[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8338-8339]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for New Special
Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.
    Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the
Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington DC.

    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 04, 2022.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Regulation(s)          Nature of the special
           Application No.                  Applicant               affected               permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21323-N............................  Canadian Pacific        172.203(a), 173.24,     To authorize the use of
                                      Railway Company.        173.26.                 electronic shipping paper
                                                                                information and train
                                                                                consist information when
                                                                                hazardous materials are
                                                                                transported by rail. (mode
                                                                                2).
21324-N............................  Absolute Accuracy, LLC  173.304(d),             To authorize the
                                                              173.306(a)(3).          manufacture, mark, sale
                                                                                and use of a non-
                                                                                refillable, non-DOT
                                                                                specification inside metal
                                                                                container similar to a DOT
                                                                                specification 2Q. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4).
21325-N............................  Western International   171.12(a)(4)..........  To authorize the
                                      Gas & Cylinders, Inc.                           requalification of
                                                                                acetylene cylinders
                                                                                authorized by Transport
                                                                                Canada but are not
                                                                                authorized for transport
                                                                                of hazardous materials in
                                                                                the United States. (mode
                                                                                1).
21326-N............................  Channel Medsystems,     173.304(f)(3).........  To authorize the
                                      Inc.                                            transportation in commerce
                                                                                of nitrous oxide, via air,
                                                                                within an outer packaging
                                                                                that has not passed the
                                                                                Thermal Resistance Test.
                                                                                (mode 4).
21328-N............................  Dragonfly Energy Corp.  173.6(a)(1)(ii),        To authorize the
                                                              173.6(d).               transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium batteries
                                                                                exceeding 66 pounds as
                                                                                materials of trade. (mode
                                                                                1).
21330-N............................  Polysource, Inc.......  176.907(a),             To authorize the
                                                              176.907(b),             transportation in commerce
                                                              176.907(c)(1).          of polymeric beads in
                                                                                alternative packaging.
                                                                                (mode 3).
21331-N............................  Jaco, Inc.............  172.200, 172.700(a)...  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion batteries
                                                                                and lithium ion batteries
                                                                                contained in equipment,
                                                                                shipped by customers back
                                                                                to the manufacturer,
                                                                                without requiring shipping
                                                                                papers, emergency response
                                                                                information or hazmat
                                                                                training. (modes 1, 2, 3).
21332-N............................  Advanced Material       173.302(f)(1).........  To authorize the
                                      Systems Corporation.                            transportation in commerce
                                                                                of ISO 11119-2 cylinders
                                                                                containing oxygen via
                                                                                cargo-only aircraft. (mode
                                                                                4).
21333-N............................  Cummins Inc...........  172.101(j),             To authorize the
                                                              173.185(b)(1).          transportation in commerce
                                                                                of lithium ion batteries
                                                                                exceeding 35 kg by cargo-
                                                                                only aircraft. (mode 4).
21334-N............................  PacTec, Inc...........  173.12(b)(2)(i).......  To authorize the
                                                                                manufacture, mark, sale,
                                                                                and use of certain UN13H4
                                                                                woven plastic, coated, and
                                                                                with liner Flexible
                                                                                Intermediate Bulk
                                                                                Containers (IBC) for use
                                                                                as the outer packaging in
                                                                                a combination packaging
                                                                                for liquids or solids lab
                                                                                packs in accordance with
                                                                                49 CFR 173.12(b)(2)(i).
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3).
21335-N............................  The Island Packers      ......................  To authorize the
                                      Corporation.                                    transportation in commerce
                                                                                of certain hazardous
                                                                                materials aboard passenger
                                                                                vessels.
21336-N............................  Kronebusch Industries   178.33a-1.............  To authorize the
                                      LLC.                                            manufacture, mark, sale,
                                                                                and use of receptacles
                                                                                meeting all the
                                                                                requirements for the DOT
                                                                                2Q specification, except
                                                                                that the capacity and
                                                                                diameter exceed that which
                                                                                is authorized for the
                                                                                specification. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4, 5).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2022-03085 Filed 2-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 179 (Monday, September 20, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52285-52289]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2021-0103]

Reassignment of Schedules at Newark-Liberty International Airport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) and Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed reassignment of schedules at Newark Liberty
International Airport.

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

SUMMARY: By this notice, the U.S. Department of Transportation

(Department or DOT), including the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), provides notice of its intention to approve schedule plans, for
a single low-cost carrier (LCC) or ultra-low-cost carrier (ULCC), to
operate the 16 peak afternoon and evening runway timings previously
approved for operation by Southwest Airlines, Inc. (Southwest) at
Newark-Liberty International Airport (EWR or Newark). The Department is
seeking comment on the proposed process as well as the proposed
eligibility and evaluation criteria described below. Comments are due
no later than September 27, 2021.

DATES: Submit comments on or before September 27, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to docket DOT-OST-2021-0103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Homan, Director, Office of
Aviation Analysis, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 or
(202) 366-5903; or Al Meilus, Manager, Slot Administration, AJR-G,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice and the actions the Department
is proposing are in response to the Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit's decision in Spirit Airlines v. DOT, et al., and in
furtherance of the whole of government approach to competition embodied
in the President's Executive Order 14036.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Executive Order issued July 9, 2021, available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/09/fact-sheet-executive-order-on-promoting-competition-in-the-american-economy/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    In 2010, United Airlines, Inc. (United) and Continental Airlines,
Inc. (Continental) announced plans to merge. In response to concerns
raised by the Department of Justice (DOJ) over the transaction and its
potential anticompetitive effects, particularly where Continental was
the dominant carrier, United agreed to transfer 36 of its take-off and
landing rights (operating authorizations or slots) at EWR to Southwest
Airlines, Inc. (Southwest). DOJ found that, ``[t]he transfer of slots
and other assets at Newark to Southwest, a low cost carrier that
currently has only limited service in the New York metropolitan area
and no Newark service, resolves the department's principal competition
concerns and will likely significantly benefit consumers on overlap
routes as well as on many other routes.'' \2\ United and Continental
carried out their merger and the post-merger United became the dominant
carrier at EWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``United Airlines and Continental Airlines Transfer Assets
to Southwest Airlines in Response to Department of Justice's
Antitrust Concerns'', United States Department of Justice Press
Release, August 27, 2010, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-airlines-and-continental-airlines-transfer-assets-southwest-airlines-response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time of the merger, EWR was an FAA-designated Level 3 (slot-
coordinated) airport, meaning that, in order to perform a take-off or
landing during most hours, an air carrier needed an FAA-allocated slot
for the time of the operation. Under then-applicable rules, carriers
that held slots could trade or lease them to other carriers.\3\ In
2016, as the result of improved operational metrics, FAA re-designated
EWR a Level 2 (schedule facilitated) airport.\4\ Under Level 2, slots
are not allocated. Rather, carriers submit schedule requests for the
upcoming season to FAA, and FAA works cooperatively with carriers to
seek voluntary schedule adjustments from carriers to alleviate delays
and other operational issues. Once agreed upon, FAA approves each
carrier's schedule. Under Level 2, carriers generally retain schedule
priority based on actual operations conducted as approved in the
previous corresponding season, but such schedule approvals are not
transferrable like slots (i.e., carriers cannot trade or lease their
approved schedules to other carriers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Operating Limitations at Newark Liberty International
Airport, 74 FR 51648 (Oct. 7, 2009).
    \4\ See ``Change of Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR)
Designation'', 81 FR 19861, April 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 25, 2019, Southwest announced that it would cease
operations at EWR effective November 3, 2019.\5\ As Southwest could not
lease its approved runway timings to another carrier under Level 2
rules, upon its cessation of service, Southwest's approved runway
timings reverted to FAA. Sixteen of these operations were in peak
afternoon and evening hours (specifically, the period from 14:00-21:59
Eastern Time) at EWR when schedule approvals were generally not
otherwise available. These operations were also in hours when approved
schedules were generally at or above the 79/hour operational cap
imposed by FAA, on average and considering offsets in adjacent periods.
In an effort to improve performance at EWR, FAA lowered the scheduling
limit effective with the summer 2018 season that commenced in March
2018.\6\ Following this change, FAA approved flights above the 79/hour
limit only if operated in the previous corresponding season by the same
carrier and dating back to the higher limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Southwest Reports Record Second Quarter Revenues And
Earnings Per Share'', Southwest Airlines Press Release, July 25,
2019, https://www.swamedia.com/releases/release-424146113c6f2a2eebe84fb61d59a4ff-southwest-reports-record-second-quarter-revenues-and-earnings-per-share?query=newark.
    \6\ See Notice of Submission Deadline for the Summer 2018
Scheduling Season, 82 FR 45938 (Oct. 2, 2017). The winter season
limits were already at 79 per hour based on winter season capacity
analyses. See also Notice of Submission Deadline for the Winter 2018
Scheduling Season, 83 FR 21335 (May 9, 2018). The FAA had also
previously targeted a scheduling limit of 79 operations per hour in
the initial transition from Level 3 slot controls to Level 2
schedule facilitation at EWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a letter dated August 12, 2019, the Assistant Attorney General
for the Antitrust Division stated that, ``[Southwest's] decision
implicates the relief we negotiated with United Airlines as a condition
of its merger with Continental in 2010. We are therefore committed to
working with the DOT and FAA to evaluate how best to reallocate
Southwest's capacity at the airport in a manner consistent with our
enforcement decision in that matter.'' The letter goes on to state:

    Those divestitures indeed facilitated important competition at
the airport. Southwest used the slots to introduce new low-fare
competition to United on multiple routes resulting in substantially
lowered fares and increased service . . . Given that United already
holds approximately 66% of authorizations at Newark, and that
competition for United is already in short supply at the airport
(e.g., 81 of 148 routes at the airport are monopoly routes operated
by United), we believe the DOT and FAA should seek to resolve the
reallocation issue in a way that preserves competition at the
airport. To do otherwise would undermine the goal of the remedy the
DOJ negotiated with United as a condition of its merger with
Continental.

    On October 2, 2019, as part of a routine scheduling notice, FAA
announced that it would not replace or ``backfill'' all of Southwest's
operations in the EWR schedule to the extent such operations exceeded
the scheduling limits for purposes of the summer 2020 scheduling
season.\7\ However, FAA also stated that it planned to assess the
impacts of the peak period Southwest reductions and other schedule
changes at EWR on performance, as well as the impacts on competition in
close coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Transportation,
in the upcoming Winter 2019/2020 and Summer 2020 scheduling seasons.\8\

Ultimately, for the 36 slots that were the subject of the 2010 United/
Continental divestiture, FAA reallocated 20 of Southwest's operations,
but did not ``backfill'' 16 peak-hour operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
Newark Liberty International Airport for the Summer 2020 Scheduling
Season'', 84 FR 52580, October 2, 2019, at 52582.
    \8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Spirit Airlines sought review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit, challenging FAA's decision not to backfill the 16 peak-
hour operations, claiming that FAA's decision was arbitrary and
capricious because FAA failed to consider the effect of its decision on
competition and did not explain why it could not use a less burdensome
tool (such as a schedule reduction meeting under 49 U.S.C. 41722), and
lacked substantial evidence for its decision. On May 21, 2021, the D.C.
Circuit vacated FAA's decision and remanded the matter to the agency to
address the issue of competition.\9\ In doing so, the D.C. Circuit
stated that ``the agency . . . ignored information about the
competitive situation at Newark'' and that the ``record provides
precious little insight into whether or how the FAA approached the
competition problem.'' \10\ The D.C. Circuit also highlighted the fact
that the agency did not discuss ``why it prefers miniscule reductions
in delay more than competition that could lower fares for passengers.''
\11\ Finally, the Court cautioned that ``[i]f the FAA again decides to
retire Southwest's peak-period slots, it should be prepared to provide
a reasoned explanation for preferring to cut travel time an average of
one minute rather than to cut the price of flying by as much as 45
percent on routes that would gain a second carrier.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Spirit Airlines Inc. v. DOT et al., 997 F.3d 1247, 1255
(D.C. Cir. 2021).
    \10\ Id. at 1256.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id. at 1257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demand and Congestion at EWR

    Consistent with the delay modeling results included in the
administrative record in Spirit Airlines v. DOT, et al. (D.C. Cir. 19-
1248), with demand at pre-pandemic levels, FAA estimates that
``backfilling'' the 16 runway timings previously held by Southwest in
peak afternoon and evening periods would increase delay at EWR by 5.9%,
or by an average of 1.2 minutes per operation throughout the day.
However, since the 16 runway timings are all in the peak afternoon and
evening period; the added delay would be concentrated in these hours.
    EWR and LaGuardia Airport (LGA) are the two most delayed airports
in the National Airspace System (NAS) as reported through Aviation
System Performance Metrics (ASPM) delays compared to scheduled gate
departures/arrivals. Congestion at EWR should be considered in context
against the other NYC area airports as well as Philadelphia
International Airport (PHL), airports within similar operational and
passenger catchment areas.\13\ Compared to LGA, EWR has a slightly
higher completion rate,\14\ but also a higher rate of delayed
operations. In fiscal year (FY) 2019, EWR's completion rate (97.0%) was
lower than the NAS average, but similar to the completion rate at LGA
(96.8%) and PHL (97.4%). Also in FY 2019, EWR's rate of delayed flights
was 29.4% compared to schedule for gate departures and gate arrivals,
which is higher than LGA (26.1%), John F. Kennedy International Airport
(22.5%), and PHL (20.4%).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ An airport's catchment area is the geographic area from
which your airport can reasonably expect to draw commercial air
service passengers. See ``Defining Your Airport's Catchment Area''
available at: https://crp.trb.org/acrpwebresource1/defining-your-airports-catchment-area/.
    \14\ Completion Rate refers to the percentage of scheduled and/
or planned air carrier arrivals that were not cancelled. Calculated
as Metric Arrivals/(Metric Arrivals + Cancelled Arrivals). Cancelled
Arrivals are determined next day using air carrier flight plan
cancellation messages and scheduled flights not flown. Airline
Service Quality Performance (ASQP) cancellation data are used when
available. See ``ASPM Cancellations: Definitions of Variables''
available at: https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/ASPM_CancellationsDefinitions_of_Variables.html.
    \15\ See docket for ASPM data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA made significant progress smoothing and balancing the
schedule at EWR under the Level 2 construct just prior to the COVID-19
pandemic. The sudden, drastic disruption caused by COVID-19 affects the
analysis and relevant long-term effects of operational, performance,
and demand-related changes at EWR, including those changes resulting
from Southwest leaving the airport. Access to EWR and the New York City
area generally remains coveted, and schedule requests for flights at
EWR have exceeded the desired scheduling limits in multiple hours.
While the FAA would accommodate the reassignment of the 16 peak
afternoon and evening operations as proposed in this notice, the FAA
would continue to seek voluntary cooperation from all carriers to
adjust schedules at EWR in an effort to manage the operation within the
desired scheduling limits.
    FAA notes that the COVID-19 public health emergency has created
uncertainty about the ultimate recovery of demand back to pre-COVID
levels or the potential for a ``new normal'' in demand levels at EWR as
the public's travel patterns have, and continue, to evolve, and
carriers restructure their networks to accommodate this dynamic. Given
this evolving situation, FAA will continue to monitor performance at
EWR and review its capacity evaluation and targeted scheduling limits
at EWR in the future. However, at the current time, the desired hourly
scheduling limit at EWR remains at 79 operations per hour and 43
operations per half-hour.\16\ Based on historical demand and an
increase in operations in ``shoulder'' periods adjacent to the busiest
hours before the COVID-19 public health emergency, most hours are now
at the desired hourly scheduling limits. To help with a balance between
arrivals and departures, the desired maximum number of scheduled
arrivals or departures, respectively, is 43 in an hour and 24 in a
half-hour. This would allow some higher levels of operations in certain
periods (not to exceed the hourly limits) and some recovery from lower
demand in adjacent periods. FAA will seek to work in coordination with
the awarded carrier to adjust schedules within the peak afternoon and
evening period, including minor changes between adjacent half hours, in
the interest of optimizing efficiency and accommodating the carrier's
schedule plans, consistent with the usual Level 2 process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See 86 FR 24448 (May 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Reassignment

    As stated above, FAA estimates that, in a pre-COVID-19 environment,
reassigning the 16 peak-hour operations would result in additional
delays, for all EWR operations, of approximately 1.2 minutes per
operation throughout the day. United, by far the largest carrier at EWR
by several measures, operates many routes on a monopoly basis. The
Department has previously found that introducing LCC services in
competition on monopoly routes significantly reduces fares on those
routes.\17\ One study found that the presence of LCCs and ULCCs causes
a decrease in average one-way fares of between $15-$36.\18\ Absent
introduction of these LCC services, it is highly unlikely that there
will be any significant reduction in fares. These potential savings to

consumers are important objectives of the President's Executive Order
on competition, particularly in a concentrated market. There are many
benefits of competition, including lower fares, more throughput, higher
utilization of scarce assets, more opportunities to develop flexible or
common use airport facilities, and reduced opportunities for
exclusionary behavior such as ``babysitting.'' That will not change
unless we introduce the LCC services and at the same time, seek
necessary adjustments by incumbent carriers to mitigate the potential
delays. The Department believes that the benefits of lower fares
significantly outweigh the impacts of additional delays.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See ``U.S. DOT/FAA--Notice of a Petition for Waiver and
Solicitation of Comments on Grant of Petition with Conditions'',
FAA-2010-0109-0097, Jul. 21, 2011, at 33-34.
    \18\ Wittman, Michael D.; Swelbar, William S. (August 2013).
Evolving Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares: The Impacts of
Competition, Consolidation, and Low-Cost Carriers at 20; see also
Bennett, Randall D.; Craun, James M. (May 1993). The Airline
Deregulation Evolution Continues: The Southwest Effect. Office of
Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the court's decision, ongoing competition issues at EWR, and
Executive Order 14036, the Department believes that it is necessary to
reintroduce the competition that was previously provided by Southwest
at EWR even though this will increase delays at EWR. Pursuant to the
Department and FAA's authority under 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103, and 41712,
the Department is initiating a proceeding to reassign the 16 peak-hour
runway timings at issue. The Department believes that reassigning these
schedule plans to operate in the 16-peak hour runway timings, in a
manner that would continue to satisfy DOJ's competition remedy related
to the United/Continental merger, and as quickly as possible, best
satisfies the public interest and addresses the concerns of the D.C.
Circuit.
    This action is not a routine approval of schedule plans that would
typically be handled under FAA's standard schedule facilitation
procedures. The Department notes that this proceeding arises out of an
unusual circumstance, where Southwest stopped operating at EWR, thus
returning a large number of operations that Southwest acquired as a
condition of the United-Continental merger. Thus, the Department is
treating this matter as the reassignment and continuation of the DOJ-
approved competition remedy to the United-Continental merger. As such,
the Department proposes to evaluate proposals from eligible carriers
that can effectively carry out the goals of that competition remedy,
namely to provide price and service competition to United, the dominant
hub carrier at EWR, and for FAA to approve the peak-hour schedule plans
of the carrier chosen based on that evaluation. In order to maintain
the effect of the 2010 competition remedy, the Department has
tentatively concluded that the schedule plans to operate in the 16
peak-hour runway timings should be approved as a package to a single
carrier able to provide the type and magnitude of competitive
discipline at EWR contemplated by the DOJ remedy.
    Previously, DOJ found that the divestiture to Southwest of 36 slots
at Newark (i.e., United's pre- merger holdings), including the 16 peak
afternoon and evening period slots at issue in this notice, resolved
its competition concerns with the transaction. By divesting all of the
slots to a single carrier with a proven track record and the capability
to provide a competitive pattern of frequent service in markets
operated by United-Continental, DOJ was able to minimize the number of
slots divested while maximizing the competitive impact of the remedy.
    Based upon current competitive conditions, the Department finds
that, in order to provide price discipline for the services of a hub
carrier in particular, the LCC or ULCC approved to operate in the 16
peak-hour runway timings needs to have a sufficient pattern of service
to achieve economies of scale in its operations at the airport
consistent with its low-cost or low-fare business model, to protect
itself from potential anticompetitive behavior from the dominant
carrier(s), and to have sufficient incentive and ability to compete
head to head with dominant carriers.\19\ Furthermore, we have
previously found that a single carrier offering a broader competitive
alternative to the hub carrier's customer proposition at the airport
can extend the benefits of the low-fare service even in markets without
LCC or ULCC services by changing passengers' perception of what a fair
price is for a particular itinerary.\20\ When fares are substantially
higher, customers tend to look for cheaper alternatives at other
airlines or nearby airports to avoid paying ``above market'' prices.
This ``halo effect'' tends to discipline high fares charged by the
incumbent even in markets where the LCC does not operate, at the
margin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ``Restricting eligibility to these . . . carriers would
assist new or small non-aligned carriers in defending themselves
against increasingly dominant competitors, which, with the benefit
of additional slot interests, could pursue anticompetitive
strategies such as significantly increasing existing services in any
new entrant/limited incumbent/low-cost/non-aligned carrier market.''
Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order Limiting Scheduled
Operations at LaGuardia Airport, 75 FR 7306, February 18, 2010 at
7310.
    \20\ See Bennett, Randall D.; Craun, James M. (May 1993). The
Airline Deregulation Evolution Continues: The Southwest Effect.
Office of Aviation Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation; and
Wittman, Michael D.; Swelbar, William S. (August 2013). Evolving
Trends of U.S. Domestic Airfares: The Impacts of Competition,
Consolidation, and Low-Cost Carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Department proposes to approve, as a package
to an eligible LCC or ULCC, schedule plans to operate in the 16 peak-
hour runway timings previously approved for operation by Southwest. The
Department seeks to finalize this process to enable a carrier to begin
operations as soon as possible, as early as the start of the Winter
2021/2022 scheduling season. To determine eligibility, the Department
is proposing several criteria, described below.
    While approving an LCC or ULCC's schedule plans to operate in these
16 peak-hour runway timings is necessary to address ongoing competition
issues at EWR, the Department is not concluding by virtue of this
process that such action will be sufficient to resolve all of those
issues. In addition, the Department notes that, aside from this
proceeding to reassign 16 operations historically approved for
operation by Southwest, usual policies and procedures for Level 2
schedule facilitation at EWR continue to apply.\21\ The FAA intends to
provide responses to all pending schedule requests for the Winter 2021/
2022 scheduling season as soon as possible following issuance of this
notice. Once this reassignment proceeding has been completed, the FAA
will take action to approve the 16 additional operations for the
benefit of the awarded carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See e.g., Notice of Submission Deadline for Winter 2021/
2022 Scheduling Season, 86 FR 24428 (May 6, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eligibility and Evaluation Criteria

    In airline transactions involving constrained markets, where market
concentration is at issue, the Department has found that LCCs and ULCCs
have the greatest competitive impact upon entry by their ability to
dramatically lower fares and increase the volume of passengers in a
market.\22\ In the 2010 United/Continental divestiture, DOJ was
satisfied that its competition concerns had been addressed by the
transfer to Southwest, a LCC, of United's EWR slots and other assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See ``Petition for Waiver of the Terms of the Order
Limiting Scheduled Operations at LaGuardia Airport'', 76 FR 63702,
October 13, 2011 at 63705, and, Order 2016-11-2 at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given competitive conditions at Newark--including United's ongoing
dominance at EWR and the relatively small number of operating
authorizations being reassigned--the Department tentatively believes
that continuing to limit eligibility to LCC or ULCC carriers would best
serve the public interest by providing the

maximum level of competition with the available public assets.
    In determining which LCC or ULCC would provide the maximum
competition, the Department tentatively proposes to consider, among
other factors, carriers' business model and track record to ensure that
they have the ability and stamina to provide the level of competition
required. The business model and track record will be determined by
analysis of revenue, traffic, and schedule data. More specifically, the
Department will consider:
     Business model and product offering that allow the carrier
to effectively compete, including the extent to which offering low
fares to large numbers of travelers is core to its business proposition
across markets;
     Record of entering and effectively competing in markets
like those served by dominant carrier(s) at Newark;
     Staying power and track record in highly competitive
markets, especially vis-[agrave]-vis the specific hub carrier and at
network carrier hubs and focus cities where the competitive responses
from incumbent airlines to new entry by price competitors may be
particularly aggressive; and
     Ability to appeal to a broad cross section of passengers
by offering a competitive schedule with (at least) minimum levels of
daily and weekly frequency appropriate for the market(s) at issue,
along with reasonably competitive onboard products and services and the
ability to deliver them to customers consistently over time.
    The Department tentatively proposes to evaluate eligible carriers
based on the above criteria.

Comments Requested

    The Department requests comments on various aspects of the proposed
process outlined in this notice. Specifically, the Department seeks
comments on its tentative decision to approve schedule plans, for a
single carrier, to operate in the 16 peak-hour runway timings as soon
as possible; its tentative decision to limit eligibility to LCC and
ULCC carriers; and its proposed evaluation criteria. The Department
will consider comments outside of the scope of this request as
nonresponsive. Comments must be filed in this docket and are due not
later than September 27, 2021.
    Since the issuance of the D.C. Circuit's decision, the Department
has received letters from interested stakeholders. Any correspondence
related to the specific issues discussed in this notice have been
included in the docket.
    The Department will consider all responsive comments received and
issue a further notice finalizing its decision and soliciting proposals
from eligible carriers. If no responsive comments are received, the
Department may proceed directly to issuing a notice requesting
proposals and providing instruction for doing so.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The Department will solicit proposals on a confidential
basis given the sensitive commercial information that they are
likely to contain.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 16, 2021.
Carol Annette Petsonk,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, U.S.
Department of Transportation.

Virginia T. Boyle,
Vice President, System Operations Services, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2021-20399 Filed 9-16-21; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63653-63654]
[DOCID:fr09no07-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2007-0026; Notice 1]

General Motors Corporation, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    General Motors Corporation (GM) has determined that certain model
year 2006 & 2007 motor vehicles equipped with remote start systems that
it manufactured prior to May of 2007, did not fully comply with
paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection. GM has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), GM has petitioned for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of GM's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 146,360 model year 2006 & 2007 motor
vehicles including; Buick Lacrosse and Pontiac Grand Prix passenger
cars; and Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana SV6 and
Saturn Relay multipurpose passenger vehicles. GM certified these
vehicles to paragraph S7.3(a)(1) of 49 CFR 571.208 which requires:

    S7.3 (a) A seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating
position shall be equipped with a warning system that, at the option
of the manufacturer, either--
    (1) Activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a
period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds and
that activates a continuous or flashing warning light visible to the
driver displaying the identifying symbol for the seat belt telltale
shown in Table 2 of FMVSS 101 or, at the option of the manufacturer
if permitted by FMVSS 101, displaying the words ''Fasten Seat
Belts'' or ''Fasten Belts'', for not less than 60 seconds (beginning
when the vehicle ignition switch is moved to the ''on'' or the
''start'' position) when condition(b) exists simultaneously with
condition(c) * * *
    (b) The vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the ''on''
position or to the ''start'' position.
    (c) The driver's lap belt is not in use, as determined, at the
option of the manufacturer, either by the belt latch mechanism not
being fastened, or by the belt

not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position.

    GM explains that under certain circumstances following a remote
engine start that the seatbelt assembly warning system audible signal
and/or the telltale warning light do not always activate as required to
fully comply FMVSS No. 208.
    The vehicles in question fall into two groups. The first group
contains only 2006 model year vehicles. The second group consists of a
few late production 2006 multipurpose passenger vehicles and all the
2007 vehicles reported. For simplification, these groups are referenced
hereafter as the 2006 and the 2007s.
    GM states that when a subject vehicle's engine is started using the
ignition key (not with remote start), three warning cycles are provided
to unbelted occupants for the 2007 vehicles. The first warning cycle
satisfies the requirements specified in FMVSS 208 S7.3(a)(1) for the
unbuckled driver. The second and third cycles provide additional
audible and telltale warnings, of the same duration required by the
standard, for drivers who remain unbuckled. The 2006 vehicles receive
only the first cycle of driver and passenger warnings. If at anytime
the driver buckles, the warnings will cease.
    GM additionally explains that in some cases, if the vehicle is
started using the remote start function the seatbelt assembly warning
system will not activate upon key rotation to the ``RUN'' position as
specified by FMVSS No. 208 S7.3(a)(l). For both 2006 and 2007 vehicles
following remote start, an audible warning will sound when the key is
rotated to the ``RUN'' position, but the required telltale warning may
not be provided. The length of the telltale warning for the first
warning cycle is decreased by the amount of time between when the
engine is started and when the key is turned to the ``RUN'' position.
The driver, buckled or unbuckled, receives an audible warning except in
the situation where the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33
seconds following the remote start (in effect buckling in response to
the chime and silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle).
    For the 2006 vehicles, as originally manufactured, there were no
supplemental warning signal cycles. The 2007 vehicles were provided
with an enhanced safety belt reminder system that will activate if
front outboard occupants are not belted and the vehicle speed is above
5 mph. The 2007 vehicles will provide two cycles of audible and visual
belt warning notice in such conditions.
    GM also provided a detailed explanation of the reasons why it
believes that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    In summary, GM states that for all of the subject vehicles, the
unbuckled driver receives a warning when the ignition key is turned to
the ``RUN'' position essentially every time:

    (1) When the vehicles are started with its ignition key, the
required seat belt warnings are provided.
    (2) When the 2007 vehicles and the upgraded \1\ 2006 vehicles
are started remotely, the unbuckled driver receives, at a minimum,
the audible warning when the ignition key turned to the ``RUN''
position plus 2 cycles of visual and audible warning when the
vehicle's speed reaches 5 Miles per hour (mph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ General Motors has initiated a Customer Satisfaction Program
to upgrade the belt reminder system on the 2006 vehicles to provide
three sets of warning cycles as implemented on the 2007 vehicles and
has sent letters to the customers of those vehicles informing them
of this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) When the 2006 vehicles are started remotely, the unbuckled
driver will receive, at a minimum, the audible warning.

    The only exception for where an audible warning is not provided is
when the front passenger buckles between 25 and 33 seconds following
the remote start (in effect buckling in response to the chime and
silencing it before the driver enters the vehicle).
    GM states that it believes that because the noncompliances are
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no further corrective
action is warranted.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the

online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: December 10, 2007.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 2, 2007.
Harry Thompson,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E7-22057 Filed 11-8-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44708-44710]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0106]

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 12 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. 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 July 30, 2012. The exemptions
expire on July 30, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<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 acknowledgement 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 DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

Background

    On June 4, 2012, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (77 FR 33017). That notice listed 12 applicants' case histories.
The 12 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 12 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 12
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including complete loss of vision, corneal scarring,
amblyopia, retinal detachment, optic nerve atrophy, presbyopia,
enucleation and retinal damage. In most cases, their eye conditions
were not recently developed. Nine of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The
individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
it for a period of 25 to 39 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 12 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 5 to 38
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers were involved in
crashes, and one was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 4, 2012
notice (77 FR 33017).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement 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 the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, 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 12 applicants, two of the drivers were involved in crashes, and one
was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. 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 requirement 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 12 applicants listed in the notice of June 4, 2012 (77 FR
33017).
    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 12 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 requirement 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 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 12 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Robert F. Bennett (NJ), Dale W. Coblentz (MT), Michael L. Dean
(MI), Damon G. Gallardo (CA), Marc D. Groszkrueger (IA), Daniel L.
Grover (KS), James E. Modaffari (OR), Gerardus C. Molenaar (PA), James
J. Narkewich (MA), Philip N. Polcastro (NY), Gregory A. Reinert (MN)
and Scott J. Schlenker (WA) 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: July 18, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-18567 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P