54946 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and Carrier 

Operations Division, Department of 

Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration, West Building 

6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

202–366–4325; e-mail 

tom.yager@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4007(b) of the Motor Carrier 

Act of 1991 (Title IV of the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 

1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat. 

1914, 2152; 49 U.S.C. 31307) requires 

the Secretary of Transportation to 

establish Federal minimum training 

requirements for drivers of LCVs. The 

responsibility for implementing the 

statutory requirement was subsequently 

delegated to FMCSA (49 CFR 1.73). The 

FMCSA, in a final rule entitled, 

‘‘Minimum Training Requirements for 

Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) 

Operators and LCV Driver-Instructor 

Requirements’’ adopted implementing 

regulations for minimum training 

requirements for the operators of LCVs 

(March 30, 2004; 69 FR 16722). 

The 2004 final rule created an 

information collection burden 

concerning the certification of new, 

current and non-grandfathered LCV 

drivers. An LCV is any combination of 

a truck-tractor and two or more semitrailers or trailers, which operates on the 

National System of Interstate and 

Defense Highways (as defined in 23 CFR 

470.107) and has a gross vehicle weight 

greater than 80,000 pounds. The 

purpose of this rule is to enhance the 

safety of LCV operations on our nation’s 

highways. 

By regulation, motor carriers cannot 

allow a driver to operate an LCV 

without ensuring that the driver has 

been properly trained in accordance 

with the requirements of 49 CFR 

380.113. LCV drivers must present their 

LCV Driver-Training Certificate to 

prospective employers as proof of 

qualification to drive LCVs. Motor 

carriers must maintain a copy of the 

LCV Training Certificate in order to be 

able to show Federal, State or local 

officials that drivers operating LCVs are 

certified to do so. 

Title: Training Certification for 

Drivers of Longer Combination Vehicles. 

OMB Control Number: 2126–0026. 

Type of Request: Revision of a 

currently-approved information 

collection. 

Respondents: Drivers who complete 

LCV training each year, current LCV 

drivers who submit the LCV DriverTraining Certificate to a prospective 

employer, and motor carriers receiving 

and filing the certificates. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

31,500 drivers and motor carriers (750 

new LCV drivers plus 15,000 current 

LCV drivers plus 15,750 motor carriers). 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

31,500 (750 new LCV drivers plus 

15,000 current LCV drivers plus 15,750 

motor carriers). 

Estimated Time per Response: 10 

minutes for preparation of LCV DriverTraining Certificate and an additional 

10 minutes for the use of the LCV 

Driver-Training Certificate during the 

hiring process each year. 

Expiration Date: February 28, 2011. 

Frequency of Response: At various 

times during the year. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

2,750 hours. The total number of drivers 

per year for whom this activity will 

occur consists of newly-trained LCV 

drivers (750) and current LCV drivers 

changing employers (15,000), a total of 

15,750 drivers. The total annual 

information collection burden is 

estimated to be 2,750 hours: Preparation 

of LCV Driver-Training Certificate [750 

newly trained LCV drivers × 10 minutes 

÷ 60 minutes], and use of the certificate 

during the hiring process [15,750 total 

LCV drivers × 10 minutes ÷ 60 minutes] 

Definitions: The LCV training 

regulations under 49 CFR part 380 are 

applicable only to drivers of ‘‘longer 

combination vehicles,’’ defined as ‘‘any 

combination of a truck-tractor and two 

or more trailers or semi-trailers, which 

operate[s] on the National System of 

Interstate and Defense Highways 

(defined in 23 CFR 470.107) with a gross 

vehicle weight greater than 80,000 

pounds’’ (49 CFR 380.105). 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including: (1) 

Whether the proposed collection is 

necessary for FMCSA’s performance; (2) 

the accuracy of the estimated burden; 

(3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the 

quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 

collected information; and (4) ways that 

the burden could be minimized without 

reducing the quality of the collected 

information. The Agency will 

summarize or include your comments in 

the request for OMB’s clearance of this 

information collection. 

Issued on: September 2, 2010. 

Kelly Leone, 

Director, Office of Information Technology. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22458 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0831] 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP): 

Policy Regarding Access to Airports 

From Residential Property 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed policy; 

notice of proposed amendment to 

sponsor grant assurance 5; and request 

for public comment. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend and clarify FAA policy 

concerning through-the-fence access to a 

Federally obligated airport from an 

adjacent or nearby property, when that 

property is used as a residence and 

permits continuation of existing access 

subject to certain standards. This action 

also proposes to modify sponsor grant 

assurance 5, Preserving Rights and 

Powers, to prohibit new residential 

through-the-fence access to a Federally 

obligated airport. Current FAA policy 

discourages through-the-fence access to 

a Federally obligated airport from an offairport residence. Owners of properties 

used both as a residence and for the 

storage of personal aircraft, sometimes 

called ‘‘hangar homes,’’ have urged the 

agency to permit an exception to 

through-the-fence policy for residents 

who own aircraft. The FAA proposes to 

modify Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP) grant assurance 5, Preserving 

Rights and Powers, to clarify that airport 

sponsors are prohibited from permitting 

new through-the-fence access from 

residential properties. Pursuant to 

applicable law, the Secretary of 

Transportation is required to provide 

notice in the Federal Register and an 

opportunity for the public to comment 

upon proposals to modify or add new 

AIP assurances. The agency recognizes 

that there are airports at which 

residential through-the-fence access 

already exists. The FAA will not 

consider sponsors of these airports to be 

in violation of current grant assurances 

if the airport sponsor meets certain 

standards for control of airport 

operations and development; selfsustaining and nondiscriminatory 

airport rates; and compatible land use. 

At present, there are 75 airports in the 

continental U.S. where residential 

through-the-fence access is known to 

exist. This represents less than 3 percent 

of the 3,300 airports listed in the FAA’s 

National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS) and eligible for 

Federal investment. While the vast 

majority of airport sponsors do not have 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54947 

residential through-the-fence access, 

due to the increasing number of requests 

to establish such access, particularly at 

general aviation airports, the agency has 

revisited the policy in order to establish 

clear guidance for the future. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before October 25, 2010. The FAA will 

consider comments received on the 

Proposed Policy and the proposed grant 

assurance modification. Any necessary 

or appropriate revision to the Policy or 

the grant assurance modification 

resulting from the comments received 

will be adopted as of the date of a 

subsequent publication in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0831] using any of the following 

methods: 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: To Docket 

Operations, Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

For more information on the notice 

and comment process, see the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. For 

more information, see the Privacy Act 

discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to Room W12–140 on the ground 

floor 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. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Randall S. Fiertz, Director, Office of 

Airport Compliance and Field 

Operations, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, 

telephone (202) 267–3085; facsimile: 

(202) 267–5257; e-mail: 

randall.fiertz@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Availability of Documents 

You can get an electronic copy of this 

notice and all other documents in this 

docket using the Internet by: 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking portal (http:// 

www.regulations.gov/search); 

(2) Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or 

(3) Accessing the Government 

Printing Office’s Web page at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/index.html. 

You can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Airport 

Compliance and Field Operations, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–3085. Make sure to identify 

the docket number, notice number, or 

amendment number of this proceeding. 

Authority for the Policy and Grant 

Assurance Modification 

This notice is published under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part 

B, Chapter 471, sections 47107 and 

47122 of Title 49 United States Code. 

Background 

Sponsors of airports that accept 

planning and development grants from 

the FAA under the Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP), 49 U.S.C. 

47101 et seq., agree to a list of standard 

conditions, or grant assurances. Similar 

obligations also attach to the transfer of 

Federal surplus property to airport 

sponsors and are often contained in 

surplus property deeds. These include 

responsibilities to retain the rights and 

powers necessary to control and operate 

the airport; to maintain the airport in a 

safe condition; to take reasonable steps 

to restrict land adjacent to the airport to 

compatible land uses; to allow access to 

the airport on terms that are reasonable, 

not unjustly discriminatory to any 

category of user; and to maintain a rate 

structure for airport fees that makes the 

airport as self-sustaining as possible. 

A complete list of the current grant 

assurances can be viewed at: http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports/aip/ 

grant_assurances/. 

Administration of the AIP, including 

sponsor compliance with grant 

assurances, is the responsibility of the 

FAA Associate Administrator for 

Airports. The FAA developed internal 

agency Order 5190, commonly referred 

to as the Airport Compliance Manual, 

which is used by agency employees in 

the administration of the AIP. On 

September 30, 2009, the agency issued 

FAA Order 5190.6B, Airport 

Compliance Manual; it superseded 

Order 5190.6A, which was in effect 

from 1989 to 2009. The new order was 

updated to reflect new statutory grant 

assurances and other pertinent statutory 

changes as well as changes in and 

clarifications of agency policy since 

1989. 

Typically, through-the-fence access 

allows an aircraft owner to store an 

aircraft at an off-airport property, and to 

use the airport by way of a taxiway that 

crosses the airport boundary and 

connects the owner’s property or 

neighborhood to the airport’s runwaytaxiway system. Residential access to 

airports from residences was only 

briefly mentioned in Order 5190.6A. It 

defined through-the-fence access as 

where ‘‘an individual or corporation 

residing or doing business on an 

adjacent tract of land proposes to gain 

access to the landing area.* * *’’ Order 

5190.6A otherwise only dealt with 

commercial through-the-fence access, 

and stated that when this type of 

arrangement ‘‘circumvents the 

attainment of the public benefit for 

which the airport was developed, the 

owner of the airport will be notified that 

the airport may be in violation of his 

agreement with the Government.’’ Order 

5190.6A did not address airparks with 

multiple residences or the sponsor’s 

authority to permit establishment of 

new residences with through-the-fence 

access. Order 5190.6A stated a general 

policy recommending airport owners 

refrain from entering into residential 

through-the-fence agreements but did 

not articulate a policy that such access 

constituted a per se violation of Federal 

grant assurance obligations. 

In the mid-2000s, several issues 

specifically relating to residential use of 

property on or near several Federally 

obligated general aviation airports came 

to the FAA’s attention. In one case, the 

firm managing the airport established a 

residential development around the 

airport. In another case, a developer 

marketed hangar homes on the airport 

itself, next to a taxiway. In these cases 

and others, the FAA advised that the 

sponsor was precluded by its grant 

assurance obligations from permitting 

new residential development with 

through-the-fence access. In so advising, 

the agency cited violations of the AIP 

grant assurances relating to the rights 

and powers of the airport sponsor; 

economic discrimination; safe 

operation; and compatible land use. The 

FAA did not consider this to reflect any 

change in policy under Order 5190.6A, 

but rather an interpretation of that 

guidance and underlying grant 

assurance obligations as it applied to 

circumstances not anticipated in 1989. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54948 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

The revisions to Order 5190.6B 

reflected the agency’s strong policy 

concerns about new trends in 

residential through-the-fence access, 

which had been expressed in letters to 

sponsors and developers. Order 5190.6B 

stated that the FAA would not support 

any through-the-fence agreement 

associated with residential use, under 

any circumstances, since that action 

would be inconsistent with the Federal 

obligation to ensure compatible land use 

adjacent to the airport. In response to 

requests from numerous airport 

sponsors, users, and FAA airport district 

office staff, the FAA issued draft 

Compliance Guidance Letter 2009–1— 

Through-the-Fence and On-Airport 

Residential Access to Federally 

Obligated Airports, on October 13, 2009. 

The purpose of the Compliance 

Guidance Letter was to reiterate the 

FAA’s policy regarding through-thefence agreements and outline criteria for 

FAA personnel’s review of these 

agreements. This guidance also 

discussed appropriate corrective actions 

that should be developed to prevent 

future residential through-the-fence 

access and limit its expansion. The FAA 

circulated the draft Compliance 

Guidance Letter among aviation user 

groups for comments from October 15, 

2009 through December 21, 2009. 

There has been no corresponding 

need for clarification of the agency’s 

policy on commercial through-the-fence 

access. Commercial through-the-fence 

access has always been discouraged, but 

is a fact of life at some airports and a 

necessity at others where there is not 

sufficient land on airport for providers 

of aeronautical services. The potential 

adverse effects of commercial throughthe-fence access can be mitigated by the 

measures discussed in Order 5190.6B, 

and the FAA is not proposing any 

changes to policy on commercial access. 

FAA Review of the New Policy 

Statement and Public Outreach 

In response to informal comments 

received on these actions, the FAA 

Associate Administrator for Airports 

directed the Office of Airport 

Compliance and Field Operations to 

review the policy for residential 

through-the-fence access as stated in 

Order 5190.6B. The Office of Airport 

Compliance and Field Operations took 

several steps to obtain public views on 

through-the-fence access as part of its 

policy review. Between July 2009 and 

March 2010, the Office of Airport 

Compliance and Field Operations: 

• Received comments from 

stakeholders with regard to residential 

through-the-fence access at an aviation 

membership association’s convention. 

• Accepted comments from interested 

aviation associations and their members 

on a draft compliance guidance letter on 

through-the-fence access. 

• Met with aviation membership 

associations which commented on the 

issue. 

• Met with airport representatives 

from Wittman Regional Airport in 

Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and observed a 

meeting with representatives from 

Sandpoint Airport in Idaho and the 

FAA’s Northwest Mountain Regional 

Office staff. Both airports have existing 

residential through-the-fence access 

arrangements. 

• Spoke with State aviation officials 

of States with residential through-thefence access. 

• Conducted site visits and met with 

airport sponsors, local tenants, and 

residents at several other representative 

airports with existing residential 

through-the-fence access. Locations 

visited included airports in Erie, 

Colorado; Independence, Oregon; 

Driggs, Idaho; and Oneida, Tennessee. 

Independent of the specific review of 

through-the-fence policy, the Office of 

Airport Compliance and Field 

Operations issued new Order 5190.6B 

for public review and comment. Any 

necessary corrections will be included 

in an update of the Order. A notice 

requesting public comment was 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 13, 2009 (74 FR 52524). 

Comments were due on March 31, 2010. 

Comments on the provisions of the 

Order related to residential through-thefence will be addressed in finalizing this 

Policy. We expect to update the Order 

to reflect this Policy. Other comments 

will be dealt with separately in updating 

the Order. 

Comments Received on Residential 

Through-the-Fence Access, July 2009– 

March 2010 

During its policy review, the Office of 

Airport Compliance and Field 

Operations received comments by 

written submission, by e-mail, and 

verbally in meetings. Commenters 

included persons with residential 

through-the-fence access at a Federally 

obligated airport; State aviation officials; 

airport management; local government 

officials; developers; the Aircraft 

Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA); 

the American Association of Airport 

Executives (AAAE); the Experimental 

Aircraft Association (EAA); and the 

National Air Transportation Association 

(NATA). Many commenters took the 

position that residential through-thefence access is actually beneficial for an 

airport. Some other commenters 

recognized potential and actual 

problems with such access, but stated 

that existing access should be allowed 

to continue even if new access is not 

allowed. EAA urged that residential 

through-the-fence be allowed, and that 

new requests for access be approved at 

general aviation airports. AOPA would 

accept a policy against establishing new 

residential through-the-fence access 

arrangements, but believed that existing 

locations should be permitted to 

continue. AAAE was concerned about 

requiring sponsors to depict throughthe-fence access on the airport layout 

plan because the sponsor would not be 

able to prevent the property owner from 

splitting the parcel and establishing a 

second access point not depicted on the 

airport layout plan. NATA would 

support a ban on new residential 

through-the-fence access and the 

elimination of existing uses. 

Issues raised by one or more 

commenters can be summarized as 

follows: 

Comment: Residential through-thefence access provides a supportive 

community that likes aviation, will not 

complain about airport noise, and 

protects the airport in local politics. 

Response: Owners of residential lots 

with through-the-fence access 

frequently commented that the airport 

benefits from such owners, because they 

support the airport and would not 

oppose aircraft operations like other 

residents. We agree that this is true up 

to a point. We accept that aircraft 

owners do not object to the presence of 

the airport, or to operations by others 

with similar aircraft. However, when 

faced with a change in operations at the 

airport that may affect the desirability of 

a nearby residence, for example 

operations by helicopters or larger 

aircraft types, a through-the-fence owner 

is just as likely to oppose the change as 

support it. It is a guiding principle of 

the National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems (NPIAS) that ‘‘[a]irports should 

be flexible and expandable, and able to 

meet increased demand and to 

accommodate new aircraft types.’’ The 

FAA is concerned that owners of 

residential property next to an airport 

could attempt to limit the airport 

sponsor’s flexibility to expand an 

airport or accommodate new aircraft 

types. 

Secondly, while through-the-fence 

communities sometimes attempt to limit 

ownership to aircraft owners, there is no 

effective way to prevent turnover of 

these properties to non-aircraft owners 

at some point. When that happens, the 

airport may encounter significant local 

opposition from its immediate 

neighbors. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54949 

Comment: Hangar homes should be 

considered an exception to the FAA 

general policy that residences are an 

incompatible land use, because owners 

of hangar homes accept airport noise. A 

hangar home should not be considered 

a residential use; the need to locate it 

near an airport taxiway makes it an 

aeronautical use. 

Response: It is longstanding 

congressional and FAA policy that 

airports should be operated in a way 

that minimizes the impact of aircraft 

noise on communities. One of the key 

means of implementing that policy is to 

limit land uses around airports to uses 

compatible with airport noise and 

operations. Residential use is not a 

preferred, compatible use for properties 

adjacent to public-use airports. As such, 

the FAA has awarded several hundred 

million dollars in AIP grants in the past 

three decades for acquiring noise buffer 

land, relocating homes, and insulating 

homes to achieve compatible land use. 

Simultaneously adopting a policy that 

encourages more homes near airports is 

counter to these efforts. Distinguishing 

between homes without hangars and 

homes with hangars does not eliminate 

the domestic characteristics that present 

additional challenges, such as the 

proximity of children and pets, to 

normal airport operations. In addition, 

not all residents are aircraft owners, 

examples being family members and 

tenants. Furthermore, it is not possible 

to guarantee that a residence owned by 

an aircraft owner now will continue to 

be in the future. Even aircraft owners 

may be motivated more as homeowners 

than as aircraft owners, when faced with 

a proposed expansion of the airport or 

introduction of new aircraft types that 

might affect living conditions or 

residential property values. Finally, 

once in place, a residential use is 

difficult to move or eliminate because 

homeowners expect to retain the use 

and value of their home indefinitely. 

Comment: Residential through-thefence communities provide valuable 

revenue to the airport operator. 

Response: It is true that some 

residential through-the-fence users pay 

the airport for access. In a few cases, the 

airport operator has come to depend on 

that revenue. In cases where residential 

through-the-fence access rights already 

exist, the FAA believes that the airport 

should charge for that access, not only 

to support the airport but also to fairly 

distribute the recovery of airport 

operating and capital expenses across 

both tenants and non-tenant users of the 

airport. So, if an owner of land next to 

an airport has through-the-fence access 

to an airport, the owner should pay for 

that access. However, the potential for 

additional revenue to the airport does 

not justify the establishment of homes 

next to an airport. Also, the effect on 

revenue is not always positive. Storage 

of aircraft at off-airport lots with airport 

access can undermine the market for 

hangars and tie-downs on airport 

property. 

Comment: Residential through-thefence owners provide additional 

security at an airport. 

Response: Residence of persons near 

the airport does not automatically 

translate into full-time surveillance. It is 

true that residents may notice 

suspicious activity, because they are 

familiar with the airport and are around 

more than persons who are just using 

the airport when they are flying or 

working on an aircraft. On the other 

hand, the existence of routine traffic 

through-the-fence from off-airport 

locations makes such activity less 

suspicious because it is expected. Also, 

just the existence of additional access 

points through the airport boundary 

tends to make the airport less secure, 

not more. The FAA consulted with the 

Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA) of the Department of Homeland 

Security to obtain TSA’s view of this 

particular comment. While TSA does 

not directly regulate access at general 

aviation airports, that agency took the 

position that access points to an airport 

should be limited to the number 

necessary. TSA plans to undertake a 

separate review of this matter and the 

FAA will incorporate any 

recommendations resulting from that 

review. 

Comment: The FAA hasn’t identified 

any actual problem associated with the 

residential use aspect of through-thefence access. Most examples of 

problems cited have been generic 

through-the-fence issues, and are not 

specific to residential use. The FAA’s 

concern about residential use is not 

justified by information, noise 

complaints, studies or experience. 

Response: It is true that the FAA has 

cited problems with residential throughthe-fence access that are common to any 

type of through-the-fence access, 

including commercial uses. Problems 

have included the sponsor’s inability or 

failure to be reimbursed for the access; 

interference with airport operation 

because of the location of access points; 

and impeding optimal airport layout 

and growth. As with commercial uses, 

these problems can be mitigated, and 

the Policy proposed would require such 

mitigation for existing residential 

through-the-fence access where 

possible. 

There are concerns that are particular 

to residential through-the-fence access, 

however. As mentioned previously, 

owners of hangar homes are highly 

tolerant of current aircraft types and 

operations at the airport, but can be 

resistant to change. Residential throughthe-fence communities can have 

substantial influence on decisions of the 

airport sponsor, and over time limit the 

sponsor’s ability to take actions to 

accommodate new aviation demand. 

Commenters pointed to a lack of noise 

complaints in FAA files as evidence that 

current hangar home owners have not 

objected to airport operations. Such 

comments would of course be made to 

the airport sponsor or local government, 

not the FAA. But we would not expect 

complaints about current operations 

anyway. The problem is complaints 

about growth and new aircraft types, 

and resistance to the sponsor’s 

accommodation of those changes. At 

airports where the nearby residents have 

successfully prevented airport 

expansion or access by different aircraft 

types, e.g. jets or helicopters, then there 

will be no complaints, but there will 

have been a real and adverse effect on 

the airport’s obligations and role in the 

NPIAS. 

Comment: In developing policy 

toward residential through-the-fence, 

the FAA should not apply the same 

rules to all airports; airports are 

different, and the policy should reflect 

the fact that what is a problem at one 

airport will not be at another. 

Response: The FAA agrees that each 

airport has its own circumstances, and 

conditions can vary widely among 

different airports. Differences might 

include, for example, the number of 

operations and variety of aircraft types, 

the number of owners with through-thefence privileges, the number and 

location of access points across the 

airport boundary, the nature and 

duration of the owners’ access rights, 

and the ability of State and local 

government to influence land use 

around the airport. Notwithstanding the 

different circumstances at each airport, 

however, there are common principles 

that apply to every sponsor of a 

Federally obligated airport. These 

include the obligations to maintain the 

rights and powers necessary to control 

operation and development of the 

airport, to treat similarly situated users 

in a similar manner, and to charge 

airport fees that are nondiscriminatory 

and that make the airport as selfsustaining as possible. The revised 

Policy proposed by the FAA will apply 

these general principles to the fact 

situation at each airport with existing 

through-the-fence access. 

Comment: Even if there are potential 

problems with residential through-themstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54950 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

fence access, they can be mitigated just 

like commercial through-the-fence uses. 

Response: The FAA agrees that many 

actual and potential problems with 

residential through-the-fence access can 

be mitigated with the adoption of 

certain measures. Mitigation might help 

assure that the airport sponsor remains 

in control of airport access, collects 

reasonable fees to cover costs, and 

operates and maintains the airport in a 

safe manner. The revised Policy 

proposed in this notice will require 

sponsors of airports with existing 

through-the-fence access to take such 

measures if they have not already done 

so. 

However, there are factors with 

residential use that are different from 

commercial uses and that cannot be 

entirely resolved by mitigation. 

Residential owners may resist change at 

the airport in order to protect the quality 

of life in residing next to the airport. 

Also, once in place, a residential use is 

difficult to move or eliminate because 

homeowners expect to retain the use 

and value of their home indefinitely. 

Accordingly, while the FAA agrees that 

there are mitigation measures that 

should apply to existing through-thefence locations, that mitigation cannot 

resolve all problems. 

Second, some of the mitigation 

measures mentioned by commenters are 

of limited effect, or may not be available 

at all airports. For example, a local 

government can zone a hangar home 

community as joint residential-aviation 

use, but that zoning would not prevent 

a non-aircraft owner from purchasing 

property there. Moreover, many States 

and jurisdictions do not have sufficient 

zoning power to adopt even this limited 

measure. Another example offered by 

commenters is a covenant not to 

complain about aircraft noise. Avigation 

easements and covenants can 

acknowledge the property is subject to 

airport noise and emissions, and 

effectively prevent the property owner 

from filing suit against the airport for 

aviation impact. No easement or 

covenant can prevent an owner from 

taking a position on local policy, 

however. Even the most restrictive 

covenant would not prevent a throughthe-fence owner from working against 

the expansion of the airport or 

accommodation of new aircraft types. 

While the FAA supports these 

mitigation measures where available, 

they cannot completely eliminate the 

potential adverse effects of residential 

through-the-fence access. 

Comment: If the FAA forces the 

termination of residential through-thefence access by aircraft owners, the 

properties will be bought by non-aircraft 

owners, thereby bringing about the exact 

result that the FAA seeks to avoid: 

general residential use immediately 

adjacent to the airport. 

Response: The FAA agrees with the 

comment. The FAA took this into 

consideration in its approach to both 

existing and new residential throughthe-fence access. For existing access, the 

FAA will not require termination of 

existing arrangements, and will 

encourage mitigation measures that 

keep through-the-fence properties in the 

hands of aircraft owners to the extent 

possible. However, the same 

consideration argues against the 

establishment of any new residential 

through-the-fence access. This is 

because every property with such access 

can potentially be acquired in the future 

by an owner who has no interest in 

airport access, whether or not airport 

access is available. 

Comment: The FAA changed its 

policy on residential through-the-fence 

access after years of not objecting to 

residential through-the-fence uses, and 

after hundreds of homeowners had 

already invested in hangar home 

properties. Even a policy that existing 

leases may not be renewed has a 

substantial adverse effect on the value of 

the property. 

Response: The FAA would not 

characterize its approach to residential 

through-the-fence access in recent years 

as a policy change. Rather, the throughthe-fence policy addressed an issue that 

was not fully considered in the agency’s 

general compliance policy statement in 

1989. However, we would acknowledge 

that the lack of clear guidance on this 

issue before the mid-2000’s resulted in 

the inconsistent application of policy in 

FAA regional offices. Some older hangar 

home developments even had regional 

FAA approval. In visiting locations with 

residential through-the-fence access and 

talking to property owners, the FAA 

understands the effect of terminating 

airport access on the value and utility of 

properties that were acquired and 

developed to take advantage of airport 

access. For these reasons, the FAA is not 

proposing to require airport sponsors to 

terminate existing residential throughthe-fence access at their airports. The 

FAA recognizes that Order 5190.6B and 

the draft Compliance Guidance Letter 

were not clear on how the FAA 

expected sponsors to manage existing 

residential through-the-fence 

arrangements. This Policy proposes 

clear guidance for these sponsors. 

Comment: The FAA should allow not 

only through-the-fence access for hangar 

homes, but should allow hangar homes 

on the airport itself. 

Response: The few cases where it may 

be appropriate to locate a residence on 

airport property are already listed in 

Order 5190.6B, including crew quarters 

and housing for key airport personnel in 

isolated areas. On-airport homes have 

the same problems as through-the-fence 

uses for airport rights and powers and 

oftentimes compatible land use. In 

addition, on-airport residences raise the 

additional concerns of personal safety, 

with pedestrians and vehicles in the 

vicinity of taxiways. In extremely 

unusual situations such as wilderness 

areas with no permanent road access to 

the airport and local community, the 

FAA has the authority to consider 

circumstances on a case-by-case basis. 

Accordingly, the FAA is not proposing 

any change to its effective prohibition 

on hangar homes on airport property. 

Comment: The grant assurances, and 

the statute on which they are based, 

have not changed. The FAA previously 

interpreted this statute to allow 

residential through-the-fence access, 

and reversed this interpretation with no 

change in the underlying law. 

Response: It is true that the grant 

assurances that affect through-the-fence 

access have not substantially changed 

since enactment of the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982. It is 

clear from the FAA’s 1989 compliance 

order, Order 5190.6A, that the agency 

recommended against any new throughthe-fence access. The discussion in 

Order 5190.6A also indicates that the 

agency understood through-the-fence 

access to be almost entirely a 

commercial issue. At the time Order 

5190.6A was issued, the agency was not 

confronted with a proliferation of 

residential through-the-fence uses or 

some of the actual problems caused by 

such uses. When those issues did arise, 

the FAA issued more specific policy 

guidance on through-the-fence access on 

a case-by-case basis. The agency 

continues to believe that residential 

through-the-fence access is not 

consistent with the characteristics of a 

Federally obligated public-use airport 

and has the strong potential to create 

grant assurance violations which are 

often difficult for a sponsor to correct. 

At the same time, however, the agency 

recognizes that a number of residential 

through-the-fence locations exist. Some 

of these uses could have resulted from 

the lack of specific guidance in FAA 

compliance documents, although in 

some cases the access was established 

over the objection of an FAA regional 

office. In any event the FAA proposes to 

accept the existence of these locations, 

and find the airport sponsor in 

compliance when the airport sponsor 

applies certain mitigation measures to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54951 

make the access consistent with the 

sponsor’s grant assurances. However, 

with regard to the establishment of new 

through-the-fence arrangements, the 

FAA proposes amending the sponsor 

grant assurances to prohibit this practice 

in the future. 

Comment: The FAA’s policy is not 

being evenly applied in all regions. In 

at least one region, airports appear to be 

subject to a zero-tolerance policy on 

residential through-the-fence access that 

is not being applied in other regions. 

Response: The Proposed Policy and 

amendment to the sponsor grant 

assurances will provide clear national 

guidance for all FAA regional and field 

offices and establish a standardized 

approach to through-the-fence issues in 

all regions. 

Comment: The FAA should allow 

States and local communities to decide 

if residential through-the-fence access is 

appropriate for their airport. 

Response: Airports become eligible 

for Federal assistance when the FAA 

determines they can provide important 

benefits to the national airport system. 

In turn, the FAA provides financial 

investments, through AIP grants, for the 

capital improvement programs of these 

airports. The FAA has a fiduciary 

responsibility to ensure that capital 

improvements made with AIP grants 

will serve their intended purpose for the 

useful life of the investment. The FAA 

believes that impacts associated with 

residential through-the-fence access can 

compromise the longevity of its 

investments. Allowing individual States 

and local communities to establish a 

different access policy for each airport 

could decrease the overall utility of the 

national airport system. Moreover, the 

FAA has a statutory obligation to 

enforce the terms of AIP grants, 

including the assurances made by 

airport sponsors. 

Discussion of Options Considered 

In reviewing the policy stated in 

Order 5190.6B, the FAA considered a 

range of possible policy approaches, as 

recommended in one or more public 

comments received. The agency 

considered the following four general 

policy approaches, with variations: 

• Allow both new and existing 

residential through-the-fence access, on 

certain conditions. 

• Prohibit new residential access, but 

allow existing access to continue under 

certain conditions on a case-by-case 

basis. 

• Prohibit new residential throughthe-fence access, and require sponsors 

to eliminate existing access. 

• Allow States or airport sponsors to 

decide, as a matter of State and local 

law, whether to allow residential 

through-the-fence access at each airport. 

The agency’s review of the policy 

options listed above can be summarized 

as follows: 

Allow both new and existing 

residential through-the-fence access, on 

certain conditions. The threshold issue 

for review of this policy is whether 

residential through-the-fence access is a 

problem for Federally obligated airports 

or not. The FAA has consistently 

discouraged through-the-fence access of 

any kind. In recent years, the FAA has 

objected to these arrangements as a 

result of actual and potential grant 

assurance violations. As part of its 

review, the FAA considered the 

potential problems for airports with 

residential through-the-fence access, but 

also the comments from property 

owners and others favoring such access 

for general aviation airports. After 

carefully balancing competing 

considerations of public policy, we have 

concluded that this access creates 

significant operational and land use 

problems for airport sponsors and 

should be banned in the future (at 

Federally obligated airports). Even at 

locations where off-airport property 

owners are charged a reasonable fee by 

the sponsor and the access is not 

causing current operational problems 

for the airport, residential through-thefence access potentially diminishes the 

sponsor’s ability to expand and improve 

the airport to meet current and future 

demand. 

The FAA remains concerned that 

owners of residential property next to 

an obligated airport have strong 

incentives to limit the benefits of the 

Federal investments made at the airport, 

even if they are aircraft owners, if their 

residential quality of life or property 

values would be adversely affected by 

proposed airport improvements or 

increases in service. While through-thefence communities sometimes attempt 

to limit ownership to aircraft owners, 

there is no very effective way to prevent 

sale or lease of these properties to nonaircraft owners in the future. If that 

happens, the airport may encounter 

significant local opposition from its 

immediate neighbors. Finally, once 

established, these access rights can be 

very difficult for a sponsor to change or 

eliminate. 

No new residential access, but allow 

existing access to continue on certain 

conditions. Even if no new access from 

residential properties is created, the 

FAA believes there are approximately 

75 airports in the continental U.S. with 

some degree of existing residential 

through-the-fence use. As part of this 

review, FAA staff visited some of these 

airports and spoke with affected 

property owners and airport sponsors. It 

is clear that through-the-fence access to 

residential property has existed at some 

locations for many years, and that some 

property owners have relied on 

permission for airfield access in 

purchasing their property and building 

hangar homes. Termination of the 

access at these existing locations could 

substantially reduce the value of the 

owners’ properties and interfere with 

the owners’ expected use of these 

properties in the future. In certain cases 

FAA regional offices were notified but 

took no action to discourage sponsors 

from permitting such access. In other 

instances, the sponsor granted throughthe-fence access rights without 

addressing the FAA’s concerns and 

objections. At some airports, access 

rights are perpetual, while at others the 

rights can be terminated only after 

expiration of a lease. 

Given the potential for hardship and 

adverse effect on property values, the 

FAA does not believe a general policy 

against residential through-the-fence 

access should be applied retroactively to 

require sponsors to terminate existing 

uses. There are various actions that can 

be taken by airport sponsors and the 

property owners with access rights to 

help mitigate potential adverse effects. 

Where access rights could legally be 

terminated, but there is no immediate 

reason for the sponsor to do so, there 

would be little adverse impact from 

permitting those rights to continue until 

conditions at the airport change. For 

these reasons, the Policy proposed in 

this notice permits sponsors to continue 

existing access subject to standards for 

compliance. 

The agency’s acceptance of existing 

residential through-the-fence access 

does not constitute ‘‘grandfathering’’ of 

access rights at these airports. Rather, 

the Proposed Policy defines standards of 

compliance for an airport sponsor’s 

control of access from residential 

property. Airport sponsors would be 

required to present the FAA with a plan 

for how the airport meets these 

standards, as a condition of continuing 

eligibility for future AIP grants and 

NPIAS status. The agency is aware that 

some sponsors and local governments 

have more rights and governmental 

authority to control activity around and 

adjacent to the airport than others. 

Agency staff would take these 

differences into account in reviewing 

the access plans provided by each 

sponsor. Where legal rights to throughthe-fence access expire, the sponsor 

would be able to extend the rights for 

fixed periods with FAA concurrence 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54952 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

until there is a reason to terminate or 

modify the access. 

Once a sponsor’s residential throughthe fence access plan is reviewed and 

accepted by the FAA, the FAA would 

consider the sponsor to be in 

compliance with its grant assurances 

although the airport has existing 

residential through-the-fence access. 

The FAA would allow sponsors a 

reasonable time to submit and obtain 

FAA acceptance of access plans, and 

would not initiate grant enforcement 

based on existing residential throughthe-fence access per se during the 

review period. As proposed, the FAA 

would require an airport’s access plan 

before the sponsor notifies the FAA of 

its intent to apply for an AIP grant, 

beginning in Fiscal Year 2013. 

Where an airport sponsor is unable to 

meet the standards for existing access, 

the FAA would consider the future role 

of the airport in the NPIAS and the type 

of AIP investment justified. In the 

unlikely event a sponsor refuses to take 

available actions to meet the basic 

compliance standards, the FAA would 

consider grant enforcement at that time. 

No new residential through-the-fence 

access, and eliminate existing access. 

For the reasons already discussed, the 

FAA does not believe that it is necessary 

or warranted to require sponsors to 

eliminate all existing residential 

through-the-fence access. Instead, the 

agency proposes a Policy that would 

allow existing access to continue on 

certain terms. In cases where an airport 

sponsor exercises its proprietary 

authority to limit or terminate its 

existing residential through-the-fence 

access, the FAA will not consider such 

action to violate Federal law. 

Residential through-the-fence access is 

not protected by the Federal grant 

assurances, and off-airport tenants 

would have no recourse under 14 CFR 

Part 16. 

Allow States or airport sponsors to 

decide whether to allow residential 

through-the-fence access at each 

airport. Several commenters urged that 

the FAA take no position at all on 

residential through-the-fence access, at 

least at airports in the category of 

smaller general aviation airports. 

Instead, commenters urged that the FAA 

recognize the authority of each airport, 

or its State or local government, to 

decide as a matter of State and local, 

rather than Federal, law whether to 

allow residential through-the-fence 

access at the airport. 

The FAA has a statutory obligation to 

enforce the terms of AIP grants, 

including the assurances made by 

airport sponsors. The FAA is ultimately 

responsible for interpreting and 

enforcing compliance with AIP grant 

assurances. Moreover, the Government 

Accountability Office’s May 1999 

report, General Aviation Airports, 

Unauthorized Land Use Highlights Need 

for Improved Oversight and 

Enforcement, recommended the FAA 

exercise greater oversight with regard to 

monitoring grant assurance compliance. 

Interpreting through-the-fence policy to 

be a matter of State and local, rather 

than Federal, law would likely result in 

a less consistent application of the 

policy. Accordingly, the FAA will retain 

responsibility for the establishment and 

enforcement of policy on residential 

through-the-fence access. 

Actions Proposed in This Notice 

The FAA proposes to take a twoprong approach to through-the-fence 

access to obligated airports from 

residential property: 

1. The sponsor of an airport where 

residential through-the-fence access or 

access rights already exist will be 

considered in compliance with its grant 

assurances if the airport meets certain 

minimum standards for safety, 

efficiency, ability to generate revenue to 

recover airport costs, and minimizes the 

potential for noncompatible land uses 

consistent with standard sponsor grant 

assurance 21, Compatible Land Use. 

2. The agency proposes to add a new 

paragraph to standard sponsor grant 

assurance 5, Preserving Rights and 

Powers, to prohibit a sponsor from 

allowing new through-the-fence access 

from a residential property. 

In considering policy on through-thefence access to federally obligated 

airports, the FAA’s primary goals are to 

preserve the safety and efficiency of 

airports, and to ensure continuing 

public access to these airports as part of 

the national airport system. The 

viability and utility of a federally 

obligated, public use airport are best 

preserved by measures that: 

• Ensure that airport sponsors retain 

the powers necessary to meet their 

obligations under the grant assurances 

and are able to maintain and develop 

the airport in the future. Also, while an 

airport operator is not obligated to 

expand airport facilities or property, it 

is a guiding principle of the National 

Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 

(NPIAS) that ‘‘[a]irports should be 

flexible and expandable, and able to 

meet increased demand and to 

accommodate new aircraft types.’’ 

• Ensure that airports have sufficient 

revenue to be as self-sustaining as 

possible and meet capital and operating 

requirements. 

• Minimize encroachment of 

noncompatible land uses around the 

airport. Noncompatible land uses 

around an airport can increase the 

possibility of access restrictions, prevent 

airport improvement and expansion in 

response to aviation demand, and even 

threaten the continuing existence of the 

airport. 

The FAA considers residential use of 

airport property or of properties within 

the airport’s 65 DNL dB noise contour 

to be incompatible with the operation of 

a public use airport, whether or not the 

residents are aircraft owners. 

Ultimately, location of any residences 

near an airport boundary will increase 

the potential for opposition to 

expansion or increased use of the 

airport. Also, regardless of 

compatibility, the through-the-fence 

access itself can cause operational and 

land use problems for the sponsor and 

other airport users. 

At the same time, the FAA recognizes 

that there are federally obligated 

airports where residential through-thefence access already exists. In many of 

these cases the owners have legal rights 

for through-the-fence access to the 

airport. 

1. The Proposed Policy on Existing 

Through-the-Fence Access From a 

Residential Property 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to adopt the following Policy 

on existing through-the-fence access to 

a federally obligated airport from 

residential property: 

Policy on Existing Through-the-Fence 

Access to Airports From a Residential 

Property 

Applicability 

This Policy applies to any federally 

obligated airport with existing 

residential through-the-fence access. 

For the purposes of this Policy 

statement: 

In this sense ‘‘access’’ means: 

1. An access point for taxiing aircraft 

across the airport boundary; or 

2. The right of the owner of a 

particular off-airport residential 

property to use an airport access point 

to taxi an aircraft between the airport 

and that property. 

‘‘Existing access’’ through the fence is 

defined as any through-the-fence access 

that meets one or more of the following 

conditions: 

1. There was a legal right of access 

from the property to the airport (e.g., by 

easement or contract) in existence as of 

the date of this notice September 9, 

2010; or 

2. There was development of the 

property prior to the date of this notice 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54953 

September 9, 2010, in reliance on the 

airport sponsor’s permission for 

through-the-fence aircraft access to the 

airport; or 

3. The through-the-fence access is 

shown on an FAA-approved airport 

layout plan or has otherwise been 

approved by the FAA in writing, and 

the owner of the property has used that 

access prior to the date of this notice 

September 9, 2010. 

‘‘Development’’ is defined as 

excavation or grading of land or 

construction of fixed structures. 

‘‘Additional through-the-fence access’’ 

is defined as: 

1. Establishment of a new access point 

to the airport for the benefit of the 

holder of a legally enforceable right to 

access that cannot be accommodated by 

an existing access point; or 

2. Extension or renewal of an existing 

right to access the airport from 

residential property or property zoned 

for residential use. 

‘‘Transfer of access’’ through the fence 

is defined as one of the following 

transactions: 

1. Sale or transfer of a residential 

property or property zoned for 

residential use with existing throughthe-fence access; or 

2. Subdivision, development, or sale 

as individual lots of a residential 

property or property zoned for 

residential use with existing throughthe-fence access. 

I. Existing Through-the-Fence Access 

From Residential Property at Federally 

Obligated Airports 

Status of Existing Residential Throughthe-Fence Access 

The FAA believes there are 

approximately 75 airports in the 

continental U.S. in the NPIAS where 

some form of through-the-fence access 

for taxiing aircraft was permitted prior 

to the date of this notice. The details of 

this access vary widely from location to 

location. Differences among particular 

locations include the number of persons 

with access rights; the number of access 

points across the airport boundary; the 

point at which the through-the-fence 

taxiway connects with the airport 

runway-taxiway system; the nature of 

access rights, e.g., by easement, contract, 

or informal permission of the sponsor; 

the amount and type of traffic at the 

airport; and the sponsor’s ability to 

impose operating rules and charge fees 

related to the access. In some locations, 

the access right is currently held by a 

developer that may intend to transfer 

the right to airport access to a 

homeowners association or to 

individual homeowners. 

Many of these through-the-fence uses 

have been in effect for years, sometimes 

decades. At some locations, property 

owners have perpetual rights of access 

to the airport under an easement that 

cannot be extinguished by the airport 

sponsor except possibly through 

condemnation. In other locations, 

owners have rights of access for a term 

of years under contracts that will expire 

in the future. In both cases, many 

individual owners have made a 

substantial investment in properties for 

use jointly as a residence and aircraft 

hangar. In every case that the FAA 

reviewed, owners had the expectation of 

continued through-the-fence access to 

the airport both for their personal 

aircraft use and for the maintenance of 

property values and protection of their 

investment. 

Some sponsors and users have taken 

measures to mitigate potential problems 

with residential through-the-fence at 

their airports. These measures include: 

• Making through-the-fence users 

subject to airport operating rules and 

standards, by regulation or by 

agreement; 

• Collection of fees by the sponsor for 

airport access from off-airport 

properties; 

• Through-the-fence owners waiver of 

rights to bring any action against the 

sponsor for aircraft noise and emissions; 

• Through-the-fence owners 

execution of avigation easements in 

favor of the airport; 

• Conditions, covenants or 

restrictions that limit ownership of 

property with through-the-fence access 

rights to owners or operators of aircraft; 

and 

• Zoning that limits the use of 

properties with through-the-fence use to 

a joint aviation-residential use. 

As a result, the actual and potential 

problems with residential through-thefence access to an airport have been 

mitigated to a greater degree at some 

airports than at others. 

Policy Toward Sponsors With Existing 

Residential Through-the-Fence Access 

The agency understands that it is not 

practical or even possible to terminate 

through-the-fence access at many of 

those airports where that access already 

exists. Where access could be 

terminated, property owners have 

claimed that termination could have 

substantial adverse effects on their 

property value and investment, and 

airport sponsors seeking to terminate 

this access could be exposed to costly 

lawsuits. Accordingly, the FAA will not 

consider the existence of residential 

through-the-fence access by itself to be 

in noncompliance with the airport 

sponsor’s grant assurances. 

However, where through-the-fence 

access rights are unrestricted, or where 

the airport sponsor has lost powers 

necessary for the future operation and 

growth of the airport, the existing 

residential through-the-fence access can 

interfere with the sponsor’s ability to 

meet its obligations as sponsor of a 

federally assisted public use airport. As 

discussed above, at some airports the 

sponsor and through-the-fence users 

have made an effort to implement a 

series of measures to address potential 

problems with through-the-fence access, 

by ensuring continuing sponsor control 

of airport access and limiting the effects 

of incompatible land use on the airport 

boundary. The FAA believes such 

measures can substantially mitigate the 

potential problems with residential 

through-the-fence access where it exists, 

and avoid future grant compliance 

issues. It is reasonable, therefore, to 

require sponsors of airports with 

existing residential through-the-fence 

access, to have certain measures in 

effect to protect its proprietary power 

and limit adverse effects of the throughthe-fence access to facilitate compliance 

with its grant assurance obligations. 

Accordingly, the sponsor of an airport 

where residential through-the-fence 

access or access rights already exist will 

be considered in compliance with its 

grant assurances if the airport depicts 

the access on its airport layout plan and 

meets certain standards for safety, 

efficiency, ability to generate revenue to 

recover airport costs, and mitigation of 

potential noncompatible land uses. 

Those standards are listed in section II, 

Standards for compliance at airports 

with existing through-the-fence access. 

An airport sponsor covered by this 

Policy must seek FAA approval before 

entering into any arrangement which 

would establish additional access 

through-the-fence. Sponsors are 

reminded that there is no right to 

aircraft surface access to the airport 

from off-airport locations, and no offairport property owner will have 

standing to file a formal complaint with 

the FAA to challenge the sponsor’s 

decision not to permit such access. 

The FAA will review future requests 

for AIP funds to ensure that Federal 

investments are in proportion to the 

public use of the airport. Projects 

designed to exclusively serve residential 

through-the-fence users will not be 

eligible for AIP funding. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54954 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

II. Standards for Compliance at Airports 

With Existing Through-the-Fence 

Access 

The FAA understands that 

municipally-owned airports have 

varying degrees of zoning authority. For 

example, one airport may have strong 

zoning powers, while another may have 

none. Also, the nature of existing 

through-the-fence rights can greatly 

affect the sponsor’s ability to implement 

measures to control access. Accordingly, 

the FAA does not expect every airport 

with existing residential through-thefence access to adopt a uniform set of 

rules and measures to mitigate that 

access. However, the FAA does expect 

each such sponsor to adopt reasonable 

rules and implement measures that 

accomplish the following standards for 

compliance, to the fullest extent feasible 

for that sponsor. In general, the greater 

the number of residential through-thefence access points and users of the 

airport and the higher the number of 

aircraft operations, the more important 

it is to have formal measures in effect to 

ensure the sponsor retains its 

proprietary powers and mitigates 

adverse effects on the airport. 

The FAA’s standards for compliance 

for any sponsor of an airport with 

existing through-the-fence access are as 

follows: 

1. General authority for control of 

airport land and access. The airport 

sponsor has sufficient control of access 

points and operations across airport 

boundaries to maintain safe operations, 

and to make changes in airport land use 

to meet future needs. 

2. Safety of airport operations. By 

rule, or by agreement with the sponsor, 

through-the-fence users are obligated to 

comply with the airport’s rules and 

standards. 

3. Recovery of costs of operating the 

airport. The airport sponsor can and 

does collect fees from through-the-fence 

users comparable to those charged to 

airport tenants, so that through-thefence users bear a fair proportion of 

airport costs. 

4. Protection of airport airspace. 

Operations at the airport will not be 

affected by hangars and residences on 

the airport boundary, at present or in 

the future. 

5. Compatible land uses around the 

airport. The potential for noncompatible 

land use adjacent to the airport 

boundary is minimized consistent with 

grant assurance 21, Compatible Land 

Use. 

These standards will be applied, on a 

case-by-case basis, in the FAA’s 

evaluation of whether each airport with 

existing residential through-the-fence 

access meets the above requirements to 

the fullest extent feasible for that 

airport. In situations when access can be 

legally transferred from one owner to 

another without the airport sponsor’s 

review, the FAA will treat the access as 

existing. Because the ability of some 

sponsors to control access has been 

compromised as a result of legal rights 

previously granted to through-the-fence 

users, existing access locations may be 

evaluated under the alternative criteria 

for some standards as indicated below, 

if applicable to that airport. 

III. Standards for Compliance at 

Airports Proposing Additional Throughthe-Fence Access at Airports Covered by 

This Policy 

Once allowed, residential throughthe-fence access is very difficult to 

change or eliminate in the future. This 

is because residential owners, more so 

than commercial interests, typically 

expect that their residential property 

will remain suitable for residential use 

and protected from adverse effects for a 

long time. Residential buyers and their 

mortgage lenders may ensure that the 

property is purchased with rights that 

guarantee no change in the access to the 

airport for decades, or indefinitely. 

Because each additional residential 

through-the-fence access location 

introduces the potential for problems for 

the airport in the future, and because 

this access is effectively permanent and 

resistant to change once permitted, the 

FAA believes that additional residential 

through-the-fence access at public use 

airports should be carefully scrutinized. 

The following supplemental 

standards will be applied to the FAA’s 

case-by-case review of sponsors 

proposing additional residential 

through-the-fence access at airports with 

existing access. In situations when the 

transfer of access from one owner to 

another requires the airport sponsor’s 

concurrence, the FAA will treat the 

access as additional. The FAA will not 

approve requests for additional access 

that are inconsistent with the sponsor’s 

grant assurances (excluding grant 

assurance 5, Preserving Rights and 

Powers, paragraph ‘‘g’’ as proposed in 

this notice). Furthermore, the sponsor 

will be required to demonstrate the 

following standards for compliance: 

• The term of the access does not 

exceed twenty years. 

• The sponsor provides a current 

(developed or revised within the last 

five years) airport master plan 

identifying adequate areas for growth 

that are not affected by the existence of 

through-the-fence access rights, OR the 

sponsor has a process for amending or 

terminating existing through-the-fence 

access in order to acquire land that may 

be necessary for expansion of the airport 

in the future. 

• The location of the new access 

point does not prevent development or 

changes in use of airport property in the 

future. 

• The location and use of the new 

access point does not cause or hold the 

potential for operational problems or a 

reduction in efficiency of ground 

operations at the airport. 

• The sponsor will impose and 

enforce safety and operating rules on 

through-the-fence residents utilizing 

this access while on the airport identical 

to those imposed on airport tenants and 

transient users. 

• The sponsor will charge throughthe-fence residents utilizing this access 

fees that recover airport costs and fairly 

distribute the burden of airport fees 

across all airport users, both tenants and 

through-the-fence. Rates should increase 

on the same schedule as tenant fees. 

Fees that may be sufficient for this 

purpose include, without limitation: 

• Tenant tie-down charges. 

• Tenant rates for square footage of 

off-airport hangars. 

• Ground leases for dedicated 

taxiway connections to off-airport 

properties. 

• Assessment of capital costs for 

general infrastructure. 

• Through-the-fence residents will 

bear all the costs of infrastructure 

related to their access. 

• Through-the-fence residents 

utilizing this access will grant the 

sponsor an avigation easement for 

overflight, including unobstructed flight 

through the airspace necessary for 

takeoff and landing at the airport. 

• Through-the-fence residents 

utilizing this access, by avigation 

easement; deed covenants, conditions or 

restrictions; or other agreement, have 

acknowledged that the property will be 

affected by aircraft noise and emissions. 

• Through-the-fence residents 

utilizing this access have waived any 

right to bring an action against the 

airport sponsor for operations at the 

airport associated with aircraft noise 

and emissions. 

• The sponsor has a mechanism for 

ensuring through-the-fence residents 

utilizing this access will file FAA Form 

7460–1, Notice of Proposed 

Construction or Alteration, if necessary. 

• Where available, the airport sponsor 

or other local government has in effect 

measures to limit future use and 

ownership of the through-the-fence 

properties to aviation-related uses (in 

this case, hangar homes), such as 

through zoning or mandatory deed 

restrictions. The FAA recognizes this 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54955 

measure may not be available to the 

airport sponsor in all States and 

jurisdictions. 

• If the residential community has 

adopted restrictions on owners for the 

benefit of the airport (such as a 

commitment not to complain about 

aircraft noise), those restrictions are 

enforceable by the airport sponsor as a 

third-party beneficiary, and may not be 

cancelled without cause by the 

community association. 

• The additional access is consistent 

with and depicted on the approved or 

proposed Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 

IV. Process and Documentation 

A. Existing Residential Through-theFence Access 

1. General. The sponsor of an airport 

with existing residential through-thefence access will be considered in 

compliance with its grant assurances, 

and eligible for future grants, if the FAA 

determines that the airport meets the 

applicable standards listed above under 

Standards for compliance at airports 

with existing residential through-thefence access. The sponsor may 

demonstrate that it meets these 

standards by providing the FAA 

Airports District Office (ADO) or 

Regional Airports Division with a 

written description of the sponsor’s 

authority and the controls in effect at 

the airport (‘‘residential through-thefence access plan’’ or ‘‘access plan’’). The 

regional division or ADO will review 

each access plan, on a case-by-case 

basis, to confirm that it addresses how 

the sponsor meets each of these 

standards at its airport. The regional 

division or ADO will forward its 

recommendations regarding each access 

plan to the Manager of Airport 

Compliance. Only the Manager may 

accept an airport sponsor’s residential 

through-the-fence access plan. In 

reviewing the access plan, the Manager 

may consult with the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA). The 

FAA will take into account the powers 

of local government in each State, and 

other particular circumstances at each 

airport. In every case, however, the 

access plan must address each of the 

basic requirements listed under II of this 

Policy. 

2. Residential through-the-fence 

access plan. The FAA will require 

evidence of compliance before issuing 

an AIP grant, beginning in Fiscal Year 

2013. FY 2013 and later grants will 

include a special grant condition 

requiring the ongoing implementation of 

these access plans. Generally the FAA 

will not award discretionary grants to 

the airport until the FAA accepts the 

sponsor’s access plan as meeting the 

standards to the extent feasible for that 

airport. Therefore, a residential throughthe-fence access plan should be 

provided no later than the October 1st 

of the fiscal year in which the sponsor 

will request an AIP grant (i.e., sponsors 

that will request an AIP grant in Fiscal 

Year 2013 must submit an access plan 

no later than October 1, 2012; sponsors 

requesting an AIP grant in Fiscal Year 

2014 must submit no later than October 

1, 2013). 

3. Airport Layout Plan. The FAA will 

require all residential through-the-fence 

access points to be identified on the 

airport’s layout plan. A temporary 

designation may be added through a pen 

and ink change to immediately identify 

the locations on the airport property 

which serve as points of access for offairport residents. Airport sponsors 

which are required to submit access 

plans will have three years from the 

date their access plan is accepted to 

initiate a formal ALP revision to fully 

depict the scope of their existing 

residential through-the-fence 

arrangements. The FAA may decline to 

provide AIP funds for costs associated 

with these formal ALP revisions. 

A sponsor’s failure to depict all 

residential through-the-fence access 

points may be considered an apparent 

violation of the sponsor’s grant 

assurances, and the agency may 

consider grant enforcement under 14 

CFR Part 16. 

4. FAA review. The FAA’s acceptance 

of the access plan represents an agency 

finding that the airport has met the 

compliance standards for existing 

residential through-the-fence access. 

The FAA will review the airport 

sponsor’s access plan prior to approving 

any formal revisions to the airport’s 

layout plan. An airport sponsor’s failure 

to implement its access plan could 

result in a violation of the special grant 

condition and potentially lead to a 

finding of noncompliance. 

5. Airports currently in 

noncompliance. Airports currently in 

noncompliance due to grant assurance 

violations related to through-the-fence 

access, such as grant assurance 19, 

Operation and Maintenance, will need 

to continue to work with ADO and 

regional division staff to establish an 

appropriate corrective action plan. An 

FAA-approved corrective action plan, 

once accepted by the FAA, will serve as 

the sponsor’s access plan. The decision 

to restore the sponsor’s compliance 

status will be made by the Manager of 

Airport Compliance. In cases where the 

airport’s safety and utility have been 

compromised, the Manager may require 

the sponsor to take definitive steps to 

address those concerns before restoring 

the sponsor to a compliant status. 

6. Airports with existing residential 

through-the-fence access that do not 

meet the compliance standards. The 

FAA recognizes that some airport 

sponsors will not be able to fully 

comply with the standards listed above, 

due to limits on the powers of the 

sponsor and/or other local governments, 

or on other legal limits on the sponsor’s 

discretion to adopt certain measures. 

Other airports have the capability to 

adopt measures to satisfy the 

compliance standards but have not done 

so. The FAA will take the following 

action with respect to any obligated 

airport with existing residential 

through-the-fence access that does not 

meet the minimum compliance 

standards: 

a. Airports that serve a function in the 

NPIAS but cannot fully meet the 

through-the-fence compliance 

standards. Where the airport still 

substantially serves its intended 

function in the NPIAS, but residential 

through-the-fence access at the airport 

will have an adverse effect on the 

airport’s operations, its ability to grow, 

or its ability to accept new kinds of 

aviation use, the FAA will consider a 

reduced level of future AIP investment 

in the airport. FAA evaluation of 

investment needs will reflect any 

impairment in the airport’s utility due 

to residential through-the-fence use. The 

sponsor will not lose eligibility for nonprimary entitlement grants on the basis 

of the through-the-fence access, but will 

not be able to depend on receiving 

future discretionary grants for all 

eligible projects. 

b. Airports that no longer have 

significant value in the national system. 

Where the residential through-the-fence 

access cannot be controlled by the 

sponsor, and use of that access 

adversely affects the airport’s 

availability as a public use airport, the 

FAA will consider removal of the 

airport from the NPIAS consistent with 

the requirements of FAA Order 5090.3C 

Field Formulation of the National Plan 

of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). 

The FAA may either take steps to 

recover unamortized grant funds, or 

may leave grant assurances in effect for 

the life of existing grants but award no 

new grants. 

B. Requests for Additional Residential 

Through-the-Fence Access at Airports 

Covered by This Policy 

As of the date of this notice 

September 9, 2010, a sponsor proposing 

additional access must submit a current 

airport master plan and a revised 

residential through-the-fence access 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

54956 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 

plan as detailed below. A sponsor 

proposing to establish additional access 

points must also submit a revised 

Airport Layout Plan. The regional 

division or ADO will forward its 

recommendations regarding each 

request for additional access to the 

Manager of Airport Compliance. Only 

the Manager may approve an airport 

sponsor’s request for additional access. 

In reviewing the proposal, the Manager 

may consult with TSA. 

1. Master Plan. A sponsor wishing to 

permit additional (including proposals 

to extend or renew existing access 

agreements) residential through-thefence access must submit a recent 

airport master plan to the ADO or 

Regional Airports Division. The FAA 

considers a master plan to be recent if 

it was developed or updated within the 

past five years. The master plan should 

explain how the sponsor plans to 

address future growth, development, 

and use of the airport property over the 

next twenty years. 

2. Residential through-the-fence 

access plan. The sponsor is responsible 

for revising its access plan, as discussed 

under section IV.A.2 of this Policy, to 

reflect how it will meet the standards 

for compliance for the additional access. 

Once accepting the revised access plan, 

the FAA will condition future AIP 

grants upon its ongoing implementation. 

3. Application to approve revised 

Airport Layout Plan. A sponsor wishing 

to permit additional residential throughthe-fence access by establishing a new 

access point must submit a proposed 

ALP revision to the ADO or Regional 

Airports Division, depicting the point of 

access and associated airport 

infrastructure required for linking the 

access point to the airport runway/ 

taxiway system. The sponsor should 

also submit information on the aircraft 

types and number of aircraft expected to 

use the additional access proposed. The 

FAA will not approve any change to the 

airport’s ALP that appears inconsistent 

with the sponsor’s grant assurances or 

that adversely affects the safety, 

efficiency, or utility of the airport. The 

FAA may decline to provide AIP funds 

for costs associated with these formal 

ALP revisions. 

A sponsor’s failure to depict all 

residential through-the-fence access 

points may be considered an apparent 

violation of the sponsor’s grant 

assurances, and the agency may 

consider grant enforcement under 14 

CFR Part 16. 

4. Continuing obligations. Once the 

revised access plan and if required the 

revised ALP depicting the new access 

point are accepted by the FAA, the 

additional residential through-the-fence 

access is considered existing residential 

through-the-fence access, and the 

sponsor must comply with the 

continuing obligations for sponsors of 

airports with existing residential 

through-the-fence access, as described 

in section IV.A of this Policy. 

V. Eligibility for AIP Grants 

A. General. Beginning in Fiscal Year 

2013, a sponsor will be required to 

submit their residential through-thefence access plans prior to notifying the 

FAA of its intent to apply for an AIP 

grant. However, the FAA will review 

subsequent grant applications from each 

such sponsor to ensure that the 

requested grant of AIP funds would 

primarily serve the airport’s public 

function in the national airport system. 

The FAA will limit the Federal 

investment in airport infrastructure and 

facilities to an amount related to general 

public demand at the airport. 

B. Public infrastructure and facilities 

with substantial benefit to private 

through-the-fence users. Where private 

residential developments with throughthe-fence access receive value from 

access to Federally assisted airport 

infrastructure and facilities, the FAA 

will expect the private users to share in 

those capital costs. 

C. Exclusive or primary private 

benefit. On-airport infrastructure and 

facilities used exclusively or primarily 

for accommodation of through-the-fence 

users are considered private-use and are 

ineligible for AIP grants. 

2. The Proposed Amendment to the 

Standard AIP Sponsor Assurances 

The FAA considers a sponsor’s 

consent to any new permission for 

through-the-fence access to the airport 

from a residential property to be 

inconsistent with the sponsor’s grant 

assurances, specifically, the obligation 

to maintain rights and powers to control 

airport development and operation. 

Permitting such access to the airport 

may also result in violations of the 

obligation to impose a reasonable, not 

unjustly rate structure that makes the 

airport as self-sustaining as possible, 

and the obligation to restrict areas 

adjacent to the airport to compatible 

land uses. While some commenters 

argued that many existing residential 

through-the-fence uses have not caused 

apparent problems for the airport, the 

problems for airports and access to the 

national airport system are not always 

evident or important to the through-thefence users themselves. For example, 

the interests of commercial and 

transient users may create a demand for 

expanded use of the airport or 

expansion of airport property, both of 

which could be adversely affected by 

the existence of residential properties 

on the airport boundary. This is 

inconsistent with the expectation that 

Federally obligated airports will be able 

to accommodate new demand. 

Once allowed, residential throughthe-fence access is very difficult to 

change or eliminate in the future. This 

is because residential owners, more so 

than commercial interests, typically 

expect that their residential property 

will remain suitable for residential use 

and protected from adverse effects for a 

long time. Residential buyers and their 

mortgage lenders may ensure that the 

property is purchased with rights that 

guarantee no change in the access to the 

airport for decades, or indefinitely. 

Because each new residential throughthe-fence access location introduces the 

potential for the airport sponsor to have 

problems meeting its obligations under 

the sponsor grant assurances in the 

future, and because this access is 

effectively permanent and resistant to 

change once granted, the FAA believes 

that new residential through-the-fence 

uses at public use airports should not be 

established. 

Accordingly, the FAA will consider a 

new through-the-fence access 

arrangement from a property used as a 

residence or zoned for residential use to 

be an apparent violation of the sponsor’s 

grant assurances, and the agency may 

investigate any report of such action for 

possible enforcement under 14 CFR Part 

16. Any action taken to strengthen, 

memorialize, or codify existing access in 

perpetuity beyond that described in an 

FAA approved residential through-thefence access plan at an airport with 

existing access will also be considered 

a new grant of through-the-fence access. 

The sponsor will of course have the 

opportunity to present information and 

arguments to the FAA during the Part 16 

process. 

In consideration of the above, the 

FAA proposes to add new paragraph g. 

to standard AIP sponsor assurance 5, to 

read as follows: 

C. Sponsor Certification. The sponsor 

hereby assures and certifies, with respect to 

this grant that: 

* * * * * 

5. Preserving Rights and Powers. 

* * * * * 

g. It will not permit or enter into any 

arrangement that results in permission for the 

owner or tenant of a property used as a 

residence, or zoned for residential use, to taxi 

an aircraft between that property and any 

location on airport. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Notices 54957 

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 27, 

2010. 

Randall Fiertz, 

Director, Airport Compliance and Field 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22095 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of denials. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial 

of 97 applications from individuals who 

requested an exemption from the 

Federal vision standard applicable to 

interstate truck and bus drivers and the 

reasons for the denials. FMCSA has 

statutory authority to exempt 

individuals from the vision requirement 

if the exemptions granted will not 

compromise safety. The Agency has 

concluded that granting these 

exemptions does not provide a level of 

safety that will be equivalent to, or 

greater than, the level of safety 

maintained without the exemptions for 

these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, FMCSA, 

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 from 

the Federal vision standard for a 

renewable 2-year period if it finds ‘‘such 

an exemption would likely achieve a 

level of safety that is equivalent to, or 

greater than, the level that would be 

achieved absent such an exemption.’’ 

The procedures for requesting an 

exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 

381. 

Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 97 

individual exemption requests on their 

merit and made a determination that 

these applicants do not satisfy the 

criteria eligibility or meet the terms and 

conditions of the Federal exemption 

program. Each applicant has, prior to 

this Notice, received a letter of final 

disposition on his/her exemption 

request. Those decision letters fully 

outlined the basis for the denial and 

constitute final Agency action. The list 

published today summarizes the 

Agency’s recent denials as required 

under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by 

periodically publishing names and 

reasons for denial. 

The following 7 applicants lacked 

sufficient driving experience during the 

3-year period prior to the date of their 

application: 

Larry Cornelius, William M. Dunn, 

Thomas C. Furcht, Michael E. Herrera, 

Jr., William Moore, Steve Scriven, 

Carey A. Willoughby 

The following 15 applicants had no 

experience operating a CMV: 

Leon Andrews, Clay Burns, Tracy E. 

Duke, James R. Gladden, Yi D. Guo, 

Eric G. Harmann, Meridith J. 

Karppinen, Jackson D. Mason, 

Thomas G. Moffett, Kenneth Olsen, 

Gabriel A. Oubre, Chris Patton, Carlos 

Quezada, Angelina Rayes, David G. 

Stringer 

The following 27 applicants did not 

have 3 years of experience driving a 

CMV on public highways with the 

vision deficiency: 

James R. Bodine, Robert L. Borsh, Larry 

E. Carter, Albert M. DiVella, Steven 

Gahart, Martin E. Holden, Lee J. 

Hollister, Steven M. Keller, Jr., Ray V. 

Kuhaneck, Christopher Love, Frank S. 

Martinez, William M. Mercer, Ronald 

S. Milkowski, Noel V. Munoz, Curtis 

A. Norris, John P. O’Day, William 

Offord, Paul C. Pallini, Jerry L. Parks, 

Douglas L. Peterson, Charles D. 

Settles, Raeford W. Sink, William J. 

Statts, Robert D. Swaite, Edwin 

Treloar, Jr., Ronald Turner, Brent 

Wheeler, Jr 

The following 12 applicants did not 

have 3 years of recent experience 

driving a CMV with the vision 

deficiency: 

Ale Algarra, Lee S. Angelo, Eli J. 

Borkholder, Steven Keyes, Scott 

Murphy, Dennis R. Overman, Michael 

J. Peschong, Harry W. Richards, David 

Smith, Jeffrey M. Thorpe, Charles 

Watts, Donald Wright 

The following 10 applicants did not 

have sufficient driving experience 

during the past 3 years under normal 

highway operating conditions: 

Rick A. Ervin, Stephen P. Goodall, John 

R. Kelly, Osvaldo R. Maldonado, 

Frank G. Merrill, Alberto Mireles, Jr., 

Montie Price, Daniel R. Rosas, David 

M. Sims, Stephen W. Verrette 

One applicant, Albert D. Agardi, had 

more than 2 commercial motor vehicle 

violations during the 3-year review 

period and/or application process. Each 

applicant is only allowed 2 moving 

citations. 

One applicant, William R. Hammond, 

had commercial driver’s license 

suspensions during the 3-year review 

period for moving violations. 

Applicants do not qualify for an 

exemption with a suspension during the 

3-year period. 

One applicant, John L. Broadway, had 

2 serious commercial motor vehicle 

violations within a 3-year period. Each 

applicant is only allowed a total of 2 

moving citations, 1, which can be 

serious. 

One applicant, Kerrie L. Smith, did 

not have verifiable proof of commercial 

driving experience over the past 3 years 

under normal highway operating 

conditions that would serve as an 

adequate predictor of future safe 

performance. 

The following 3 applicants did not 

hold a license which allowed operation 

of vehicles over 10,000 pounds for all or 

part of the 3-year period: 

Adam O. Carson, Joe H. Saine, Joseph 

W. Schmit. 

One applicant, James McKnight, did 

not have an Optometrist/ 

Ophthalmologist willing to state that he 

is able to operate a commercial vehicle 

safely with his vision deficiency. 

The following 10 applicants were 

denied for miscellaneous/multiple 

reasons: 

Carl H. Block, Robert D. Fink, Felix M. 

Gonzalez, William A. Green, Tina L. 

Hernandez, Ramon L. Suarez, 

Clarence Taylor, Reginald D. Taylor, 

Ricky A. Teel, Jr., Cardell F. Thomas 

One applicant, William A. Rochester, 

was disqualified for holding 2 

commercial driver’s licenses 

simultaneously. 

One applicant, Soledad R. Martinez, 

did not meet the vision standard in his 

better eye. 

The following 6 applicants met the 

current federal vision standards. 

Exemptions are not required for these 

applicants that meet the current 

regulations for vision: 

A. B. Brown, Ryan M. Cook, Brian R. 

Hastins, Terry A. Jordan, Daniel 

Provencio, Keith Snyder. 

Issued on: August 28, 2010. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22538 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES