12408 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS—Continued 

Amendment number, city, state Amendment 

approved date 

Original approved net 

PFC revenue 

Amended approved net 

PFC revenue 

Original estimated charge 

exp. date 

Amended estimated charge 

exp. date 

08–07–C–01–BHM Birmingham, AL .................................... 01/13/11 $15,173,639 $13,682,648 03/01/10 07/01/10 

Issued in Washington, DC on February 23, 

2011. 

Joe Hebert, 

Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger 

Facility Charge Branch. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4828 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Intent to Rule on Request To 

Release Airport Property at Ellington 

Field Airport, Houston, Texas 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of request to release 

airport property. 

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and 

invite public comment on the release of 

land at Ellington Field Airport under 

the provisions of Section 125 of the 

Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 

Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 

21). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 4, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on this 

application may be mailed or delivered 

to the FAA at the following address: 

Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, Airports Division, Texas 

Airports Development Office, ASW– 

650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. 

In addition, one copy of any 

comments submitted to the FAA must 

be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mario C. 

Diaz, Aviation Director, at the following 

address: 

Mr. Mario C. Diaz, Aviation Director, 

Houston Airport System, 16930 John 

F. Kennedy Blvd., Houston, Texas 

77032. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ben Guttery, Senior Program Manager, 

Federal Aviation Administration, Texas 

Airports Development Office, ASW– 

652, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137–0650, Telephone: 

(817) 222–5614, E-mail: 

ben.guttery@faa.gov. Fax: (817) 222– 

5989. 

The request to release property may 

be reviewed in person at this same 

location. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA 

invites public comment on the request 

to release property at the Ellington Field 

Airport under the provisions of the AIR 

21. 

On February 7, 2011, the FAA 

determined that the request to release 

property at Ellington Field Airport, 

submitted by the Airport, met the 

procedural requirements of the Federal 

Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The 

FAA may approve the request, in whole 

or in part, no later than April 4, 2011. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

Ellington Field Airport requests the 

release of 16.019 acres of nonaeronautical airport property. The land 

was acquired by the City of Houston via 

an Indenture dated July 1, 1984, and 

Deed without Warranty and Bill of Sale 

dated August 21, 1984. The funds 

generated by the release will be used to 

improve the Ellington Field Airport. 

Any person may inspect the request 

in person at the FAA office listed above 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

In addition, any person may, upon 

request, inspect the application, notice 

and other documents relevant to the 

application in person at the FAA Office 

listed above or the Houston Airport 

System Offices at Ellington Field 

Airport. 

Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on February 

25, 2011. 

Kelvin Solco, 

Manager, Airports Division. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5093 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0413] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt 16 individuals from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable 

these individuals to operate commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate 

commerce without meeting the 

prescribed vision standard. The Agency 

has concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level of safety maintained without the 

exemptions for these CMV drivers. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

March 7, 2011. The exemptions expire 

on March 7, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, 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: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

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 selfaddressed, 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 DOT’s Privacy Act 

Statement for the FDMS published in 

the Federal Register on January 17, 

2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/ 

E8-785.pdf. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 12409 

Background 

On January 10, 2011, FMCSA 

published a notice of receipt of 

exemption applications from certain 

individuals, and requested comments 

from the public (76 FR 1493). That 

notice listed 16 applicants’ case 

histories. The 16 individuals applied for 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who 

operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2- 

year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption.’’ The statute also 

allows the Agency to renew exemptions 

at the end of the 2-year period. 

Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 

16 applications on their merits and 

made a determination to grant 

exemptions to each of them. 

Vision and Driving Experience of the 

Applicants 

The vision requirement in the 

FMCSRs provides: 

A person is physically qualified to 

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that 

person has distant visual acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye 

without corrective lenses or visual 

acuity separately corrected to 20/40 

(Snellen) or better with corrective 

lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 

20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or 

without corrective lenses, field of vision 

of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian 

in each eye, and the ability to recognize 

the colors of traffic signals and devices 

showing standard red, green, and amber 

(49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)). 

FMCSA recognizes that some drivers 

do not meet the vision standard, but 

have adapted their driving to 

accommodate their vision limitation 

and demonstrated their ability to drive 

safely. The 16 exemption applicants 

listed in this notice are in this category. 

They are unable to meet the vision 

standard in one eye for various reasons, 

including amblyopia, complete loss of 

vision, macular drusen, central serous 

retinopathy, optic atrophy, retinal 

detachment, histoplasmosis, nuclear 

sclerosis cataract, and prosthesis. In 

most cases, their eye conditions were 

not recently developed. Eleven of the 

applicants were either born with their 

vision impairments or have had them 

since childhood. The 5 individuals who 

sustained their vision conditions as 

adults have had them for periods 

ranging from 7 to 27 years. 

Although each applicant has one eye 

which does not meet the vision standard 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at 

least 20/40 corrected vision in the other 

eye, and in a doctor’s opinion, has 

sufficient vision to perform all the tasks 

necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors’ 

opinions are supported by the 

applicants’ possession of valid 

commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or 

non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before 

issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to 

knowledge and skills tests designed to 

evaluate their qualifications to operate a 

CMV. 

All of these applicants satisfied the 

testing standards for their State of 

residence. By meeting State licensing 

requirements, the applicants 

demonstrated their ability to operate a 

commercial vehicle, with their limited 

vision, to the satisfaction of the State. 

While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 16 drivers have been 

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate 

commerce, even though their vision 

disqualified them from driving in 

interstate commerce. They have driven 

CMVs with their limited vision for 

careers ranging from 2 to 44 years. In the 

past 3 years, 2 of the drivers were 

involved in crashes or convicted of 

moving violations in a CMV. 

The qualifications, experience, and 

medical condition of each applicant 

were stated and discussed in detail in 

the January 10, 2011 notice (76 FR 

1493). 

Basis for Exemption Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may grant an exemption from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely 

to achieve an equivalent or greater level 

of safety than would be achieved 

without the exemption. Without the 

exemption, applicants will continue to 

be restricted to intrastate driving. With 

the exemption, applicants can drive in 

interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis 

focuses on whether an equal or greater 

level of safety is likely to be achieved by 

permitting each of these drivers to drive 

in interstate commerce as opposed to 

restricting him or her to driving in 

intrastate commerce. 

To evaluate the effect of these 

exemptions on safety, FMCSA 

considered not only the medical reports 

about the applicants’ vision, but also 

their driving records and experience 

with the vision deficiency. 

To qualify for an exemption from the 

vision standard, FMCSA requires a 

person to present verifiable evidence 

that he/she has driven a commercial 

vehicle safely with the vision deficiency 

for the past 3 years. Recent driving 

performance is especially important in 

evaluating future safety, according to 

several research studies designed to 

correlate past and future driving 

performance. Results of these studies 

support the principle that the best 

predictor of future performance by a 

driver is his/her past record of crashes 

and traffic violations. Copies of the 

studies may be found at Docket Number 

FMCSA–1998–3637. 

We believe we can properly apply the 

principle to monocular drivers, because 

data from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver 

study program clearly demonstrate the 

driving performance of experienced 

monocular drivers in the program is 

better than that of all CMV drivers 

collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, 

March 26, 1996). The fact that 

experienced monocular drivers 

demonstrated safe driving records in the 

waiver program supports a conclusion 

that other monocular drivers, meeting 

the same qualifying conditions as those 

required by the waiver program, are also 

likely to have adapted to their vision 

deficiency and will continue to operate 

safely. 

The first major research correlating 

past and future performance was done 

in England by Greenwood and Yule in 

1920. Subsequent studies, building on 

that model, concluded that crash rates 

for the same individual exposed to 

certain risks for two different time 

periods vary only slightly (See Bates 

and Neyman, University of California 

Publications in Statistics, April 1952). 

Other studies demonstrated theories of 

predicting crash proneness from crash 

history coupled with other factors. 

These factors—such as age, sex, 

geographic location, mileage driven and 

conviction history—are used every day 

by insurance companies and motor 

vehicle bureaus to predict the 

probability of an individual 

experiencing future crashes (See Weber, 

Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An 

Application of Multiple Regression 

Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal 

of American Statistical Association, 

June 1971). A 1964 California Driver 

Record Study prepared by the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

concluded that the best overall crash 

predictor for both concurrent and 

nonconcurrent events is the number of 

single convictions. This study used 3 

consecutive years of data, comparing the 

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years 

with their experiences in the final year. 

Applying principles from these 

studies to the past 3-year record of the 

16 applicants, two of the applicants 

were convicted for a moving violation 

and none of the applicants were 

involved in a crash. All the applicants 

achieved a record of safety while 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12410 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices 

1BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) is a vehicle 

manufacturer incorporated under the laws of the 

state of New Jersey. 

driving with their vision impairment, 

demonstrating the likelihood that they 

have adapted their driving skills to 

accommodate their condition. As the 

applicants’ ample driving histories with 

their vision deficiencies are good 

predictors of future performance, 

FMCSA concludes their ability to drive 

safely can be projected into the future. 

We believe that the applicants’ 

intrastate driving experience and history 

provide an adequate basis for predicting 

their ability to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Intrastate driving, like 

interstate operations, involves 

substantial driving on highways on the 

interstate system and on other roads 

built to interstate standards. Moreover, 

driving in congested urban areas 

exposes the driver to more pedestrian 

and vehicular traffic than exists on 

interstate highways. Faster reaction to 

traffic and traffic signals is generally 

required because distances between 

them are more compact. These 

conditions tax visual capacity and 

driver response just as intensely as 

interstate driving conditions. The 

veteran drivers in this proceeding have 

operated CMVs safely under those 

conditions for at least 3 years, most for 

much longer. Their experience and 

driving records lead us to believe that 

each applicant is capable of operating in 

interstate commerce as safely as he/she 

has been performing in intrastate 

commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds 

that exempting these applicants from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. For this reason, the 

Agency is granting the exemptions for 

the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to the 16 applicants 

listed in the notice of January 10, 2011 

(76 FR 1493). 

We recognize that the vision of an 

applicant may change and affect his/her 

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in 

the past. As a condition of the 

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will 

impose requirements on the 16 

individuals consistent with the 

grandfathering provisions applied to 

drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver program. 

Those requirements are found at 49 

CFR 391.64(b) and include the 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s 

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a 

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received one comment in this 

proceeding. The comment was 

considered and discussed below. 

Ms. Tanya Lyons of the Delaware 

DMV medical section was in favor of 

granting a Federal vision exemption to 

Thomas S. Roth, she indicated that he 

has had a clear safety driving record 

since he became a CDL license holder in 

the State of Delaware. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 16 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts Michael L. Ballantyne, Terry 

Brown, Delbert M. Carson, Wingson 

Chang, Richard C. Dickinson, Richard 

A. Guthrie, Kennth L. Handy, Thomas J. 

Ivins, Bryon K. Lavender, Victor M. 

McCants, William K. Otwell, Donald R. 

Pointer, Steve A. Reece, Thomas S. 

Roth, Mark A. Steckmyer, and James M. 

Tennyson from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the 

requirements cited above (49 CFR 

391.64(b)). 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. 

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Issued on: February 25, 2011. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator, Office of Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4941 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0180; Notice 1] 

BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt 

of Petition for Decision of 

Inconsequential Noncompliance 

BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 1

a subsidiary of BMW AG, Munich, 

Germany, has determined that certain 

BMW vehicles equipped with ‘‘run-flat’’ 

tires do not fully comply with 

paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of 49 

CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle 

Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire 

selection and rims and motor home/ 

recreation vehicle trailer load carrying 

capacity information for motor vehicles 

with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 

pounds) or less. BMW filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports dated 

November 2, 2010. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 

30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49 

CFR part 556), BMW has petitioned for 

an exemption from the notification and 

remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 301 on the basis that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. 

This notice of receipt of BMW’s, 

petition is published under 49 U.S.C. 

30118 and 30120 and does not represent 

any agency decision or other exercise of 

judgment concerning the merits of the 

petition. 

BMW estimates that approximately 

54,200 vehicles equipped with ‘‘run flat’’ 

tires are affected. The affected vehicle 

models are certain: Model Year 2008– 

2011 BMW X5 SAV multipurpose 

passenger vehicles, manufactured from 

February 2, 2008 through October 26, 

2010; Model Year 2008–2011 BMW X6 

SAC multipurpose passenger vehicles, 

manufactured from September 19, 2008 

through October 26, 2010; and 2011 

BMW 5–Series, BMW 5–Series Gran 

Turismo, and BMW 7–Series passenger 

cars, manufactured from September 1, 

2010 through October 26, 2010. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) notes that the 

statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) 

and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers 

to file petitions for a determination of 

inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to 

exempt manufacturers only from the 

duties found in sections 30118 and 

30120, respectively, to notify owners, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES