20080 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

The first major research correlating 

past and future performance was done 

in England by Greenwood and Yule in 

1920. Subsequent studies, building on 

that model, concluded that crash rates 

for the same individual exposed to 

certain risks for two different time 

periods vary only slightly (See Bates 

and Neyman, University of California 

Publications in Statistics, April 1952). 

Other studies demonstrated theories of 

predicting crash proneness from crash 

history coupled with other factors. 

These factors—such as age, sex, 

geographic location, mileage driven and 

conviction history—are used every day 

by insurance companies and motor 

vehicle bureaus to predict the 

probability of an individual 

experiencing future crashes (See Weber, 

Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An 

Application of Multiple Regression 

Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal 

of American Statistical Association, 

June 1971). A 1964 California Driver 

Record Study prepared by the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

concluded that the best overall crash 

predictor for both concurrent and 

nonconcurrent events is the number of 

single convictions. This study used 3 

consecutive years of data, comparing the 

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years 

with their experiences in the final year. 

Applying principles from these 

studies to the past 3-year record of the 

19 applicants, two of the applicants 

were convicted for a moving violation 

and none of the applicants were 

involved in a crash. All the applicants 

achieved a record of safety while 

driving with their vision impairment, 

demonstrating the likelihood that they 

have adapted their driving skills to 

accommodate their condition. As the 

applicants’ ample driving histories with 

their vision deficiencies are good 

predictors of future performance, 

FMCSA concludes their ability to drive 

safely can be projected into the future. 

We believe that the applicants’ 

intrastate driving experience and history 

provide an adequate basis for predicting 

their ability to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Intrastate driving, like 

interstate operations, involves 

substantial driving on highways on the 

interstate system and on other roads 

built to interstate standards. Moreover, 

driving in congested urban areas 

exposes the driver to more pedestrian 

and vehicular traffic than exists on 

interstate highways. Faster reaction to 

traffic and traffic signals is generally 

required because distances between 

them are more compact. These 

conditions tax visual capacity and 

driver response just as intensely as 

interstate driving conditions. The 

veteran drivers in this proceeding have 

operated CMVs safely under those 

conditions for at least 3 years, most for 

much longer. Their experience and 

driving records lead us to believe that 

each applicant is capable of operating in 

interstate commerce as safely as he/she 

has been performing in intrastate 

commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds 

that exempting these applicants from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

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

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. For this reason, the 

Agency is granting the exemptions for 

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

31136(e) and 31315 to the 19 applicants 

listed in the notice of February 11, 2011 

(76 FR 7894). 

We recognize that the vision of an 

applicant may change and affect his/her 

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in 

the past. As a condition of the 

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will 

impose requirements on the 19 

individuals consistent with the 

grandfathering provisions applied to 

drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver program. 

Those requirements are found at 49 

CFR 391.64(b) and include the 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

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

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

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

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

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received one comment in this 

proceeding. The comment was 

considered and discussed below. 

The Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation is in favor of granting a 

Federal vision exemption to James W. 

Hoover, George D. Ruth, and Ronald C. 

Wolfe. The Department indicated that 

they have reviewed the driving histories 

of these three applicants and have no 

objections to FMCSA granting them 

vision exemptions. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 19 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts, James L. Acree, Tracey M. 

Baucom, David L. Botkins, Richard D. 

Flaherty, Michael R. Holmes, James W. 

Hoover, Mark C. Jeffrey, Paul J. Jones, 

Pedro G. Limon, William G. Marshall, 

Timothy S. Moore, Kenneth H. Morris, 

Shelby V. Nicholson, Tracy J. Omeara, 

Gary W. Pope, George D. Ruth, 

Benjamin Stone, James H. Wallace, Sr., 

and Ronald C. Wolfe from the vision 

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 

subject to the requirements cited above 

(49 CFR 391.64(b)). 

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

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

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

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Issued on: March 31, 2011. 

Pamela M. Pelcovits, 

Director, Office of Policy, Plans and 

Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8562 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

[Docket Number MARAD 2011 0030] 

Inventory of U.S.-Flag Launch Barges 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Inventory of U.S.-Flag Launch 

Barges. 

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration 

is updating its inventory of U.S.-flag 

launch barges. Additions, changes and 

comments to the list are requested. 

Launch barge information may be found 

at http://www.marad.dot.gov/ 

ships_shipping_landing_page/ 

domestic_shipping/ 

launch_barge_program/ 

Launch_Barge_Program.htm. 

DATES: Any comments on this inventory 

should be submitted in writing to the 

contact person by May 11, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joann Spittle, Office of Cargo Preference 

and Domestic Trade, Maritime 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 20081 

Administration, MAR–730, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone 202–366–5979; email: Joann.Spittle@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to 46 CFR part 389 (Docket No. 

MARAD–2008–0045) Determination of 

Availability of Coastwise-Qualified 

Vessels for the Transportation of 

Platform Jackets, the Final Rule requires 

that the Maritime Administration 

publish a notice in the Federal Register 

requesting that owners or operators (or 

potential owners or operators) of 

coastwise qualified launch barges notify 

us of: 

(1) Their interest in participating in 

the transportation and, if needed, the 

launching or installation of offshore 

platform jackets; (2) the contact 

information for their company; and (3) 

the specifications of any currently 

owned or operated coastwise qualified 

launch barges or plans to construct 

same. 

In addition, we are also seeking 

information on non-coastwise qualified 

(U.S.-flag) launch barges as well. 

Privacy Act 

Anyone is able to search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 

65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78). 

Dated: April 5, 2011. 

By Order of the Maritime Administrator. 

Murray Bloom, 

Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration. 

REPORTED U.S.-FLAG LAUNCH BARGES

[September 2010] 

Vessel name Owner Built Length (ft.) Beam (ft.) DWT (L.T.) 

Approx 

launch 

capacity 

(L.T.) 

Coastwise 

qualified 

Julie B ................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2008 400 130 23,600 23,100 X 

Marty J .................................. Crowley Marine Services ...... 2008 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

Barge 455–3 ......................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2008 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

Barge 400L ........................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 1997 400 100 19,646 19,146 X 

Barge 500–1 ......................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 1982 400 105 16,397 15,897 X 

Barge 410 ............................. Crowley Marine Services ...... 1974 400 99.5 12,035 11,535 X 

455 4 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2009 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

455 5 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2009 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

455 6 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2009 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

455 7 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2009 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

455 8 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2010 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

455 9 ..................................... Crowley Marine Services ...... 2010 400 105 19,226 18,766 X 

MWB 403 .............................. HMC Leasing, Inc. ................ 1979 400 105 16,322 6,800 X 

H–851 ................................... Heerema Shipping ................ 1987 853 206.7 128,452 60,000 

H–114 ................................... Heerema Shipping ................ 1982 525 137.8 39,226 25,000 

H–122 ................................... Heerema Shipping ................ 1978 400 100 16,788 5,500 

H–541 ................................... Heerema Shipping ................ 2000 540 138 41,067 20,500 

H–627 ................................... Heerema Shipping ................ 1978 580 160 51,829 26,000 

McDermott Tidelands 021 .... J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1980 240 72 4,700 2,200 X 

McDermott Tidelands No. 

012.

J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1973 240 72.2 4,217 4,000 X 

McDermott Tidelands No. 

014.

J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1973 240 72.2 4,217 4,000 X 

McDermott Tidelands 020 .... J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1980 240 72 5,186 5,000 X 

McDermott Tidelands 021 .... J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1981 240 72 5,186 5,000 X 

INTERMAC 600 .................... J. Ray McDermott, Inc. ......... 1973 500 120 32,290 15,600 

MARMAC 400 ....................... McDonough Marine Service 2001 400 99′-9′′ 10,861 4,400 X 

MARMAC 300 ....................... McDonough Marine Service 1998 300 100 10,267 4,200 X 

MARMAC 22 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 2003 260 72 5,198 2,400 X 

MARMAC 21 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 2002 260 72 5,120 2,400 X 

MARMAC 20 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1999 250 72 4,943 2,200 X 

MARMAC 19 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1999 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 18 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1998 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 17 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1997 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 16 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1995 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 15 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1995 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 12 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1994 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 11 ......................... McDonough Marine Service 1994 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

MARMAC 9 ........................... McDonough Marine Service 1993 250 72 4,765 2,200 X 

COLUMBIA NORFOLK ......... Moran Towing ....................... 1982 329′ 31⁄2′′ 78 8,036 8,000 X 

FAITHFUL SERVANT ........... Puglia Engineering, Inc. ....... 1979 492 131 23,174 23,000 

ATLANTA BRIDGE ............... Trailer Bridge, Inc. ................ 1998 402 100 6,017 6,017 X 

BROOKLYN BRIDGE ........... Trailer Bridge, Inc. ................ 1998 402 100 6,017 6,017 X 

CHARLOTTE BRIDGE ......... Trailer Bridge, Inc. ................ 1998 402 100 6,017 6,017 X 

CHICAGO BRIDGE .............. Trailer Bridge, Inc. ................ 1998 402 100 6,017 6,017 X 

MEMPHIS BRIDGE .............. Trailer Bridge, Inc. ................ 1998 402 100 6,017 6,017 X 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
20082 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 69 / Monday, April 11, 2011 / Notices 

1See 65 FR 30680 (May 12, 2000) (Docket No. 

