Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 30227-30229 [E6-8076]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 2006 / Notices
$500,000 to $1,000,000 per project. This
HfL funding would be in addition to the
State apportionment.
Option 2: For projects carried out
using funds apportioned to the State
under section 104(b)(1)–(4) of title 23,
United States Code, (i.e., NHS, CMAQ,
STP, and IM funds), the State may
request the Federal share be adjusted up
to 100 percent. The funding category
proposed in the nomination must meet
the program funding eligibility
requirements. However, not more than
10 percent of the total of any one
particular apportioned Federal Aid fund
can be applied to the HfL project.
Option 3: The State may request a
combination of both Option 1 and
Option 2.
Spending Plan
The majority of the HfL funding, in
the order of 70 percent, is planned to be
used for projects; a significant portion of
the funds, approximately 20 percent, is
planned to be used for technology
transfer and the remainder of the funds
would be expended on technology
partnerships, information dissemination
and stakeholder input and involvement.
This approximate distribution of funds
includes the costs for monitoring and
evaluation for each element.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Accountability
As a means of ensuring appropriate
stewardship of public funds, the HfL
Program will include several monitoring
and evaluation efforts to measure the
effectiveness of the program and
projects, as well as stakeholder input
and involvement procedures. Although
the individual activities within the HfL
Program will require extensive effort
and funding, there will need to be
measurements beyond the basic levels
of success or failure of those activities
taken individually. The higher level of
evaluation should reflect the primary
objective of the program as a whole: to
accelerate the adoption of innovations
and technologies thereby improving
safety and highway quality while
reducing congestion caused by
congestion.
Monitor and Evaluation
The FHWA has the lead for
monitoring and evaluation of HfL
projects, and would be responsible for
data collection, data storage and access,
analysis, and reporting. FHWA
personnel and private contractors will
be used for this function. The owners of
HfL-funded projects would supply or
provide access to data and information.
Costs associated with these activities are
an eligible project expense. The FHWA
Division Offices would serve as points
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:42 May 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
of contact and coordination between the
FHWA’s contractor(s) and the State.
While the FHWA will be taking the lead
in the monitoring and evaluation of HfL
Projects, the FHWA regards the project
owner as a partner and looks forward to
working with them in all aspects of the
Highways for LIFE Program.
The monitoring and evaluation effort
will be used to fully describe and
quantify the outputs, results, and
outcomes in the goal areas and to
provide an assessment of the benefits
derived from the overall investment. A
cost effective economic analysis on HfL
projects will be conducted by the
FHWA HfL Team using economic
techniques for measuring and valuing
user cost; this might include but not be
limited to Event-Only Analysis, Life
Cycle Cost Analysis or Benefit-Cost
Analysis. The resulting information
would serve as a resource to highway
program decision makers on the value of
the innovations demonstrated in the HfL
projects, help maintain the momentum
needed to achieve the HfL goals,
demonstrate the value of the entire pilot
program, and provide the basis for
projecting the benefits gained from
expanding such an approach in the
future.
The monitoring and evaluation
element would encompass the entire
HfL Program. For the HfL projects,
information collected prior to, during,
and immediately after construction
would include a full array of highway
condition, financing, design,
contracting, construction, operations,
and safety data, as well as user statistics
and opinions. The costs, outcomes,
impacts, and benefits of the technology
partnerships would also be fully
documented. To the extent possible,
information collected for the technology
transfer and information dissemination
aspects would include objective
measures of the effectiveness and
impact of the individual activities that
are undertaken, in addition to
information on the costs of those
activities. The information gathered on
the HfL projects, technology transfer
and technology partnerships will also be
used in research and development for
the next generation of technologies and
innovations and future technology
transfer initiatives.
Stakeholder Input
The HfL stakeholders include
highway owners, builders, suppliers,
consultants, academicians, users
(commercial motor carriers, motorists,
bicyclist, and pedestrians), and those
impacted secondarily by highways
(neighbors and adjacent landowners,
receivers of goods shipped over
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30227
highways). Through stakeholder input
and involvement, the FHWA desires to
refine the approach and implementation
of the HfL Program as well as to build
ownership for the program. Stakeholder
input and involvement will be an
ongoing element of the HfL Program in
order to evaluate the progress of the
program, consider appropriate
redirection in light of progress, and
assess the overall program results.
Stakeholders had opportunities to
provide input on both the HfL
Implementation plan, and the conduct
of the program itself, including:
• The HfL performance goals;
• Applicable technologies and
practices;
• Technology partnerships
approaches; and
• Evaluation of HfL outcomes and
benefits including demonstration
projects, technology partnerships,
technology transfer and information
dissemination.
The FHWA is considering several
additional stakeholder input and
involvement approaches for the HfL
Program. Providing information and
soliciting feedback would happen
routinely through notices published in
the Federal Register, presentations at
highway town hall meetings or regional
forums, and the establishment of a Webbased communications interchange site,
or ‘‘Community of Practice’’ on the HfL
Internet Web site https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/hfl/.
(Authority: Pub. L. 109–59, Sec. 1502,
23 U.S.C. 502 and 23 U.S.C. 315)
Issued on: May 19, 2006.
J. Richard Capka,
Acting Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6–7954 Filed 5–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2005–24015]
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 16 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable
these individuals to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
30228
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 2006 / Notices
prescribed vision standard. 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
May 25, 2006. The exemptions expire
on May 26, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications Division, (202) 366–4001,
maggi.gunnels@dot.gov, FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301,
Washington, DC 20590–0001. Office
hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online
through the Document Management
System (DMS) at https://dmses.dot.gov.
Background
On March 22, 2006, FMCSA
published a Notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 16
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (71 FR 14566). The 16
individuals applied for exemptions from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate
CMVs in interstate commerce. They are:
Juan D. Adame, Thomas G. Danclovic,
Thomas W. Dufford, Williams F. Foote,
Joshua G. Hansen, Daniel W.
Henderson, Casey R. Johnson, Craig T.
Jorgensen, Jose A. Lopez, William F.
Mack, Bobby L. Mashburn, Albert L.
Remsburg, Willard L. Riggle, Ricky L.
Shepler, Barney J. Wade, and Kenneth
E. Walker.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
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
16 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on April 21, 2006.
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:42 May 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
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)).
FMCSA 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 16 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, central
scotoma, chorioretinal scar, optic
neuropathy, and loss of vision due to
trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but three of the applicants were
either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since
childhood. The three individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for periods
ranging from 8 to 16 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 16 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 3 to 39 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
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the March 22, 2006 Notice (71 FR
14566).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
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
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 101 / Thursday, May 25, 2006 / Notices
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
16 applicants, none of the applicants
had a traffic violation for speeding and
none were involved in crashes. 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:42 May 24, 2006
Jkt 208001
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.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 16 applicants
listed in the Notice of March 22, 2006
(71 FR 14566).
We recognize that the vision of an
applicant may change and affect his/her
ability to operate a CMV as safely as in
the past. As a condition of the
exemption, therefore, FMCSA will
impose requirements on the 16
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
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 16
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Juan D. Adame, Thomas G.
Danclovic, Thomas W. Dufford,
Williams F. Foote, Joshua G. Hansen,
Daniel W. Henderson, Casey R. Johnson,
Craig T. Jorgensen, Jose A. Lopez,
William F. Mack, Bobby L. Mashburn,
Albert L. Remsburg, Willard L. Riggle,
Ricky L. Shepler, Barney J. Wade, and
Kenneth E. Walker 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. 31136(e)
and 31315, 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. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the
end of the 2-year period, the person may
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: May 18, 2006.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E6–8076 Filed 5–24–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
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. 31136(e) and
31315); and finally (4) suggests that a
1999 Supreme Court decision affects the
legal validity of vision exemptions.
PO 00000
30229
United States Mint
Notification of American Eagle Gold
Proof Coin Price Increase
SUMMARY: The recent rise in the price of
gold requires that the United States
Mint raise the prices on its 2006
American Eagle Gold Proof Coins.
Pursuant to the authority that 31
U.S.C. 5112(i) and 5111(a)(3) grant the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint and
issue gold coins, and to prepare and
distribute numismatic items, the United
States Mint mints and issues American
Eagle Gold Proof Coins in four
denominations: One-ounce, one-half
E:\FR\FM\25MYN1.SGM
25MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 101 (Thursday, May 25, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30227-30229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8076]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2005-24015]
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 16 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the
[[Page 30228]]
prescribed vision standard. 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 May 25, 2006. The exemptions expire
on May 26, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical
Qualifications Division, (202) 366-4001, maggi.gunnels@dot.gov, FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online through the Document Management
System (DMS) at https://dmses.dot.gov.
Background
On March 22, 2006, FMCSA published a Notice of receipt of exemption
applications from 16 individuals, and requested comments from the
public (71 FR 14566). The 16 individuals applied for exemptions from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate
CMVs in interstate commerce. They are: Juan D. Adame, Thomas G.
Danclovic, Thomas W. Dufford, Williams F. Foote, Joshua G. Hansen,
Daniel W. Henderson, Casey R. Johnson, Craig T. Jorgensen, Jose A.
Lopez, William F. Mack, Bobby L. Mashburn, Albert L. Remsburg, Willard
L. Riggle, Ricky L. Shepler, Barney J. Wade, and Kenneth E. Walker.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 16 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on April 21, 2006.
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 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)).
FMCSA 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 16 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, central scotoma, chorioretinal scar, optic
neuropathy, and loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed. All but three of the applicants
were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The three individuals who sustained their vision conditions
as adults have had them for periods ranging from 8 to 16 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 16 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 3 to 39
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 March 22, 2006
Notice (71 FR 14566).
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 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
[[Page 30229]]
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 16 applicants, none of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding and none were involved in crashes. 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.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 16 applicants listed in the Notice of March
22, 2006 (71 FR 14566).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 16 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. 31136(e) and 31315); 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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Juan D. Adame, Thomas G. Danclovic, Thomas W. Dufford, Williams
F. Foote, Joshua G. Hansen, Daniel W. Henderson, Casey R. Johnson,
Craig T. Jorgensen, Jose A. Lopez, William F. Mack, Bobby L. Mashburn,
Albert L. Remsburg, Willard L. Riggle, Ricky L. Shepler, Barney J.
Wade, and Kenneth E. Walker 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. 31136(e) and 31315, 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. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.
Issued on: May 18, 2006.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E6-8076 Filed 5-24-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P