Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 30997-30999 [05-10691]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 2005 / Notices
However, that process permits the
design data package granting the ‘‘host’’
TSO authorization to contain the nonTSO function design data package,
without assuring the required
performance of the hosting TSO article
is unaffected by the added non-TSO
function.
Deferring the evaluation of the nonTSO function until installation is not
ideal, since the installer generally does
not have the TSO manufacturer’s
equipment or expertise available to
perform a thorough equipment
performance evaluation, especially
when the performance must be
determined by laboratory simulation or
under specific test conditions. In the
proposed notice, we bring greater
scrutiny to integrated non-TSO
functions into the host TSO by
providing guidance to the Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) for the
consistent performance evaluation of
the non-TSO function at the time of
TSO authorization issuance. Note also,
as with the TSO article itself, the
integrated non-TSO function must have
separate FAA approval for installation
in an aircraft. Thus, this proposed
notice allows the ACO to acknowledge
the software and hardware design
assurance levels and environmental
testing accomplished on the non-TSO
function, precluding the need for
repeated evaluations at each installation
approval.
How To Obtain Copies
Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24,
2005.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Assistant Manager, Aircraft Engineering
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 05–10719 Filed 5–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA—2005—20560]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision; Withdrawal
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
16:14 May 27, 2005
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
withdraws a notice of applications for
exemption from the vision standard
with request for comments published on
May 17, 2005. The notice was published
in error.
DATES: The notice of applications with
request for comments published on May
17, 2005 (70 FR 28348), is withdrawn
effective May 17, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, (202)
366–4001, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Issued on: May 23, 2005.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 05–10690 Filed 5–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA–2005–20560]
You can get a copy of proposed FAA
Notice 8150.NTF and Order 8150.1B
from the FAA’s Regulatory and
Guidance Library (RGL) at https://
www.airweb.faa.gov/rgl. On the RGL
Web site, click on ‘‘Orders/Notices’’. Or,
contact the person listed in the section
titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
VerDate jul<14>2003
Withdrawal of notice of
applications for exemption from the
vision standard.
ACTION:
Jkt 205001
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its
decision to exempt 30 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable
these individuals to qualify as drivers of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce without meeting
the vision standard prescribed in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: May 31, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, (202)
366–4001, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30997
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online
through the Document Management
System (DMS) at: https://dmses.dot.gov.
Background
On April 6, 2005, the FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 30
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (70 FR 17504). The 30
individuals petitioned the FMCSA for
exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies
to drivers of CMVs in interstate
commerce. They are: Edmund J. Barron,
Eddie M. Brown, Tony Cook, Jeffery W.
Cotner, John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher,
Lonny L. Ford, Larry G. Garcia, Robert
E. Hendrick, Jonah G. Higdon, Daniel J.
Hillman, Ronald A. Johnson, Clyde H.
Kitzan, Joe S. Lassiter III, Gene A.
Lesher, Jr., Eugene A. Maggio, Anthony
R. Miles, Raymond E. Morelock,
Kenneth L. Nau, David L. Peebles, David
W. Peterson, Frederick G. Robbins, Jose
C. Sanchez-Sanchez, Boyd D. Stamey,
Scott C. Teich, Emerson J. Turner,
Daniel E. Watkins, Dean E. Wheeler,
Michael C. Williams, Sr., and Louie E.
Workman.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),
the FMCSA may grant an exemption for
a 2-year period if it finds ‘‘such
exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.’’ The statute
also allows the agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year
period. Accordingly, the FMCSA has
evaluated the 30 applications on their
merits and made a determination to
grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on May 6, 2005.
Two comments were received, and their
contents were carefully considered by
the FMCSA in reaching the final
decision to grant the exemptions.
Vision and Driving Experience of the
Applicants
The vision requirement in the
FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to
drive a commercial motor vehicle if that
person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye
without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40
(Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with
or without corrective lenses, field of
vision of at least 70° in the horizontal
meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals
and devices showing standard red,
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
30998
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 2005 / Notices
green, and amber (49 CFR
391.41(b)(10)).
Since 1992, the agency has
undertaken studies to determine if this
vision standard should be amended.
The final report from our medical panel
recommends changing the field of
vision standard from 70° to 120°, while
leaving the visual acuity standard
unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D.,
Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul
Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg,
M.D., ‘‘Visual Requirements and
Commercial Drivers,’’ October 16, 1998,
filed in the docket, FMCSA–98–4334.)
The panel’s conclusion supports the
agency’s view that the present visual
acuity standard is reasonable and
necessary as a general standard to
ensure highway safety. The FMCSA also
recognizes that some drivers do not
meet the vision standard, but have
adapted their driving to accommodate
their vision limitation and demonstrated
their ability to drive safely.
The 30 applicants fall into this
category. They are unable to meet the
vision standard in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, macular
and retinal scars, and loss of an eye due
to trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but 14 of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood. The 14
individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for
periods ranging from 20 to 58 years.
Although each applicant has one eye
which does not meet the vision standard
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at
least 20/40 corrected vision in the other
eye, and in a doctor’s opinion has
sufficient vision to perform all the tasks
necessary to operate a CMV. The
doctors’ opinions are supported by the
applicants’ possession of valid
commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or
non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to
knowledge and performance tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications
to operate a CMV. All these applicants
satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State
licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a
commercial vehicle, with their limited
vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 30 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate
commerce, even though their vision
disqualifies them from driving in
interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision for
careers ranging from 3 to 45 years. In the
past 3 years, eight of the drivers have
had nine convictions for traffic
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:14 May 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
violations among them. Eight of these
convictions were for speeding and one
was for ‘‘failure to obey traffic control
device.’’ Four drivers were involved in
five crashes among them, but did not
receive a citation.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the April 6, 2005, notice (70 FR 17504).
Since there were no substantial docket
comments on the specific merits or
qualifications of any applicant, we have
not repeated the individual profiles
here, but note that information
presented at 70 FR 17506 indicating that
applicant 22, Frederick G. Robbins, had
one conviction for a moving violation in
a CMV on his driving record, is in error.
The information should have indicated
that Mr. Robbins’ driving record for the
last 3 years showed no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV. Our
summary analysis of the applicants is
supported by this correction and the
information published on April 6, 2005
(70 FR 17504).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),
the FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely
to achieve an equivalent or greater level
of safety than would be achieved
without the exemption. Without the
exemption, applicants will continue to
be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in
interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis
focuses on whether an equal or greater
level of safety is likely to be achieved by
permitting each of these drivers to drive
in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these
exemptions on safety, the FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports
about the applicants’ vision, but also
their driving records and experience
with the vision deficiency. To qualify
for an exemption from the vision
standard, the FMCSA requires a person
to present verifiable evidence that he or
she has driven a commercial vehicle
safely with the vision deficiency for 3
years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate
past and future driving performance.
Results of these studies support the
principle that the best predictor of
future performance by a driver is his/her
past record of crashes and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies may be
found at docket number FMCSA–98–
3637.
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We believe we can properly apply the
principle to monocular drivers, because
data from a former FMCSA waiver study
program clearly demonstrates that the
driving performance of experienced
monocular drivers in the program is
better than that of all CMV drivers
collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996.) The fact that
experienced monocular drivers with
good driving records in the waiver
program demonstrated their ability to
drive safely supports a conclusion that
other monocular drivers, meeting the
same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also
likely to have adapted to their vision
deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
The first major research correlating
past and future performance was done
in England by Greenwood and Yule in
1920. Subsequent studies, building on
that model, concluded that crash rates
for the same individual exposed to
certain risks for two different time
periods vary only slightly. (See Bates
and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952.)
Other studies demonstrated theories of
predicting crash proneness from crash
history coupled with other factors.
These factors—such as age, sex,
geographic location, mileage driven and
conviction history—are used every day
by insurance companies and motor
vehicle bureaus to predict the
probability of an individual
experiencing future crashes. (See Weber,
Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An
Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal
of American Statistical Association,
June 1971.) A 1964 California Driver
Record Study prepared by the California
Department of Motor Vehicles
concluded that the best overall crash
predictor for both concurrent and
nonconcurrent events is the number of
single convictions. This study used 3
consecutive years of data, comparing the
experiences of drivers in the first 2 years
with their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these
studies to the past 3-year record of the
30 applicants receiving an exemption,
we note that the applicants have had
only five crashes and nine traffic
violations in the last 3 years. The
applicants achieved this record of safety
while driving with their vision
impairment, demonstrating the
likelihood that they have adapted their
driving skills to accommodate their
condition. As the applicants’ ample
driving histories with their vision
deficiencies are good predictors of
future performance, the FMCSA
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 103 / Tuesday, May 31, 2005 / Notices
concludes their ability to drive safely
can be projected into the future.
We believe the applicants’ intrastate
driving experience and history provide
an adequate basis for predicting their
ability to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Intrastate driving, like
interstate operations, involves
substantial driving on highways on the
interstate system and on other roads
built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas
exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on
interstate highways. Faster reaction to
traffic and traffic signals is generally
required because distances between
them are more compact. These
conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as
interstate driving conditions. The
veteran drivers in this proceeding have
operated CMVs safely under those
conditions for at least 3 years, most for
much longer. Their experience and
driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in
interstate commerce as safely as he or
she has been performing in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, the FMCSA
finds that exempting these applicants
from the vision standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without
the exemption. For this reason, the
agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31315 and 31136(e) to the 30 applicants
listed in the notice of April 6, 2005 (70
FR 17504).
We recognize that the vision of an
applicant may change and affect his/her
ability to operate a commercial vehicle
as safely as in the past. As a condition
of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA
will impose requirements on the 30
individuals consistent with the
grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the agency’s
vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49
CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be
physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical
examiner who attests that the individual
is otherwise physically qualified under
49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s
or optometrist’s report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver’s qualification
file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:14 May 27, 2005
Jkt 205001
qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a
copy of the certification when driving,
for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.
Discussion of Comments
The FMCSA received two comments
in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and are discussed below.
Ms. Barb Sachau believes allowing
monocular drivers to operate large
trucks may increase the likelihood of a
crash resulting in a fatality. The
discussion above under the heading,
‘‘Basis for Exemption Determination,’’
explains why FMCSA believes the
monocular drivers included in this
notice have demonstrated their ability to
drive safely in conditions similar to
interstate driving by operating in
intrastate commerce for 3 years prior to
their applications and will continue to
operate safely.
An anonymous tractor-trailer
combination driver does not believe
exemptions should be granted, but all
drivers should be held to the same
criteria for the safety of the motoring
public. Although this comment was
introduced into the docket without
attribution and, thus, would not
ordinarily receive consideration, we
will address the issue raised because it
relates to a matter of general
applicability to the vision exemption
process and is not specific to this
comment. The discussion above under
the heading, ‘‘Basis for Exemption
Determination,’’ explains why FMCSA
believes monocular drivers who have
met the qualifying conditions of the
vision exemption program are likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency
and will continue to operate safely.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 30
exemption applications, the FMCSA
exempts Edmund J. Barron, Eddie M.
Brown, Tony Cook, Jeffery W. Cotner,
John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher, Lonny
L. Ford, Larry G. Garcia, Robert E.
Hendrick, Jonah G. Higdon, Daniel J.
Hillman, Ronald A. Johnson, Clyde H.
Kitzan, Joe S. Lassiter III, Gene A.
Lesher, Jr., Eugene A. Maggio, Anthony
R. Miles, Raymond E. Morelock,
Kenneth L. Nau, David L. Peebles, David
W. Peterson, Frederick G. Robbins, Jose
C. Sanchez-Sanchez, Boyd D. Stamey,
Scott C. Teich, Emerson J. Turner,
Daniel E. Watkins, Dean E. Wheeler,
Michael C. Williams, Sr., and Louie E.
Workman from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the
requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)).
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30999
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315
and 31136(e), each exemption will be
valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier
by the 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. 31315 and 31136.
If the exemption is still effective at the
end of the 2-year period, the person may
apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: May 20, 2005.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 05–10691 Filed 5–27–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–21254]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of applications for
exemption from the vision standard;
request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice publishes the
FMCSA’s receipt of applications from
24 individuals for an exemption from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. If
granted, the exemptions will enable
these individuals to qualify as drivers of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce without meeting
the vision standard prescribed in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by any of the following
methods. Please identify your comments
by the DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA–2005–21254.
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
E:\FR\FM\31MYN1.SGM
31MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 31, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30997-30999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-10691]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20560]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 30 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce
without meeting the vision standard prescribed in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: May 31, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4001, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online through the Document Management
System (DMS) at: https://dmses.dot.gov.
Background
On April 6, 2005, the FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 30 individuals, and requested comments from
the public (70 FR 17504). The 30 individuals petitioned the FMCSA for
exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which
applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. They are: Edmund J.
Barron, Eddie M. Brown, Tony Cook, Jeffery W. Cotner, John K. Fank,
Bobby G. Fletcher, Lonny L. Ford, Larry G. Garcia, Robert E. Hendrick,
Jonah G. Higdon, Daniel J. Hillman, Ronald A. Johnson, Clyde H. Kitzan,
Joe S. Lassiter III, Gene A. Lesher, Jr., Eugene A. Maggio, Anthony R.
Miles, Raymond E. Morelock, Kenneth L. Nau, David L. Peebles, David W.
Peterson, Frederick G. Robbins, Jose C. Sanchez-Sanchez, Boyd D.
Stamey, Scott C. Teich, Emerson J. Turner, Daniel E. Watkins, Dean E.
Wheeler, Michael C. Williams, Sr., and Louie E. Workman.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an
exemption for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely
achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also
allows the agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, the FMCSA has evaluated the 30 applications on their
merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on May 6, 2005. Two comments were received, and
their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in reaching the
final decision to grant the exemptions.
Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants
The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red,
[[Page 30998]]
green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
Since 1992, the agency has undertaken studies to determine if this
vision standard should be amended. The final report from our medical
panel recommends changing the field of vision standard from 70[deg] to
120[deg], while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See
Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello,
M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, M.D., ``Visual Requirements and
Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, filed in the docket, FMCSA-98-
4334.) The panel's conclusion supports the agency's view that the
present visual acuity standard is reasonable and necessary as a general
standard to ensure highway safety. The FMCSA also recognizes that some
drivers do not meet the vision standard, but have adapted their driving
to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability
to drive safely.
The 30 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, macular and retinal scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All
but 14 of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments
or have had them since childhood. The 14 individuals who sustained
their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging
from 20 to 58 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The
doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and performance tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these
applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 30 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualifies them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 45
years. In the past 3 years, eight of the drivers have had nine
convictions for traffic violations among them. Eight of these
convictions were for speeding and one was for ``failure to obey traffic
control device.'' Four drivers were involved in five crashes among
them, but did not receive a citation.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the April 6, 2005,
notice (70 FR 17504). Since there were no substantial docket comments
on the specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not
repeated the individual profiles here, but note that information
presented at 70 FR 17506 indicating that applicant 22, Frederick G.
Robbins, had one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV on his
driving record, is in error. The information should have indicated that
Mr. Robbins' driving record for the last 3 years showed no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV. Our summary analysis of the applicants
is supported by this correction and the information published on April
6, 2005 (70 FR 17504).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an
exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption,
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, the FMCSA
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision,
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, the
FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he or she
has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-98-3637.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from a former FMCSA waiver study program clearly
demonstrates that the driving performance of experienced monocular
drivers in the program is better than that of all CMV drivers
collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996.) The fact that
experienced monocular drivers with good driving records in the waiver
program demonstrated their ability to drive safely supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes. (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971.) A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 30 applicants receiving an exemption, we note that the applicants
have had only five crashes and nine traffic violations in the last 3
years. The applicants achieved this record of safety while driving with
their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have
adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the
applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are
good predictors of future performance, the FMCSA
[[Page 30999]]
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he or she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
the FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety
equal to that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the
agency is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to the 30 applicants listed in the notice of
April 6, 2005 (70 FR 17504).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the
past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA will impose
requirements on the 30 individuals consistent with the grandfathering
provisions applied to drivers who participated in the agency's vision
waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is 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
The FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments
were considered and are discussed below.
Ms. Barb Sachau believes allowing monocular drivers to operate
large trucks may increase the likelihood of a crash resulting in a
fatality. The discussion above under the heading, ``Basis for Exemption
Determination,'' explains why FMCSA believes the monocular drivers
included in this notice have demonstrated their ability to drive safely
in conditions similar to interstate driving by operating in intrastate
commerce for 3 years prior to their applications and will continue to
operate safely.
An anonymous tractor-trailer combination driver does not believe
exemptions should be granted, but all drivers should be held to the
same criteria for the safety of the motoring public. Although this
comment was introduced into the docket without attribution and, thus,
would not ordinarily receive consideration, we will address the issue
raised because it relates to a matter of general applicability to the
vision exemption process and is not specific to this comment. The
discussion above under the heading, ``Basis for Exemption
Determination,'' explains why FMCSA believes monocular drivers who have
met the qualifying conditions of the vision exemption program are
likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to
operate safely.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 30 exemption applications, the
FMCSA exempts Edmund J. Barron, Eddie M. Brown, Tony Cook, Jeffery W.
Cotner, John K. Fank, Bobby G. Fletcher, Lonny L. Ford, Larry G.
Garcia, Robert E. Hendrick, Jonah G. Higdon, Daniel J. Hillman, Ronald
A. Johnson, Clyde H. Kitzan, Joe S. Lassiter III, Gene A. Lesher, Jr.,
Eugene A. Maggio, Anthony R. Miles, Raymond E. Morelock, Kenneth L.
Nau, David L. Peebles, David W. Peterson, Frederick G. Robbins, Jose C.
Sanchez-Sanchez, Boyd D. Stamey, Scott C. Teich, Emerson J. Turner,
Daniel E. Watkins, Dean E. Wheeler, Michael C. Williams, Sr., and Louie
E. Workman from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject
to the requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the 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. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to the FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: May 20, 2005.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 05-10691 Filed 5-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P