NHTSA–2000–7013). 

2See, e.g., grant of petition to Panoz, 72 FR 28759 

(May 22, 2007), or grant of petition to Koenigsegg, 

72 FR 17608 (April 9, 2007). 

[FR Doc. 2011–8532 Filed 4–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–81–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2011–0006] 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB; Morgan 

Motor Company Limited; Receipt of 

Applications for Renewals of 

Temporary Exemptions From the 

Advanced Air Bag Requirements of 

FMVSS No. 208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications 

for renewals of temporary exemptions 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures in 49 CFR Part 555, 

Koenigsegg Automotive AB 

Koenigsegg’’) and Morgan Motor 

Company Limited (‘‘Morgan’’) have 

petitioned the agency for renewals of 

temporary exemption from advanced air 

bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

‘‘Occupant crash protection.’’The basis 

for each application is that compliance 

would cause substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried in good faith to comply with the 

standard. 

This notice of receipt of applications 

for renewal of temporary exemptions is 

published in accordance with the 

statutory provisions of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(2). Please note that we are 

publishing together the notice of receipt 

of the two applications for renewal to 

ensure efficient use of agency resources 

and to facilitate processing of the 

applications. NHTSA has made no 

judgments on the merits of each 

application. NHTSA will consider each 

application separately. We ask that 

commenters also consider each 

application separately and submit 

comments specific to individual 

applications. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to the docket number identified in the 

heading of this document by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Regardless of how you submit your 

comments, you should mention the 

docket number of this document. 

You may call the Docket at 202–366– 

9324. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the Public Participation heading of 

the Supplementary Information section 

of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the Privacy Act discussion below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

We shall consider all comments 

received before the close of business on 

the comment closing date indicated 

below. To the extent possible, we shall 

also consider comments filed after the 

closing date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

Telephone: (202) 366–2992; Fax: (202) 

366–3820. 

I. Advanced Air Bag Requirements and 

Small Volume Manufacturers 

In 2000, NHTSA upgraded the 

requirements for air bags in passenger 

cars and light trucks, requiring what are 

commonly known as ‘‘advanced air 

bags.’’ 1 The upgrade was designed to 

meet the goals of improving protection 

for occupants of all sizes, belted and 

unbelted, in moderate-to-high-speed 

crashes, and of minimizing the risks 

posed by air bags to infants, children, 

and other occupants, especially in lowspeed crashes. The rule accomplished 

this by establishing new test 

requirements and injury criteria and 

specifying the use of an entire family of 

test dummies: the then-existing dummy 

representing 50th percentile adult 

males, and new dummies representing 

5th percentile adult females, 6-year-old 

children, 3-year-old children, and 

1-year-old infants. 

The advanced air bag requirements 

were a culmination of a comprehensive 

plan that the agency announced in 1996 

to address the adverse effects of air bags. 

This plan also included an extensive 

consumer education program to 

encourage the placement of children in 

rear seats. 

The new requirements were phased in 

beginning with the 2004 model year. 

Small volume manufacturers (i.e., 

original vehicle manufacturers 

producing or assembling fewer than 

5,000 vehicles annually for sale in the 

United States) were not subject to the 

advanced air bag requirements until 

September 1, 2006. 

In recent years, NHTSA has addressed 

a number of petitions for exemption 

from the advanced air bag requirements 

of FMVSS No. 208. The majority of 

these requests have come from small 

manufacturers which have petitioned on 

the basis of substantial economic 

hardship to a manufacturer that has 

tried in good faith to comply with the 

standard. 

Although NHTSA has granted a 

number of these petitions in situations 

where the manufacturer is supplying 

standard air bags in lieu of advanced air 

bags,2 NHTSA is considering (1) 

whether it is in the public interest to 

continue to grant such petitions, 

particularly in the same manner as in 

the past, given the number of years 

these requirements have now been in 

effect and the benefits of advanced air 

bags, and (2) to the extent such petitions 

are granted, what plans and 

countermeasures to protect child and 

infant occupants, short of compliance 

with the advanced air bags, should be 

expected. 

Given the passage of time since the 

advanced air bag requirements were 

established and have been 

implemented, and in light of the 

benefits of advanced air bags, NHTSA is 

considering whether it is in the public 

interest to continue to grant exemptions 

from these requirements, particularly in 

the same manner as in the past. The 

costs of compliance with the advanced 

air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208 

are costs that all entrants to the U.S. 

automobile marketplace should expect 

to bear. Furthermore, NHTSA 

understands that, in contrast to the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES