennessee.

Clarence B. Jackson

    Mr. Jackson, 36, 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. Jackson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Georgia.

Robert F. Jolly, Jr.

    Mr. Jolly, 60, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jolly 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 Colorado.

Dale Jones

    Mr. Jones, 45, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 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. Jones meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Illinois.

Matthew G. Matheson

    Mr. Matheson, 29, 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. Matheson 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 Texas.

Steven A. Mayhew

    Mr. Mayhew, 54, has had ITDM since 1977. 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. Mayhew 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 York.

Michael G. Mulder

    Mr. Mulder, 28, has had ITDM since 1985. 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. Mulder meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Gary S. Myers

    Mr. Myers, 49, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Myers 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 Oklahoma.

Bradley D. Nickles, Jr.

    Mr. Nickles, 48, 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. Nickles 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 New Hampshire.

Sherwin M. Nurse, III

    Mr. Nurse, 46, 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. Nurse meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2009 and certified that does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Frank R. Radice

    Mr. Radice, 28, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2009 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Radice 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 York.

Frank A. Rhodes

    Mr. Rhodes, 46, 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. Rhodes meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

James B. Roth

    Mr. Roth, 41, 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. Roth 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.

Matthew T. Russell

    Mr. Russell, 28, 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. Russell meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Illinois.

Tranquilino D. Sena

    Mr. Sena, 36, 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. Sena 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 New Mexico.

John A. Serth, Jr.

    Mr. Serth, 50, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2008 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. Serth 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.

David H. Shipley

    Mr. Shipley, 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. Shipley 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
Wyoming.

Michael A. Taylor

    Mr. Taylor, 52, 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. Taylor 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 O operator's license from
Nebraska.

Peter T. Tengbeh

    Mr. Tengbeh, 55, 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. Tengbeh 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 Rhode Island.

John A. Yarde

    Mr. Yarde, 67, 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. Yarde meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2008 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois.

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
(68 FR 52441). 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
USC. 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 (68 FR 52441), except as modified, were in compliance
with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 Notice (68 FR 52441), except as modified by the
Notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777),
remain in effect.

    Issued on: July 21, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-17968 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]