Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 14, 2007 / Notices 11929 

Qualifications Division, (202) 366–4001, 

maggi.gunnels@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, 

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 Document Management 

System (DMS) at http://dmses.dot.gov. 

Background 

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. The 

comment period ended on February 2, 

2007. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received two comments in 

these proceedings. The comments were 

considered and discussed below. 

Ms. Sachau believes that the approval 

or renewal of vision exemptions make 

the roads much more dangerous. 

A review of each record for safety 

while driving with the respective vision 

deficiencies over the past two years 

indicates each applicant continues to 

meet the vision exemption standards. 

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 or 

she has driven a commercial vehicle 

safely with the vision deficiency for 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–98–

3637. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition 

to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions 

from the FMCSR, including the driver 

qualification standards. Specifically, 

Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in 

which FMCSA presents driver 

information to the public and makes 

safety determinations; (2) objects to the 

Agency’s reliance on conclusions drawn 

from the vision waiver program; (3) 

claims the Agency has misinterpreted 

statutory language on the granting of 

exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315); and finally (4) suggests that a 

1999 Supreme Court decision affects the 

legal validity of vision exemptions. 

The issues raised by Advocates were 

addressed at length in 64 FR 51568 

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 

3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 

2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). 

We will not address these points again 

here, but refer interested parties to those 

earlier discussions. 

Conclusion 

The Agency has not received any 

adverse evidence on any of these drivers 

that indicates that safety is being 

compromised. Based upon its 

evaluation of the 8 renewal 

applications, FMCSA renews the 

Federal vision exemptions for David D. 

Bungori, Jr., David R. Cox, Timothy A. 

DeFrange, Robert T. Hill, Francisco J. 

Jimenez, Robert B. Schmitt, Rick N. 

Ulrich, and Larry D. Wedekind. 

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

and 31315, each renewal 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. 

Issued on: March 7, 2007. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Office Director, Bus and Truck Standards 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E7–4634 Filed 3–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Notice of Product Development 

Although not required, notice is 

hereby given that the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) has received a 

Notice of Product Development (NPD) 

from the Union Pacific Railroad 

Company (UP), pursuant to Title 49 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

Section 236.913(d)(1) for Phases 1 and 

2 of the development of a 

Communications Based Train Control 

(CBTC) system. A brief summary of the 

NPD, including the party submitting it, 

and the requisite docket number are as 

follows. 

Union Pacific Railroad Company 

[Waiver Docket Number FRA–2007–27322] 

UP submitted an NPD of its CBTC 

system for Phases 1 and 2. The proposed 

CBTC system is a safety-critical, 

microprocessor-based system, designed 

to provide the enforcement of 

movement authorities and speed 

restrictions for CBTC-equipped 

locomotives, and provide the 

locomotive engineer an assist function 

to optimize train handling. Phase 1 of 

the CBTC is a non-vital safety overlay 

based on BNSF’s Electronic Train 

Management System, previously 

approved under Docket Number FRA–

2006–23687. Phase 2 of the CBTC 

implements the functionality of Phase 1 

using a vital onboard architecture. 

Interested parties are invited to 

review the notification and associated 

documents at the following locations: 

• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

Follow the instructions for a simple 

search on the DOT electronic docket 

site; and/or 

• DOT Central Docket Management 

Facility, Room PL–401 on the plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

All documents in the public docket 

are also available for inspection and 

copying on the Internet at the docket 

facility’s Web site, http://dms.dot.gov. 

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 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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 

19477–78). The Statement may also be 

found at http://dms.dot.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 

2007. 

Grady C. Cothen, Jr., 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety 

Standards and Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–4581 Filed 3–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES