         Notes from Site Visit at AEP's John E. Amos Plant on November 4, 2014

 EPA conducted a site visit at American Electric Power's (AEP's) John E. Amos Plant (Amos) located in Winfield, WV on November 4, 2014 to learn about the operations and wastewater treatment at the plant and to learn more about a pilot study conducted by AEP to evaluate treatment technologies for flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater. EPA and ERG also received information about AEP's Mountaineer plant during the visit and that information is provided at the end of these site visit notes.

 Site Visit Attendee List

 Name
 Organization (Representing)
 Telephone
 E-mail
 Chuck Johnson
 AEP Amos
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Paul Massie
 AEP Amos
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> RJ Roush
 AEP Amos
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Jon P. Webster
 AEP Amos
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Dave Wickline
 AEP Amos
<PHONE_NUMBER>

 Jason F. Baker
 AEPSC
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Tom Hart
 AEPSC
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Tim Lohner
 AEPSC
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Steve Wells
 AEP - WERS
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> J.T. Massey-Norton
 AEP Geotechnical
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Chuck Cunningham
 AEP Mountaineer
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> David Thompson
 AEP Mountaineer
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> James Covington
 EPA
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Phillip Flanders
 EPA
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Jessica Hall
 EPA
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Ron Jordan
 EPA
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Anna Dimling
 ERG
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS> TJ Finseth
 ERG
<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

 Plant Overview

 AEP's Amos plant is a coal-fired power plant with three stand-alone steam turbine generating units, and a total generating capacity of 2,932 MW. The units were brought online in 1971 (SE Unit-1), 1972 (SE Unit-2), and 1973 (SE Unit-3). Table 1 contains some general information on the three steam electric generating units at Amos.

                          Table 1. Amos Plant Summary

 Unit

                                     Fuel
  Capacity (MW)

   Fly Ash

 Bottom Ash

                                      FGD
 NOx Control

 FGMC
                                       1
 Coal: Bituminous Oil: No. 2 Fuel Oil
                                      816
 Dry conveyed
 Wet Handled
 Wet System
  SCR
  None
                                       2
 Coal: Bituminous Oil: No. 2 Fuel Oil
                                      816
 Dry conveyed
 Wet Handled
 Wet System
  SCR
  None
                                       3
 Coal: Bituminous Oil: No. 2 Fuel Oil
   1300
 Dry Conveyed
 Wet Handled
 Wet System
  SCR
  None

     On the day of the site visit, Unit 3 was not operating because of a tube leak.

        Amos uses No. 2 Fuel Oil in each of the three boilers during start-up periods and for load stabilization. For example, when the plant is increasing or decreasing the load on a unit, fuel oil may be used to help stabilize the unit loading during the transition if it requires a pulverizer to be placed into service.

        Amos uses eastern bituminous coal from Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and sometimes Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) and usually has 8-10 coal suppliers at any one time. At the time of the site visit they indicated they were using approximately 9-12 coal suppliers. The coal fed into the boilers is a blend of low sulfur and high sulfur coal and is around 3 to 4 lbs SO2/million Btu for Units 1 and 2 and 4 to 4.5 lbs SO2/million Btu for SE Unit-3. The chlorine content of the coal used at Amos is approximately 0.01 percent.

        The limestone and coal are mostly delivered by barge because it is more economically favorable. It costs around $5 per ton of coal to deliver by barge and each barge can carry 5,000  -  15,000 tons of coal; whereas, rail cars can only carry around 500 tons of coal and cost significantly more per ton.

FGD Systems

        All three generating units at Amos have limestone forced oxidation FGD systems. The FGD systems were installed in the following timeframes:
                Unit 3: February 2009;
                Unit 2: February 2010; and
                Unit 1: January 2011.

        Units 1 and 2 are each serviced by one FGD absorber module, while Unit 3 is serviced by two absorber modules. The Unit 1 and 2 absorber modules are larger than the individual Unit 3 absorber modules.

        Each FGD absorber is a Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Tray/Spray Tower. The Unit 1, 2 and 3 FGD absorber modules each have two levels of trays in the design of the absorber to increase contact with the FGD limestone slurry resulting in increased mass transfer, 75 L/G, and decreased FGD slurry flow rate. Units 1 and 2 have 2-1/2 levels of interstitial sprays; Unit 3 has 2 full levels of interstitial sprays.

        Amos operates three ball mills at the plant to generate the limestone slurry used in the FGD systems.  The plant targets a limestone slurry that is 30 percent solids. The limestone slurry is dumped into the FGD absorber module reaction tank to control the pH of the slurry. A number of variables establish sulfur dioxide removal, such as L/G, pH, vessel design, etc. Absorber slurry density is control by blowdown rate. Reaction tank level is controlled by the addition of reclaim/service water.

        Amos uses service water as mist eliminator wash water, which is sprayed on the mist eliminators to keep them clean and falls into the FGD absorber module. Amos washes the mist eliminators for approximately 10-15 minutes every hour.

        The absorber recycle pumps move the slurry from the reaction tank supplying it to the spray headers near the top of the absorber modules. The plant intermittently blows down, or "bleeds the absorber", some of the FGD slurry from the reaction tank to control the approximately 20% density in the FGD system.  The blowdown from the FGD systems is transferred to the bleed tanks. Plant controls are set automatically to initiate blowdown when solids reach 21.5%. The blowdown will continue until the solids are lowered to 19.5%.

        Each absorber module has agitators located around the walls of the reaction tank. Oxidation air is added in front of the agitators and mixed into the FGD slurry to oxidize the calcium sulfite to calcium sulfate (i.e., gypsum). Amos personnel stated that the plant uses two to three times more oxidation air than is theoretically needed to achieve full oxidation of the FGD material.

        Amos personnel stated that the FGD absorbers operate at an oxidation/reduction potential (ORP) between 100 to 300 mV.  Amos has been monitoring the ORP levels in the absorbers to try and optimize mercury removal, selenium removal, improve gypsum quality, and decrease manganese oxide scaling. Amos personnel noted that if the oxidation air feed is shut down it has a minimal effect on the ORP in the absorber. AEP has not determined a distinct correlation between FGD operating conditions and ORP levels within the absorbers.

        The absorber slurry (~20% solids) is pumped from the bleed tanks two miles and up a 350 foot elevation to the FGD dewatering system (specifically to the hydrocyclone feed tanks). Amos personnel noted that this required 14 miles of FRP piping; more specifically a total of 7 supply and return pipes that are two mile long each.

        The FGD slurry is then pumped through one of the three sets of hydrocyclones, which operate around 35 psi. The underflow from the hydrocyclones is 50-55% solids. The hydrocyclones operate 36 hours/day collectively (e.g., 24 hours for one set of hydrocyclones and 12 hours for another set of hydrocyclones).

        The hydrocyclone overflow (3-5% solids) is pumped at an average flow rate of 400 gpm (800 gpm maximum design flow rate; 500 gpm average design flow rate) to the equalization tanks in the chemical precipitation system. Amos runs two 100% capacity trains at all times.

        The underflow from the hydrocyclones is fed by gravity to one of the vacuum belt filters (Amos maintains 3 vacuum belt filters). The vacuum belt filters dewater the gypsum material to a moisture content around 10-15 % moisture. The dewatered gypsum is then conveyed out of the building on a belt and deposited on the ground for truck transport to the FGD landfill.

        Service water is used to wash the vacuum belts and is mixed with the filtrate from the vacuum belt filters.

        The facility does not market their gypsum due to economic and logistic considerations. Major cities and companies that could potentially utilize the Amos gypsum do not like the wallboard to be shipped by train or barge; however, those transportation methods are the best available shipping methods from Amos.

FGD Wastewater Treatment (WWT) Design

        Amos previously used Lamella separators as the secondary clarification step in the FGD wastewater treatment; however, the facility experienced a number of issues and could not optimize the system. According to plant personnel, the FGD by-product was the consistency of jelly and the Lamella plates would get clogged and the Lamella clarifiers needed weekly maintenance. Amos ended up dismantling the system and sending it to another plant for handling coal ash.

        Amos started a project to replace the Lamella separators with secondary clarifiers in November 2011. The total cost for that project was around $4 million. That project had a long start-up period due to the time required for determining the dosage rates, injection locations, polymer vendors, and water sources.

        The current FGD chemical precipitation system consists of the following equipment (see DCN SE05645A1 for process flow diagram):
             [Redacted]
             Sludge holding tank
 20  -  25 % solids
             Filter Presses (five)
 Batch process, about 2-4 batches per day
                  	+65% solids
 Replace filter cloths every 500 runs
 Wash every 12 runs and wash water is sent to wastewater collection sump and back to the beginning the process
 Filter cake is discharged through bomb bay doors and trucked to a landfill
             Wastewater Collection Sump
 Pumped back to FGD absorbers
             Clear Water Sump
 Discharged via Outfall 003

      Dosage Rates for the FGD wastewater treatment system:
             [Redacted]

        AEP stated that General Electric (GE-Betz) still visits the plant every Monday to assist the plant with the performance of the chemical feed systems.

        The facility did not indicate organosulfide as a chemical in their 2010 Steam Electric Questionnaire. Amos indicated that they started to add organosulfide into the system around November 2010. [Redacted]

        Amos monitors the FGD wastewater treatment system daily by observing the turbidity in the primary and secondary clarifiers from grab samples and checking that the feed pumps are operating correctly. The facility indicated that they are looking into installing a continuous sample monitoring system.

        The clarifiers are treated once a year for algae. Additionally, once every three years, the facility drains the entire clarifier tank for a thorough cleaning.

 FGD WWT Sampling Results

        The following AEP plants are associated with the data provided in the AEP presentation (DCN: SE05645A1)
             Plant A  -  John E. Amos Plant
             Plant B  -  Cardinal
             Plant C  -  Conesville
             Plant D  -  Mitchell Plant
             Plant E  -  Mountaineer Plant

 AEP eliminated statistical errors and outliers from the graphs provided in the presentation. Data used to create the graphs are a mix of monthly and weekly samples; however, samples were usually taken about one time a month or once every two months. AEP indicated that the samples were taken over the course of 2+ years.

        The data from the Conesville plant showed a significantly higher arsenic concentration in the FGD wastewater. AEP stated that the Conesville plant has an older particulate removal system (ESP) and a larger portion of fly ash carries over into the wastewater treatment influent. Therefore, that facility uses their jet bubbling reactor (JBR) also as a polishing device for the particulate control.

 Currently, Amos takes a composite sample at the beginning of the month for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) at Outfall 003. The permit limit for mercury at Outfall 003 are an average monthly limit of 229 ppt and daily maximum limit of 624 ppt. Amos also has a report only NPDES internal limit for the FGD wastewater (Outfall 203) that will be renewed in 2018. The NPDES requirements for Outfall 203 include monitoring once per month for the following parameters:
                Flow  -  24 hour total;
                Nitrogen nitrate  -  24 hour composite;
                Nitrogen nitrite  -  24 hour composite;
                Total mercury  -  Grab;
                Total recoverable selenium  -  24 hour composite; and
                Total recoverable arsenic  -  24 hour composite.

 Amos uses a diffuser in the Kanawha River to establish a mixing zone at their Outfall 003.

 Ash Handling

 AEP sluices bottom ash from Units 1, 2, and 3 to a pond system prior to discharge via Outfall 003.

        AEP previously sluiced the fly ash from Unit 3 to a fly ash pond and discharged the fly ash transport water via Outfall 001; however, the system has been retrofitted to a dry system. Although the Unit 3 fly ash is now dry handled and most of the wet system was dismantled, some of the piping out to the fly ash pond still exists. Currently, no fly ash transport water is sluiced to the pond and the facility is in the process of closing the fly ash pond permanently (a 4-5 year project). Amos also indicated no additional workers were needed for retrofitting the wet fly ash system to a dry handling system.

 All of the fly ash at Amos is dry handled and sent to silos (2 per unit) for temporary storage. Each silo [Redacted]. From the silo the fly ash is transferred to the pugmill for wetting and then trucked to a landfill or marketed to concrete customers. The fly ash trucks are weighed to keep track of the amount that is landfilled versus the amount that is marketed. AEP noted that only a small amount is marketed for sale. Between 2013 and 2015 roughly [Redacted] was marketed. AEP noted that if the fly ash has a high loss of ignition (LOI), which is an indicator of the carbon content, it is not suitable for sale. In addition, Amos has found that dry loading and trucking the fly ash is difficult.

 Amos indicated that the fly ash lines, silos, and vacuum pumps have redundant components. Each generating unit is serviced by two fly ash silos, with one silo normally operating and the other acting as a spare. Fly ash lines to each silo are the same, with a primary line and a backup. There are five pumps in the vacuum system and the facility can operate the ash handling system with only four without shutting down the system. See DCN SE05664A2 for a diagram of the fly ash and bottom ash handling systems.

 Landfills and Pond Systems

        The bottom ash pond system consists of Bottom Ash Pond A, Bottom Ash Pond B, Recirculation Pond, and Clear Water Pond. Approximately 12,600 gpm of water from the recirculation pond is reused as seal water for the boilers and water for the ash handling system. AEP adds polymer in both Bottom Ash Pond A and B for coagulation and settling. Clear Water Pond receives all the wastewater from the pond system and discharges via Outfall 003. AEP identified the small size of the Clear Water Pond as a driving factor in the wastewater treatment improvements (e.g. installation and updates to chemical precipitation system) because a shorter residence time leads to less solids settling before discharge.

 Bottom Ash Pond A was out of service during the site visit and bottom ash was being excavated from the pond to be transferred to the landfill or beneficially reused (i.e., used in roads and chimney drain in landfill).AEP indicated that they anticipate Bottom Ash Pond A to be back in service by early next year (January or February 2015). AEP also indicated that they close one of the bottom ash ponds about every 6 months for excavation and all bottom ash transport water is directed to the other operating pond during that time.

 AEP's FGD landfill was evaluated in 2013 to assess the available space; it was determined that 19-20 years of space was still available. The FGD landfill contains FGD wastes, mostly in the form of gypsum. The Quarrier landfill is located about four miles down the road from the FGD landfill and contains bottom ash and fly ash solids. Leachate is collected from both landfills and sent to Bottom Ash Ponds A and/or B.

 FGD Wastewater Pilot Study

        Amos was looking for a polishing step that would aid in consistently meeting the proposed ELG limits for mercury. The facility later decided to also focus on other pollutants such as selenium and nitrate-nitrite; therefore, they reached out to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and used vendors to test five technologies, four vendors on a small pilot scale basis (3-4 month and 7 month studies). The studies evaluated treating the treated chloride effluent at a flow rate of 1-2 gpm per process. Amos also wanted to gather information on installation, regeneration, maintenance (O&M), and life cycle costs for the technologies.
          During the site visit, Amos facility personnel provided data from the pilot studies, but noted that they do not own any of the pilot study data; EPRI, technology vendors and the jointly sponsoring utilities own the data.

       At the time of the site visit, Amos had not yet received a draft of the pilot studies from EPRI.

 Amos personnel indicated that it was their professional opinion that none of the technologies tested were ready to scale up to commercial operation. In addition, AEP personnel noted that the technologies work at a low pH in the initial steps and need a higher pH for subsequent steps, which necessitates greater chemical use and increased costs. One of the technologies is designed to remove only dissolved constituents; given that the majority of the mercury in the FGD blowdown water is in the non-dissolved form, this technology would be of little value in meeting limits based on total mercury in this application. Amos stated that the best design they could consider is having a slip stream polishing step where a smaller side stream is redirected and treated from the CP effluent to bring down the pollutant averages in the effluent.

          Amos personnel noted that the ZVI technology (Liberty Hydro) had trouble with fines (colloidal particles) that pass through the dewatering step. They experimented with different kinds of filters but found that they plugged up and did not function. Amos personnel also noted that the ZVI technology had issues with nitrates/nitrites affecting the efficiency of the system.

   Mountaineer Plant Information

 AEP's Mountaineer Plant, located in New Haven, WV, is a coal-fired power plant with one stand-alone steam turbine generating unit, and a total generating capacity of 1,300 MW. Table 2 contains some general information on the steam electric generating unit at Mountaineer. AEP reported that the unit operated 341 days in 2009.

                       Table 2. Mountaineer Plant Summary

 Unit

                                     Fuel
  Capacity (MW)

   Fly Ash

 Bottom Ash

                                      FGD
 NOx Control

 FGMC
                                       1
 Coal: Bituminous Oil: No. 2 Fuel Oil
   1300
 Dry conveyed
 Wet Handled
 Wet System
  SCR
  None

 EPA conducted a site visit at the Mountaineer plant in New Haven, WV, see DCN SE02070 for the site visit notes.  Since that site visit, AEP has installed an ABMet biological treatment system which began operating in November of 2011, to further treat the FGD wastewater prior to discharge (FGD wastewater treatment previously consisted of only chemical precipitation treatment). In addition to receiving the FGD wastewater after the chemical precipitation system, the ABMet system also treats the combustion residual leachate that is generated at the plant.

 The lined leachate surge pond was designed to hold two consecutive 25-year rain events and represented about 33 percent of the cost of the ABMet system (which includes piping and pumps from the pond to the treatment system). AEP indicated that the logistics, lining, issues (problems with liner floating), fencing (deer falling in and unable to get out), dual pumps (for redundancy), controls/blending, and piping were all issues they addressed in the design of the pond. The pond has a capacity of around 5 million gallons and is blended into the FGD treatment system after the CP system and before the ABMet system at a ratio between 50/50 and 60/40 for FGD CP Effluent/Leachate pond water.

 AEP constructed the ABMet system over an approximate one year time period. In addition, the commissioning period was on the order of a couple months.

 The physical / chemical system consists of the following equipment:
             Desaturation tanks (with lime and organosulfide addition)
 Note: The Mountaineer treatment system has an opposite order of treatment system than that at Amos since the desaturation tank is before the equalization tank; however the order of the chemical addition remains the same.
             Primary clarifier (with primary polymer addition)
 Only the sludge from the primary clarifier is sent to a sludge feed tank located upstream of the filter presses; the sludge from the secondary clarifier is sent back to the beginning of the system (desaturation tanks) to be removed in the primary clarifier.
             Equalization tank (with organosulfide addition)
                Ferric Mix Tanks (these tanks are out of service and bypassed; the facility does not add ferric chloride any longer)
             Secondary Clarifier (with secondary polymer addition)
             Sludge Feed Tank
             Filter Presses (2)
 Larger than the filter presses at Amos
             Effluent Storage Feed Tank

         The influent to the biological treatment system is made up of about 50 percent CP effluent and 50 percent leachate with a design flow rate of around 600 gpm and an average flow rate of 500 GPM. The ORP of the comingled influent is around 200  -  300 mV (aim for 150  -  200 mV), the TSS is about 200ppm, and the pH is around 8-8.4 S.U. (adjusted to 7-7.5 S.U. using sulfuric acid).

 The ABMet biological treatment system consists of the following equipment and took around 18 months to construct: (includes the leachate surge pond discussed above)
             First stage feed tank (with sulfuric acid (93%) addition)
 pH monitored
             First stage reactors (with molasses-based nutrient addition; includes 6 reactors)
 ORP and pH monitored at each reactor cell
 The first stage removed the nitrate-nitrite and a portion of the selenium.
             Second stage feed tank
 pH monitored
             Second stage reactors (with molasses-based nutrient addition; includes 6 reactors)
 ORP and pH monitored at each reactor cell
 Use of the second stage achieves another order of magnitude reduction of selenium, which is sufficient to achieve compliance with the proposed ELG limits.
             Effluent tank

 During the ABMet biological treatment system start-up period, Bill Kennedy of Duke Energy worked on-site to help with getting the biological treatment system up and running. AEP stated that there were large swings in the ORP during this period. AEP also noted that the start-up period lasted a few months.

 AEP noted that the FGD treatment system takes a lot of manpower. AEP estimated that, on average, the physical/chemical system requires one full-time operator and the CP plus biological treatment system requires two full-time operators.

         The molasses-based nutrient contains trace metals (including selenium and aluminum) so that if the unit to which it is being added is offline, the microbes will stay alive. In addition, there is a filter for the nutrient feed system to prevent clogging of the feed system.  The rate that the nutrient is fed into the system is based off of the ORP measured in the reactor cells.

 The biological system is automatically degassed when trapped nitrogen and some hydrogen sulfide gases build-up within the system from microbial metabolism.  If the system is degassed twice in one day the system is flushed and the flush water is sent back to the beginning of the physical / chemical system.

 AEP indicated that temperature is often an issue with the biological treatment system and needs to be monitored daily to make sure that the temperature does not exceed 105°F or dip below 50°F. While AEP indicated that the treatment system sometimes reaches temperatures around/above 105°F (maximum observed was 106°F before comingling with leachate), the                temperature after commingling with the leachate remains below 105°F. A low treatment system temperature is of particular concern during the winter months when the water being pumped from the leachate surge pond is significantly below 50°F.

 AEP noted that the total arsenic spike attributed to start-up conditions (1,000 ppb) in the WWT plant influent increased the average in the bar graph of all five plants (average arsenic in the influent is 199 ppb).

 The selenium limits for AEP's current NPDES permit are 83 ppb daily and 33 ppb monthly average at the final outfall.


on the time of purchase. ASTA thinks the Department should prohibit
retroactive changes to the contract of carriage, as the contract is
formed at the moment of purchase. ASTA states that it would be unfair
to the airlines to allow consumers to take retroactive advantage of
improvements that were not in effect when they bought their tickets and
equally unfair to consumers to permit an airline to change the bargain
that existed when the ticket was purchased.
    DOT Response: As we believe that consumers have the right to
receive accurate information at the time of purchase about the terms in
the contract of carriage that are applicable to them and to which they
will be held, this final rule prohibits carriers from retroactively
applying any material amendment to their contracts of carriage that has
any significant negative implications for consumers who have already
bought tickets. We believe that it would be unfair, for example, for a
passenger to purchase a non-refundable ticket in March for a flight in
May and to learn later that the carrier added a significant fee in
April that the passenger would be subject to and that may have affected
his/her purchase decision had he/she been aware of it. This provision
is included in the rule as a new section 253.9 in Part 253.

Effective Date of Rule

    The NPRM: In the NPRM, we proposed that the final rule take effect
180 days after its publication in the Federal Register in order to
afford carriers sufficient time to adopt their plans, modify their
computer systems, and take other necessary steps to be able to comply
with the new requirements before we begin enforcing them. We invited
comments on whether 180 days is an appropriate interval for completing
these changes.
    Comments: We received few comments on this issue. Flyersrights.org
suggested that the rules should become effective after 120 days. NBTA
thinks a ``reasonable date should be established after determining the
impact the final rule will have on carriers.'' ACI-NA supports the DOT
proposal to make the final rule effective 180 days after publication in
the Federal Register but suggests a tiered implementation schedule
providing an extra 120 days to small and non-hub airports if the
Department adopts its suggestion that airlines be required to
coordinate their plans with all airports at which they provide service.
ATA recommends a ``significant implementation period'' as the rule
would require substantial software and operational changes.
    DOT Response: We agree with ATA and NBTA that carriers should have
sufficient time to implement these changes. We also agree with
Flyerrights.org that four months is adequate time for carriers to
implement the necessary changes. Consequently, for the reasons stated
above the rule will go into effect 120 days after it is published in
the Federal Register.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. The final Regulatory Evaluation has concluded that the benefits
of the final rule exceed its costs, even without considering non-
quantifiable benefits. The total present value of benefits over a 20
year period at a 7% discount rate is $169.7 million and the total
present value of costs over a 20 year period at a 7% discount rate is
$100.6 million. The net present value of the rule for 20 years at a 7%
discount rate is $69.1 million. A copy of the final Regulatory
Evaluation has been placed in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
An air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation
only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000
pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73. Our analysis identified 19
small businesses potentially affected by the requirements of the final
rule. However, although certain elements of this rule impose new
requirements on these small air carriers, the Department believes that
the economic impact will not be significant based on its examination
because for those carriers identified as small businesses (and for
which data on receipts was readily available) annualized total costs of
the rule are estimated to be one tenth of one percent or less of annual
receipts per firm. More specifically, annualized total costs as a
percent of annual receipts ranged from 0.09% to 0.0006%. On the basis
of this examination, the Department certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. A copy of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been placed
in docket.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This Final Rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule does not include any provision that: (1) Has substantial
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or
(3) preempts State law. Therefore, the consultation and funding
requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian
Tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on
them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order
13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, DOT has
submitted the Information Collection Requests (ICRs) abstracted below
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides
whether to approve these proposed collections of information and issue
a control number, the public must be provided 30 days to comment.
Organizations and individuals desiring to submit comments on the
collection of information requirements should direct them to the Office
of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should also send a copy of their
comments to: Department of Transportation, Office of Aviation
Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General Counsel, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. OMB is required to make a
decision concerning the collection of information requirements
contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best
assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of
publication.
    We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this rule. OST may not impose a
penalty on persons for violating information collection requirements
which do not display a current OMB control number, if required. OST
intends to obtain current OMB control numbers for the three new
information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking
action. The OMB control number, when assigned, will be announced by
separate notice in the Federal Register.
    The ICRs were previously published in the Federal Register as part
of NPRM (73 FR 74587) and the Department invited interested persons to
submit comments on any aspect of each of these three information
collections, including the following: (1) The necessity and utility of
the information collection, (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected, and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
collection without reducing the quality of the collected information.
    The final rule contains three new information collection
requirements. The first is a requirement that certificated and commuter
air carriers that operate passenger service using any aircraft with 30
or more passenger seats retain for two years the following information
about any ground delay that lasts at least three hours: the length of
the delay, the precise cause of the delay, the actions taken to
minimize hardships for passengers, whether the flight ultimately took
off (in the case of a departure delay or diversion) or returned to the
gate; and an explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 hours.
The Department plans to use the information to investigate instances of
long delays on the ground and to identify any trends and patterns that
may develop. The assumptions upon which the calculations for this
requirement are based have not changed; however, we have modified the
information collection burden hours to take into account the fact that
the final rule requires covered carriers to retain information about
any ground delay that last at least three hours as opposed to ground
delays that last at least four hours as proposed in the NPRM. Also,
rather than using data about the total number of tarmac delays in 2007
as we did in the NPRM, we use the total number of tarmac delays
averaged in 2007-2008. The second is a requirement that any
certificated and commuter air carrier that operates scheduled passenger
service using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats adopt a
customer service plan, audit its adherence to the plan annually, and
retain the results for two years. The Department plans to review the
audits to monitor carriers' compliance with their plans and take
enforcement action when appropriate. We have revised the information
collection burden hours for this requirement because it applies not

only to the reporting carriers as proposed in the NPRM but to all U.S.
airlines that operate domestic scheduled passenger service using any
aircraft with 30 or more passenger seats. The third is a requirement
that each reporting carrier display on its Web site information on each
listed flight's on-time performance for the previous month for both its
flights and those of its non-reporting code-share carriers. This
information will help consumers to select their flights. The
assumptions upon which the calculations for this requirement are based
have changed significantly. Initially, we had estimated that the one-
time programming cost for displaying flight delay data on each covered
carrier's Web sites would be $20,000. Based on industry comments
received, we have revised the on-time programming cost from $20,000 to
$400,000 for each covered carrier. The median hourly wage for computer
programmers has decreased from $33.47 to $32.73.
    For each of these information collections, the title, a description
of the respondents, and an estimate of the annual recordkeeping and
periodic reporting burden are set forth below:
1. Requirement To Retain for Two Years Information About Any Ground
Delay That Lasts at Least Three Hours
    Respondents: Certificated and commuter air carriers that operate
domestic passenger service using any aircraft with 30 or more passenger
seats.
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: From 0 to 21 hours and 15
minutes (1275 minutes) per year for each respondent. The estimate was
calculated by multiplying the estimated time to retain information
about one ground delay (15 minutes) by the total number of ground delay
incidents lasting at least three hours per respondent (from 0 to 85
incidents, averaged in 2007-2008).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: A maximum of 207 hours and 15
minutes (12,435 minutes) for all respondents. The estimate was
calculated by multiplying the estimated time to retain information
about one ground delay (15 minutes) by the total number of ground delay
incidents lasting at least three hours in calendar years 2007-2008
(averaged) for the reporting carriers (748) and adding the product of
the estimated time to retain information about one ground delay (15
minutes) multiplied by 11 percent of the total number of ground delay
incidents lasting at least three hours in calendar years 2007-2008
(averaged) for the reporting carriers (82.28). (The reporting carriers
accounted for 89 percent of domestic scheduled passenger service, so we
have assumed that nearly all of the remaining 11 percent was provided
by other certificated and commuter carriers using aircraft with more
than 30 passenger seats.)
    Frequency: From 0 to 85 ground delay information sets to retain per
year for each respondent. (N.b. Some air carriers may not experience
any ground delay incident of at least three hours in a given year,
while some larger air carriers could experience as many as 85 in a
given year according to data on ground delays in the average of
calendar years 2007 and 2008.)
2. Requirement That Each Covered Carrier Retain for Two Years the
Results of Its Annual Self-Audit of Its Compliance With Its Customer
Service Plan
    Respondents: Certificated and commuter air carriers that operate
domestic scheduled passenger service using any aircraft with 30 or more
passenger seats (42 carriers).
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 15 minutes per year for
each respondent. The estimate was calculated by multiplying the
estimated time to retain a copy of the carrier's self-audit of its
compliance with its Customer Service Plan by the number of audits per
carrier in a given year (1).
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: A maximum of 10 hours and 30 minutes
(630 minutes) for all respondents. The estimate was calculated by
multiplying the time in a given year for each carrier to retain a copy
of its self-audit of its compliance with its Customer Service Plan (15
minutes) by the total number of covered carriers (42).
    Frequency: One information set to retain per year for each
respondent.
3. Requirement That Each Covered Carrier Display on Its Web Site, at a
Point Before the Consumer Selects a Flight for Purchase, the Following
Information for Each Listed Flight Regarding its On-Time Performance
During the Last Reported Month: the Percentage of Arrivals That Were on
Time, the Percentage of Arrivals That Were More Than 30 Minutes Late
(With Special Highlighting if the Flight Was More Than 30 Minutes Late
More Than 50 Percent of the Time), and the Percentage of Flight
Cancellations if the Flight Is Cancelled More Than 5% of the Time. We
Are Adding a Requirement That a Marketing/Reporting Carrier Display
Delay Data for Its Non-Reporting Code-Share Carrier(s)
    Respondents: Every U.S. carrier that accounts for at least one
percent of scheduled passenger revenue, maintains a Web site, and is
not already displaying the required information (9 carriers).
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 11,964 hours (717,780
minutes) in the first year and no more than 12 hours (720 minutes) in
subsequent years for each respondent. The estimate for the first year
was calculated by adding the estimated number of hours per respondent
for developing its Web site for data posting (11,951 hours [717,060
minutes], the quotient of a one-time programming cost of $400,000
divided by $33.47, the median hourly wage for computer programmers) to
the estimated number of hours for management of data links (12 hours
[720 minutes], estimated at one hour per month).
    Estimated total annual burden: 107,667 hours (6,460,020 minutes) in
the first year and no more than 108 hours (6,480 minutes) in subsequent
years for all respondents. The estimate for the first year was
calculated by multiplying the number of hours per respondent for
developing its Web site for data posting (11,951 hours) by the number
of covered carriers (9) and adding the product of the number of hours
per year for management of data links (12) and the number of covered
carriers (9). The estimate for subsequent years was calculated by
multiplying the number of hours per year for management of data links
(12) by the number of covered carriers requiring action to come into
compliance (9).
    Frequency: Development of Web site for data posting: 1 time for
each respondent. Updating information for each flight listed on Web
site: 12 times per year (1 time per month) for each respondent.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this rule.

    Issued this 18th day of December 2009 in Washington, DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Parts 234 and 259

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 253

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Contract of carriage.

14 CFR Part 399

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air carriers, Air rates and

fares, Air taxis, Consumer protection, Small businesses.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department amends 14 CFR
Chapter II as follows:

PART 234--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 234 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 329 and chapters 401 and 417.

0
2. Section 234.11 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  234.11  Disclosure to consumers.

    (a) During the course of reservations or ticketing discussions or
transactions, or inquiries about flights, between a carrier's employees
or contractors and the public, the carrier shall disclose upon
reasonable request the on-time performance code for any flight that has
been assigned a code pursuant to this part.
    (b) For each domestic flight for which schedule information is
available on its Web site, including domestic code-share flights, a
reporting carrier shall display the following information regarding the
flight's performance during the most recent calendar month for which
the carrier has reported on-time performance data to the Department:
the percentage of arrivals that were on time--i.e., within 15 minutes
of scheduled arrival time, the percentage of arrivals that were more
than 30 minutes late (including special highlighting if the flight was
late more than 30 minutes of scheduled arrival time more than 50
percent of the time), and the percentage of flight cancellations if 5
percent or more of the flight's operations were canceled in the month
covered. The information must be provided by showing all of the
required information on the initial listing of flights or by showing
all of the required information via a prominent hyperlink in close
proximity to each flight on the page with the initial listing of
flights.
    (c) Each carrier shall load the information whose disclosure is
required under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section into its internal
reservation system between the 20th and 23rd day of the month after the
month for which the information is being provided.

PART 253--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 253 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. Chapters 401, 415 and 417.

0
4. A new Sec.  253.9 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  253.9  Retroactive Changes to Contracts of Carriage

    An air carrier may not retroactively apply to persons who have
already bought a ticket any material amendment to its contract of
carriage that has significant negative implications for consumers.

0
5. A new part 259 is added to read as follows:

PART 259--ENHANCED PROTECTIONS FOR AIRLINE PASSENGERS

Sec.
259.1 Purpose.
259.2 Applicability.
259.3 Definitions.
259.4 Contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays.
259.5 Customer Service Plans
259.6 Notice and Contract of Carriage.
259.7 Response to consumer problems.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101(a)(4), 40101(a)(9), 40113(a), 41702,
and 41712.

Sec.  259.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to mitigate hardships for airline
passengers during lengthy tarmac delays and otherwise to bolster air
carriers' accountability to consumers.

Sec.  259.2  Applicability.

    This rule applies to all the flights of a certificated or commuter
air carrier if the carrier operates scheduled passenger service or
public charter service using any aircraft originally designed to have a
passenger capacity of 30 or more seats, with the following exceptions:
Sec. Sec.  259.5 and 259.7 do not apply to charter service.

Sec.  259.3.  Definitions.

    Certificated air carrier means a U.S. air carrier that holds a
certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to operate passenger service
or an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41102.
    Commuter air carrier means a U.S. air carrier as established by 14
CFR 298.3(b) that is authorized to carry passengers on at least five
round trips per week on at least one route between two or more points
according to a published flight schedule using small aircraft.
    Large hub airport means an airport that accounts for at least 1.00
percent of the total enplanements in the United States.
    Medium hub airport means an airport accounting for at least 0.25
percent but less than 1.00 percent of the total enplanements in the
United States.
    Small aircraft means any aircraft originally designed to have a
maximum passenger capacity of 60 or fewer seats or a maximum payload
capacity of 18,000 pounds or less.
    Tarmac delay means the holding of an aircraft on the ground either
before taking off or after landing with no opportunity for its
passengers to deplane.

Sec.  259.4  Contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays.

    (a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a
Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays for its scheduled and public
charter flights at each large and medium hub U.S. airport at which it
operates such air service and shall adhere to its plan's terms.
    (b) Contents of Plan. Each Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac
Delays shall include, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) For domestic flights, assurance that the air carrier will not
permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours
unless:
    (i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or
security-related reason (e.g. weather, a directive from an appropriate
government agency) why the aircraft cannot leave its position on the
tarmac to deplane passengers; or
    (ii) Air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that
returning to the gate or another disembarkation point elsewhere in
order to deplane passengers would significantly disrupt airport
operations.
    (2) For international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S.
airport, assurance that the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to
remain on the tarmac at a large or medium hub U.S. airport for more
than a set number of hours, as determined by the carrier and set out in
its contingency plan, before allowing passengers to deplane, unless:
    (i) The pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or
security-related reason why the aircraft cannot leave its position on
the tarmac to deplane passengers; or
    (ii) Air traffic control advises the pilot-in-command that
returning to the gate or another disembarkation point elsewhere in
order to deplane passengers would significantly disrupt airport
operations.
    (3) For all flights, assurance that the air carrier will provide
adequate food and potable water no later than two hours after the
aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of departure) or touches down (in
the case of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless
the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security considerations
preclude such service;
    (4) For all flights, assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as
well as

adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the
tarmac;
    (5) Assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; and
    (6) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport
authorities at all medium and large hub airports that the carrier
serves, including medium and large hub diversion airports.
    (c) Amendment of plan. At any time, an air carrier may amend its
Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays to decrease the time for
aircraft to remain on the tarmac for domestic flights covered in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section, for aircraft to remain on the tarmac
for international flights covered in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
and for the trigger point for food and water covered in paragraph
(b)(3) of this section. An air carrier may also amend its plan to
increase these intervals (up to the limits in this rule), in which case
the amended plan shall apply only to those flights that are first
offered for sale after the plan's amendment.
    (d) Retention of records. Each air carrier that is required to
adopt a Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall retain for two
years the following information about any tarmac delay that lasts at
least three hours:
    (1) The length of the delay;
    (2) The precise cause of the delay;
    (3) The actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers,
including the provision of food and water, the maintenance and
servicing of lavatories, and medical assistance;
    (4) Whether the flight ultimately took off (in the case of a
departure delay or diversion) or returned to the gate; and
    (5) An explanation for any tarmac delay that exceeded 3 hours
(i.e., why the aircraft did not return to the gate by the 3-hour mark).
    (e) Unfair and Deceptive Practice. An air carrier's failure to
comply with the assurances required by this rule and as contained in
its Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays will be considered an
unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712
that is subject to enforcement action by the Department.

Sec.  259.5  Customer Service Plan.

    (a) Adoption of Plan. Each covered carrier shall adopt a Customer
Service Plan applicable to its scheduled flights and shall adhere to
this plan's terms.
    (b) Contents of Plan. Each Customer Service Plan shall, at a
minimum, address the following subjects:
    (1) Offering the lowest fare available;
    (2) Notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and
diversions;
    (3) Delivering baggage on time;
    (4) Allowing reservations to be held without payment or cancelled
without penalty for a defined amount of time;
    (5) Providing prompt ticket refunds;
    (6) Properly accommodating passengers with disabilities and other
special-needs, including during tarmac delays;
    (7) Meeting customers' essential needs during lengthy tarmac
delays;
    (8) Handling ``bumped'' passengers with fairness and consistency in
the case of oversales;
    (9) Disclosing travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent
flyer rules, and aircraft configuration;
    (10) Ensuring good customer service from code-share partners;
    (11) Ensuring responsiveness to customer complaints; and
    (12) Identifying the services it provides to mitigate passenger
inconveniences resulting from cancellations and misconnects.
    (c) Self-auditing of Plan and Retention of Records. Each air
carrier that is required to adopt a Customer Service Plan shall audit
its own adherence to its plan annually. Carriers shall make the results
of their audits available for the Department's review upon request for
two years following the date any audit is completed.

Sec.  259.6  Notice and Contract of Carriage.

    (a) Each air carrier that is required to adopt a Contingency Plan
for Lengthy Tarmac Delays or a Customer Service Plan may include such
plans in their Contract of Carriage.
    (b) Each air carrier that has a Web site shall post its Contract of
Carriage on its Web site in easily accessible form, including all
updates to its Contract of Carriage.
    (c) Each air carrier that is required to adopt a Contingency Plan
for Lengthy Tarmac Delays shall, if it has a Web site but does not
include such Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays in its Contract
of Carriage, post its Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays on its
Web site in easily accessible form, including all updates to its
Contingency Plan for Lengthy Tarmac Delays.
    (d) Each air carrier that is required to adopt a Customer Service
Plan shall, if it has a Web site but does not include such Customer
Service Plan in its Contract of Carriage, post its Customer Service
Plan on its Web site in easily accessible form, including all updates
to its Customer Service Plan.

Sec.  259.7  Response to consumer problems.

    (a) Designated Advocates for Passengers' Interests. Each covered
carrier shall designate for its scheduled flights an employee who shall
be responsible for monitoring the effects of flight delays, flight
cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. This employee
shall have input into decisions on which flights to cancel and which
will be delayed the longest.
    (b) Informing consumers how to complain. Each covered carrier shall
make available the mailing address and e-mail or Web address of the
designated department in the airline with which to file a complaint
about its scheduled service. This information shall be provided on the
carrier's Web site (if any), on all e-ticket confirmations and, upon
request, at each ticket counter and boarding gate staffed by the
carrier.
    (c) Response to complaints. Each covered carrier shall acknowledge
receipt of each complaint regarding its scheduled service to the
complainant within 30 days of receiving it and shall send a substantive
response to each complainant within 60 days of receiving the complaint.
A complaint is a specific written expression of dissatisfaction
concerning a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when
using or attempting to use an airline's services.

PART 399--[AMENDED]

0
6. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 399 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.

0
7. Section 399.81 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  399.81  Unrealistic or deceptive scheduling.

    (a) The unrealistic scheduling of flights by any air carrier
providing scheduled passenger air transportation is an unfair or
deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition within the
meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
    (b) With respect to the advertising of schedule performance, it is
an unfair or deceptive practice and an unfair method of competition to
use any figures purporting to reflect schedule or on-time performance
without indicating the basis of the calculation, the time period
involved, and the pairs of points or the percentage of system-wide
operations thereby represented and whether the figures include all
scheduled flights or only scheduled flights actually performed.
    (c) Chronically delayed flights. (1) This section applies to any
air carrier that is a ``reporting carrier'' as defined in Part 234 of
Department regulations (14 CFR Part 234).
    (2) For the purposes of this section, a chronically delayed flight
means any domestic flight that is operated at least

10 times a month, and arrives more than 30 minutes late (including
cancelled flights) more than 50 percent of the time during that month.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph, the Department considers all of
a carrier's flights that are operated in a given city-pair market whose
scheduled departure times are within 30 minutes of the most frequently
occurring scheduled departure time to be one single flight.
    (4) The holding out of a chronically delayed flight for more than
four consecutive one-month periods represents one form of unrealistic
scheduling and is an unfair or deceptive practice and an unfair method
of competition within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.

[FR Doc. E9-30615 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37295-37299]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-96]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID FMCSA-2009-0154]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 40 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard.

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-2009-0154 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://Docketsinfo.dot.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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions
at the end of each 2-year period. The 40 individuals listed in this
notice each have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 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 statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Michael K. Adams

    Mr. Adams, age 48, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye
since 1976. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Adams has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Adams reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 28 years, accumulating 140,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 28 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a Class
A Commercial Driver's License (CDL) from Ohio. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Michael J. Amorese

    Mr. Amorese, 46, has macular scarring due to a traumatic injury
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20 and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009,
his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Michael Amorese has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Amorese reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 20 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class D
operator's license from New York. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Mark R. Anderson

    Mr. Anderson, 56, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``It is my opinion that Mark can perform
all driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Anderson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years,
accumulating 216,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from
Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Darrell W. Bayless

    Mr. Bayless, 49, has had optic nerve defect from birth. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in his left eye,
20/400. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``I
certify that in my medical opinion, Mr. Bayless has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Bayless reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 4 years, accumulating 220,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed
limit by 8 mph.

Keith A. Bliss

    Mr. Bliss, 41, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1978. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, he has
sufficient vision to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bliss reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 22

years, accumulating 1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 5 years, accumulating 325,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Lloyd D. Burgess

    Mr. Burgess, 60, has loss of vision in his left eye due to retinal
detachment sustained in 2004. The best corrected visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/15 and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an
examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``Based on the above
findings, I certify that in my medical opinion, Mr. Burgess has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle in a safe manner.''
Mr. Burgess reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations
for 29 years, accumulating 3.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL
from Ohio.
    His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gary R. Butler

    Mr. Butler, 57, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident that occurred in 1999. The best corrected visual acuity in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion and without hesitation, Mr. Butler's vision is
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Butler reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 5 years, accumulating 250,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 13 years, accumulating 650,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

David S. Clinger

    Mr. Clinger, 58, has loss of vision in his right eye due to
maculopathy. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his
left eye, 20/25. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, David's vision is sufficient to perform
driving tasks for commercial driving.'' Mr. Clinger reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 42 years, accumulating 588,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald L. Cote

    Mr. Cote, 55, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in his left
eye, 20/15. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``My medical opinion is that Lance Ronald Cote is ok visually to
drive and operate a commercial vehicle without glasses.'' Mr. Cote
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating
760,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Nevada. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

John C. Defoe

    Mr. Defoe, 44, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In
my opinion, Mr. Defoe has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Defoe reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 500,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating
12,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Shennon E. Dorsey

    Mr. Dorsey, 36, has had a prosthetic left eye since 1996. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``It is my medical opinion that Mr. Dorsey
has the vision necessary to continue to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Dorsey reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years,
accumulating 1.3 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 13
years, accumulating 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Georgia. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Steve E. Duran

    Mr. Duran, 62, has loss of vision in his left eye due to retinal
detachment sustained in 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20 and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Duran has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Duran reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 42 years, accumulating 4.6 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from New Mexico. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael M. Edleston

    Mr. Edleston, 58, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury to his cornea sustained in 1969. The best corrected
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted, ``His vision
is sufficient to drive a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Edleston reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 259,200
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 21 years, accumulating
903,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Cecil A. Evey

    Mr. Evey, 54 has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, Cecil Evey has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Evey
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 27 years,
accumulating 1.6 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Kamal A. Gaddah

    Mr. Gaddah, 51, has had central retinal vein occlusion since 2000.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/300. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Gaddah has sufficient vision to
perform his driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Gaddah reported that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years,
accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license
from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bradley O. Hart

    Mr. Hart, 42, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his
left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``I believe that Mr. Hart has sufficient visual function to
operate a commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Hart reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years,

accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

John M. Homchick

    Mr. Homchick, 62, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Homchick has sufficient vision to safely
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Homchick reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 339,352 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Terry L. Hudgens

    Mr. Hudgens, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``In my opinion, Mr. Hudgens has sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Hudgens
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating
1.5 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was not cited, and
one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 14
mph.

Eric M. Kousgaard

    Mr. Kousgaard, 30, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``Patient
does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kousgaard reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 344,500 miles. He
holds a Class O operator's license from Nevada, which allows him to
drive any non-commercial vehicle except a motorcycle. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for
speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.

Larry L. Massey

    Mr. Massey, 60, has had loss of vision in his left eye due to a
congenital birth defect. The best corrected visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in
2009, his optometrist noted, ``I certify in my medical opinion that
Larry Massey does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Massey reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 27 years, accumulating 2.7
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving
violation in a CMV, failure to obey a traffic sign.

Joe A. McIntyre

    Mr. McIntyre, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``I feel he has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle out of state.'' Mr. McIntyre reported
that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years,
accumulating 342,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Georgia. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

James F. McMahon, Jr.

    Mr. McMahon, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2008, his optometrist
noted, ``I do wish to point out that James has been driving commercial
vehicles for 24 years and it is my medical opinion that his vision is
sufficient to allow him to continue to perform this function.'' Mr.
McMahon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 34 years,
accumulating 450,942 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New Hampshire.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Samuel A. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 35, has had an optic nerve defect in his right eye
since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
200 and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Miller's congenital optic nerve
defect should not prohibit him from safely operating a commercial motor
vehicle.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight trucks for
14 years, accumulating 218,400 miles. He holds a chauffeur's license
from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Marvin L. Motes

    Mr. Motes, 67, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury that occurred 15 years ago. The best corrected visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/40 and in his left eye, 20/80. Following
an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``visual deficiency is
stable, patient is able to drive, has sufficient vision to operate
motor commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Motes reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 2 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 28 years, accumulating 1.5 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

John W. Myre

    Mr. Myre, 50, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic injury
since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted,
``Mr. Myre has excellent vision in his right eye and is visually
competent to drive commercial vehicles.'' Mr. Myre reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 31 years, accumulating 322,400, tractor
trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 187,200 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Noah I. Pennington

    Mr. Pennington, 67, has had a macular hole in his right eye since
1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50 and in his left eye,
20/30. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted,
``In my medical opinion, the patient does have sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Pennington reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations
for 30 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10
mph.

Ronald D. Peters

    Mr. Peters, 64, has loss of vision in his left eye due to
subretinal bleeding stopped by a laser treatment in 2003. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30 and in his left eye,
20/250. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``Vision is adequate for commercial license.'' Mr. Peters reported that
he has driven

straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 800,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 4.5 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last
3 years shows one crash, for which he was cited for following another
vehicle too closely, and no other convictions for a moving violation in
a CMV.

Stephen Pozharsky

    Mr. Pozharsky, 62, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
injury sustained in 1973. The best corrected visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``Has sufficient vision to operate motor commercial vehicle with
present condition.'' Mr. Pozharsky reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 36 years, accumulating 756,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 18 years, accumulating 252,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from New Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Angelo D. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers, 48, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left eye, 20/80.
Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted, ``In my
opinion, Angelo Rogers has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rogers reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 221,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating
522,600 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Alabama. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Larry T. Rogers

    Mr. Rogers, 56, has had pappilodema in his right eye since 1999.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``In my opinion, Todd shows sufficient vision (acuity and visual
field) to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rogers reported that he
has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Ricky J. Sanderson

    Mr. Sanderson, 38, has macular scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/15 and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2009,
his optometrist noted, ``With binocular vision he appears to have
adequate vision for commercial driving.'' Mr. Sanderson reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 7,500 miles,
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 600,000 miles,
and buses for 11 years, accumulating 114,400 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from Utah. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

George V. Sorondo

    Mr. Sorondo, 59, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in his left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted,
``It is my professional medical opinion that Mr. Sorondo's vision,
which has remained stable for decades, provides adequate, safe vision
to maintain his commercial driver's license.'' Mr. Sorondo reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 37 years, accumulating 669,330
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from California. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Marcial Soto-Rivas

    Mr. Soto-Rivas, 55, has loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic injury. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2008, his optometrist noted, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Soto-Rivas
does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Soto-Rivas reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 380,000 miles,
tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years, accumulating 840,000 miles,
and buses for 10 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class A
CDL from Oregon. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Marvin L. Stein

    Mr. Stein, 72, has loss of vision in his right eye due to macular
degeneration. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is
count-finger vision and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an
examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist noted, ``It is my medical
opinion that his vision would be sufficient to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Stein reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 375,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 49 years, accumulating 6.4
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

David C. Sybesma

    Mr. Sybesma, 52, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to treatment for choroidal melanoma obtained in 1993. The visual acuity
in his left eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his
optometrist noted, ``At his time, he is well adapted to monocular
vision, has 20/20 vision in his left eye and in my opinion has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Sybesma reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 13 years, accumulating 69,350 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 13 years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bruce E. Thulin

    Mr. Thulin, 58, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/20. Following an
examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``In my opinion, Mr. Thulin
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Thulin reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 44 years, accumulating 4.4 million miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 39 years, accumulating 3.9 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He
exceeded the speed limit by 9 mph.

Matthew K. Tucker

    Mr. Tucker, 38, has optic atrophy in his left eye since 1970. The
best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80 and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``Thus, I believe that his vision is adequate for him to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Tucker reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 1 million miles, and

tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 1.2 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Stanley W. Tyler, Jr.

    Mr. Tyler, 41, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a
traumatic injury sustained as a child. The visual acuity in his right
eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``I believe that Mr. Tyler has perfectly adequate vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Tyler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 275,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Virginia. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Victor H. Vera

    Mr. Vera, 35, has had retinal scarring in his right eye since 2002.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2009, his optometrist
noted, ``My opinion is that he has sufficient vision to safely operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vera reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 729,600 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and one conviction for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the
speed limit by 7 mph.

Charles A. Winchell

    Mr. Winchell, 54, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due
to an infection that resulted in a failed corneal transplant in 1999.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25. Following
an examination in 2009, his optometrist noted, ``I certify that in my
opinion that Chuck has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle as he has been doing this for
many years with the same condition.'' Mr. Winchell reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 1.7
million miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Oklahoma. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction
for speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph.

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. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business August 27, 2009. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: July 21, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-17966 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67439-67440]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28305]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-053; FRL-9485-1]

External Peer Review Meeting for Draft Microbial Risk Assessment
Guideline: Pathogenic Microorganisms With Focus on Food and Water

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Agency is announcing that Eastern Research Group, Inc.
(ERG), a contractor to the EPA, will convene an independent panel of
experts to review the draft document, Microbial Risk Assessment
Guideline: Pathogenic Microorganisms with Focus on Food and Water. EPA
previously announced the release of the draft guidance for a 60 day
comment period (76 FR 44586-44587). The public comment period ended on
September 26, 2011; EPA intends to forward public comments to the
contractor for distribution to members of the review panel. The

external review draft does not represent EPA policy.
    The public may register to attend this peer review meeting as
observers. Time will be set aside at the meeting for observers to give
brief oral comments regarding the draft document. The draft document
and appendix are available, via the Internet, on the Risk Assessment
Forum web page (http://www.epa.gov/raf/microbial.htm). When finalizing
the draft document, EPA intends to consider the comments from the
external peer review meeting, along with public comments received in
September. Public comments submitted during the public comment period
ending September 26, 2011, may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0532.

DATES: The peer review panel meeting on the draft document, Microbial
Risk Assessment Guideline: Pathogenic Microorganisms with Focus on Food
and Water will be held on Monday, November 7, 2011. The panel meeting
begins at 8:30 a.m. and ends at 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the following address: L'Enfant
Plaza Hotel, 480 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Internet: The draft document can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/raf/microbial.htm.
    Instructions: To attend the peer review meeting as an observer, you
must register no later than October 31, 2011. You may do this by
calling ERG at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free on<PHONE_NUMBER> (ask for
the MRA Peer Review coordinator, Laurie Waite); sending a facsimile to
(781) 674-2906 (reference the MRA Peer Review Meeting and include your
name, title, affiliation, full address and contact information); or
sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(reference the MRA Peer Review
Meeting and include your name, title, affiliation, full address and
contact information). You can also register via the Internet at https://www2.ergweb.com/projects/conferences/peerreview/register-mra.htm.
    Space is limited, and registrations will be accepted on a first-
come, first-served basis. There will be a limited amount of time for
comments from the public at the peer review meeting. Please inform ERG
if you wish to make oral comments during the meeting.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: The
Agency welcomes public attendance at the MRA Peer Review Meeting, and
will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
contact ERG on<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER> (ask for
the MRA Peer Review coordinator, Laurie Waite); sending a facsimile to
(781) 674-2906 (reference the ``MRA Peer Review Meeting'' and include
your name and contact information); or sending an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(reference the MRA Peer Review Meeting and include
your name and contact information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael W. Broder, Risk Assessment
Forum, Office of the Science Advisor at the following address: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail
Code 8105R, Washington, DC 20460.
    Dr. Broder's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. His email address
is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Internet: The draft document can be downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/raf/microbial.htm.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft Microbial Risk Assessment
Guideline was developed jointly by scientists from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, with contributions from scientists
in other federal agencies. The document addresses the full range of
microbial risk assessment topics: definitions of the assessors' roles
and responsibilities; planning and scoping; the four components of a
risk assessment; and contains sections discussing risk management and
communication, as well. The guideline highlights differences in the
issues and processes between chemical and microbial risk assessment.
    This document reflects the combined experience and expertise of
microbial risk assessors from across the government, and will promote a
consistent and more transparent approach to conducting microbial risk
assessments.

    Dated: October 24, 2011.
Paul T. Anastas,
Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2011-28305 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 71622]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22817]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-222, OMB Control No. 3235-0233]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Form 2-E

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 609 (17 CFR 230.609) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires small business investment companies and
business development companies that have engaged in offerings of
securities that are exempt from registration pursuant to Regulation E
under the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR 230.601 to 610a) to report
semi-annually on Form 2-E (17 CFR 239.201) the progress of the
offering. The form solicits information such as the dates an offering
commenced and was completed (if completed), the number of shares sold
and still being offered, amounts received in the offering, and expenses
and underwriting discounts incurred in the offering. The information
provided on Form 2-E assists the staff in monitoring the progress of
the offering and in determining whether the offering has stayed within
the limits set for an offering exempt under Regulation E.
    Although there have been no filings of Form 2-E since 2017, for
administrative purposes the Commission estimates that, on average,
approximately one respondent submits a Form 2-E filing each year. The
Commission further estimates that this information collection imposes
an annual burden of four hours and imposes no annual external cost
burden.
    The collection of information under Form 2-E is mandatory. The
information provided by the form will not be kept confidential. 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.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by December 18, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: October 11, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22817 Filed 10-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P