[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29206-29209]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10915]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6428; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-119-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by reports indicating that certain wing side-of-body stringer
fittings have been installed with faying surface mismatch beyond the
allowed machining tolerance. This proposed AD would require inspection
of certain stringer fittings for faying surface mismatch common to the
side-of-body rib chord, replacement if necessary, and replacement of
the clearance fit fasteners common to the side-of-body fittings and
upper side-of-body rib chord with tapered sleeve bolts. We are
proposing this AD to prevent an unacceptable reduction of the fatigue
life in the upper side-of-body rib chord. Associated fatigue cracks can
reduce the structural capability to a point where it cannot sustain
limit load, which could adversely affect the structural integrity of
the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6428.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
6428; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allen Rauschendorfer, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S,

FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6428;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-119-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received reports indicating that certain wing side-of-body
stringer fittings have been installed with faying surface mismatch
beyond the allowed machining tolerance. The fittings are assembled to
the mating side-of-body rib chord. The faying surface mismatch produces
a gouge in the mating surface which reduces the fatigue life, and could
grow into a widespread fatigue condition on the upper side-of-body rib
chord. We are proposing this AD to prevent an unacceptable reduction of
the fatigue life in the upper side-of-body rib chord. Associated
fatigue cracks can reduce the structural capability to a point where it
cannot sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00,
Issue 001, dated July 1, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for inspection of the left and right hand side stringer 1
fittings for faying surface mismatch common to the side-of-body rib
chord. If faying surface mismatch is found, instructions are also given
to replace the stringer 1 fitting, and removal and replacement of the
clearance fit fasteners common to the side-of-body fittings and upper
side-of-body rib chord with tapered sleeve bolts from stringer 5 to
stringer 11. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as described in
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00, Issue 001,
dated July 1, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                    Action                                    Labor cost                   Parts cost        product         operators
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification and inspection...................  144 work-hours x $85 per hour =               $100,079         $112,319         $561,595
                                                 $12,240.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary corrective
action for fretting damage or cutter mismatch that would be required
based on the results of the proposed inspection. We have no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these corrective
actions:

                                               On-condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                 Action                                Labor cost                  Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repair for fretting damage or cutter      9 work-hours x $85 per hour = $765..              $0             $765
 mismatch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the crack repair specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations

for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds
necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the
scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that
is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking
action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-6428; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-119-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00, Issue 001, dated July 1, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that certain wing
side-of-body stringer fittings have been installed with faying
surface mismatch beyond the allowed machining tolerance. We are
issuing this AD to prevent an unacceptable reduction of the fatigue
life in the upper side-of-body rib chord. Associated fatigue cracks
can reduce the structural capability to a point where it cannot
sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the structural
integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection

    Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles, or within
13 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first, do the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2),
and (g)(3) of this AD, and all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00, Issue 001, dated July 1,
2015, except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for fretting damage of the faying
surface of the aluminum T-chord.
    (2) Do an eddy current inspection for cracking of the fastener
holes.
    (3) Do a detailed inspection for a machine mismatch condition of
the stringer 1 fitting faying surface.

(h) Modifications

    Concurrently with accomplishment of the requirements of
paragraph (g) of this AD: Modify the stringer fitting fasteners, and
do an eddy current inspection for cracking of the fastener holes, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00, Issue 001, dated July 1,
2015. If any crack is found, before further flight, repair using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Exception to Service Information Specifications

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB570018-00,
Issue 001, dated July 1, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for
repair of cracking: Before further flight, repair the cracking using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(4)(ii) apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Allen
Rauschendorfer, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O.
Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 3, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-10915 Filed 5-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 28094-28096]
[DOCID:fr12jn09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket ID: FMCSA-2009-0086]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 22 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision standard. The Agency has concluded that granting
these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions
for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective June 12, 2009. The exemptions
expire on June 13, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is
also available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On April 28, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (74 FR 19267). That notice listed 22 applicants' case histories.
The 22 individuals applied for exemptions from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate
CMVs in interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 22 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision standard,
but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive safely.
    The 22 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, prosthesis, optic neuropathy,
corneal scar, and loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their
eye conditions were not recently developed. All but 10 of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood. The 10 individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 7 to 56
years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 22 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 60
years. In the past 3 years, three of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and one of the drivers was involved in a crash.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 28, 2009
notice (74 FR 19267).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 22 applicants, three of the applicants had traffic violations for
speeding and one of the applicants was involved in a crash. The
applicants achieved this 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 22 applicants listed in
the notice of April 28, 2009 (74 FR 19267).
    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 22 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 self-employed. 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 no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Michael D. Abel, Andre G. Burns, Paul M. Christina, Harold H.
Cunning, Kenneth W. Dunn, Thomas F. Ethier, Johnny K. Hiatt, Richard S.
Hoffman, Perry D. Jensen, Caleb T. Kass, Craig R. Martin, Bruce McCabe,
Jeffrey M. Mueller, George M. Nelson, Robert D. Porter, Joseph E.
Pfaff, Cecil R. Rhodes, William A. Rister, Billy D. Robertson, Jerry G.
Sexton, Christopher A. Weidner, and Paul A. 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 June 5, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-13829 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 25, 2011 (Volume 76, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 30425-30426]
[DOCID:fr25my11-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0055; Notice 1]

Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming 2007-2011
Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles Are Eligible for Importation

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming
2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles are eligible for importation.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces receipt by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that
2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R Motorcycles that were not originally
manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States
because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were
originally manufactured for sale in the United States and that were
certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards,
and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the
standards.

DATE: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 23, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to the docket and notice numbers above
and be submitted 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: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Comments must be written in the English language, and
be no greater than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to
the length of necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are
submitted in hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are
provided. If you wish to receive confirmation that your comments were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    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).
    How to Read Comments submitted to the Docket: You may read the
comments received by Docket Management at the address and times given
above. You may also view the documents from the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets. The docket ID number and title of this notice are shown at the
heading of this document notice. Please note that even after the
comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in
the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit
late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically search
the Docket for new material.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Coleman Sachs, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not
originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be
refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that
the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle
originally manufactured for sale in the United States, certified under
49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor
vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to
conform to all applicable FMVSS.
    Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either
manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to
49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice
in the Federal Register of each petition that it receives, and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides, on the basis of the
petition and any comments that it has received, whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation. The agency then publishes this decision in
the Federal Register.
    US SPECS, LLC (``US SPECS''), of Havre de Grace, Maryland
(Registered Importer 03-321) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether
non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles are eligible
for importation into the United States. The vehicles that US SPECS
believes are substantially similar are 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R
motorcycles that were manufactured for sale in the United States and
certified by their

manufacturer as conforming to all applicable FMVSS.
    The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified
2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles to their U.S. certified
counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with
respect to compliance with most FMVSS.
    US SPECS submitted information with its petition intended to
demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2007-2011 Suzuki GSX1300R
motorcycles, as originally manufactured, conform to many FMVSS in the
same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of
being readily altered to conform to those standards.
    Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2007-
2011 Suzuki GSX1300R motorcycles are identical to their U.S. certified
counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 106 Brake
Hoses, 116 Brake Fluid, 119 New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles other than
Passenger Cars, and 122 Motorcycle Brake Systems.
    The petitioner further contends that the vehicles are capable of
being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner
indicated below:
    Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated
Equipment: installation of the following U.S.-certified components on
vehicles not already so equipped: (a) Headlamp; (b) front and rear
side-mounted reflex reflectors; (c) rear-mounted reflex reflector; (d)
rear turn signal lamps; (e) stoplamp; (f) taillamp; and (g) license
plate lamp.
    Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors: inspection of all vehicles, and
installation of U.S.-model mirrors on vehicles that are not already so
equipped.
    Standard No. 120 Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles other than
Passenger Cars: installation of a tire information placard.
    Standard No. 123 Motorcycle Controls and Displays: installation of
a U.S.-model speedometer/odometer unit and installation of a lighting
control assembly mounted on the left-hand side of the handlebars to
meet the requirements of this standard on vehicles that are not already
so equipped.
    Standard No. 205 Glazing Materials: inspection of all vehicles, and
removal of noncompliant glazing or replacement of the glazing with
U.S.-certified components on vehicles that are not already so equipped.
    All comments received before the close of business on the closing
date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for
examination in the docket at the above addresses both before and after
that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing
date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition
will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated below.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: May 19, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2011-12903 Filed 5-24-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P