Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 13450-13452 [E6-3739]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13450
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
Issued on: March 9, 2006.
Jaclyn Lawton,
Environmental Programs Engineer, Madison,
Wisconsin.
[FR Doc. E6–3725 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23099]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its
decision to exempt 17 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). 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: The exemptions are effective
March 15, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications Division, (202) 366–4001,
maggi.gunnels@fmcsa.dot.gov, 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.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Background
On January 25, 2006, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 17
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (71 FR 4194). The 17
individuals petitioned 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: John R. Alger,
Gene Bartlett, Jr., Raymond C. Becker,
Marland L. Brassfield, Walter M. Brown,
Rodney D. Curtis, Troy S. David,
Norman J. Day, John M. Doney, Dale
Fields, Billy R. Jeffries, Brian E.
Monaghan, Roberto G. Serna, Robert V.
Sloan, Raymond C. Smith, Gary N.
Wilson, and William B. Wilson.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),
FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2year 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, FMCSA has evaluated the
17 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on February 24, 2006.
Two comments were received, and fully
considered by FMCSA in reaching the
final decision to grant the exemptions.
Vision and Driving Experience of the
Applicants
The vision requirement in the FMCSR
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 a 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, 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 degrees,
while leaving the visual acuity standard
unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D.,
Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Pual
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. 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 17 exemption applicants listed in
this notice fall into this category. They
are unable to meet the vision standard
in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, retinal detachment, corneal
scar and loss of an eye due to trauma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. All but four of
the applicants were either born with
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood. The four
individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for
periods ranging from 5 to 20 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. 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 skills 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 17 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate
commerce, even though their vision
disqualified them from driving in
interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision for
careers ranging from 5 to 49 years. In the
past 3 years, none of the drivers have
had any convictions for traffic violations
and none of them were involved in
crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the January 25, 2006 notice (71 FR
4194).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),
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, 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
standard, FMCSA requires a person to
present verifiable evidence that he/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 the Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver
study program clearly demonstrate 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.) Experienced
monocular drivers with good driving
records in the waiver program have
demonstrated their ability to drive
safely. This 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
17 applicants receiving an exemption,
we note that the applicants have had no
collisions and no traffic violations
among them 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, FMCSA concludes
their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
We believe the applicants’ intrastate
driving experience and history provide
an adequate basis for predicting their
ability to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Intrastate driving, like
interstate operations, involves
substantial driving on highways on the
interstate system and on other roads
built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas
exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on
interstate highways. Faster reaction to
traffic and traffic signals is generally
required because distances between
them are more compact. These
conditions tax visual capacity and
driver response just as intensely as
interstate driving conditions. The
veteran drivers in this proceeding have
operated CMVs safely under those
conditions for at least 3 years, most for
much longer. Their experience and
driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in
interstate commerce as safely as he/she
has been performing in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds
that exempting these applicants from
the vision standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without
the exemption. For this reason, The
Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31315 and 31136(e) to the 17 applicants
listed in the notice of January 25, 2006
(71 FR 4194).
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, FMCSA
will impose requirements on the 17
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
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13451
following: (1) That each individual be
physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical
examiner who attests that the individual
is otherwise physically qualified under
49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s
or optometrist’s report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver’s qualification
file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s
qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a
copy of the certification when driving,
for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.
Discussion of Comments
Two letters of recommendation were
received in favor of granting the Federal
vision exemption to two of the
applicants. The first was concerning
Robert V. Sloan and it was written by
the General Teamsters Local Union No.
61. The second letter was regarding
Raymond Becker and it was written by
Baumberger & Sons, Inc. Both letters
suggest that these applicants be granted
Federal vision exemption due to their
high level of professionalism and safety
while driving.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 17
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts John R. Alger, Gene Bartlett, Jr.,
Raymond C. Becker, Marland L.
Brassfield, Walter M. Brown, Rodney D.
Curtis, Troy S. David, Norman J. Day,
John M. Doney, Dale Fields, Billy R.
Jeffries, Brian E. Monaghan, Roberto G.
Serna, Robert V. Sloan, Raymond C.
Smith, Gary N. Wilson, and William B.
Wilson 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 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
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
15MRN1
13452
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 15, 2006 / Notices
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: March 8, 2006.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E6–3739 Filed 3–14–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
Proposed Agency Information
Collection Activities; Comment
Request
Federal Railroad
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
its implementing regulations, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking
renewal of the following currently
approved information collection
activities. Before submitting these
information collection requirements for
clearance by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), FRA is soliciting
public comment on specific aspects of
the activities identified below.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than May 15, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on any or all of the following proposed
activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert
Brogan, Office of Safety, Planning and
Evaluation Division, RRS–21, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont
Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington,
DC 20590, or Mr. Victor Angelo, Office
of Support Systems, RAD–20, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont
Ave., NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington,
DC 20590. Commenters requesting FRA
to acknowledge receipt of their
respective comments must include a
self-addressed stamped postcard stating,
‘‘Comments on OMB control
number____.’’ Alternatively, comments
may be transmitted via facsimile to
(202) 493–6230 or (202) 493–6170, or Email to Mr. Brogan at
robert.brogan@fra.dot.gov, or to Mr.
Angelo at victor.angelo@fra.dot.gov.
Please refer to the assigned OMB control
number in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize
comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and
include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for
approval.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Brogan, Office of Planning and
Evaluation Division, RRS–21, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1120 Vermont
Ave., NW., Mail Stop 17, Washington,
DC 20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6292)
or Victor Angelo, Office of Support
Systems, RAD–20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1120 Vermont Ave.,
NW., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone: (202) 493–6470).
(These telephone numbers are not tollfree.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104–13, section 2,
109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part
1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days notice to the public for
comment on information collection
activities before seeking approval for
reinstatement or renewal by OMB. 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically,
FRA invites interested respondents to
comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection
activities regarding (i) whether the
information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute
its functions, including whether the
activities will have practical utility; (ii)
the accuracy of FRA’s estimates of the
burden of the information collection
activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (iii) ways for
FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information being
collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to
Respondent
universe (railroads)
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
CFR section
271.7–Copy–FRA–operating rules, timetables, Class I & II
RRs ...................................................................................
–Amendments ......................................................................
–Copy of operating rules—Class III .....................................
–Amendments ......................................................................
217.9–Copy–Prog. for Perf. of Operational Tests ...............
–Amendments ......................................................................
–Oper. Test Rcds .................................................................
–Summary Tests ..................................................................
271.11–Copy–Instr. Prog.–Employees ................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:27 Mar 14, 2006
Jkt 208001
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Total annual
responses
*1
32
20
632
*20
50
632
55
*20
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public by
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses). See 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)(I)–(iv); 5 CFR
1320.8(d)(1)(I)–(iv). FRA believes that
soliciting public comment will promote
its efforts to reduce the administrative
and paperwork burdens associated with
the collection of information mandated
by Federal regulations. In summary,
FRA reasons that comments received
will advance three objectives: (i) Reduce
reporting burdens; (ii) ensure that it
organizes information collection
requirements in a ‘‘user friendly’’ format
to improve the use of such information;
and (iii) accurately assess the resources
expended to retrieve and produce
information requested. See 44 U.S.C.
3501.
Below are brief summaries of eight
currently approved information
collection activities that FRA will
submit for clearance by OMB as
required under the PRA:
OMB Control Number: 2130–0035.
Type of Request: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Affected Public: Businesses.
Form Number(s): N/A.
Abstract: The collection of
information is due to the railroad
operating rules set forth in 49 CFR part
217 which require Class I and Class II
railroads to file with FRA copies of their
operating rules, timetables, and
timetable special instructions, and
subsequent amendments thereto. Class
III railroads are required to retain copies
of these documents at their systems
headquarters. Also, 49 CFR 220.21(b)
prescribes the collection of information
which requires railroads to retain one
copy of their current operating rules
with respect to radio communications
and one copy of each subsequent
amendment thereto. These documents
must be made available to FRA upon
request.
Reporting Burden:
Average time
per response
(hours)
1
96
20
1,896
20
150
9,180,000
55
20
E:\FR\FM\15MRN1.SGM
1.00
0.33
0.92
0.25
9.92
1.92
0.08
1.00
8.00
15MRN1
Total annual
burden hours
1
32
18
474
198
288
765,000
55
160
Total annual
burden cost
$35
1,120
630
16,590
6,930
10,080
34,425,000
1,925
5,600
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13450-13452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3739]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23099]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 17 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). 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: The exemptions are effective March 15, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications Division, (202) 366-4001, maggi.gunnels@fmcsa.dot.gov,
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 January 25, 2006, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 17 individuals, and requested comments from
the public (71 FR 4194). The 17 individuals petitioned 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: John R.
Alger, Gene Bartlett, Jr., Raymond C. Becker, Marland L. Brassfield,
Walter M. Brown, Rodney D. Curtis, Troy S. David, Norman J. Day, John
M. Doney, Dale Fields, Billy R. Jeffries, Brian E. Monaghan, Roberto G.
Serna, Robert V. Sloan, Raymond C. Smith, Gary N. Wilson, and William
B. Wilson.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), 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, FMCSA has evaluated the 17 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on February 24, 2006. Two comments were received,
and fully considered by FMCSA in reaching the final decision to grant
the exemptions.
Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants
The vision requirement in the FMCSR 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 a 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, 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
degrees, while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See Frank
C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Pual 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. 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 17 exemption applicants listed in this notice fall into this
category. They are unable to meet the vision standard in one eye for
various reasons, including amblyopia, retinal detachment, corneal scar
and loss of an eye due to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions
were not recently developed. All but four of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
The four individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had them for periods ranging from 5 to 20 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. 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 skills 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 17 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 5 to 49
years. In the past 3 years, none of the drivers have had any
convictions for traffic violations and none of them were involved in
crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 25, 2006
notice (71 FR 4194).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), 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, 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
[[Page 13451]]
standard, FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that
he/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 the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate 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.)
Experienced monocular drivers with good driving records in the waiver
program have demonstrated their ability to drive safely. This 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 17 applicants receiving an exemption, we note that the applicants
have had no collisions and no traffic violations among them 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, FMCSA concludes their
ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision standard in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, The Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31315 and 31136(e) to the 17 applicants listed in the notice of January
25, 2006 (71 FR 4194).
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, FMCSA will impose
requirements on the 17 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
Two letters of recommendation were received in favor of granting
the Federal vision exemption to two of the applicants. The first was
concerning Robert V. Sloan and it was written by the General Teamsters
Local Union No. 61. The second letter was regarding Raymond Becker and
it was written by Baumberger & Sons, Inc. Both letters suggest that
these applicants be granted Federal vision exemption due to their high
level of professionalism and safety while driving.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 17 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts John R. Alger, Gene Bartlett, Jr., Raymond C. Becker, Marland
L. Brassfield, Walter M. Brown, Rodney D. Curtis, Troy S. David, Norman
J. Day, John M. Doney, Dale Fields, Billy R. Jeffries, Brian E.
Monaghan, Roberto G. Serna, Robert V. Sloan, Raymond C. Smith, Gary N.
Wilson, and William B. Wilson 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 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
[[Page 13452]]
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: March 8, 2006.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E6-3739 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
