Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 19600-19602 [06-3587]
Download as PDF
19600
ACTION:
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Notices
Notice of public meeting.
SUMMARY: The DOT seeks views on
regulatory implementation of changes
made by SAFETEA–LU to the TIFIA
statute. All interested persons are
invited to offer views at two public
meetings.
The first public meeting will be
held on April 21, 2006, in San
Francisco, CA, beginning at 9 a.m. The
second public meeting will be held on
April 25, 2006, in New York, NY,
beginning at 1 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The first public meeting
will be held at the Omni San Francisco
Hotel, 500 California Street, San
Francisco, CA 94104. The second public
meeting will be held at the Marriott
Financial Center, 85 West Street, New
York, NY 10006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Clarke Brown, (202) 366–6813,
Robert.C.Brown@fhwa.dot.gov; Mark
Sullivan, (202) 366–5785,
Mark.Sullivan@fhwa.dot.gov. TIFIA
Joint Program Office, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
The Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: a
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) (Pub.
L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144), enacted in
2005, made certain changes to the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (TIFIA), originally
established in 1998 by the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA–21). The Department of
Transportation is beginning a
rulemaking to implement those 2005
statutory changes, as well as to make
other changes to the current TIFIA rule.
The DOT plans to publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking later this year.
Prior to publication of the proposed
rule, the DOT seeks information and
views from the public that might assist
it in developing the proposed rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Public Meetings
The DOT invites participation in
these meetings by all those interested in
the TIFIA program, including but not
limited to public officials, private
citizens, bankers, financial advisors,
attorneys, and officials of rating
agencies, bond insurers, project
developers and engineering and
construction companies. Views on all
aspects of TIFIA regulatory
implementation, both changes required
by the 2005 SAFTEA–LU amendments
and recommended or needed changes to
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:37 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
the existing rule, are welcome. Meeting
proceedings will be recorded. Written
submissions are welcome, although not
required for participation. The DOT is
particularly interested in comments
pertaining to the changes SAFETEA–LU
made in the TIFIA statute.
The DOT expects each meeting to last
approximately three hours. No preregistration is required for participation.
Issued on: April 10, 2006.
A. Thomas Park,
Chief Financial Officer.
[FR Doc. E6–5594 Filed 4–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23238]
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 14 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). The exemptions will enable
these individuals to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the vision
standard prescribed in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). The Agency has
concluded that granting these
exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these CMV drivers.
DATES: The exemptions are effective
April 14, 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 31, 2006, FMCSA
published a Notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 14
individuals, and requested comments
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from the public (71 FR 5105). The 14
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: Nick D. Bacon,
Donald G. Bostic, Jr., Johnny W.
Bradford, Aaron C. Buck, James C.
Davis, James H. Eldridge, Jr., Michael G.
Gould, Albert L. Gschwind, Bruce A.
Homan, Matthew J. Konecki, Rick P.
Moreno, Roy J. Oltman, Monte L.
Purciful, and Bernard J. Wood.
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
14 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on March 2, 2006. Three
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 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,
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
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Notices
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
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 14 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, glaucoma, cataract macular
degeneration and loss of an eye due to
trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but eight of the applicants were
either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since
childhood. The eight individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for periods
ranging from 6 to 26 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 14 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 4 to 45 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 31, 2006 Notice (71 FR
5105).
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:37 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
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.) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19601
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 the 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
14 applicants, we note that one of the
applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding and one of them was involved
in a crash. 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 14 applicants
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
19602
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 72 / Friday, April 14, 2006 / Notices
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
listed in the Notice of January 31, 2006
(71 FR 5105).
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 14
individuals consistent with the
grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the
Agency’s vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49
CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be
physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical
examiner who attests that the individual
is otherwise physically qualified under
49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s
or optometrist’s report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver’s qualification
file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s
qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a
copy of the certification when driving,
for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.
Discussion of Comments
Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition
to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions
from the FMCSR, including the driver
qualification standards. Specifically,
Advocates: (1) Objects to the manner in
which FMCSA presents driver
information to the public and makes
safety determinations; (2) objects to the
Agency’s reliance on conclusions drawn
from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted
statutory language on the granting of
exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and
31136(e)); and finally (4) suggests that a
1999 Supreme Court decision affects the
legal validity of vision exemptions.
The issues raised by Advocates were
addressed at length in 64 FR 51568
(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962
(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586
(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January
3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21,
2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001).
We will not address these points again
here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.
Ms. Barb Sachau opposes the notion
of granting vision exemptions to these
drivers. She believes that two fully
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:37 Apr 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
functional eyes are needed to drive
safely.
Ms. Sachau believes that the approval
of vision exemptions make the roads
much more dangerous.
In regard to these comments, the
discussion under the heading, ‘‘Basis for
Exemption Determination,’’ explains in
detail the evaluation methods the
Agency utilizes prior to granting an
exemption to ensure that the granting of
an exemption is likely to achieve an
equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the
exemption. 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
standard, 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.
An anonymous individual stated that
he/she is in support of the vision
program due to the thorough screening
that all applicants must go through.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 14
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Nick D. Bacon, Donald G.
Bostic, Jr., Johnny W. Bradford, Aaron
C. Buck, James C. Davis, James H.
Eldridge, Jr., Michael G. Gould, Albert
L. Gschwind, Bruce A. Homan, Matthew
J. Konecki, Rick P. Moreno, Roy J.
Oltman, Monte L. Purciful, and Bernard
J. Wood 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
If the exemption is still effective at the
end of the 2-year period, the person may
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: April 10, 2006.
Larry W. Minor,
Director, Office of Bus and Truck Standards
and Operations.
[FR Doc. 06–3587 Filed 4–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–23773]
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 19 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). The exemptions will enable
these individuals to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the vision
standard prescribed in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). The Agency has
concluded that granting these
exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level of safety maintained without the
exemptions for these CMV drivers.
DATES: The exemptions are effective
April 14, 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., 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 February 9, 2006, FMCSA
published a Notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 19
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (71 FR 6826). The 19
individuals petitioned FMCSA for
exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies
to drivers of CMVs in interstate
E:\FR\FM\14APN1.SGM
14APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19600-19602]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-23238]
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 14 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSR). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the vision standard prescribed in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.
DATES: The exemptions are effective April 14, 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 31, 2006, FMCSA published a Notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 14 individuals, and requested comments from
the public (71 FR 5105). The 14 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: Nick D.
Bacon, Donald G. Bostic, Jr., Johnny W. Bradford, Aaron C. Buck, James
C. Davis, James H. Eldridge, Jr., Michael G. Gould, Albert L. Gschwind,
Bruce A. Homan, Matthew J. Konecki, Rick P. Moreno, Roy J. Oltman,
Monte L. Purciful, and Bernard J. Wood.
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 14 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on March 2, 2006. Three 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 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, 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
[[Page 19601]]
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 14 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, glaucoma, cataract macular
degeneration and loss of an eye due to trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. All but eight of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The eight individuals who sustained their vision conditions
as adults have had them for periods ranging from 6 to 26 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 14 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 4 to 45
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 31, 2006
Notice (71 FR 5105).
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 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.)
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 the 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 14 applicants, we note that one of the applicants had a traffic
violation for speeding and one of them was involved in a crash. 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 14 applicants
[[Page 19602]]
listed in the Notice of January 31, 2006 (71 FR 5105).
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 14 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
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSR,
including the driver qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates:
(1) Objects to the manner in which FMCSA presents driver information to
the public and makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the Agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3)
claims the Agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)); and finally (4) suggests
that a 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions.
The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 64 FR
51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 FR
69586 (December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000), 65 FR 57230
(September 21, 2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). We will not
address these points again here, but refer interested parties to those
earlier discussions.
Ms. Barb Sachau opposes the notion of granting vision exemptions to
these drivers. She believes that two fully functional eyes are needed
to drive safely.
Ms. Sachau believes that the approval of vision exemptions make the
roads much more dangerous.
In regard to these comments, the discussion under the heading,
``Basis for Exemption Determination,'' explains in detail the
evaluation methods the Agency utilizes prior to granting an exemption
to ensure that the granting of an exemption is likely to achieve an
equivalent or greater level of safety than would be achieved without
the exemption. 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 standard, 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.
An anonymous individual stated that he/she is in support of the
vision program due to the thorough screening that all applicants must
go through.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 14 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Nick D. Bacon, Donald G. Bostic, Jr., Johnny W. Bradford, Aaron
C. Buck, James C. Davis, James H. Eldridge, Jr., Michael G. Gould,
Albert L. Gschwind, Bruce A. Homan, Matthew J. Konecki, Rick P. Moreno,
Roy J. Oltman, Monte L. Purciful, and Bernard J. Wood 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 apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.
Issued on: April 10, 2006.
Larry W. Minor,
Director, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-3587 Filed 4-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P