[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30040-30043]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1167]

Proposed Airworthiness Directives Legal Interpretation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Extension of comment period for a proposed airworthiness
directives legal interpretation.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration published a proposed
airworthiness directives legal interpretation for comment. In response
to several requests, we are extending the comment period to allow
additional time for comment. Comments from the public are requested to
assist the agency in developing the final legal interpretation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2010-
1167 using any of the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John King, Staff Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-
3073.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 14, 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
published a proposed airworthiness directives legal interpretation in
the Federal Register for comment (72 FR 20898). The FAA received
numerous comments by the close of the comment period on May 16, 2011.
Included in the comments were requests to extend the comment period to
allow additional time for comment. The FAA is granting an extension
until June 30, 2011, for the public to review the proposed
interpretation and provide comments. We are repeating the publication
of the proposal for the convenience of the reader.

The Request

    The FAA's Organization/Procedures Working Group (WG) of the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC) requested that the FAA provide a legal interpretation of
several provisions in 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that would
help resolve a number of issues that have been debated within the WG.
These issues partly result from certain changes made in the plain
language revision to CFR part 39 in 2002 (see 67 FR 47998, July 22,
2002).

Question 1--Continuing Obligation

    Some members of the WG question the extent of an aircraft
operator's continuing obligation to maintain an AD-mandated
configuration. They ask about two regulations:

Sec.  39.7 What is the legal effect of failing to comply with an
airworthiness directive?

    Anyone who operates a product that does not meet the
requirements of an applicable airworthiness directive is in
violation of this section.

Sec.  39.9 What if I operate an aircraft or use a product that does
not meet the requirements of an airworthiness directive?

    If the requirements of an airworthiness directive have not been
met, you violate Sec.  39.7 each time you operate the aircraft or
use the product.

    The majority WG opinion is that the language of Sec.  39.7, and its
predecessor Sec.  39.3, imposes an operational mandate that the
requirements of the AD be maintained for each operation occurring after
the actions required by the AD are accomplished. They conclude that
Sec.  39.9 expresses the well-established legal position that for
continuing operations of products that do not comply with an AD, each
flight is a separate violation.
    The minority WG opinion is that if the unsafe condition identified
in the AD was fixed at a moment in time, then Sec.  39.7 no longer
applies. The conclusion of the WG minority was that even if the product
was determined to be in a condition contrary to the requirements of the
AD at a later time, this change in configuration may be a violation of
CFR 43.l3 (b), but not Sec.  39.7.

Proposed Response 1--Continuing Obligation

    Section 39.9 notes the need for both initial action by the aircraft
operator and continued compliance by that aircraft operator with the AD
requirements. Section 39.9 was added to the final rule in 2002 as a
result of comments that the proposed version of the rule language
combined compliance and non-compliance issues in one heading (proposed
Sec.  39.5, final version is Sec.  39.7 of the 2002 rulemaking). The
final rule preamble stated that the agency added Sec.  39.9 ``to refer
to Sec.  39.7, which is the rule that operators will violate if they
fail to operate or use a product without complying with an AD that
applies to that product.''
    Section 39.9 explains the continuing obligation for aircraft
operators to maintain the AD-mandated configuration. Section 39.7
imposes an operational requirement. Because the AD imposes an
enforceable requirement to accomplish the mandated actions, the only
way to give Sec.  39.7 any meaning is to recognize that operators are
required to maintain the AD-mandated configuration. Once the AD
requirements are met an operator may only revert to normal maintenance
if that maintenance does not result in changing the AD-mandated
configuration.
    The objective of part 39 and ADs generally is not just to require
accomplishment of particular actions; it is to ensure that, when
products are operated, they are free of identified unsafe conditions.
Section 39.7 is the regulatory means by which the FAA prevents
reintroduction of unsafe conditions. In 1965 the FAA recognized that
maintenance may be the cause of some unsafe conditions: ``the
responsibilities placed on the FAA by the Federal Aviation Act justify
broadening the regulation [part 39] to make any unsafe condition,
whether resulting from maintenance, design, defect, or otherwise, the
proper subject of an AD.'' (Amendment 39-106; 30 FR 8826, July 14,
1965). Prior to Amendment 39-106 ADs could not be issued unless the
unsafe condition was related to a design feature. After Amendment 39-
106 ADs could be issued for unsafe conditions however and wherever
found. The FAA does not issue ADs as a substitute for enforcing
maintenance rules. If a maintenance process is directly related to an
unsafe condition, that maintenance action would be proper for an AD.
Particularly for unsafe conditions resulting from maintenance, it would
be self-defeating to interpret Sec.  39.7 as allowing reversion to the
same maintenance practices that caused or contributed to the unsafe
condition in the first place.

Question 2--Additional Actions

    Some members of the WG questioned the extent of an aircraft
operator's obligation to accomplish actions referenced in an AD beyond
those actions necessary to resolve the unsafe condition specifically
identified in an AD.
    The opinion of these WG members is that a reasonable interpretation
of the language in Sec.  39.11 directing action to ``resolve an unsafe
condition'' limits the FAA from requiring actions that do ``not relate
to correcting'' the identified unsafe condition. In other words, an AD
is limited to those tasks that resolve the unsafe condition, even if
other tasks are explicitly listed in the AD or in a referenced service
bulletin (SB). Even if Sec.  39.11 doesn't explicitly limit the types
of actions that the FAA may mandate in ADs, these members believe that
ADs are limited to imposing requirements that are both necessary and
``directly related'' to addressing an unsafe condition because that is
the sole purpose of ADs, as defined in part 39. The belief is that this
would allow an operator to comply with those actions that, in the
operator's opinion, correct

the unsafe condition without having to obtain an alternative means of
compliance (AMOC) for other actions, such as access and close-up
procedures, that are ``not directly related'' to addressing that
identified unsafe condition.
    Other members of the WG have the opinion that Sec.  39.11 is merely
descriptive of the types of actions required by an AD; it neither
imposes obligations on the operator nor limits the FAA's authority in
issuing an AD. These members believe that, given the FAA's broad
regulatory authority, ADs may impose requirements that operators may
not consider necessary and ``directly related'' to resolving the unsafe
condition.

Proposed Response 2--Additional Actions

    The FAA points to the language contained in Sec.  39.11 that
answers the WG's second question.

Sec.  39.11 What actions do airworthiness directives require?

    Airworthiness directives specify inspections you must carry out,
conditions and limitations you must comply with, and any actions you
must take to resolve an unsafe condition.

    First Title 49, United States Code, Sec.  44701, establishes the
FAA's broad statutory authority to issue regulations in the interest of
aviation safety, and the issuance of an AD is an exercise of this
authority. While describing the types of actions required by ADs, Sec.
39.11 does not limit the broad authority established by the statute.
The requirements of the AD are imposed by the language of the AD
itself, and not by Sec.  39.11. Thus an AD may require more actions
than correcting the specific unsafe condition. An example would be an
AD requirement for certain continuing maintenance actions to prevent or
detect the unsafe condition in the future.
    In developing an AD, the FAA exercises its discretion in
determining what actions are to be required in the interest of aviation
safety. This discretion is limited only by the Administrative Procedure
Act's prohibition on rulemaking actions that are ``arbitrary and
capricious.'' Provided the actions required by an AD are reasonably
related to the purpose of resolving the unsafe condition, it is within
the FAA's discretion to mandate them. For example, service information
frequently includes instructions for accessing the area to be worked on
to address the unsafe condition. Because these access instructions are
reasonably related to addressing the unsafe condition, it is within the
FAA's discretion to mandate them.
    We understand that some members of the AD ARC believe that some ADs
are overly prescriptive with respect to mandated actions that they
believe are unnecessary to address the unsafe condition. As explained
previously, Sec.  39.11 does not address this concern. Rather, the
rulemaking process by which individual ADs are adopted provides the
public with an opportunity to identify and comment upon these concerns
with each AD. In addition, each AD contains a provision allowing for
approval of an AMOC, which allows operators to obtain relief from
requirements they consider unnecessary or unduly burdensome.

Question 3--Use of the Term ``Applicable''

    A WG member cited the use of the term ``applicable'' in a specific
AD, AD 2007-07-02 (72 FR 14400, March 28, 2007), which contains these
requirements:

    (f) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD: Modify
the activation mechanism in the chemical oxygen generator of each
passenger service unit (PSU) by doing all the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable
service bulletin specified in Table 1 of this AD. [Emphasis added.]

    The WG member asked for an explanation of the FAA's use of the word
``applicable'' in the two instances of its use in the paragraph (f) of
the AD.

Proposed Response 3--Use of the Term ``Applicable''

    ``Applicable'' has the same meaning in both places in paragraph
(f). The second usage references Table 1 in the AD that identifies the
model(s) of airplanes to which each service bulletin applies. So the
``applicable service bulletin'' is the one that applies to each
corresponding airplane model, as indicated in the table in the AD.
Similarly, ``all the applicable actions'' specified in each applicable
service bulletin are those actions that are identified as applying to a
particular airplane. ``Applicable'' is a necessary qualifier in this
context for two reasons: (1) In many ADs, the referenced service
bulletins specify different actions for different airplane
configurations, typically identified as ``Group 1, Group 2,'' etc. (2)
In many ADs, the referenced service bulletins specify different actions
depending upon conditions found during accomplishment of previous steps
in the instructions, for example, if a crack is smaller than a
specified size, repair in accordance with the Structural Repair Manual;
if larger, repair in accordance with a method approved by the Aircraft
Certification Office. So ``applicable'' limits the AD's requirements to
only those that are specified in the service bulletin for the
configuration and conditions of the particular airplane. We intend for
the word ``applicable'' to limit the required actions to those that
apply to the particular airplane under the specific conditions found.
    The opinion that ``applicable'' in this context should be
interpreted to refer only to those actions in the service bulletin that
are necessary to address the unsafe condition, and that operators
should not be required to accomplish any other actions that they
determine are not necessary, is incorrect. Without the modifier
``applicable,'' the requirement to accomplish ``all actions specified
in the service bulletin'' would literally mandate accomplishing all
actions, whether or not applicable to the configuration and condition
of a particular airplane. The modifier ``applicable'' is necessary to
avoid this literal, but unintended and likely overly burdensome,
meaning.
    For example, in AD 2007-07-02 different actions are required
depending on the conditions found while accomplishing the modification.
The adjective, ``applicable,'' is necessary to limit the required
actions to those that are indicated for the conditions found. The
purpose of the phrase, ``by accomplishing all the applicable actions
specified,'' is to eliminate precisely the ambiguity that would be
introduced by the WG members' question. The operator is required to
accomplish ``all'' the actions that are ``applicable'' to the affected
airplane, without allowing discretion to determine which ones are, in
the operator's opinion, ``necessary'' to address the unsafe condition.

Question 4--Impossibility

    A member of the AD ARC questions whether an AD needs to
specifically address ``impossibilities'' (for example, an AD requiring
an action that is not possible for the specific aircraft to which the
AD applies, such as modifying parts that have been removed during an
earlier alteration).

Proposed Response 4--Impossibility

    The FAA points to the language of Sec. Sec.  39.15 and 39.17 that
answers the fourth question.

Sec.  39.15 Does an airworthiness directive apply if the product has
been changed?

    Yes, an airworthiness directive applies to each product
identified in the airworthiness directive, even if an individual
product has been changed by modifying, altering, or repairing it in
the area addressed by the airworthiness directive.

Sec.  39.17 What must I do if a change in a product affects my
ability to accomplish the

actions required in an airworthiness directive?

    If a change in a product affects your ability to accomplish the
actions required by the airworthiness directive in any way, you must
request FAA approval of an alternative method of compliance. Unless
you can show the change eliminated the unsafe condition, your
request should include the specific actions that you propose to
address the unsafe condition. Submit your request in the manner
described in Sec.  39.19.

    If a change to a product makes it impossible to comply with the
requirements of an AD, then the operator must request an AMOC approval.
    The FAA does not have the resources to determine the modification
status of every product to which the AD may apply. If it is impossible
to comply with an AD as written, that does not mean the product does
not have the unsafe condition. The only way to make sure the product
does not, or that there is another acceptable way to address it, is to
require an operator to obtain an AMOC approval.
    For several years before part 39 was revised in 2002 the FAA
included a Note in every AD that contained the same substance as the
regulation. This revision to the regulations was a result of some
operators claiming that an AD did not apply to a particular airplane
because the airplane's configuration had changed, even though that
airplane was specifically identified in the ``Applicability'' paragraph
of the AD. But a change in product configuration does not necessarily
mean that the unsafe condition has been eliminated, and in some cases
the unsafe condition may actually be aggravated. So it is necessary to
emphasize that the ``Applicability'' paragraph of the AD determines AD
applicability, not the configuration of an individual airplane. In the
case of the affected component having been removed from the airplane,
the operator must obtain an AMOC approval. If the removed component is
replaced with a different component that may or may not retain the
unsafe condition, this is a technical issue that must be addressed
through the AMOC process. There are infinite variations on the
``impossibility'' issue that cannot be anticipated when drafting an AD
but for which the AMOC process is well suited.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2011.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2011-12733 Filed 5-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31636-31640]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13486]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0049]

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 23 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 6, 2015. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0049 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.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    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: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<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. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-
9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 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 23 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such 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 an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Michael J. Altobelli

    Mr. Altobelli, 39, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Based on the results of his eye examination, Mr. Altobelli has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Altobelli reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 21 years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Johnny A. Bingham

    Mr. Bingham, 46, has had amblyopia strabismus in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated,
``Field of vision in each eye tests 120 degrees in the horizontal
meridians, and has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks he is
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bingham reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 4,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 4,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Robert A. Buckley

    Mr. Buckley, 62, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Buckley has
maintained a commercial license for over forty years with no driving
incidents. In my opinion, there I [sic] no reason to believe his
driving skills are diminished due to his long standing monovision.''
Mr. Buckley reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years,
accumulating 900,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Indiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Allen E. Clark

    Mr. Clark, 27, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my medical opinion, given his stable eye examination, he has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Clark reported that he has driven straight trucks for
eight years, accumulating 68,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for five years, accumulating 12,500 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.

Don A. Clymer

    Mr. Clymer, 69, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, Mr. Clymer has sufficient acuity to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Clymer reported that he has driven straight trucks for
53 years, accumulating 530,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 53 years, accumulating 1.33 million miles. He holds an operator's
license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bryan K. Dalton

    Mr. Dalton, 51, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Normal
VF no issues driving.'' Mr. Dalton reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 35 years, accumulating 87,500 miles, tractor-trailer
combinations for 33 years, accumulating 660,000 miles, and buses for 3
years, accumulating 3,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joseph B. Fry

    Mr. Fry, 27, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/60.
Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``With this
testing and that performed at the routine eye exam on 1/12/15 the
patient has sufficient vision to safely perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Fry reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 10,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 12,000 miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

David B. Ginther

    Mr. Ginther, 58, has had enucleation in his left eye since 2012 due
to ocular melanoma. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2015,
his optometrist stated, ``U.S. Department of Transportation . . .
Provided these findings [sic], I certify that Mr. Ginther is able to
perform driving tasks with sufficient vision within your standards.''
Mr. Ginther reported that he has driven straight trucks for 40 years,
accumulating 600,000 miles, and buses for 4 years, accumulating 8,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Dominic F. Giordano

    Mr. Giordano, 47, has had strabismic amblyopia in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in
his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Giordano has sufficient vision and
peripheral field of vision to perform tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Giordano reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 4 years, accumulating 200,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 10 years, accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Thomas E. Groves

    Mr. Groves, 53, has had a retinal scar in his right eye since 2013.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Although Mr. Groves has a moderate amount of decreased central vision
in the right eye, I believe his overall acuity, depth perception, and
peripheral vision is sufficient to safely operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Groves reported that he has driven straight trucks for
15 years, accumulating 1.69 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 20 years, accumulating 3.5 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from West Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jose J. Guzman-Olguin

    Mr. Guzman-Olguin, 47, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye
since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``In my professional opinion, Mr. Guzman is capable
of driving a commercial vehicle to the extent his test results conform
to the law and with any visual aids that are required by law for
monocular driver.'' Mr. Guzman-Olguin reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 36,400 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Stephen T. Hines

    Mr. Hines, 58, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``There is no ocular reason that should
prevent you from operating any motor vehicle.'' Mr. Hines reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 19,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 2.1 million
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.

James J. Keranen

    Mr. Keranen, 43, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``It is
my medical opinion that James Keranan has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Keranen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years,
accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's license from
Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Wesley S. Kilpatrick

    Mr. Kilpatrick, 36, has had angle closure and a retinal detachment
causing a visual field defect in his right eye since 2012. The visual
acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following
an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion [sic],
Wes Kilpatrick has sufficient vision to perform any task, including the
driving requirements to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kilpatrick
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating
400,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating
160,000 miles, and buses for 12 years, accumulating 132,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Herbert S. Lear

    Mr. Lear, 60, has had aphakia in his right eye since 1990. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/250, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``I believe
that Mr. Lear has sufficient vision to continue to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle as he has been doing
over the past 25 years.'' Mr. Lear reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 43 years, accumulating 860,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 43 years, accumulating 215,000 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.

Christopher V. May

    Mr. May, 53, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25, and in his left eye, 20/60.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion, Mr. Christopher May has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. May
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating
300,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 22 years,
accumulating 880,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Georgia. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Nathan C. Nissen

    Mr. Nissen, 35, has corneal scarring and reduced vision in his
right eye due to a traumatic incident in 2003. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/45, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Based on these findings,
I feel Nathan C. Nissen has the visual abilities to continue operating
a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce because the visual
loss in his right eye occurred in 2003 and has been stable since that
time.'' Mr. Nissen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14
years, accumulating 9,800 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
14 years, accumulating 700,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeffery Reed

    Mr. Reed, 49, 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/
50. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``U.S.
Dept. of Transportation . . . With corrective lenses, I feel that Mr.
Reed is safe to drive.'' Mr. Reed reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 27 years, accumulating 2.83 million miles. He
holds an operator's license from Kentucky. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Gregory S. Richter, Sr.

    Mr. Richter, 59, 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 2015, his optometrist stated, ``I
believe Mr. Richter has sufficient vision to preform [sic] the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Richter reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 1.4
million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for one year,
accumulating 50,000 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 J. Rotenberger

    Mr. Rotenberger, 41, 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/
100. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Based
on the exam findings and the fact the Dave has been driving and
operating heavy machinery on the farm for the last 25 years without
incident, it is my medical opinion that David Rotenberger has
sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle for farm use.'' Mr.
Rotenberger reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 75,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 25
years, accumulating 625,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
North Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

George Tomecek, Jr.

    Mr. Tomecek, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/500, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated that Mr.
Tomecek does not have any conditions or diseases that would make him an
unsafe driver. Mr. Tomecek reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 28 years, accumulating 336,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Richard G. Vaughn

    Mr. Vaughn, 71, has had complete loss of vision in his right eye
since 2012 due to a central vein occlusion. The visual acuity in his
right eye is hand motion, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Vaughn has been
driving commercially since his vision loss in 2012. He should have
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vaughn reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 8 years, accumulating 80,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 40 years, accumulating 5.5 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Paul C. Weiss

    Mr. Weiss, 56, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2015, his optometrist stated, ``In my
opinion, Mr. Weiss has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Weiss reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 38 years, accumulating 3.04 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.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2015-0049 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by
mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2015-0049 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued On: May 22, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-13486 Filed 6-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 5038]
[DOCID:fr02fe07-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-143-000]

Wasatch Energy, LLC and Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of
Joint Petition of Wasatch Energy, LLC, and Northwest Pipeline
Corporation for Expedited Grant of Limited Waivers

January 26, 2007.
    Take notice that on January 23, 2007, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Wasatch Energy, LLC
(Wasatch) and Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) tendered for
filing a Joint Petition for Expedited Grant of Limited Waivers.
    Wasatch and Northwest petition the Commission for an expedited
grant of a limited waiver, to the extent required, of: (i) The
Commission's Order No. 636-A policy regarding the ``tying'' of gas
delivery contracts to any extraneous conditions; (ii) the Commission's
maximum rate cap on released capacity; (iii) applicable capacity-
release tariff provisions of Northwest and other interstate natural gas
pipelines identified; and (iv) any further natural gas pipeline tariff
provision or Commission policy as may be necessary. Wasatch and
Northwest state that the requested waivers will enable them to
permanently transfer Wasatch's portfolio of its natural gas marketing
operations, including transportation capacity on Northwest and other
interstate natural gas pipelines, to Wasatch's Prearranged Replacement
Shipper or some other third-party replacement shipper who may prevail
in a consolidated auction process supervised by Northwest. Wasatch and
Northwest further request expedited action on the requested waivers, so
that the transportation releases may be made effective no later than
March 30, 2007.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time February 5, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-1668 Filed 2-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P