Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37767 

public transportation supportive land 

use policies (one third). 

FTA’s approach to the project 

justification measures for Small Starts is 

identical to that described above for 

New Starts, meaning that they are based 

on existing procedures and information 

produced by project sponsors to the 

extent possible. The measure and rating 

for the cost effectiveness criterion does 

not change under this guidance. The 

measures and ratings for the economic 

development effects and public 

transportation supportive land use 

criteria are identical to those proposed 

for New Starts. The economic 

development effects rating will be based 

on two of the three subfactors 

previously used to rate land use 

(following the data reporting 

simplifications already in place for 

Small Starts projects)—transit 

supportive plans and policies and 

performance and impact of policies. The 

remaining land use subfactor previously 

used—existing land use—will be the 

basis for the public transportation 

supportive land use rating. 

The simplest approach was used to 

determine the magnitude of the weights, 

with all of them weighted equally. 

Projects that qualify for the Very 

Small Starts streamlined evaluation will 

continue to receive an automatic 

‘‘medium’’ rating for project 

justification. 

3. Alternatives With Tunnels 

As a condition of advancement into 

preliminary engineering, FTA requires 

that alternatives analysis studies 

specifically analyze, evaluate, and 

consider the congestion relief, improved 

mobility, and other benefits of transit 

tunnels in those projects that include a 

transit tunnel and the associated 

ancillary and mitigation costs necessary 

to relieve congestion, improve mobility, 

and decrease air and noise pollution in 

those projects that do not include a 

tunnel, but where a transit tunnel was 

one of the alternatives analyzed. 

Additional analyses are required when 

different vertical alignments (i.e., atgrade versus underground) of a 

proposed reasonable alternative result 

in disparate impacts to automobile 

congestion, mobility, air and noise 

pollution, and/or any other relevant 

consideration. FTA will ensure that 

such information has been addressed 

during the alternative analysis of 

projects that considered a tunnel as part 

of the FTA review of project 

applications for entry into preliminary 

engineering. 

The mobility improvements, 

operating efficiencies, land use, 

economic development effects, and cost 

effectiveness project justification criteria 

capture much of the benefits provided 

by tunnels. Additionally, FTA’s 

consideration of ‘‘other factors,’’ 

including the ‘‘case for the project’’ 

document, offers project sponsors the 

opportunity to present evidence not 

considered by the aforementioned 

criteria, including mitigation costs 

necessary due to the selection of an 

above-ground alignment. In evaluating 

the consequences of a tunnel option 

compared to a surface option, project 

sponsors are encouraged to use the full 

range of FTA project justification 

criteria to support local decision making 

during project planning. 

Issued on: July 24, 2009. 

Peter M. Rogoff, 

Administrator, Federal Transit 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–18092 Filed 7–24–09; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No FMCSA–1998–4334; FMCSA– 

2000–7006; FMCSA–2000–7363; FMCSA– 

2000–8398; FMCSA–2001–9258; FMCSA– 

2003–14223; FMCSA–2003–14504; FMCSA– 

2004–19477; FMCSA–2005–20027; FMCSA– 

2005–20560; FMCSA–2006–26066; FMCSA– 

2007–27333; FMCSA–2007–27515.] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Renewals; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously 

announced its decision to renew the 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations for 29 individuals. FMCSA 

has statutory authority to exempt 

individuals from the vision requirement 

if the exemptions granted will not 

compromise safety. The Agency has 

concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that will be equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety maintained 

without the exemptions for these 

commercial motor vehicle (CMV) 

drivers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, 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. 

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 July 2, 2009. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received no comments in this 

proceeding. 

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 29 renewal 

applications, FMCSA renews the 

Federal vision exemptions for Gary A. 

Barrett, Ivan L. Beal, Johnny A. Beutler, 

Daniel R. Brewer, Darryl D. Cassatt, 

Larry Chinn, Brett L. Condon, Albion C. 

Doe, Sr., William K. Gullet, Daryl A. 

Jester, James P. Jones, Clyde H. Kitzan, 

Larry J. Lang, Spencer E. Leonard, 

Dennis D. Lesperance, John W. Locke, 

Herman G. Lovell, Ronald L. Maynard, 

Donald G. Meyer, William A. Moore, Jr., 

Earl R. Neugebauer, Danny R. 

Pickelsimer, Richard S. Rehbein, 

Bernard E. Roche, David E. Sanders, 

David B. Speller, Lynn D. Veach, Harry 

S. Warren, and Michael C. Wines. 

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: July 21, 2009. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–17975 Filed 7–28–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES