Fed. Reg. Notices — Notice of applications for exempt…

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket ID. FMCSA-2007-0071] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 31 individuals for exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs)in interstate commerce without meeting the Federal vision standard. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Docket ID FMCSA-2007-0071 using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to * http:// www.regulations.gov * at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000). This information is also available at *http://Docketinfo.dot.gov* . 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: 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.” FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each 2-year period. The 31 individuals listed in this notice each have requested an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute. Qualifications of Applicants Dennis R. Baillargeon Mr. Baillargeon, age 69, has a prosthetic left eye due to an injury sustained 40 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “Dennis R. Baillargeon has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle, from the above testing.” Mr. Baillargeon reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 300,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation, speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 10 mph. Alberto Blanco Mr. Blanco, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “Patient has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Blanco reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 336,000 miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 25,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation, speeding in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 9 mph. Michael B. Canedy Mr. Canedy, 41, has posterior uveitis in his right eye. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/800 and in the left, 20/15. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my opinion, Mr. Michael Canedy is certainly safe and qualified to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Canedy reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. John Cencora Mr. Cencora, 43, has had optic nerve atrophy in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, he has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cencora reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 130,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Larry A. Cossin Mr. Cossin, 58, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/64 and in the left, 20/30. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “From these results, I believe Mr. Cossin does have sufficient visual acuity, visual field, and color discrimination continue to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Cossin reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 205,700 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Charles W. Cox Mr. Cox, 49, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to complete opacification of the cornea and lens at birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his left eye is 20/15. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Cox has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle and he has many years experience in doing so.” Mr. Cox reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 2,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 3,000 miles, and buses for 12 years, accumulating 48,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Gary W. Ellis Mr. Ellis, 45, has had anisometropia and amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “Given his past performance which you would have in your records, it is my opinion that Mr. Ellis has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ellis reported that he has tractor-trailer combinations for 23 years, accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Dennis J. Evers Mr. Evers, 54, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “Mr. Evers has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Evers reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 56,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Hector O. Flores Mr. Flores, 27, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/80. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “I certify that Hector Flores has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Flores reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 240,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one crash that resulted in one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV, failure to make a left turn from the proper lane. Roger W. Goold Mr. Goold, 66, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained at age 19. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion, Roger Goold has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Goold reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 67,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. K. Lee Guse Mr. Guse, 64, has a retinal scar in his left eye which was sustained at birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “This defect should not affect his ability to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Guse reported that he has driven straight trucks 16 years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Steven W. Halsey Mr. Halsey, 40, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Halsey has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Halsey reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 165,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. John D. Hamm Mr. Hamm, 52, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/100. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my professional opinion, Mr. Hamm has adequate vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hamm reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 1.7 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 360,000 miles, and buses for 11 years, accumulating 242,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Clifford J. Harris Mr. Harris, 50, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-finger vision and in the left, 20/15. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “I certify that Mr. Harris has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Harris reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years, accumulating 624,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. John C. Henricks Mr. Henricks, 36, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. John Henricks has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Henricks reported that he has driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 93,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years, accumulating 85,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Michael A. Hilderbrand Mr. Hilderbrand, 28, has had posterior staphyloma in his right eye since 1990. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-finger vision and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion. Michael Hilderbrand has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Hilderbrand reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 78,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Richard L. Larson Mr. Larson, 63, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a traumatic injury sustained in 1968. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is count-finger vision and in the left, 20/15. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. Larson has sufficient vision both centrally and peripherally to safely operate a commercial vehicle based on his visual performance at the time of his exam with me and the years of safe commercial experience he has stated he has.” Mr. Larson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 45 years, accumulating 112,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Montana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Thomas M. Leadbitter Mr. Leadbitter, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/200. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “Ok to drive with correction and has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Leadbitter reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating 1.4 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV, failure to obey a traffic signal. John L. Lewis Mr. Lewis, 75, has a prosthetic left eye due to an injury sustained as a child. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “It is my medical opinion that Mr. John Lewis has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lewis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 56 years, accumulating 2.4 million miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 48 years, accumulating 480,000 miles, and buses for 9 years, accumulating 4,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Jonathan P. Lovel Mr. Lovel, 38, has macular damage in his right eye due to a traumatic injury sustained 16 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, this gentleman has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Lovel reported that he has driven straight trucks for 16 years, accumulating 480,000 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Douglas A. Mendoza Mr. Mendoza, 35, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Mendoza has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Mendoza reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 175,000 miles. He holds a Class C operator's license from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Antonio Ribeiro Mr. Ribeiro, 47, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, I certify that Mr. Ribeiro has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Ribeiro reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 75,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Enrique G. Salinas, Jr. Mr. Salinas, 65, has had central retinal vein occlusion in his left eye since 2003. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/25 and in the left, hand-motion vision. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Salinas has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Salinas reported that he has driven straight trucks for 4 years, accumulating 200,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years, accumulating 3.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Anthony T. Smith. Mr. Smith, 42, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained as a child. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my opinion, his vision is stable and he is able to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 1.1 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 405,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV. He exceeded the speed limit by 5 mph. David N. Stubbs Mr. Stubbs, 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, he does have sufficient vision to perform driving test required to operate a bob truck, which is a commercial vehicle and which is what he drives at this time. Mr. Stubbs does not see well in his left eye, but he has been that way all his life and he has developed sufficient depth perception to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Stubbs reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating 158,200 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Mississippi. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. J.D. Taylor Mr. Taylor, 69, has macular degeneration in his right eye. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200 and in the left, 20/30. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “In my medical opinion, Mr. Taylor has sufficient vision to perform the task of a commercial vehicle operator.” Mr. Taylor reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 1.3 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Charles W. Towner, Jr. Mr. Towner, 44, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained 4 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “With vision correctable to 20/20 in the right eye. It is my medical opinion that Mr. Charles Towner has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Towner reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3 1/2 years, accumulating 227,500 miles. He holds a Class D operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. James D. Tucker Mr. Tucker, 50, has loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained 4 years ago. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15 and in the left, light perception. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my opinion, this patient has the vision required to drive a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Tucker reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 24 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. John J. Wagner Mr. Wagner, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20 and in the left, 20/400. Following an examination in 2007, his ophthalmologist noted, “In my medical opinion, John Wagner has significant vision required to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wagner reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years, accumulating 960,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 60,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Kevin D. White Mr. White, 35, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to a traumatic injury sustained as a child. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “it is my medical opinion that Mr. White does in fact meet the vision requirements to operate a commercial vehicle.” Mr. White reported that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 900,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years, accumulating 900,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Richard W. Wylie Mr. Wylie, 35, has had amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/70 and in the left, 20/20. Following an examination in 2007, his optometrist noted, “After evaluating Richard, I am very confident that his vision is sufficient to perform the driving tasks required to operate commercial vehicle.” Mr. Wylie reported that he has driven straight trucks for 13 1/2 years, accumulating 432,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 2 1/2 years, accumulating 402,500 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV. Request for Comments In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments received before the close of business March 3, 2008. Comments will be available for examination in the docket at the location listed under the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will consider them to the extent practicable. In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public docket for new material. Issued on: January 28, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1881 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-01-10578, FMCSA-05-21711, FMCSA-05-22194, FMCSA-05-22727] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 7 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 exemption renewals will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle

(CMV)drivers. DATES: This decision is effective February 9, 2008. Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Docket ID FMCSA-01-10578, FMCSA-05-21711, FMCSA-05-22194, FMCSA-05-22727, using any of the following methods. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery or Courier:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000). This information is also available at *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* 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: Background Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381. Exemption Decision This notice addresses 7 individuals who have requested a renewal of their exemption in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 7 applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are: James S. Ayers Curtis F. Caddy, III Vernon J. Dohrn Steven R. Felks Douglas J. Mauton Dennis L. Maxcy Dean B. Ponte These exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:

(1)That each individual have a physical examination 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 and retain a copy of the certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded 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(e) and 31315. Basis for Renewing Exemptions Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 7 applicants has satisfied the entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirements (66 FR 53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 69434; 71 FR 6825; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR 71884; 71 FR 4632). Each of these 7 applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption standards. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Request for Comments FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit comments by March 3, 2008. FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its decision to exempt these 7 individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each of these individuals was based on the merits of each case and only after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is available by consulting the above cited **Federal Register** publications. Interested parties or organizations possessing information that would otherwise show that any, or all of these drivers, are not currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption of a driver. Issued on: January 28, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1882 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2007-29286] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of final disposition. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt twenty-nine individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus

(ITDM)from operating commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs)in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. DATES: The exemptions are effective February 1, 2008. The exemptions expire on February 1, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical Programs,

(202)366-4001, *fmcsamedical@dot.gov,* FMCSA, Room W64-224, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 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* and/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. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of DOT's 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, or other entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at *http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.* Background On December 7, 2007, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal diabetes exemption applications from twenty-nine individuals, and requested comments from the public (72 FR 69280). The public comment period closed on January 7, 2008, and no comments were received. FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the twenty-nine applicants and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3). Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970 because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The diabetes rule provides that “A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring insulin for control” (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)). FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the Agency's July 2000 study entitled “A Report to Congress on the Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act for the 21st Century.” The report concluded that a safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) **Federal Register** Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. These twenty-nine applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 41 years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related complications. The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the December 7, 2007, **Federal Register** Notice (72 FR 69280). Therefore, they will not be repeated in this notice. Basis for Exemption Determination Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin. Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption. Conditions and Requirements The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:

(1)That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation;

(2)that each individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are related to an episode of hypoglycemia;

(3)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

(4)that each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding. Conclusion There were no comments to the docket, therefore, based upon its evaluation of the twenty-nine exemption applications, FMCSA exempts, Douglas D. Aure, Bruce E. Bivins, Steven G. Boggs, Jessie L. Brock, II, Francis C. Coryea, Challis J. Crismore, Colin M. Forer, Kevin D. Hewston, Daniel C. Horvat, Richard L. Jarvi, David J. Jansen, Lawrence A. Kibler, Richard H. Kruse, Dan A. McGee, Arthur J. Medrano, Florindo G. Mercado, Brian D. Morin, Mark R. Perkins, Amy L. Polovino, William H. Reinhart, Daniel J. Russell, Christopher C. Schuch, Timothy Short, Wayne Skiles, Gregory B. Valentine, Sr., James J. Walsh, Uve J. Witsch, Steven G. Woltman, and John T. Yocum from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under “Conditions and Requirements” above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will be valid for two 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(e) 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: January 28, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1886 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket ID. FMCSA-2007-0070] Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions from the diabetes standard; request for comments. SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 66 individuals for exemptions from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus

(ITDM)operating commercial motor vehicles

(CMVs)in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals with ITDM to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 2008. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS)Docket ID FMCSA-2007-0070 using any of the following methods: • *Federal eRulemaking Portal:* Go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Fax:* 1-202-493-2251. Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change to *http://www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments, go to *http://www.regulations.gov* at any time or Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting comments on-line. *Privacy Act:* Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000). This information is also available at *http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.* 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: 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 statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 66 individuals listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the statutes. Qualifications of Applicants William E. Amidon Mr. Amidon, age 71, has had ITDM since 1982. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Amidon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. Jack H. Badger, Jr. Mr. Badger, 67, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Badger meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. Richard L. Burwell Mr. Burwell, 42, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Burwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. Scott A. Campbell Mr. Campbell, 42, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Campbell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. David Clemente, Sr. Mr. Clemente, 51, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Clemente meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. Mark D. Cleveland Mr. Cleveland, 52, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cleveland meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Washington. Timothy M. Collier Mr. Collier, 39, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Collier meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from New York. Danny R. Combs Mr. Combs, 52, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Combs meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. Robert S. Crawford Mr. Crawford, 60, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Crawford meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. Anthony S. Cruise Mr. Cruise, 37, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Cruise meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a chauffeur's license from Indiana. James D. Daly Mr. Daly, 56, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Daly meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania. James Davis Mr. Davis, 68, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Davis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New Jersey. William M. Dement Mr. Dement, 27, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Dement meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. Lizzie L. Dixon Ms. Dixon, 36, has had ITDM since 2006. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Dixon meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2007 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class D operator's license from New Jersey. Nathan J. Donley Mr. Donley, 27, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Donley meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Ohio. Billy R. Echols Mr. Echols, 56, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Echols meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Alabama. Jonathan B. Estridge Mr. Estridge, 28, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Estridge meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arizona. Gregory A. Fisher Mr. Fisher, 48, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Fisher meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. Linda G. Flock Ms. Flock, 64, has had ITDM since 1995. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Flock meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her ophthalmologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class B CDL from California. Kurt D. Genat Mr. Genat, 35, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Genat meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Texas. Kerri J. Gibson Ms. Gibson, 34, has had ITDM since 1994. Her endocrinologist examined her in 2007 and certified that she has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of her diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Gibson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in 2007 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She holds a Class F operator's license from Missouri, which allows her to drive any motor vehicle with a gross vehicle rating of less than 26,001 pounds. Carlos F. Gonzales Mr. Gonzales, 58, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gonzales meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Texas. Larry D. Goughnour Mr. Goughnour, 49, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Goughnour meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. Ronald G. Gross Mr. Gross, 67, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Gross meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. James O. Hamilton Mr. Hamilton, 57, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hamilton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. Chester C. Holland Mr. Holland, 63, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Holland meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. Justin J. Hughes Mr. Hughes, 27, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hughes meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California. Phillip R. Hutchinson Mr. Hutchinson, 30, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Hutchinson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Oregon. Bradley J. Ingemann Mr. Ingemann, 29, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Ingemann meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. Robert M. Jasuta Mr. Jasuta, 38, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jasuta meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Pennsylvania. William B. Jenks, Jr. Mr. Jenks, 58, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jenks meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Utah. Timothy L. Johnson Mr. Johnson, 37, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. Daniel R. Jones Mr. Jones, 52, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Jones meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. Glenn R. Kerns Mr. Kerns, 58, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kerns meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan. Kenneth M. Kostelny Mr. Kostelny, 53, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kostelny meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. Douglas O. Krosch Mr. Krosch, 57, has had ITDM since 2000. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Krosch meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. John Lewis, Jr. Mr. Lewis, 68, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lewis meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from California. Robert E. Martin Mr. Martin, 23, has had ITDM since 1987. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Martin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Missouri. Henry M. McCurdy Mr. McCurdy, 63, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McCurdy meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi. Thomas J. Montgomery Mr. Montgomery, 54, has had ITDM since 1996. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Montgomery meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Michigan. Robert L. Morden Mr. Morden, 54, has had ITDM since 1986. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. Jerry L. Morris Mr. Morris, 54, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Morris meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Mississippi. Michael D. Mumma Mr. Mumma, 44, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mumma meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania. Harold R. Newton Mr. Newton, 37, has had ITDM since 1998. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Newton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Arizona. Clayton W. Noe Mr. Noe, 25, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Noe meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. Derek J. Page Mr. Page, 39, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Page meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York. Garrett A. Phillips Mr. Phillips, 23, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Phillips meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from New York. Gary P. Pitts Mr. Pitts, 60, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Pitts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. Bruce P. Quaintance Mr. Quaintance, 57, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Quaintance meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Jersey. Randy L. Quattlebaum Mr. Quattlebaum, 47, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Quattlebaum meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. Curtis L. Reed, Jr. Mr. Reed, 53, has had ITDM since 2001. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Reed meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Mississippi. Everette W. Roberts Mr. Roberts, 55, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Roberts meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. Mark C. Smith Mr. Smith, 43, has had ITDM since 2002. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. Ryan B. Smith Mr. Smith, 32, has had ITDM since 1988. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Smith meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. Billy J. Stamper Mr. Stamper, 29, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Stamper meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma. Ralph J. Sternhagen Mr. Sternhagen, 45, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Sternhagen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. Robert E. Tauriainen Mr. Tauriainen, 46, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tauriainen meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Oregon. David B. Tomlin Mr. Tomlin, 50, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tomlin meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Alabama. Brian T. Tow Mr. Tow, 49, has had ITDM since 1990. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tow meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. Larry N. Trimble Mr. Trimble, 55, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Trimble meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Arizona. Frederick J. Van Aken, III Mr. Van Aken, 32, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Van Aken meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from California. Roger K. VanDenbark Mr. VanDenbark, 62, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. VanDenbark meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. Kenneth D. Wallace Mr. Wallace, 56, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wallace meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from Georgia. Kelly A. Walling Mr. Walling, 64, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Walling meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A operator's license from South Carolina. Gary J. Weiss Mr. Weiss, 44, has had ITDM since 1993. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weiss meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from South Carolina. Danny L. Wood Mr. Wood, 58, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist examined him in 2007 and certified that he has had no hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 5 years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; and has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wood meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2007 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Oregon. Request for Comments In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in the dates section of the Notice. FMCSA notes that Section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) requires the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441). 1 The revision must provide for individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305). 1 Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 Notice as a “final rule.” However, the 2003 Notice did not issue a “final rule” but did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions for drivers with ITDM. Section 4129 requires:

(1)The elimination of the requirement for three years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin; and

(2)the establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate a CMV. In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 Notice. FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e). Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements that are deemed medically necessary. FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 Notice, except as modified by the Notice in the **Federal Register** on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect. Dated: January 28, 2008. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1898 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA-2000-7257] [Notice No. 45] Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee

(RSAC)meeting. SUMMARY: FRA announces the 34th meeting of the RSAC, a Federal advisory committee that develops railroad safety regulations through a consensus process. The RSAC meeting topics will include opening remarks from the FRA Administrator, presentations on railroad bridge safety, the Volpe final report on private crossings, the FRA Research and Development Program, and the Risk Reduction Program. Status reports will be provided by the Passenger Safety, Locomotive Safety Standards, Medical Standards, Railroad Operating Rules, and Track Safety Standards Working Groups. The Committee will be asked to vote on recommendations on proposed Emergency Preparedness Rule text, a Vehicle Track Interaction Rule change, regulatory changes, and recommended practices related to the management of continuous welded rail, and station platform gap management guidance. Additionally, FRA may offer for RSAC vote a task on bridge safety. This agenda is subject to change. DATES: The RSAC meeting is scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m., and will adjourn at 4 p.m., on Wednesday, February 20, 2008. ADDRESSES: The RSAC meeting will be held at the National Housing Center, 1201 15th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. The meeting is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis, and is accessible to individuals with disabilities. Sign and oral interpretation can be made available if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Woolverton, RSAC Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6212 or Grady Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), FRA is giving notice of a meeting of the RSAC. The RSAC was established to provide advice and recommendations to FRA on railroad safety matters. The RSAC is composed of 54 voting representatives from 31 member organizations, representing various rail industry perspectives. In addition, there are nonvoting advisory representatives from the agencies with railroad safety regulatory responsibility in Canada and Mexico, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Transit Administration. The diversity of the Committee ensures the requisite range of views and expertise necessary to discharge its responsibilities. See the RSAC Web site for details on pending tasks at *http://rsac.fra.dot.gov/* . Please refer to the notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 1996, (61 FR 9740) for additional information about the RSAC. Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 2008. Michael J. Logue, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation. [FR Doc. E8-1865 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA-2000-7257; Notice No. 44] Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC); Working Group Activity Update AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee working group activities. SUMMARY: FRA is updating its announcement of RSAC's working group activities to reflect its current status. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Woolverton, RSAC Coordinator, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6212 or Grady Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590,

(202)493-6302. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice serves to update FRA's last announcement of working group activities and status reports as of October 30, 2007 (72 FR 61418). The 33rd full RSAC Committee meeting was held October 25, 2007, and the 34th meeting is scheduled for February 20, 2008, at the National Housing Center in Washington, DC. Since its first meeting in April 1996, the RSAC has accepted 24 tasks. The status for each of the tasks is provided below. Open Tasks *Task 96-4* —Reviewing the appropriateness of the Agency's current policy regarding the applicability of existing and proposed regulations to tourist, excursion, scenic, and historic railroads. This task was accepted on April 2, 1996, and a working group was established. The working group monitored the steam locomotive regulation task and planned future activities involving the review of other regulations for possible adaptation to the safety needs of tourist and historic railroads. Contact: Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

(202)493-6302. *Task 03-01* —Passenger Safety. This task was accepted on May 20, 2003, and a working group was established. Prior to embarking on substantive discussions of a specific task, the working group sets forth in writing a specific description of the task. The working group also reports planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for the completion of projects and progress toward completion. At the first meeting held September 9-10, 2003, a consolidated list of issues was completed. At the second meeting held November 6-7, 2003, four task groups were established: emergency preparedness, mechanical-general issues, mechanical-safety appliances, and track/vehicle interaction. The task groups met and reported on activities for working group consideration at the third meeting held May 11-12, 2004, and a fourth meeting was held October 26-27, 2004. The working group met on March 21-22, 2006, and again on September 12-13, 2006, at which time the group agreed to establish a task force on general passenger safety. The full Passenger Safety Working Group met on April 17-18, 2007, and again on December 11-12, 2007. The next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2008. Contact: Charles Bielitz,

(202)493-6302. (Emergency Preparedness Task Force) At the working group meeting on March 9-10, 2005, the working group received and approved the consensus report of the Emergency Preparedness Task Force related to emergency egress and rescue access. These recommendations were presented to, and approved by, the full RSAC Committee on May 18, 2005. The working group met on September 7-8, 2005, and additional, supplementary recommendations were presented to, and accepted by, the full RSAC on October 11, 2005. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM)was published on August 24, 2006, and was open for comments until October 23, 2006. The working group agreed upon recommendations for the resolution of final comments during the April 17-18, 2007, meeting. The recommendations were presented to, and approved by, the full RSAC Committee on June 26, 2007. The final rule regarding emergency egress and rescue access is expected to be published in early 2008. The task force met on October 17-18, 2007, and the group reached consensus on the draft rule text for a follow-up NPRM on passenger train emergency systems. The task force presented the draft rule text to the Passenger Safety Working Group on December 11-12, 2007, and the consensus draft rule text will be presented for full RSAC vote during the February 20, 2008, meeting. Contact: Brenda Moscoso,

(202)493-6282. (General Mechanical Task Force) (COMPLETED) Initial recommendations on mechanical issues (revisions to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 238) were approved by the full Committee on January 26, 2005. At the working group meeting of September 7-8, 2005, the task force presented additional perfecting amendments and the full RSAC approved them on October 11, 2005. An NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on December 8, 2005 (70 FR 73070). Public comments were due by February 17, 2006. The final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 19, 2006, (71 FR 61835) effective December 18, 2006. (General Passenger Safety Task Force) At the working group meeting on April 17-18, 2007, the task force presented a progress report to the working group. The task force met on July 18-19, 2007, and afterwards it reported proposed reporting cause codes for injuries involving the platform gap, which were approved by the working group by mail ballot in September 2007. The full RSAC approved the recommendations for changes to 49 CFR Part 225 accident/incident cause codes on October 25, 2007. The task force continues work on passenger train door securement, “second train in station,” trespasser incidents, and system safety-based solutions by developing a regulatory approach to system safety. The General Passenger Safety Task Force presented draft guidance material for management of the gap, which was considered and approved by the working group during the December 11-12, 2007, meeting and will present the material to the full RSAC for approval during the February 2008 meeting. Contact: Dan Knote,

(631)567-1596. (Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Task Force) The Crashworthiness Task Force provided consensus recommendations on static-end strength, which were adopted by the working group on September 7-8, 2005. The full Committee accepted the recommendations on October 11, 2005. The Front-End Strength of Cab Cars and Multiple-Unit Locomotives NPRM was published in the **Federal Register** on August 1, 2007, (72 FR 42016) with comments due by October 1, 2007. Several comments were entered into the docket. FRA is evaluating each of the comments received, and plans to have the final rule text completed by June 2008. To demonstrate the means of determining compliance with the crashworthiness requirements of the rule, FRA has scheduled two full-scale deformation tests as prescribed in the NPRM, a corner post test in February 2008, a collision post test in March 2008, and a dynamic test in April 2008. Contact: Gary Fairbanks,

(202)493-6322. (Vehicle/Track Interaction Task Force) The task force is developing proposed revisions to 49 CFR Parts 213 and 238 principally regarding high-speed passenger service. The task force met on October 9-11, 2007, and November 19-20, 2007, in Washington, DC, and presented the final task force report and final recommendations and proposed rule text for approval by the Passenger Safety Working Group at the December 11-12, 2007, meeting. The final report and the proposed rule text were approved by the working group and the proposal will be presented to the full RSAC for approval at the February 2008 meeting. Contact: John Mardente,

(202)493-1335. *Task 05-01* —Review of Roadway Worker Protection Issues. This task was accepted on January 26, 2005, to review 49 CFR Part 214, Subpart C, Roadway Worker Protection, and related sections of Subpart A; recommend consideration of specific actions to advance the on-track safety of railroad employees and contractors engaged in maintenance-of-way activities throughout the general system of railroad transportation, including clarification of existing requirements. A working group was established and reported to the RSAC any specific actions identified as appropriate. The first meeting of the working group was held on April 12-14, 2005. The working group reported planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled Committee meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The working group met on June 22-24, 2005, August 8-11, 2005, September 20-22, 2005, November 8-9, 2005, January 10-11, 2006, February 1-2, 2006, March 15-16, 2006, April 11-12, 2006, August 22-23, 2006, November 14-15, 2006, January 17-18, 2007, February 27-28, 2007, and March 1, 2007. The group drafted and accepted regulatory language for various revisions, clarifications, and additions to 32 separate items in 19 sections of the rule. However, two parties raised technical concerns regarding the draft language concerning the electronic display of track authorities. The working group reported recommendations to the full Committee at the June 26, 2007, meeting. FRA, through the NPRM process, is to address this issue along with eight additional items on which the working group was unable to reach a consensus. A draft NPRM is currently under review by FRA Office of Safety staff and legal counsel, and is expected to be published in early 2008. Contact: Christopher Schulte,

(610)521-8201. *Task 05-02* —Reduce Human Factor-Caused Train Accident/Incidents. This task was accepted on May 18, 2005, to reduce the number of human factor-caused train accidents/incidents and related employee injuries. An Operating Rules Working Group has been established. The working group reports planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The working group met on July 12-13, 2005, August 31-September 1, 2005, September 28-29, 2005, October 25-26, 2005, November 16-17, 2005, and December 6-7, 2005. The final working group meeting, devoted to developing a proposed rule, was held February 8-9, 2006. The working group was not able to deliver a consensus regulatory proposal, but did recommend that it be used to review comments on FRA's NPRM, which was published in the **Federal Register** on October 12, 2006, (FR 71 60372) with public comments due by December 11, 2006. Two reviews were held; one on February 8-9, 2007, and the other on April 4-5, 2007. Consensus was reached on four items, which were presented and accepted by the full RSAC Committee at the June 26, 2007, meeting. The most recent working group meeting was held September 27-28, 2007, and the next scheduled meeting will occur on January 17-18, 2008. Contact: Douglas Taylor,

(202)493-6255. *Task 06-01* —Locomotive Safety Standards. This task was accepted on February 22, 2006, to review 49 CFR Part 229, Railroad Locomotive Safety Standards, and revise as appropriate. A working group was established with the mandate to report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, to include milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first working group meeting was held May 8-10, 2006. Working group meetings were held on August 8-9, 2006, September 25-26, 2006, October 30-31, 2006, January 9-10, 2007, and the working group presented recommendations regarding revisions to requirements for locomotive sanders to the full RSAC on September 21, 2006. The NPRM regarding sanders was published in the **Federal Register** on March 6, 2007 (72 FR 9904). Comments received were discussed by the working group for clarification, and FRA published a final rule on October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59216). The working group is continuing the review of 49 CFR Part 229 with a view to proposing further revisions to update the standards. The working group met November 27-28, 2007, and the next meeting is scheduled for February 5-6, 2008. *Contact: George Scerbo,

(202)493-6249* . *Task 06-02* —Track Safety Standards and Continuous Welded Rail. Section 9005 of the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub.L. No. 109-59, “SAFETEA-LU”), the 2005 Surface Transportation Authorization Act, requires FRA to issue requirements for inspection of joint bars in continuous welded rail

(CWR)to detect cracks that could affect the integrity of the track structure (Title 49 U.S.C. 20142(e)). FRA published an interim final rule

(IFR)establishing new requirements for inspections on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66288). On October 11, 2005, FRA offered the RSAC a task to review comments on this IFR, but the conditions could not be established under which the Committee could have undertaken this with a view toward consensus. Comments on the IFR were received through December 19, 2005, and FRA reviewed the comments. On February 22, 2006, the RSAC accepted this task to review and revise the CWR related to provisions of the Track Safety Standards, with particular emphasis on the reduction of derailments and consequent injuries, and damage caused by defective conditions, including joint failures, in track using CWR. A working group was established. The working group will report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first working group meeting was held April 3-4, 2006, at which time the working group reviewed comments on the IFR. The second working group meeting was held April 26-28, 2006. The working group also met May 24-25, 2006, and July 19-20, 2006. The working group reported consensus recommendations for the final rule, which were accepted by the full RSAC Committee by mail ballot on August 11, 2006. The final rule was published in the **Federal Register** on October 11, 2006 (71 FR 59677). The working group is continuing its review of 49 CFR 213.119 with a view to proposing further revisions to update the standards. The working group met January 30-31, 2007, April 10-11, 2007, June 27-28, 2007, August 15-16, 2007, and October 23-24, 2007, and the next meeting is scheduled for January, 8-9, 2008. Contact: Ken Rusk,

(202)493-6236. *Task 06-03* —Medical Standards for Safety-Critical Personnel. This task was accepted on September 21, 2006, to enhance the safety of persons in the railroad operating environment and the public by establishing standards and procedures for determining the medical fitness of duty of personnel engaged in safety-critical functions. A working group was established and will report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first working group meeting was held December 12-13, 2006. The working group met on February 20-21, 2007, July 24-25, 2007, August 29-30, 2007, October 31-November 1, 2007, and December 4-5, 2007. A task force of physicians was established in May 2007 to work on specific medical exam-related issues. The task force had meetings or conference calls on July 24, 2007, August 20, 2007, October 15, 2007, and October 31, 2007. The next Medical Standards Working Group meeting is scheduled for February 13-14, 2008. Contact: Alan Misiaszek,

(202)493-6002. *Task 07-01* —Track Safety Standards. This task was accepted on February 22, 2007, to consider specific improvements to the Track Safety Standards or other responsive actions, supplementing work already underway on CWR, specifically: review controls applied to the reuse of rail in CWR “plug rail,” review the issue of cracks emanating from bond wire attachments, consider improvements in the Track Safety Standards related to fastening of rail to concrete ties, and ensure a common understanding within the regulated community concerning requirements for internal rail flaw inspections. These tasks were assigned to the Track Safety Standards Working Group. The working group will report any planned activity to the full Committee at each scheduled full RSAC meeting, including milestones for completion of projects and progress toward completion. The first working group meeting was held on June 27-28, 2007, and the group met again on August 15-16, 2007, and October 23-24, 2007. Two task forces were created under the working group; the Concrete Ties Task Force and the Rail Integrity Task Force. The Concrete Ties Task Force first met on November 26-27, 2007, and the next meeting is scheduled for February 13-14, 2008. The Rail Integrity Task Force first met on November 28-29, 2007, and the next meeting is scheduled for February 12-13, 2008. Contact: Ken Rusk,

(202)493-6236. Completed Tasks *Task 96-1* —(Completed) Revising the Freight Power Brake Regulations. *Task 96-2* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR Part 213). *Task 96-3* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the Radio Standards and Procedures (found under 49 CFR Part 220). *Task 96-5* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to the Steam Locomotive Inspection and Maintenance Standards (49 CFR Part 230). *Task 96-6* —(Completed) Reviewing and recommending revisions to miscellaneous aspects of the regulations addressing Locomotive Engineer Certification (49 CFR Part 240). *Task 96-7* —(Completed) Developing Roadway Maintenance Machines (On-Track Equipment) Safety Standards. *Task 96-8* —(Completed) This planning task evaluated the need for action in response to recommendations contained in a report to Congress entitled, Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working Conditions. *Task 97-1* —(Completed) Developing crashworthiness specifications (49 CFR Part 229) to promote the integrity of the locomotive cab in accidents resulting from collisions. *Task 97-2* —(Completed) Evaluating the extent to which environmental, sanitary, and other working conditions in locomotive cabs affect the crew's health and the safe operation of locomotives, proposing standards where appropriate. *Task 97-3* —(Completed) Developing event recorder data survivability standards. *Task 97-4* and *Task 97-5* —(Completed) Defining positive train control functionalities, describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefits of potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration and deployment. *Task 97-6* —(Completed) Revising various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies, including communications-based operating systems. *Task 97-7* —(Completed) Determining damages qualifying an event as a reportable train accident. *Task 00-1* —(Completed—task withdrawn) Determining the need to amend regulations protecting persons who work on, under, or between rolling equipment and persons applying, removing, or inspecting rear end marking devices (Blue Signal Protection). *Task 01-1* —(Completed) Developing conformity of FRA's regulations for accident/incident reporting (49 CFR Part 225) to revised regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, and to make appropriate revisions to the FRA Guide for Preparing Accident/Incident Reports (reporting guide). Please refer to the notice published in the **Federal Register** on March 11, 1996, (61 FR 9740) for more information about the RSAC. Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 2008. Michael J. Logue, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation. [FR Doc. E8-1861 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR)Part 211, notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. New Jersey Transit Corporation [Supplement and Modification To Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-1999-6135, with New Docket Number FRA-2007-0030] As a supplement and modification to New Jersey Transit Corporation's (NJ Transit) petition for approval of shared use and waiver of certain FRA regulations (the original Shared Use Waiver was granted by the FRA Railroad Safety Board on December 3, 1999, a 5-year extension and decision regarding relief from the FRA Horn Rule was granted by the Safety Board on November 9, 2006), NJ Transit is seeking permission from FRA to modify the temporal separation operating plan to reflect new Burlington and Camden Subdivisions. Also, NJ Transit is asking FRA to modify the terms and conditions of FRA's November 9, 2006, decision letter seeking a permanent waiver of compliance from requirements of the FRA Horn Rule for continued safe operation of its Southern New Jersey Light Rail Transit (SNJLRT) River Line at seven specific highway-rail grade crossings in the Palmyra and Riverton, NJ, communities. NJ Transit submits that this request is consistent with the waiver process for shared use. (See Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Jurisdiction Over the Safety of Railroad Passenger Operations and Waivers Related to Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Light Rail and Conventional Equipment, 65 FR 42529 (July 10, 2000); also see Joint Statement of Agency Policy Concerning Shared Use of the Tracks of the General Railroad System by Conventional Railroads and Light Rail Transit Systems, 65 FR 42526 (July 10, 2000).) On April 27, 2005, FRA issued the Final Rule on Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings, 70 FR 21844 (2005), with an effective date of June 24, 2005. NJ Transit claimed that although its audible warning operating practices on the River Line are generally in compliance with the rules contained in 49 CFR Parts 222 and 229, Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway Rail Grade Crossings; Final Rule, it needed relief from the requirements of the rule because of the unique operating characteristics of the SNJLRT River Line-particularly the close proximity of highway-rail grade crossings in the communities of Riverton and Palmyra, NJ. As noted and explained in the FRA decision letter dated November 9, 2006, FRA denied NJ Transit relief from the Horn Rule requirements, except at certain locations outlined in the decision letter, including four near-side station stops in the Riverton-Palmyra single track corridor at Cinnaminson Avenue, Morgan Avenue, Thomas Avenue, and Main Street. With this petition submitted in lieu of instituting quiet zones, NJ Transit again is seeking relief from the requirements of the FRA Horn Rule (use of 83 dB bell in lieu of 86dB horn) at seven of nine actively warned highway-rail grade crossings along this 1.4-mile Riverton-Palmyra single track corridor. The driving force behind this request is that the SNJLRT River Line operates 91 weekday trips through this corridor, generating over 800 audible warnings between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., causing quality of life issues and noise complaints from nearby residents. Also with this petition, NJ Transit is seeking permission from FRA to modify the temporal separation operating plan to reflect new Burlington and Camden Subdivisions. The creation of these subdivisions will allow SNJLRT light rail vehicles in a particular subdivision to operate concurrently when Conrail freight trains are either late in clearing tracks in the other subdivision or they report clear for the remainder of the freight window. The subdivisions will be delineated where switches can be reversed and blocked to prevent movements outside each respective subdivision. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-0030) and may be submitted by any of the following methods: • *Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. • *Fax:* 202-493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. • *Hand Delivery:* 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-19478). Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 2008. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1863 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Petition for Waiver of Compliance In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA)received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief. Village of Elmwood Park, Illinois [Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-0022] The Village of Elmwood Park, Illinois (Village) and the Northeastern Illinois Commuter Rail Corporation (Metra) seek a permanent waiver of compliance from a certain provision of the *Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings,* 49 CFR Part 222. The Village intends to establish a new partial quiet zone consisting of four public highway-rail at-grade crossings and two pedestrian at-grade crossings. The Village and Metra are seeking a waiver to modify the hours of a new partial quiet zone as provided in 49 CFR Part 222.9, definition of a new partial quiet zone that states that locomotive horns are not routinely sounded between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. The waiver petition requests that the time period for the new partial quiet zone is between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. as recommended by the Illinois Commerce Commission

(ICC)to better reflect the existing traffic conditions. The ICC made these comments during a diagnostic team meeting on September 5, 2007, and in a letter to the Village dated September 11, 2007. Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2007-0022) and may be submitted by any of the following methods: *Web site: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. *Fax:* 202-493-2251. *Mail:* Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. *Hand Delivery:* 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov.* Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the **Federal Register** published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-19478). Issued in Washington, DC on January 28, 2008. Grady C. Cothen, Jr., Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development. [FR Doc. E8-1866 Filed 1-31-08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-06-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [Docket NHTSA-2006-25344] Consumer Information; Rating Program for Child Restraint Systems AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice, final decision. SUMMARY: In response to Section 14(g) of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration established a yearly ease of use assessment program for add-on child restraints. Since the program was established, the most notable improvements have been made to child restraint harness designs, labels, and manuals. On November 23, 2007, the agency published a notice seeking comment on revisions to the program. This notice summarizes the comments received and provides the agency's decision on how we will proceed. The agency has decided to enhance the program by including new rating features (the design aspects that are being evaluated) and criteria (the questions that evaluate the feature), adjusting the scoring system, and using stars to display the ease of use rating. We anticipate that these program changes will result in a more robust rating program for consumers while continuing to encourage manufacturers to refine current features and in some cases, install more features that help make child restraints easier to use. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues related to the Ease of Use rating program, you may call Nathaniel Beuse of the Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, at

(202)366-4931. For legal issues, call Deirdre Fujita of the Office of Chief Counsel, at

(202)366-2992. You may send mail to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC, 20590. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Summary of Request for Comments A. Rating Categories and Their Associated Features 1. Assembly 2. Evaluation of Labels 3. Evaluation of Instructions 4. Securing the Child 5. Vehicle Installation Features B. Rating System III. Summary of Comments IV. Discussion and Agency Decisions A. General Concerns 1. Multi-Mode and “Basic” Child Restraints 2. Timing of Upgraded Program 3. Clarification of Terms B. Rating Categories and their Associated Features 1. Assembly 2. Evaluation of Labels 3. Evaluation of Instructions 4. Securing the Child 5. Vehicle Installation Features C. Rating System D. Vehicle Rating System E. Cost and Retail Concerns F. Other V. Conclusion Appendices Appendix A: Ease of Use Rating Forms Appendix B: Ease of Use Score Forms Appendix C: Ease of Use Star Rating System I. Introduction In response to the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) 1 Act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a final rule 2 on November 5, 2002 that established a program that rates child restraint systems

(CRS)on how easy they are to use. 3 To date, the agency's Ease of Use

(EOU)program has been very successful in encouraging child restraint manufacturers to improve child restraint designs, labels, and manuals such that now nearly all child restraints achieve the top rating. While child restraint manufacturers are to be commended for their overwhelming response to the program, today the ratings are such that it is difficult for consumers to discern ease of use differences between products. 1 Section 14

(g)of the TREAD Act, November 1, 2000, Pub. L. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800. 2 67 FR 67448, Docket NHTSA-2001-10053. 3 The EOU rating does not compare the crash performance of different child restraints. However, a child restraint is most effective if corectly installed in the vehicle as well as properly adjusted to the child. A child restraint that is easier to use should theoretically havea lower misuse rate. On November 23, 2007, NHTSA published a request for comment on the agency's considered updates to the features and criteria used in the child restraint EOU ratings program, along with the method in which the ratings are displayed to consumers (72 FR 65804, Docket 2006-25344). In proposing these revisions, the agency considered recent consumer use surveys conducted by the agency and others on Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH), public comments submitted as a result of NHTSA's February 8, 2007 public meeting on LATCH, 4 a comprehensive study of the agency's EOU program, and feedback from current EOU raters. 4 72 FR 3103, January 24, 20007. Full transcript can be found in Docket Number NHTSA-2007-26833-23. Our request for comment highlighted several changes that we believed would encourage consumers to purchase and manufacturers to provide easier to use features, in particular for LATCH hardware and child restraint harnesses. These changes would also allow the agency to begin recognizing newer design features that have entered the market since the program's inception. We also sought to provide continued incentive for manufacturers to design child restraint features that are intuitive and easier to use. We sought comment on proposed changes to the numerical break points (e.g. ranges) used to assign different ratings to the restraints in order to make the top rating harder to achieve. In addition to making the top ratings harder to achieve, the agency also requested comment on changes to the way it presents EOU ratings to the public. Rather than using a 3-level letter grading system, the agency proposed that the upgraded EOU ratings would be presented to consumers using our familiar 5-level star rating system, such as used in our vehicle safety ratings program. In conjunction with the rating criteria and feature changes, this change would allow for more levels of differentiation among products, and a more user-friendly system for consumers to use in making their purchasing decisions. In response to the notice, the agency received comments from research organizations, consumer groups, child restraint manufacturers and a trade organization representing a number of child seat manufacturers. While all of the commenters supported our efforts to update the EOU program, there were three main issues where the majority of commenters disagreed with the agency's proposal. These issues involved the proposal to use stars to display child restraint ratings, the proposed labeling features, and proposed features relating to harness and LATCH lower attachment designs. This notice summarizes the comments, provides the agency's analysis of those comments, and implements our proposal to enhance the EOU rating program. II. Summary of Request for Comments In our November 23, 2007, **Federal Register** notice, the agency proposed to continue rating each child restraint under every mode of correct use via three separate forms: rear-facing (RF), forward-facing (FF), and booster. We also discussed some significant changes with regard to the categories, features, and criteria used for rating child restraints. In addition, we proposed an update to the break points used to assign ratings to the restraints in an effort to make the top rating harder to achieve. The agency also proposed to change the way it presents the child restraint EOU ratings to the public. We pursued these changes because we first wanted to incorporate features that were not included in the original program. Secondly, we wanted to strengthen some existing features by reducing their criteria from three levels to two, reducing grade inflation resulting in an overall feature that is easier for the raters to evaluate. Thirdly, we wanted to combine related features into one in order to reduce redundancy. Lastly, we deleted some redundant features to also reduce the occurrence of grade inflation. The proposed changes are highlighted below. A. Rating Categories and Their Associated Features 1. Assembly The agency proposed to eliminate the “Assembly” rating category but distribute the features from this category among the “Evaluation of Instructions” and “Securing the Child” categories as they were still needed. The agency believed that most of the features in this category should be rated only under one mode (in the case of multi-mode child restraints) to reduce grade inflation. In addition, we believed that some features should have their rating criteria reduced from three levels to two. 2. Evaluation of Labels Under this category, the agency proposed upgrading the rating forms to better assess child restraint labels for accuracy and completeness. The proposed rating forms contained the following features (each mode the feature would apply to is included in the parentheses): a. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) b. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) c. Are the correct harness slots for this mode indicated? (RF, FF) d. Label warning against using a lap belt only. (Booster) e. Seat belt use and routing path clarity. (RF, FF, Booster) f. Shows how to prepare and use lower attachments. (RF, FF) g. Shows how to prepare and use tether.

(FF)h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, Booster) a. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) The agency proposed to expand this feature to assess whether the child restraint labels contain additional sizing information beyond the required height and weight limits of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, 5 “ *Child Restraint Systems* ”. We believed that parents and caregivers would benefit from visual indicators that describe how an appropriately sized child should fit in the restraint and noted that a limited number of child restraints currently provide this information. 5 See 49 CFR 571.213 b. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) The agency suggested that it was going to clarify the criteria for the FF mode so that the tether is labeled with every configuration. We believed that the clarification would help reinforce the use of the tether with a FF child restraint. c. Are the correct harness slots for this mode indicated? (RF, FF) The agency proposed an update to this feature so that it included criteria to evaluate whether harness slots are labeled to indicate the modes of use to which they correspond. In addition, the agency proposed that the child restraint should indicate graphically how the harness should fit the child's shoulders. By doing this, multi-mode child restraints would be encouraged to label harness slots for both the rear-facing and forward-facing modes and all restraints would provide caregivers with a visual that allows them to assess the child's fit with respect to the harness. d. Label warning against using a lap belt only. (Booster) The agency proposed a new feature that would evaluate the presence of an illustrated warning advising against the use of a lap belt only if a booster is not supposed to be used with one. In making this proposal, the agency was not aware of any booster seats in the current market that were recommended for use with a lap belt only. The agency felt that the presence of an illustration could reinforce that these devices should only be used with a lap-shoulder belt. e. Seat belt use and routing path clarity. (RF, FF, Booster) We proposed to strengthen this feature by encouraging child restraints manufacturers to label belt and flexible lower anchor paths on both sides of the restraint. We believed this was necessary to ensure that regardless of the user's point of installation, the belt and lower anchor path can easily be seen. f. Shows how to prepare and use lower attachments. (RF, FF) The agency proposed to combine two previous lower attachment-related features into one to make the resulting feature more objective and encourage more manufacturers to include better information. The proposed feature would evaluate whether the labels clearly depict all steps of lower attachment preparation and use. g. Shows how to prepare and use tether.

(FF)The agency proposed to evaluate child restraints on whether proper tether use and preparation was sufficiently explained by clear illustrations and concise text on the child restraint labels. This update would help to encourage more widespread, correct use of the top tether. h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, Booster) In order to improve the strength of this feature as well as the rating system in general, the agency proposed to modify this feature so that we will only assess the durability of the labels on multi-mode child restraints once, in their youngest mode. For example the durability of the labels on a convertible child restraint would only be evaluated once, in the rear facing mode of use. 3. Evaluation of Instructions For this category, the most significant change proposed by the agency was to reduce the weighted value for the majority of the features. Most of the concepts rated under the “Evaluation of Labels” category are also reflected in the “Evaluation of Instructions” category so there was little need to rate them highly in both places. We also believe that pertinent information about correct daily use should be communicated clearly on the child restraint labels as well as in the instruction manual. The proposed rating forms contained the following features. Each mode the feature applies to is included in the parentheses: a. Owner's manual easy to find? (RF, FF, Booster) b. Evaluate the manual storage system access in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) c. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) d. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, Booster) f. Instructions for routing seat belt. (RF, FF, Booster) g. Shows how to prepare & use lower attachments. (RF, FF) h. Information in written instructions and on labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) a. Owner's manual easy to find? (RF, FF, Booster) This feature was previously located under the “Assembly” category. In proposing to delete that category, the agency felt that the feature was still needed but that it should be moved to the “Evaluation of Instructions” category. Also, the agency proposed that this feature would now be assessed only once, when the child restraint is being evaluated in its youngest mode of use, to reduce grade inflation. b. Evaluate the manual storage system access in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) Previously, this feature was assessed under the “Assembly” section, but similar to the feature above, the agency proposed to move it to this category. In addition, the agency also modified the feature to evaluate whether the storage device is difficult to access in addition to whether it is difficult to find or use. We believe that the child restraint manual should be easily stored, and the user should be able to retrieve it while the child restraint is installed and the child is in the restraint. c. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) Similar to the updated label feature, the agency proposed that this criterion be expanded to include whether child restraint instructions contain additional sizing information beyond the height and weight limits of FMVSS No. 213. d. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) To reinforce the use of the tether with FF child restraints and if allowed by the manufacturer for boosters, the agency proposed clarifying the previous feature to encourage that the tether is labeled and pictured with every installation configuration. e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, Booster) The agency proposed to modify this feature so that instead of encouraging the identical warning for each type of child restraint, FF and booster seat instructions would be encouraged to contain warnings about the rear seat being the safest place for children only. With the exception of seats rated in the RF mode, the agency did not indicate a separate label was needed to do this. In this way, the instructions would be more consistent with child passenger safety recommendations. Child restraints evaluated under the RF forms would still need to convey this information in addition to the current FMVSS No. 213 airbag warning requirements for a separate, obvious, illustrated warning. f. Instructions for routing seat belt. (RF, FF, Booster) The agency proposed to enhance this feature by also evaluating whether manufacturers provided information on different seat belts styles, retractor types, and latch plate types and how each should be used with the child restraint in question. In this way, loose and incorrect installations due to seat belt misuse could be reduced. g. Shows how to prepare & use lower attachments and tether. (RF, FF) As in the “Evaluation of Labels” section, the agency proposed combining the “preparing” and “using” features for the lower attachments to reduce redundancy. Similarly, we proposed to remove the separate feature calling for a diagram depicting the correct orientation of the lower attachments. Additionally, it was proposed that FF child restraints be evaluated on whether or not they have complete tether directions. h. Information in written instructions and on labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) Because the agency still observed instances in which there was conflicting information between the written instructions and the labels, in addition to the existing criteria, the agency proposed new criteria that would evaluate whether or not all pictures on the labels are conveying the same information as in the written instructions. Also, for the purposes of recalls, the agency proposed that the presence of the child restraint model name be evaluated. 4. Securing the Child The agency proposed the most changes in this category, which assesses child restraint features that help secure the child in the restraint. New features were proposed to be added to the rating and a number of previous features were combined to reduce grade inflation. We also proposed changes to many of the criteria used to evaluate the features. The proposed rating forms contained the following features. Each mode the feature applies to is included in the parentheses: a. Is the restraint assembled & ready to use? (RF, FF, Booster) b. Does harness clip require threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF) c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. (RF, FF) d. Access to and use of harness adjustment system. (RF, FF) e. Number and adjustability of harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF) f. Visibility & alignment of harness slots. (RF, FF) g. Ease of conversion to this mode from all other possible modes of use. (RF, FF, Booster) h. Ease of conversion from high back to no back. (Booster) i. Ease of adjusting the harness for child's growth. (RF, FF) j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. (RF, FF, Booster) k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. (RF, FF) a. Is the restraint assembled & ready to use? (RF, FF, Booster) This feature was previously located under the “Assembly” category. Since the agency proposed to delete that category, we felt that “Securing the Child” was its next appropriate location. We also proposed to reduce its three levels of criteria to two and to only evaluate this feature once, in the child restraint's youngest mode of use, in order to reduce grade inflation. b. Does harness clip require threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF) The agency proposed this new feature to evaluate the harness clip on a restraint. This feature would discourage harness clips that require threading by the user each time the child is buckled into the child restraint and encourage the presence of a graphic or simple text that would provide a reminder of where the harness clip should be positioned on the properly restrained child. We believe that this will increase correct harness clip usage. c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. (RF, FF) Some buckle designs, known as “dual entry,” allow the user to insert each side of the buckle independently while “single entry” styles require the user to hold the two shoulder portions of the buckle together and insert them at the same time. The agency believes that there are varying degrees of ease of use with these designs and proposed to modify this feature to evaluate how easy it is to use one type of harness buckle over another. d. Access to and use of harness adjustment system. (RF, FF) The agency believes that the ability to tighten the harness system should be accessible regardless of the installation mode. As such, in our proposal, the agency stated it would combine two previously separate features evaluating access to and use of the harness tightening system into one new feature. Additionally, the agency proposed that it would reduce the number of rating criteria for the upgraded feature from three levels to two. e. Number and adjustability of harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF) The agency proposed to reduce grade inflation surrounding related harness slot criteria by combining them into one. Previously, the agency evaluated whether the number of harness slots in the child restraint shell and seat pad matched and then separately evaluated how many there were. The agency will now evaluate these concepts as one feature. f. Visibility & alignment of harness slots. (RF, FF) The agency proposed applying this feature only to child restraints with re-thread harness systems. Child restraints with “no-thread” harness systems would be rated an “n/a” for this feature since its primary purpose is to help facilitate rethreading. g. Ease of conversion to this mode from all other possible modes of use. (RF, FF, Booster) Because the relative complexity of converting a child restraint between its different modes was not fully reflected, the agency proposed a restructure of these features so that they better assess the entire process. In doing so, we recognized that many 3-in-1 and multi-mode child restraints would have difficulty achieving the top rating for this feature. However, we believed, given the relative difficulty of converting child restraints between modes, as well as the potential to introduce gross misuse and misplace critical pieces, that it was important to include such a feature. h. Ease of conversion from high back to no back. (Booster) The agency proposed to add this separate feature to assess the difficulty of converting high back boosters to backless boosters. i. Ease of adjusting the harness for child's growth. (RF, FF) The agency proposed to strengthen the criteria for this feature to continue encouraging harness adjustment systems that do not require rethreading, are easy to understand, and are simple to use. j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. (RF, FF, Booster) The agency proposed to clarify the existing criteria used to evaluate this feature. We will assess whether or not the harness requires rethreading, if loose critical parts are generated during disassembly, and whether the cover can be easily removed and replaced. We also proposed a similar feature for boosters, which had not been previously rated using a feature of this type. k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. (RF, FF) Other than clarifying that the instructions for using these devices should be located on the child restraint itself, the agency did not propose any changes to this feature. 5. Vehicle Installation Features The agency proposed that the title of this section be reworded to better clarify its scope. We proposed changes to the features in this category primarily to reduce grade inflation. New features were also proposed to reflect improvements made in child restraint designs since the EOU program began, as well as to include more comprehensive LATCH lower attachment assessments. The proposed rating forms contained the following features. Each mode the feature applies to is included in the parentheses: a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or flexible lower attachments in this mode. (RF, FF) b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH attachments interfere with harness? (RF, FF) c. Evaluate the tether adjustment.

(FF)d. Ease of attaching/removing infant carrier from its base.

(RF)e. Ease of use of any belt positioning devices. (RF, FF, Booster) f. Does the belt positioning device allow slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) g. Evaluate child restraint's angle feedback device and recline capabilities on the carrier and base.

(RF)h. Do the lower attachments require twisting to remove from vehicle? (RF, FF) i. Storage for the LATCH system when not in use? (RF, FF) j. Indication on the child restraint for where to put the carrier handle?

(RF)a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or flexible lower attachments in this mode. (RF, FF) Previously, the EOU program evaluated the ease of routing the seat belt and the flexible lower attachments separately, which was redundant since the two paths are normally one and the same. The agency proposed combining the two related features into one to reduce grade inflation and increase the robustness of the rating system. b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH attachments interfere with harness? (RF, FF) The original EOU program assessed the potential for unwanted interaction between the harness system and the seatbelt or the flexible lower attachments during routing, which was redundant since the two paths are normally one in the same. The agency proposed combining that the two related features into one to reduce grade inflation and increase the robustness of the rating system. c. Evaluate the tether adjustment.

(FF)The agency proposed strengthening this feature by decreasing the number of criteria used to rate this feature from three to two. The agency hopes that by continuing to encourage simple tether adjustment mechanisms, more parents will opt to use them and use them correctly. d. Ease of attaching/removing infant carrier from its base.

(RF)The agency proposed upgrading this feature so that it better evaluates the ease of attaching and removing an infant carrier from its base. The agency firmly believes there should be no indication that the carrier can appear secured to the base if it is not. In order to discourage designs that allow for this, the agency proposed updating the criteria for this feature. e. Ease of use of any belt positioning devices. (RF, FF, Booster) NHTSA proposed strengthening this feature by updating the criteria used to rate them. The agency would also like to encourage manufacturers to locate instructions for use directly on the restraint itself. f. Does the belt positioning device allow slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) The agency proposed additional criterion for this feature after examining different devices in the current market. It was proposed that in addition to the former criteria, these devices should somehow inhibit the shoulder portion of the seat belt from slipping out of the device in order to receive the highest rating. g. Evaluate child restraint's angle feedback device and recline capabilities on the carrier and base.

(RF)The agency proposed additional criteria to evaluate the presence of a separate feedback device on the child restraint rather than the previously accepted “indicator lines” on labels. We also proposed to encourage devices with built-in recline devices through this feature. h. Do the lower attachments require twisting to remove from vehicle? (RF, FF) After our review of the LATCH system, we believe that that while the ease of installing lower attachments in a vehicle may be similar regardless of type removing them from the vehicle anchorages is not. As a result, we proposed criteria that would encourage lower attachments that retract from the vehicle anchors or that may be removed from the vehicle anchors without having to twist them. i. Storage for the LATCH system when not in use? (RF, FF) Largely in response to child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs) and consumer demand, the agency proposed this new feature that would evaluate seats on the presence of a storage system for the lower attachments and tether (FF only) when they are not being used. j. Indication on the child restraint for where to put the carrier handle?

(RF)The agency also proposed a new RF rating feature that would encourage CRS manufacturers to indicate directly on their products where to place the infant carrier handle during driving conditions. B. Rating System As stated above, NHTSA proposed several changes to the rating structure of the program as well as the way in which it conveys those ratings to consumers. The agency proposed to reassign many of the feature weightings and made changes to the numerical ranges used to assign both category and overall ratings. In particular, the agency proposed to assign some features the weighting of “1”, which was not the case under the original program. Based on our pilot test results, the changes proposed to the features and criteria will create greater distinction between child restraints. NHTSA also proposed using its familiar five star rating system to convey child restraint EOU ratings to consumers, with five stars being the highest possible category and overall rating. Since the previous ratings were presented using three levels of evaluation (A, B, C), the agency proposed a redistribution of the category and overall weighted averages by the following five levels: • “5 stars” = Result ≥ 2.60 • “4 stars” = 2.30 ≤ Result < 2.60 • “3 stars” = 2.00 ≤ Result < 2.30 • “2 stars” = 1.70 ≤ Result < 2.00 • “1 star” = Result < 1.70 The agency believed that displaying EOU ratings in terms of stars rather than letters would be more beneficial for consumers and manufacturers alike. For consumers, the system would be more recognizable. For manufacturers, more potential for effective promotion of their products will likely exist if EOU ratings are displayed using stars. III. Summary of Comments The agency received ten comments in response to the notice. They were received from: Safeguard/IMMI (IMMI), Millennium Development Corporation (MDC), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Dorel Juvenile Group (DJG), Graco Children's Products, Inc. (Graco), The Center for Injury Research and Prevention at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association (JPMA), Safe Ride News Publications/SafetyBeltSafe USA (SRN/SBS-USA), and Safe Kids Worldwide (SKW). All of the commenters supported NHTSA's efforts to upgrade its EOU rating program to provide consumers with more useful information and encourage the introduction of easier-to-use child restraint features. However, every commenter except AAP that spoke to the issue opposed the agency's proposal to use stars as the new method of conveying EOU ratings to consumers. 6 These commenters felt that the stars would be misconstrued as representing a child restraint's crash protection rating rather than its ease of use. Most of the responses also cautioned that child restraint manufacturers would have a difficult time meeting all of the agency's upgraded labeling criteria, especially in light of upgraded FMVSS 213 labeling. 7 Commenters voiced concerns that not enough space will be available on many child restraints to add labels that would include NHTSA's upgraded EOU requirements. A number of commenters also oppose a variety of features for cost reasons, stating that higher ratings required more expensive equipment that would raise the prices of many products, affecting the consumer's ability to purchase cost-efficient child restraints. 6 All commenters except for SNR/SBS-USA and CHOP addressed this issue. 7 See 49 CFR 571.213. IV. Discussion and Agency Decision Because many of the comments were relatively specific, the following discussion organizes commenters' concerns and the resulting agency decision by category and individual feature. A. General Rating System Concerns 1. Multi-Mode & “Basic” Child Restraints MDC 8 and JPMA 9 indicated that the upgraded ratings prevent certain types of basic, low cost child restraints from achieving the highest possible rating. DJG 10 specifically mentioned that it could be difficult for multi-mode child restraints to achieve high ratings in all modes of use. Under our proposal, we acknowledged that it would be more difficult for any child restraint to receive the highest rating; however, we firmly believe that they are still achievable for most products. Similarly, in cases where it is difficult for a multi-mode restraint to achieve the highest rating, the agency believes that the upgraded score better reflects the inherent difficulty in using that style of restraint, especially when switching between modes. 8 NHTSA-2006-25344-0020.1. 9 NHTSA-2006-25344-0024.1. 10 NHTSA-2006-25344-0025.1. 2. Timing of Upgraded Program JPMA, DJG, and Graco 11 raised concerns about the timing of the upgraded program and the effects it could have on products that did not receive high ratings. As such, DJG expressed interest in a system in which a product could be evaluated prior to its sale in order to allow the manufacturer to make improvements. We agree that there should be some opportunity for CRS manufacturers to receive feedback on their products prior to sale. In light of this, the agency has made arrangements with our current rating contractor 12 to provide this service. 11 NHTSA-2006-25344-0027. 12 To inquire about this service, please contact Alpha Technology Associate, Inc. 6315 Backlick Road, Suite 300, Springfield VA 22150-2632. Phone:

(703)866-4158. Fax:

(703)866-4159. JPMA and Graco indicated concern over the agency's proposal to begin rating products without allowing the manufacturers time to respond to the criteria, citing consumer and retailer confusion about the drop in ratings. The agency understands these concerns but believes it is in the best interest of the consumer to provide the most updated ratings we have available in a timely fashion. As a result and consistent with SKW, SRN/SBS-USA, CHOP, and AAP, NHTSA does not believe that we need to delay implementation of these program enhancements. 3. Clarification of Terms JPMA asked that NHTSA clarify a number of terms used throughout the rating forms, including “illustrated,” “illustration,” “better,” and “clearly.” NHTSA agrees, and provides the following clarifications in this final notice. “Illustrated” or “illustration” in terms of these ratings means that a clear graphic, diagram, or photograph exists to convey the idea in question. “Better,” generally refers to instances in which the agency clarified language from the previous program. “Clearly” implies that it is highly unlikely for the user to misinterpret any part of the graphic or text. JPMA also asked that the forms contain more objective criteria and specify requirements in more defined terms. However, no specific examples of where this was needed were cited in their submission. In our proposal, the agency outlined a number of ways we have worked to reduce subjectivity in the EOU ratings. NHTSA has experienced excellent repeatability within the EOU ratings program since its inception. 13 The original EOU ratings program was also externally reviewed by a third party who had similar repeatability findings. 14 Our initial pilot testing, published with our proposal, indicated that the upgraded system is as repeatable as the previous one. 13 The Original Final Rule ( *See* 67 FR 67448, Docket 2001-10053) detailed that any variations between ratings from team to team were never enough to affect the overall rating. The agency's experience agrees with this, and in fact has never even seen variations that affect the category ratings. 14 NHTSA-2006-25344-0017.1. B. Rating Categories and Their Associated Features 1. Assembly SKW, 15 Advocates 16 and JPMA indicated their support for the removal of the Assembly section and NHTSA's decision to disseminate the features among the remaining categories. 15 NHTSA-2006-25344-0026. 16 NHTSA-2006-25344-0022.1. 2. Evaluation of Labels AAP indicated support for the agency's approach to encouraging improved child restraint labels, citing the benefits of “pictorial instructions and labeling specific parts of the restraint according to their correct use.” 17 SKW, MDC, and JPMA expressed general concerns about whether child restraints on the current market have the physical space available to fit more labeling. These commenters also raised concerns about the upgraded labeling features leading to “information overload” for consumers. JPMA remarked that this seems to be in contrast with agency efforts to “simplify the information on the product.” The agency agrees that poorly written, text-heavy labeling has the potential to overwhelm and confuse the consumer. However, we reviewed current child restraints on the market and believe that the upgraded labeling features we have proposed can be incorporated into existing and future product designs. The agency also does not believe that we are encouraging an extensive amount of new labeling on child restraints and has already seen a number of child restraints on the market that will receive high ratings. The majority of upgrades to the labeling criteria focus on improving the clarity of information that is already encouraged by the program. 17 NHTSA-2006-25344-0021.1. JPMA and SKW also suggested that NHTSA consider developing and rating standardized, universal illustrative icons for use across CRS models. Graco similarly suggested that the agency work with CRS manufacturers and safety advocates to develop standard “pictograms” for industry to use in their labeling and instructions. The agency agrees that standard icons would be beneficial to the public. Similarly, a number of manufacturers have already developed improved graphics for conveying these ideas. However, there is no industry or consensus amongst the child passenger safety community as to what these standard icons should be or what icon would relay clear and concise information to consumers. Given our desire to implement the other program enhancements immediately, we do not believe that such criteria can be added to the EOU program at this time. We do believe that standardized icons are a worthwhile endeavor and will certainly work with CRS manufacturers and child passenger safety advocates to develop and consumer test such icons. SKW specifically mentioned that the agency consider color-coding as an option for labels; in this, they feel that using one color code per mode on a child restraint can help reduce misuse. For example, labels and features that pertain to rear-facing use can be one color while labels and features that pertain to forward-facing use can be another. The agency agrees that this practice has the potential for increasing the clarity of labeling information. However, this type of practice would require additional cooperative effort with the child restraint manufacturers and other interested parties to develop agreement on uniformity and messaging. As such, we cannot incorporate this feature in the EOU ratings at this time. We will instead work with manufacturers and other interested parties to develop this concept further. a. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) JPMA indicated that there was no need for manufacturers to include so-called “best practice” information on CRS labels, stating that “CRS manufacturers may not agree with this recommendation.” Advocates and SKW supported the inclusion of this information in the rating system. The agency would like to take this opportunity to clarify its intentions. Under the upgraded EOU program, the agency is encouraging that CRS labels and manuals include additional sizing information beyond height and weight that can help parents visually determine whether their child properly fits in the restraint. In our proposal, the agency did suggest commonly used indicators such as “child's head must be no more than 1 inch from top of CRS” and “top of his or her ears must be below the top of the restraint” or pictograms that indicate this type of information. However, this was not intended to be an all-inclusive list. The agency believes every manufacturer can develop visual cues that can help caregivers assess whether their child is appropriately sized for the restraint in question. As a result, the agency is maintaining this feature as it was proposed in the notice. b. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. c. Are the correct harness slots for this mode indicated? (RF, FF) SKW suggested color coding for different modes of use and that many manufacturers were already using systems that don’t require removal to adjust. The agency agrees that color coding has potential but in order to be effective, we believe that all CRS manufacturers would all have to use the same color scheme. Similarly, SKW indicated that color is a significant factor in what type of seat a consumer buys. Given that the agency has no data on which to choose a color and the lack of data to indicate whether or not such a criteria in this feature would make sense, the agency is not adopting this suggestion at this time. d. Label warning against using a lap belt only. (Booster) SKW indicated that the agency should focus more on what consumers should do to as opposed to what they should not. We would like to clarify that the rating system also has a separate feature that encourages the proper use. In effect, the agency is merely seeking to reinforce a manufacturer's own instructions against using a lap belt with belt-positioning boosters. There is also a separate feature that encourages a picture of its proper use with a lap and shoulder belt. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. e. Seat belt use and routing path clarity. (RF, FF, Booster) Advocates and AAP indicated their support for the agency's proposal to encourage belt path labels on both sides of the child restraint, while JPMA expressed concern about available labeling space. The agency believes that this feature is important to include because it can provide the user with critical routing information despite his or her point of installation. In addition, we believe that labels of this type can be integrated onto most child restraints and should not create problems with respect to space as some child restraint manufacturers are already doing this. In light of this, the EOU forms will contain this feature and its criteria as proposed. f. Shows how to prepare and use lower attachments. (RF, FF) g. Shows how to prepare and use tether.

(FF)CHOP, 18 AAP, SRN/SBS-USA, SKW, and Advocates indicated their support for NHTSA's improved lower attachment and tether labeling criteria as part of our effort to increase both awareness and proper use. SKW indicated that color coding of the tether could encourage more use. The agency is not aware of any data that suggest one way or the other whether or not color coding of the tether would be an effective way to encourage consumers to use the top tether more, especially absent similar coding in the vehicle. As such, we are adopting the proposed feature as the final feature. h. Durability of labels. (RF, FF, Booster) 18 NHTSA-2006-25344-0023. SKW and SRN/SBS-USA did not disagree with the agency's proposal but suggested that we should also improve our evaluation of the label criteria by also evaluating whether a label will “stand up to normal usage” and under different climate conditions. No suggestions were provided to the agency as to why the current evaluation is deficient or exactly what improvements could be made or how to otherwise evaluate them. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. 3. Evaluation of Instructions JPMA, SKW, and MDC indicated their concern that the agency is trying to reduce the consumer's responsibility to read a child restraint's accompanying instructions by relying too heavily on the information presented on CRS labels. The agency would like to stress that this is most certainly not our intention. While we feel that our proposed labeling upgrades may reduce the need for consumers to consult the manual for some daily restraint use, they do not serve to replace the need to read the accompanying manual. We also agree with SKW that CRS manufacturers need to better prioritize the information in the written instructions; however, we do not believe that it is a feature that can be rated easily under the proposed program. This issue requires further discussion with the CRS manufacturers to see how the readability of written instructions can be improved. a. Owner's manual easy to find? (RF, FF, Booster) JPMA and SKW supported the inclusion of this feature as a part of NHTSA's EOU program. They also mentioned that this feature should be of primary concern where the instruction manual is concerned and that the following feature pertaining to its storage system should be secondary. The agency agrees, and the proposed rating system structured these two features accordingly; this feature has a higher weighting factor than the following one does. As a result, the enhanced program will contain this feature as proposed. b. Evaluate the manual storage system access in this mode. (RF, FF, Booster) MDC and JPMA indicated concern with the agency's inclusion of an upgraded manual storage system feature in the EOU rating. Each stated that particular styles of child restraints that would be difficult to redesign to achieve the highest rating. While the agency recognizes that certain styles of CRS have limited locations available for these devices, we have seen systems across restraint styles that can still receive the highest rating. We encourage manufacturers to develop innovative solutions to the challenge and note that consumers, in our experience, have indicated this is a feature they desire. The upgraded EOU program will contain this feature and its criteria as proposed. c. Clear indication of child's size range. (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. d. Are all methods of installation for this mode of use clearly indicated? (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. e. Air bag/rear seat warning? (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received, though SKW asked for clarification on whether the two concepts could be combined into one idea to reduce labeling. The agency would like to clarify that this feature only applies to the instruction manual; therefore, the labeling space considerations expressed by SKW are not an issue. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. f. Instructions for routing seat belt. (RF, FF, Booster) The agency would like to clarify that this feature only applies to the instruction manual; therefore the labeling space considerations mentioned by SKW are not a concern. AAP supported the agency's addition of criteria requiring child restraint manuals to include information about various types of seat belts, latch plates, and seat belt retractor systems. However, AAP cautioned that the agency should pay close attention to the clarity of language as the amount of information pertaining to these devices may be extensive. Advocates suggested NHTSA evaluate this information along with belt lock-off devices and their instructions for use. JPMA opposed the inclusion of this information as part of an EOU rating and stated that the information provided by child seat manufacturers on these items should be “generic in nature, sending the caregiver to the vehicle owner manual for specifics.” The agency agrees that there is a definite need for consumers to consult their vehicle owner's manuals when searching for specifics on their vehicle's seat belts. The agency is not seeking to transfer the responsibility for defining vehicle equipment instructions to child restraint manufacturers. We do believe, however, that child restraint manufacturers have a responsibility to define seat belt, latch plate, and retractor types that may be used correctly with their products and which may not. As a result, NHTSA will be maintaining this feature as it was proposed. Similarly, in light of the AAP and SKW concerns, the agency would like to work with the manufacturers and others so that the clarity, content, and type of information can be consistent from child restraint to child restraint. Finally, as the agency has a separate feature for rating belt lock-offs, there is no need to include the evaluation of these devices within this feature as well. g. Shows how to prepare & use lower attachments and tether. (RF, FF) CHOP, AAP, SRN/SBS-USA, and Advocates indicated support for NHTSA's improved lower attachment and tether requirements as part of our efforts to increase both awareness and proper use. SRN/SBS-USA also suggested that NHTSA encourage an educational message about the benefits of tethers within the instruction manuals to reinforce their importance. The agency recognizes that this may be helpful but the agency is working with CRS manufacturers, child safety advocates, and vehicle manufacturers in the development of a new message and icon (that will be released shortly) to help promote the LATCH system which will partly address the tether-use issue. We also believe that CRS manufacturers will use this new messaging in their manual design as well as their own intuitive ideas to explore additional ways to promote tether use with their products. As such, we will be adopting this feature into the rating system as originally proposed. h. Information in written instructions and on labels match? (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. 4. Securing the Child The AAP and SKW indicated their support for the agency's proposal to include a variety of new features in this category, including the new harness clip criteria, new harness buckle criteria, and “no-thread” harness systems. a. Is the restraint assembled & ready to use? (RF, FF, Booster) Advocates and SKW indicated their support for the agency in its decision to retain this feature as a part of its EOU ratings program. b. Does harness clip require threading? Is it labeled? (RF, FF) JPMA indicated concern over the agency's proposal to encourage that harness clips are labeled with instructions for their correct use because of space concerns about the devices. AAP and SKW supported the agency's addition of this feature to the program because of its potential safety benefits. The agency agrees with AAP and SKW. We believe that these potential safety benefits are worth encouraging. In addition, we have seen a variety of low-cost, space-conscious solutions that may be used to achieve the highest rating. As a result, the upgraded forms will contain this feature and its criteria as proposed. c. Evaluate the harness buckle style. (RF, FF) MDC and SKW indicated concern over the agency's decision to include a feature to evaluate harness buckle style. MDC noted that the single-entry, or “puzzle buckle,” has a safety advantage over other styles as they cannot be buckled without inserting all required pieces. SKW indicated that buckle style should be up to the consumer. The agency agrees with both of these commenters. The intent of this feature is merely to capture the distinction that dual entry buckles, which allow for a section of the harness to be buckled without the other, are relatively easier to use than “puzzle buckles.” Consumers have indicated to us the desire for the rating system to capture that difference. Similarly, as we indicated in our proposal, there are some “puzzle buckle” designs that will also score well. Finally, no evidence was provided by MDC to support the real-world advantage of “puzzle buckles.” As a result, the enhanced EOU forms will contain this feature and its criteria as they were proposed. d. Access to and use of harness adjustment system. (RF, FF) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal was received. SKW did indicate that perhaps AAP, JPMA, SRN/SBS-USA, and others should get together to discuss and coordinate on a consolidated consumer guide which discussed different harness designs. If such a group is formed, we would like to participate. Our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. e. Number and adjustability of harness slots in shell and pad. (RF, FF) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. f. Visibility & alignment of harness slots. (RF, FF) JPMA indicated concern that the agency was rating harness slot visibility in the presence of additional padding such as infant inserts and head pillows 19 . The agency notes that as optional accessories not required for proper use, these items are not required to come attached to the child restraint in order to achieve the highest rating for the assembly-related EOU feature. The manufacturer has the option of leaving these items separate from the CRS in an effort to improve their rating for this feature; this is similar to how most child restraint manufacturers package other optional accessories such as cup holders. 19 The agency would like to clarify that the alignment portion of this feature is assessed independently of additional accessories such as body pillows and infant head inserts. JPMA indicated that the harness slot visibility encouraged by this feature could have the unintended effect of creating overly wide harness slots in the child restraint market. We would like to clarify that the upgraded feature is merely just a combination of the two previous features. As such, there is no substantial change to this feature. The agency does not anticipate that the upgraded criteria will encourage harness slots of any different size than the current EOU program seeks to encourage. JPMA also proposed that the agency only require that “any foam between the pad and the molded seat should be in line; however, the sewn pad * * * should be judged acceptable provided the opening in the pad allows easy access to the slots in the foam and the seat back.” The agency believes that requiring all three components (shell, foam, and pad) to be aligned is ideal from an EOU perspective. As such, the agency has decided that the upgraded forms will contain the feature and criteria as it was previously proposed. g. Ease of conversion to this mode from all other possible modes of use. (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. SKW questioned whether we were encouraging another label. While FMVSS No. 213 does not require a label of this type, the agency has seen manufacturers electing to include information of this type on their products and would like to encourage others to do so. As long as the information is clear and concise, the agency has no opinion on whether it is included as part of another related label and we are finalizing this proposed feature. h. Ease of conversion from high back to no back. (Booster) No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. i. Ease of adjusting the harness for child's growth. (RF, FF) Extensive comments were received on the agency's proposal to upgrade the criteria for this feature. AAP indicated support for the agency's proposal to encourage no-thread harness systems. SKW, JPMA and MDC indicated concern over the upgraded feature for a variety of reasons. While JPMA acknowledged that a “no thread” harness offers ease of use benefits for consumers, they also indicated their belief that “simple, easy to rethread harness design is still a very viable design.” However, they, along with SKW, cautioned the agency that the higher costs associated with these systems may have the unintended effect of limiting options for consumers who must include cost as a factor in their child restraint purchasing decisions. The agency does not disagree with these statements about rethreadable harnesses. The agency expects that the majority of harnessed child restraints in the near future will continue to utilize a rethreadable harness system design because of a variety of factors, including cost. However, the agency also believes that the no-thread systems can be an important device in helping decrease child restraint misuse. Rethreading a harness system can be a complicated task, introducing a variety of gross misuses (such as misplaced or misrouted hardware and straps) that would otherwise be avoided if replaced with a no-thread system. In addition, revising the previous harness adjustment criteria for this feature has the added benefit of further improving the robustness of the system. Previously, raters were asked to rate rethreadable harness designs as either a “B” or a “C” by distinguishing whether the slots were “large” or “small.” Under the proposed criteria, raters no longer have to distinguish between relative slot sizes since all rethreadable systems will be assigned a “C” for that feature. In light of these reasons, the upgraded rating forms will contain this feature and its criteria as we proposed. j. Ease of reassembly after cleaning. (RF, FF, Booster) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. k. Ease of adjusting/removing shield. (RF, FF) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. 5. Vehicle Installation Features a. Ease of routing vehicle belt or flexible lower attachments in this mode. (RF, FF) No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. b. Can vehicle belt or LATCH attachments interfere with harness? (RF, FF) No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. However, SKW did question whether this was more of a convenience issue rather than a safety issue. We believe that a seatbelt or a lower attachment strap routed through a harness can pose a safety issue if that misrouting prevents a secure fit from being achieved. Seatbelt or flexible lower attachment straps tangled with a harness can prevent a secure fit to the vehicle and child. As such, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. c. Evaluate the tether adjustment.

(FF)No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. However, SKW indicated this feature should also highlight those products that encourage their use. We agree and think that our messaging efforts along with some of the upgraded features we have discussed will help to encourage their use. In addition, this concept is already reflected in some more appropriate features, such as the increased encouragement of tether labeling on the child restraint and in the manual. As a result, the agency will not be incorporating this concept into this specific feature and will adopt this feature as proposed. d. Ease of attaching/removing infant carrier from its base.

(RF)No specific comments indicating concern over our proposal were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. e. Ease of use of any belt positioning devices. (RF, FF, Booster) Comments made by Advocates, JPMA, and MDC suggested a need for the agency to further clarify this feature. We have never evaluated, nor do we intend to evaluate, the ease of using a locking clip through EOU as these devices are not specific to the design of the child restraint in question. The agency recognizes the need for these devices in the marketplace and does not want to discourage manufacturers from providing them to consumers. For ease of discussion, the agency has used the term “belt positioning” to generically represent any belt positioning device found on (integral to) a child restraint. These often vary by the type of restraint. For RF and FF modes, this feature has traditionally rated belt lock-off devices that may be found on the restraint. For booster modes, this feature evaluates the shoulder belt positioning guide. AAP and SKW indicated support for NHTSA's decision to upgrade the belt positioning feature. MDC and JPMA, on the other hand, indicated concern over NHTSA's proposal to upgrade this feature. JPMA stated that rating the “ease of use” of these devices is in itself “vague and subjective” which makes it “difficult for CRS manufacturers to use in evaluating their products.” Both MDC and JPMA indicated their belief that including the feature in an EOU rating would discourage manufacturers from installing the devices. Under both the original and upgraded rating programs, only those child restraints with these devices are subject to rating under this feature; those that do not have the devices are not rated under this feature. This is consistent with NHTSA's practice for rating other relatively uncommon devices like overhead shields. Given that a similar belt-positioning feature existed on the previous forms, the agency does not feel its inclusion in the upgraded system will prevent manufacturers from installing these devices. The agency also maintains its position that providing instructions for using these devices directly on the child restraint is ideal from a usability standpoint. Therefore, the EOU forms will contain this feature and its criteria as proposed in the previous Notice. f. Does the belt positioning device allow slack? Can the belt slip? (Booster) No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. g. Evaluate child restraint's angle feedback device and recline capabilities on the carrier and base.

(RF)In response to JPMA, the agency would like to clarify that “three levels of recline” is an equivalent term to “three adjustment levels.” The agency would also like to clarify the requirement for separate feedback devices as it pertains to infant seats. The feature does not require that one device is installed on the base and another is installed on the carrier. The CRS manufacturer has the option of installing the device on either the base or the carrier; the agency believes however, that if the carrier may be installed alone, that device should be located on the carrier. AAP and SKW indicated support for the agency's upgraded feature encouraging separate recline feedback devices on child restraints that may be used rear-facing. AAP further added that the agency should encourage CRS manufacturers to include information to assist caregivers in their proper use and importance. AAP also suggested that the agency consider encouraging manufacturers to provide additional guidance in the instructions if the written restraint's built-in device cannot achieve the proper recline angle. JPMA indicated concern over the inclusion of a feature encouraging a separate feedback device on RF child restraints, citing their additional cost as a drawback as well as their limitations in use. 20 20 JPMA noted that the “indicator line” style of recline feedback can be used regardless of the surface a vehicle is parked on, while feedback devices must be used on level ground. The agency believes that the ability of these devices to provide feedback to the user makes them preferred from an ease of use standpoint. The agency also believes that “indicator lines” printed on child restraint labels have an increased tendency to go unnoticed and perhaps unused when compared to separate feedback devices. The agency is aware that some child restraints with multiple recline levels may still have difficulty achieving the proper recline angle in certain vehicles; however we agree with AAP that this information is useful for consumers. Though we have not included a feature to evaluate this under the upgraded rating system, it has been the agency's experience that the vast majority of manufacturers already include information of this type in their instruction manuals. The agency hopes that by encouraging appropriate child restraints to come with built-in recline mechanisms and feedback devices, we can also help reduce the need for consumers to install child restraints with accessories such as pool noodles or rolled towels. As a result, the upgraded forms will contain this feature and its criteria as proposed. h. Do the lower attachments require twisting to remove from vehicle? (RF, FF) AAP and SKW indicated support for NHTSA's efforts to rate lower attachments. AAP also mentioned a preference that agency require “push-on” connectors. SKW indicated their belief that the criteria might be too restrictive and prohibit future designs. JPMA opposes the agency's proposal to rate lower attachment style under the EOU rating program and recommend that we instead increase education efforts about the system. They commented that the removal of lower attachments from the vehicle is an “interface issue between the CRS and the vehicle” and that vehicle characteristics play a part in the operation as well. NHTSA agrees that the ease of attaching and removing lower attachments from vehicle anchors is partly dependent on the vehicle and, as JPMA suggests, some interface between the two. We do not believe that our criteria are too restrictive and feel they are sufficiently broad enough to capture current designs as well as allow for future designs. Similarly, the agency will continually update the criteria, as needed, to capture new designs or new information as it becomes available in the marketplace. It has been NHTSA's experience, as well as Transport Canada's, 21 that there are EOU benefits specific to lower attachment type as well. CHOP indicated their support for any EOU feature that encourages the manufacturer to indicate lower anchor and tether orientation information on the attachments themselves. The agency agrees this would be useful and could be achieved by having common symbols. However, the agency could not develop objective criteria within the time period of the assessment to rate a feature of this type; as a result, the upgraded forms will assess this feature only to the extent that the agency proposed in the Notice. 21 NHTSA-2007-26833-0024 i. Storage for the LATCH system when not in use? (RF, FF) No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. j. Indication on the child restraint for where to put the carrier handle?

(RF)No specific comments were received. As a result, our proposed feature is being adopted as the final feature. C. Rating System SKW, IMMI and SRN/SBS-USA supported the agency's decision to present EOU ratings on five levels of evaluation rather than three. 22 Advocates believed that creating five rating levels, regardless of whether stars or an alternative icon is used, is “counterproductive” as “the agency has already made a case for deleting the middle “B” category for certain * * * features to make the resulting ratings more separate and distinct.” The agency would like to clarify that its primary intent in removing most of the “B” feature ratings was to strengthen the importance of certain individual features by rating on their presence (“A”) or their absence (“C”). This has the added benefit of increasing the robustness of the ratings and, as the Advocates stated, can make the ratings more separate and distinct. However, we believe that the overall scores will likely be more varied than they have been in previous years simply because of the program's revised and more comprehensive content. The agency does not feel that the decision to reduce some features” criteria from three to two prohibits separating the ratings into five levels. 22 NHTSA-2006-25344-0019.1 MDC proposed that the agency develop an alternative method of restraints that takes into account the higher costs associated with some features. The EOU ratings have no precedence for weighting results based on cost; as there is no direct correlation between price and rating we do not believe that lower cost seats are somehow prohibited from achieving top ratings. However, we will monitor the costs of child restraints and are interested in any information regarding whether the price of child restraints increase due to manufacturers” placing more higher-cost features on the restraints to achieve a higher EOU rating and what that impact will be on consumers with lower economic means. Advocates suggested that the agency “grade on the curve,” or essentially rank products against each other. We believe that the design of the EOU program and the rating of features provide a more meaningful way for consumers to compare child seats than a ranking system. A ranking system, as proposed by the Advocates, would imply a level of certainty that the agency does not believe exists for the ease of use program. As such, the agency does not see a need to incorporate this concept into the rating scheme. SRN/SBS-USA suggested that the agency provide more information on its website about the features each child restraint has. They noted that this information could be used for comparison purposes across similar seats as well as provide a way for NHTSA to highlight features that may convey benefits in a crash. While NHTSA's EOU rating system is somewhat based on the presence of certain features, we also often assess the labeling, instructions, and ease of actually using such features. Merely highlighting the presence or absence of a feature without assessing its Ease of Use, we believe, would not be a robust enough criteria for most features. Similarly, it is not clear to the agency what “crash” features above those already required by the FMVSS No. 213 standard would warrant inclusion in the program. We are aware of several manufacturers beginning to market products as side impact tested but the agency has not fully evaluated these products to determine if they would indeed result in safety benefits in the real world. As such, it would be premature to further encourage these types of “features” until they can be assessed as to their actual benefit. As such, we will not be incorporating this concept into the presentation of EOU ratings. However, we do note that we are upgrading the presentation of the information on the EOU website and will complete that work later this year. SRN/SBS-USA suggested that the agency consider “failing” child restraints that do not have certain styles of features. In addition, they suggested that “extra points” be awarded for the presence of certain other features. The agency believes that the structure of the current rating system incorporates to some extent both of these concepts. While we do not “fail” or award “extra points” to a restraint based on the presence or absence of feature, we do evaluate and weight the features based on objective criteria which do take into account the presence of a feature. As such, we do not believe that it is necessary to include additional “points” that would modify a child restraints score. It should also be noted that all of the features suggested by SRN/SBS-USA as items the agency should use for “failing” and awarding “extra points” are being incorporated into the upgraded rating system. AAP and SKW indicated support for NHTSA's intention to use stars as “they are highly recognizable and understandable.” IMMI, MDC, Advocates, DJG, Graco and JPMA indicated concern over the agency's proposal to use a 5-star system to convey the child restraint ease of use ratings to consumers. These commenters indicated their belief that the use of stars to present EOU ratings could be misleading to consumers who may associate stars exclusively with NHTSA's vehicle crashworthiness ratings. The five commenters indicated that consumers would mistakenly believe they were child restraint safety ratings rather than an evaluation of how easy the child seat was to use. JPMA submitted a variety of alternative icons they believed would better serve to convey these ratings to the public. Advocates suggested that the agency maintain its current letter grading system for presenting the upgraded EOU ratings to consumers. They noted that the agency could add “D” and “F” to the previous “A”, “B”,”C” letter grading scheme in its effort to divide the ratings into five levels. In addition, Advocates felt it would be beneficial to include an “F” criteria to rate the worst features. The agency cautions that this suggestion is somewhat arbitrary. The concepts contained in the features and their rating criteria are designed to encompass the entire spectrum of products in the market. In many cases it is difficult to develop more than three levels of objective criteria for many criteria, given current product designs. Similarly, we do not believe there are enough levels to include “F” criteria throughout the forms. In addition, none of the commenters provided any evidence that consumers would make these purported assumptions about the use of stars, and subsequent consumer research conducted by the agency supports our proposal. In order to determine whether star ratings could be used to successfully present EOU child restraint ratings to the public, the agency conducted mall intercepts of consumers in two U.S. cities. 23 The data collected from this study, while not statistically projectable to the entire U.S. market, allowed the agency to gain valuable insight to consumer perspective. The study found that an overwhelming majority of respondents preferred stars (48%) or found them equally as effective (30%) as presenting the ratings in letter form. Many indicated their preference for the system as being, among other things, “more familiar,” “visually easier to compare,” and “more user-friendly.” In addition, only two respondents out of the two hundred participants surveyed felt the agency's use of stars for both vehicle crashworthiness ratings and child restraint ease of use ratings could be misconstrued. In light of this study, and lack of data to the contrary, the agency is going forward with its proposal to use a 5-star rating system to present EOU ratings to consumers. 23 See Docket NHTSA-2006-25344. Advocates also commented that the method used to calculate the ratings was “elaborate and overly complicated” and that the division of “star scores” is “arbitrary.” The agency would like to restate that no changes were made to the method used to calculate the weighted category or overall averages from the original EOU program, which was adopted from a similar program created by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). In addition, the agency does not believe that the star rating divisions are arbitrary. Our reasoning for establishing both the category and overall star ratings was outlined extensively in the November 23, 2007 notice. 24 As such, we are implementing the star rating break points and calculation methodology as outlined in that document. 24 NHTSA-2006-25344-0016. D. Vehicle Rating System SKW, JPMA, and SRN/SBS-USA indicated support for NHTSA's efforts to develop a rating based on vehicle features that facilitate easier child restraint installation. The agency agrees and looks forward to working with JPMA, vehicle manufacturers, and others to develop this program. E. Cost and Retail Concerns SKW, MDC, JPMA, and Graco indicated their belief that there is a potential for features encouraged under the new rating system to add costs to child restraints. They also expressed concern about potentially low ratings under the upgraded system and how that would affect retail demands for only the highest rated child restraints. With decreasing demands for certain products, MDC, JPMA, and Graco also believe it will affect the ability for CRS manufacturers to offer some basic, cost-effective child restraints that offer the same dynamic protection as many of the higher-priced models. All indicated their belief that this could have negative consequences with respect to overall child passenger safety efforts if fewer consumers are able to afford restraints. In addition, they believed it is contrary to the agency's goal of protecting every child. The agency is aware that some of the features included in the upgrade have the potential to add cost to child restraints. However, the agency believes there are a number of no- and low-cost solutions (further labeling and instruction manual improvements) that can be used in an effort to fulfill some of the upgraded criteria and improve product ratings. The agency received similar concerns about decreasing product demands after proposing the original EOU program as well, and its experience has not indicated a reduction in the number of products available to consumers. In fact, nearly each year the number of products available for evaluation by the agency increases. AAP commented that the move to a star-based rating system allows the manufacturer further opportunity to promote products over the former letter-based ratings system, and the agency concurs with this. Given the results of recent consumer intercepts, we believe that the decision to use stars to relate EOU ratings offers manufacturers renewed marketing potential for their products to both consumers and retailers, especially in more competitive market sectors. F. Other AAP suggested that the agency include criteria that would encourage manufacturers to design products that may “be used for long periods in several modes of use.” While the agency agrees that restraints designed to accommodate taller, older, and heavier children have obvious safety implications, we find it difficult to develop a case for including a feature of this type in an EOU rating. AAP also urged the agency to increase its educational efforts surrounding the program, especially in light of the agency's proposal to move to a 5-star rating system. They noted that “many families simply are not aware that the Ease of Use System exists, and so do not benefit from the information it provides.” NHTSA is planning to increase its educational efforts with respect to the EOU program and believes that our proposed upgrades offer an opportunity to improve its popularity. We will continue working with organizations such as JPMA, AAP, and a variety of retailers in order to accomplish this. The agency's other efforts, such as our recent work to develop a LATCH educational message, 25 also serve as channels for increasing consumer awareness of a variety of child passenger safety issues. 25 NHTSA-2007-28934-0001. SRN/SBS-USA suggested the agency also “rate highly any product which recommends for use of tether above 40 lbs.” While it is conceivable that there would be benefits for a child to use a top-tether above 40 lbs, even if a child restraint's tether attachment were to suggests its use over 40 lbs, the user would have to also consult his or her vehicle owner's manual to ascertain whether the vehicle tether anchor is rated higher than 40 lbs. Therefore, giving a CRS credit for a feature that might not provide any use to the consumer in his or her vehicle could be considered misleading. Similarly, a working group of CRS and vehicle manufacturers are looking at this and other structural features related to LATCH. We believe that this issue would be better addressed in the context of that work as opposed to the EOU rating program. As a result, the agency does not believe this is an appropriate feature to include in the upgraded rating system at this time. SRN/SBS-USA suggested that while boosters are not required to come LATCH-equipped, the agency include a feature in its EOU ratings to evaluate those that allow for the use of this equipment with these restraints. Lower attachments and tethers can help to retain a booster in the vehicle if the restraint is unoccupied; SRN/SBS-USA also noted that this can help stabilize the restraint in the vehicle when children are seating themselves. The agency does not believe that we have enough information about this issue to include it in the upgraded EOU rating system. We believe that the encouragement of LATCH hardware on boosters warrant further analysis and consideration. Until it is explored further, especially to determine if there are any unintended consequences from using the LATCH system in this manner, the agency will not be incorporating this feature into the EOU ratings. Graco suggested that the agency take into account the improved usability of child restraints that voluntarily provide bi-lingual (English/Spanish) product labels. They also noted that the upgraded rating system may force them to remove Spanish-language labels in order to meet the new requirements. At this time the agency will not examine labeling content presented in other languages. Although Spanish is the most common second language seen on child restraints, the agency comes across labels in other languages as well. The agency would like to clarify that while the content will not be evaluated at this time, as long as the graphics, coloring, and overall feel of the Spanish-language labeling is a “mirror image” of the English labels found on the opposite side, the child restraint will receive credit for related features. For example, the upgraded ratings contain a feature that encourages the belt path to be labeled on both sides of the restraint. One side of the restraint may contain Spanish text and the other may contain English text. As long as the graphics and coloring for the label are visually analogous, the child restraint would receive the highest rating for that feature. It has been the agency's experience that this is the approach CRS manufacturers normally take when labeling their products using two languages. CHOP suggested that the agency seek to include a feature that encourages manufacturers to install dual adjustors on flexible lower attachment straps in order to reduce opportunities for misuse from loose installations. The agency explored opportunities to include this concept as a feature in the proposed ratings, but found it difficult to develop enough objective criteria to distinguish between current products on the market. The agency expects that the improved labeling criteria and the emphasis on improved conversion instructions between modes of use can help to alleviate this problem in the absence of an additional feature. CHOP also commented on their preference for rigid LATCH systems, and urged the agency to reconsider requiring these systems. NHTSA has not changed its position with regards to requiring these systems. However, we note that a number of upgraded features were included to continue providing incentive for manufacturers who wish to incorporate these systems in their products. V. Conclusion NHTSA has decided to move forward with the upgraded Ease of Use child restraint rating program as presented in this notice of final decision. The agency believes that improvements made to the program will not only recognize easier to install features, specifically for the LATCH hardware, but they will also provide motivation for manufacturers to continue to design child restraints with features that are intuitive and easier to use. The agency believes this approach provides incentives to manufacturers while at the same time providing consumers with useful information. In addition, this upgrade allows us to recognize design features and products that have entered the market since the program was developed. Furthermore, our changes to the numerical ranges that determine the ratings will make the highest scores harder to achieve, which we believe, will spur product improvements and innovations that will enhance ease of use and ultimately the safety of child passengers. In addition to making high ratings harder to achieve, the agency is also changing the way it conveys these ratings to the public. EOU ratings will now be presented to consumers using NHTSA's familiar star rating system, which contains five levels. The agency believes that the additional levels of differentiation will further aid consumers in their purchasing decisions and add to the robustness of the rating system. We believe that this consumer information program must undergo the changes outlined in this document to continue encouraging child restraint manufacturers to develop and maintain features that make it easier for consumers to use and install child restraints. The agency believes that the presence of easier to use features on child restraints leads to an increase in their correct use, which thereby results in increased safety for child passengers. NHTSA believes that these changes should be implemented as soon as possible and as such, these program enhancements are proposed for inclusion in the 2008 ratings program. BILLING CODE 4910-59-P EN01FE08.009 EN01FE08.010 EN01FE08.011 EN01FE08.012 EN01FE08.013 EN01FE08.014 EN01FE08.015 EN01FE08.016 EN01FE08.017 EN01FE08.018 EN01FE08.019 EN01FE08.020 EN01FE08.021 EN01FE08.022 EN01FE08.023 EN01FE08.024 EN01FE08.025 EN01FE08.026 Issued on: January 28, 2008. Nicole R. Nason, Administrator. [FR Doc. 08-451 Filed 1-30-08; 10:30 am]

Notices. Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments