Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Notices 25833 

Applying principles from these 

studies to the past 3-year record of the 

21 applicants, two of the applicants had 

traffic violations for speeding. 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 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 21 of the 

applicants listed in the notice of March 

16, 2007 (72 FR 12666). 

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 21 

individuals consistent with the 

grandfathering provisions applied to 

drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver program. 

Those requirements are found at 49 

CFR 391.64(b) and include the 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

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

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

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

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

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received no comments in this 

proceeding. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 21 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts Rex A. Botsford, Robert A. 

Casson, Gregory L. Cooper, Kenneth D. 

Craig, Thomas H. Davenport, Sr., 

Christopher A. Deadman, Heather M.B. 

Gordon, William K. Gullett, George 

Harris, Kenneth C. Keil, Robert K. 

Kimbel, Melvin A. Kleman, Roosevelt 

Lawson, Jr., David H. Luckadoo, 

Emanuel N. Malone, Robert E. Martinez, 

Richard W. Mullenix, Steven A. Proctor, 

George K. Sizemore, Robert N. Taylor, 

and Manuel A. Vargas 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: April 30, 2007. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Acting Associate Administrator, Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E7–8637 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2007–27111; Notice 2] 

Baby Trend, Inc.; Grant of Petition for 

Decision of Inconsequential 

Noncompliance 

Baby Trend Inc. (Baby Trend) has 

determined that certain infant car seats 

that it produced in 2006 do not comply 

with paragraph S5.6.1.7(i) of 49 CFR 

571.213, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child 

Restraint Systems. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 

30118(d) and 30120(h), Baby Trend has 

petitioned for a determination that this 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and has filed an 

appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR 

part 573, Defect and Noncompliance 

Responsibility and Reports. Notice of 

receipt of a petition was published, with 

a 30-day public comment period, on 

February 16, 2007, in the Federal 

Register (72 FR 7708). The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) received no comments. To 

view the petition and all supporting 

documents, go to: http://dms.dot.gov/ 

search/searchFormSimple.cfm and enter 

Docket No. NHTSA–2007–27111. 

Affected are a total of approximately 

30,450 infant car seats produced by 

Baby Trend between June 21, 2006 and 

November 30, 2006. Specifically, 

paragraph S5.6.1.7(i) of FMVSS No. 213 

addresses the use of the following 

statement on child restraints: 

For recall information, call the U.S. 

Government’s Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1–

888–327–4236 (TTY: 1–800–424–9153), or go 

to http://www.NHTSA.gov. 

The infant car seats do not have the 

markings most recently required by 

paragraph S5.6.1.7. Baby Trend has 

corrected the problem that caused these 

errors so that they will not be repeated 

in future production. 

Baby Trend argued that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety and that no 

corrective action is warranted. Baby 

Trend stated that the child restraint 

seats comply with the stringent dynamic 

performance requirements of FMVSS 

No. 213. Baby Trend also asserted that 

no safety consequence exists for the 

technical labeling non-compliance. 

Further, they believe that given the 

existing lag time, the use of the older 

version of the information remains a 

viable means for contacting the NHTSA. 

Although telephone exchanges have 

changed, NHTSA still forwards calls in 

an integrated manner to provide 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
25834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Notices 

1The notice was initially filed on March 26, 2007. 

On April 3, 9, and 18, 2007, amendments were filed 

to more clearly identify the trackage involved in 

this proceeding. Because the notice was not 

complete until the April 18 filing, that date will be 

considered the actual filing date. 

2Applicants state that the overhead reciprocal 

trackage rights will terminate 25 years from the 

execution date (initial term). Unless BNSF or CPR 

notifies the other in writing at least 6 months prior 

to the expiration of the initial term, the trackage 

rights may continue in full force and effect for up 

to 3 successive terms of 25 years each under the 

same terms and conditions. The parties must seek 

appropriate Board authority for the trackage rights 

to expire at the end of the initial term or at the end 

of the successive term or terms, as appropriate. 

consumer service to the general 

population. In addition, Baby Trend 

states that the use of the internet, 

improvements to NHTSA’s Web sites 

and the implementation of the 

integrated http://www.recall.gov Web 

site allows consumers interested in 

contacting NHTSA to do so more 

effectively than ever before. 

NHTSA Decision 

NHTSA specifies that child seat 

manufacturers must provide the 

telephone number for the Vehicle Safety 

Hotline so that consumers concerned 

about safety recalls or potential safety 

related defects could contact the agency. 

That telephone number has been 

changed. A final rule published on June 

21, 2005, in the Federal Register (70 FR 

3556) revised the relevant section of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to 

correct the telephone number. In that 

same final rule, NHTSA also added 

guidance related to the use of the URL 

of the NHTSA Web site on printed 

instructions for the proper use of infant 

car seats. 

Although the Hotline number 

included in the printed instructions for 

the Baby Trend infant car seats is not 

the correct number for the Hotline, it is 

an active number which currently 

provides callers with a referral to the 

new Hotline number. This referral from 

the old number will be active for the 

foreseeable future. Inclusion of the 

NHTSA Web site address in the printed 

instructions for proper use is optional 

and its absence on the printed 

instructions for the subject infant child 

seats does not constitute a 

noncompliance of FMVSS No. 213. 

NHTSA therefore agrees with Baby 

Trend that there is no safety 

consequence because consumers will 

still have ready access to the new 

Hotline number by calling the old 

Hotline number provided by Baby 

Trend. 

NHTSA agrees that the 

noncompliance is inconsequential to 

motor vehicle safety. The use of the 

outdated telephone number should not 

prevent the owners of the child seats 

from being able to readily access recall 

information. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

NHTSA has decided that Baby Trend 

has met its burden of persuasion that 

the noncompliance described is 

inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. 

Accordingly, Baby Trend’s petition is 

granted and the petitioner is exempted 

from the obligation of providing 

notification of, and a remedy for, the 

noncompliance. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120; 

delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 

501.8. 

Issued on: May 1, 2007. 

Daniel C. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. E7–8680 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Finance Docket No. 35003] 

BNSF Railway Company and Soo Line 

Railroad Company, Inc.—Joint 

Relocation Project Exemption—in 

Duluth, MN 

On April 18, 2007,1 BNSF Railway 

Company (BNSF) and Soo Line Railroad 

Company, Inc., d/b/a Canadian Pacific 

Railway (CPR), jointly filed a notice of 

exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(5) to 

relocate and construct track within and 

around Rice’s Point Yard between CPR 

mileposts 288.70 and 287.20, in Duluth, 

MN. BNSF and CPR will construct, 

maintain, repair and renew their own 

trackage and turnouts under the Duluth 

Public Works Project. 

The purpose of the joint relocation 

project is to accommodate a new public 

roadway, Davis-Helberg Drive (also 

referred to as Helberg Drive), being 

constructed as part of a Port of Duluth 

improvement project. 

The project consists of the following 

transactions: 

(1) BNSF will grant CPR nonexclusive overhead trackage rights to 

operate its trains, locomotives, cars and 

equipment with its own crews over 

trackage owned and operated by BNSF 

located between Points C and D, a 

distance of approximately 825 feet. 

Point C is currently located at BNSF 

milepost 1.46 (CPR milepost 288.25) 

and, after construction, because of 

changes to the overall track 

configuration within the CPR track 

system, Point C will be designated CPR 

milepost 288.24. Point D is currently 

located at BNSF milepost 1.49 and, after 

construction, Point D will be designated 

as CPR milepost 287.91. These trackage 

rights are intended to enable CPR a 

direct run-through to bypass switches at 

Cargill (or its successor). BNSF will 

continue to operate over this segment. 

(2) CPR will grant BNSF nonexclusive overhead trackage rights to 

operate its trains, locomotives, cars and 

equipment with its own crews over 

trackage owned and operated by CPR 

located between Points E and I, a 

distance of approximately 350 feet. 

After construction, Point E will be on 

new trackage to be designated as CPR 

milepost 287.75. Point I is located on 

crossover yard track between BNSF and 

CPR. There is no milepost designation 

for this yard track, but the end point of 

the trackage rights (Point I), is 

approximately 350 feet south of Point E. 

These trackage rights are intended to 

enable BNSF to continue to connect 

with the Duluth Seaway Port Authority, 

which includes serving AG Processing, 

Inc. (or its successor), Azcon (or its 

successor), and the Garfield Industrial 

area. CPR will continue to operate over 

this segment.2

(3) BNSF will grant CPR a freight 

easement on BNSF’s property for the 

purchase, relocation and reconstruction 

of a portion of CPR’s line between 

Points A and B (Point A being the 

westerly BNSF right-of-way near Point 

C) (easement), a distance of 

approximately 2,500 feet. Point A is 

currently located at BNSF milepost 1.61. 

After construction, Point A will be 

located on new trackage designated as 

CPR milepost 288.10, and Point B will 

be located on new trackage to be 

designated as CPR milepost 287.64. 

Applicants state that the proposed 

project will not disrupt service to 

shippers, as applicants will continue to 

have access to the Port. Additionally, 

applicants state that the relocated line 

and trackage rights will not involve an 

expansion of service by BNSF or CPR 

into new territory, or alter the existing 

competitive situation. 

The Board will exercise jurisdiction 

over the abandonment or construction 

components of a relocation project, and 

require separate approval or exemption, 

only where the removal of track affects 

service to shippers or the construction 

of new track involves expansion into 

new territory. See City of Detroit v. 

Canadian National Ry. Co., et al., 9 

I.C.C.2d 1208 (1993), aff’d sub nom. 

Detroit/Wayne County Port Authority v. 

ICC, 59 F.3d 1314 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Line 

relocation projects may embrace 

trackage rights transactions such as the 

one involved here. See D.T.&I.R.—


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES