Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 1050-1053 [E7-96]
Download as PDF
1050
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices
information. The agency will summarize
and/or include your comments in the
request for OMB’s clearance of this
information collection.
Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended;
and 49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: January 3, 2007.
James R. Kabel,
Chief, Management Programs and Analysis
Division.
[FR Doc. E7–80 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[Docket No. FHWA–2006–26715]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Notice of Request for
Extension of Currently Approved
Information
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FHWA invites public
comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget’s
(OMB) approval for renewal of an
existing information collection, which is
summarized below under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. We are
required to publish this notice in the
Federal Register by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Please submit comments by
March 12, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FHWA–2006–26715 by any of the
following methods:
• Web Site: https://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room 401
on the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Guan Xu, 202–366–5892, Office of
Safety Design, Federal Highway
Administration, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office
hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title:
Developing and Recording Costs for
Railroad Adjustments.
OMB Control #: 2125–0521.
Background: Under 23 U.S.C. 130, the
FHWA reimburses the State highway
agencies when they have paid for the
cost of projects that (1) Eliminate
hazards at railroad/highway crossings,
or (2) adjust railroad facilities to
accommodate the construction of
highway projects. The FHWA requires
the railroad companies to document
their costs incurred for adjusting their
facilities. The railroad companies must
have a system for recording labor,
materials, supplies, and equipment
costs incurred when undertaking the
necessary railroad work. This record of
costs forms the basis for payment by the
State highway agency to the railroad
company, and in turn FHWA
reimburses the State for its payment to
the railroad company.
Respondents: Approximately 135
railroad companies.
Frequency: Nearly 135 railroad
companies are involved in an average of
10 railroad/highway projects per year,
so the total frequency is 1,350 railroad
adjustments.
Estimated Average Burden per
Response: The average number of hours
required to calculate the railroad
adjustment costs and maintain the
required records per adjustment is 12
hours.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: The FHWA estimates that the
total annual burden imposed on the
public by this collection is 16,200
hours.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including: (1)
Whether the proposed collection is
necessary for the FHWA’s performance;
(2) the accuracy of the estimated
burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to
enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and
(4) ways that the burden could be
minimized, including the use of
electronic technology, without reducing
the quality of the collected information.
The agency will summarize and/or
include your comments in the request
for OMB’s clearance of this information
collection.
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 121, 130; 23 CFR 140
Subpart I; the Paperwork Reduction Act of
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and
49 CFR 1.48.
Issued on: December 29, 2006.
James R. Kabel,
Chief, Management Programs and Analysis
Division.
[FR Doc. E7–81 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2006–26066]
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 75 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
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
January 9, 2007. The exemptions expire
on January 8, 2009.
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.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov and/or Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT’s dockets by
the name of the individual submitting
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices
the comment (or of the person signing
the comment, if submitted on behalf of
an association, business, labor union, or
other entity). You may review DOT’s
complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11,
2000). This statement is also available at
https://dms.dot.gov.
ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Background
On October 30, 2006, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 75
individuals, and requested comments
from the public(71 FR 63380). The 75
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:
Lucas R. Aleman, Michael L. Allen, Jose
C. Azuara, Felipe Bayron, Dennis M.
Boggs, Daniel D. Bradshaw, Roy L.
Brown, Richard A. Brown, Jr., David S.
Brumfield, Fabian L. Burnett, David L.
Cattoor, Roger E. Clark, Steven J. Clark,
Gary C. Cone, Timothy E. Coultas, Cesar
A. Cruz, Arthur Dolengewicz, Myron R.
Durham, Wayne A. Elkins II, Barry
Ferdinando, Leon C. Flynn, David G.
Guldan, Richard G. Gruber, Larry W.
Hancock, Guadalupe J. Hernandez,
James L. Houser, Richard G. Isenhart,
Ricky G. Jacks, Damir Kocijan, Timothy
P. Keogh, Joe E. Jones, William S.
LaMar, Sr., Robert T. Lantry, John W.
Laskey, Johnny L. Lindsey, Calvin E.
Lloyd, Kenneth Liuzza, Samson B.
Margison, Terrence L. McKinney,
Michael W. McClain, Ellis T. McKneely,
Dennis N. McQuiston, Garth R. Mero,
Donald G. Meyer, Ross W. Mockler,
Ronald C. Morris, Harry M. Oxendine,
Kenneth E. Parrott, Charles R. Patten,
Lionel Payne, Jr., Randel G. Pierce,
Darrol W. Rippee, Edgardo Rivera,
Myriam Rodriguez, Raymond E. Royer,
James E. Savage, Steven M. Scholfield,
Randal C. Schmude, Raymond C.
Simpkins, Dennis J. Smith, W.C. Sparks,
James A. Strickland, David C. Stitt, Jesse
J. Sutton, Gary L. Taylor, Kevin L.
Truxell, Brian S. Tuttle, Humberto A.
Valles, Earl M. Vaughan, Bruce A
Walker, Harold R. Wallace, Lee A.
Wiltjer, John H. Wisner, Harold E.
White, and Theron L. Wood.
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
75 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on Nov 29, 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° 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 75 exemption applicants
listed in this Notice are in this category.
They are unable to meet the vision
standard in one eye for various reasons,
including amblyopia, glaucoma,
macular scar, aphakia, retinal
detachment, optic neuropathy,
esotropia, choroidal hemangioma,
corneal scaring, prosthesis, corneal
opacity, optic atrophy, macular
hemorrhage, and loss of vision due to
trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but twenty-two of the applicants
were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since
childhood. The twenty-two individuals
who sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for periods
ranging from 3 to 45 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1051
While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 75 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 45 years. In the
past 3 years, seven of the drivers have
had convictions for traffic violations
and two of them were involved in
crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the October 30, 2006 Notice (71 FR
63380).
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
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
1052
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices
experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the
waiver program 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
75 applicants, three of the applicants
had traffic violations for speeding, three
applicants failed to obey a traffic sign,
one applicant failed to drive within the
proper lane, and two of the applicants
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
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 75 applicants
listed in the notice of October 30, 2006
(71 FR 63380).
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 75
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
A representative from the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation reported
that two of the drivers from the State of
Wisconsin were given interstate Medical
Examiner Certificates by medical
examiners although they did not qualify
due to their vision deficiency. However,
this did not result in improper licensure
by the State of Wisconsin. FMCSA will
follow up on this reported medical
examiner certification issue. These two
drivers will be required, as a condition
of the exemption to obtain new Medical
Examiner Certificates that reflect the
need for a Federal exemption from the
vision standard.
Nine letters of recommendation were
received in favor of granting the Federal
vision exemption to Mr. Edgardo Rivera
and Mr. Ricky Jacks due to their high
level of professionalism and safety
while driving. Two comments were
received in support of the Federal vision
exemption program.
Two individuals oppose the granting
of vision exemptions to vision impaired
drivers. They believe that granting
vision exemptions to drivers makes the
roads more dangerous.
In regard to the last two 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
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 9, 2007 / Notices
ycherry on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 75
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Lucas R. Aleman, Michael L.
Allen, Jose C. Azuara, Felipe Bayron,
Dennis M. Boggs, Daniel D. Bradshaw,
Roy L. Brown, Richard A. Brown, Jr.,
David S. Brumfield, Fabian L. Burnett,
David L. Cattoor, Roger E. Clark, Steven
J. Clark, Gary C. Cone, Timothy E.
Coultas, Cesar A. Cruz, Arthur
Dolengewicz, Myron R. Durham, Wayne
A. Elkins II, Barry Ferdinando, Leon C.
Flynn, David G. Guldan, Richard G.
Gruber, Larry W. Hancock, Guadalupe J.
Hernandez, James L. Houser, Richard G.
Isenhart, Ricky G. Jacks, Damir Kocijan,
Timothy P. Keogh, Joe E. Jones, William
S. LaMar, Sr., Robert T. Lantry, John W.
Laskey, Johnny L. Lindsey, Calvin E.
Lloyd, Kenneth Liuzza, Samson B.
Margison, Terrence L. McKinney,
Michael W. McClain, Ellis T. McKneely,
Dennis N. McQuiston, Garth R. Mero,
Donald G. Meyer, Ross W. Mockler,
Ronald C. Morris, Harry M. Oxendine,
Kenneth E. Parrott, Charles R. Patten,
Lionel Payne, Jr., Randel G. Pierce,
Darrol W. Rippee, Edgardo Rivera,
Myriam Rodriguez, Raymond E. Royer,
James E. Savage, Steven M. Scholfield,
Randal C. Schmude, Raymond C.
Simpkins, Dennis J. Smith, W.C. Sparks,
James A. Strickland, David C. Stitt, Jesse
J. Sutton, Gary L. Taylor, Kevin L.
Truxell, Brian S. Tuttle, Humberto A.
Valles, Earl M. Vaughan, Bruce A
Walker, Harold R. Wallace, Lee A.
Wiltjer, John H. Wisner, Harold E.
White, and Theron L. 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. 31136(e)
and 31315, each exemption will be valid
for 2 years unless revoked earlier by
VerDate Aug<31>2005
13:55 Jan 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
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: January 3, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Office Director, Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations.
[FR Doc. E7–96 Filed 1–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–02–12844]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of renewal of
exemptions; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its
decision to renew the exemptions from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 15
individuals. FMCSA has statutory
authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the
exemptions granted will not
compromise safety. The Agency has
concluded that granting these
exemptions will provide a level of safety
that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers.
This decision is effective January
17, 2007. Comments must be received
on or before February 8, 2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT Docket Management
System (DMS) Docket Number FMCSA–
02–12844, using any of the following
methods.
• Web site: https://dmses.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1053
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the Agency name and docket
numbers for this Notice. Note that all
comments received will be posted
without change to https://dms.dot.gov,
including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act
heading for further information.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to https://
dms.dot.gov at any time or Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The DMS is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
If you want us to notify you that we
received your comments, please include
a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the
electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or of the person signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the Department of
Transportation’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477; Apr. 11, 2000). This information
is also available at https://dms.dot.gov.
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., E.T.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Exemption Decision
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
FMCSA may renew an exemption from
the vision requirements in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a
two-year period if it finds ‘‘such
exemption would likely achieve a level
E:\FR\FM\09JAN1.SGM
09JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1050-1053]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-96]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2006-26066]
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 75 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 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 January 9, 2007. The exemptions
expire on January 8, 2009.
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.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to https://dms.dot.gov and/or Room PL-401 on the
plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting
[[Page 1051]]
the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on
behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other entity). You
may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
(65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also available at
https://dms.dot.gov.
Background
On October 30, 2006, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 75 individuals, and requested comments from
the public(71 FR 63380). The 75 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: Lucas R. Aleman, Michael L.
Allen, Jose C. Azuara, Felipe Bayron, Dennis M. Boggs, Daniel D.
Bradshaw, Roy L. Brown, Richard A. Brown, Jr., David S. Brumfield,
Fabian L. Burnett, David L. Cattoor, Roger E. Clark, Steven J. Clark,
Gary C. Cone, Timothy E. Coultas, Cesar A. Cruz, Arthur Dolengewicz,
Myron R. Durham, Wayne A. Elkins II, Barry Ferdinando, Leon C. Flynn,
David G. Guldan, Richard G. Gruber, Larry W. Hancock, Guadalupe J.
Hernandez, James L. Houser, Richard G. Isenhart, Ricky G. Jacks, Damir
Kocijan, Timothy P. Keogh, Joe E. Jones, William S. LaMar, Sr., Robert
T. Lantry, John W. Laskey, Johnny L. Lindsey, Calvin E. Lloyd, Kenneth
Liuzza, Samson B. Margison, Terrence L. McKinney, Michael W. McClain,
Ellis T. McKneely, Dennis N. McQuiston, Garth R. Mero, Donald G. Meyer,
Ross W. Mockler, Ronald C. Morris, Harry M. Oxendine, Kenneth E.
Parrott, Charles R. Patten, Lionel Payne, Jr., Randel G. Pierce, Darrol
W. Rippee, Edgardo Rivera, Myriam Rodriguez, Raymond E. Royer, James E.
Savage, Steven M. Scholfield, Randal C. Schmude, Raymond C. Simpkins,
Dennis J. Smith, W.C. Sparks, James A. Strickland, David C. Stitt,
Jesse J. Sutton, Gary L. Taylor, Kevin L. Truxell, Brian S. Tuttle,
Humberto A. Valles, Earl M. Vaughan, Bruce A Walker, Harold R. Wallace,
Lee A. Wiltjer, John H. Wisner, Harold E. White, and Theron L. Wood.
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 75 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on Nov 29, 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 75 exemption
applicants listed in this Notice are in this category. They are unable
to meet the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, glaucoma, macular scar, aphakia, retinal detachment, optic
neuropathy, esotropia, choroidal hemangioma, corneal scaring,
prosthesis, corneal opacity, optic atrophy, macular hemorrhage, and
loss of vision due to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. All but twenty-two of the applicants were
either born with their vision impairments or have had them since
childhood. The twenty-two individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 3 to 45
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 75 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 45
years. In the past 3 years, seven of the drivers have had convictions
for traffic violations and two of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 30, 2006
Notice (71 FR 63380).
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
[[Page 1052]]
experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the
waiver program 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 75 applicants, three of the applicants had traffic violations for
speeding, three applicants failed to obey a traffic sign, one applicant
failed to drive within the proper lane, and two of the applicants 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 75 applicants listed in the notice of October
30, 2006 (71 FR 63380).
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 75 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.
A representative from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
reported that two of the drivers from the State of Wisconsin were given
interstate Medical Examiner Certificates by medical examiners although
they did not qualify due to their vision deficiency. However, this did
not result in improper licensure by the State of Wisconsin. FMCSA will
follow up on this reported medical examiner certification issue. These
two drivers will be required, as a condition of the exemption to obtain
new Medical Examiner Certificates that reflect the need for a Federal
exemption from the vision standard.
Nine letters of recommendation were received in favor of granting
the Federal vision exemption to Mr. Edgardo Rivera and Mr. Ricky Jacks
due to their high level of professionalism and safety while driving.
Two comments were received in support of the Federal vision exemption
program.
Two individuals oppose the granting of vision exemptions to vision
impaired drivers. They believe that granting vision exemptions to
drivers makes the roads more dangerous.
In regard to the last two 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
[[Page 1053]]
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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 75 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Lucas R. Aleman, Michael L. Allen, Jose C. Azuara, Felipe
Bayron, Dennis M. Boggs, Daniel D. Bradshaw, Roy L. Brown, Richard A.
Brown, Jr., David S. Brumfield, Fabian L. Burnett, David L. Cattoor,
Roger E. Clark, Steven J. Clark, Gary C. Cone, Timothy E. Coultas,
Cesar A. Cruz, Arthur Dolengewicz, Myron R. Durham, Wayne A. Elkins II,
Barry Ferdinando, Leon C. Flynn, David G. Guldan, Richard G. Gruber,
Larry W. Hancock, Guadalupe J. Hernandez, James L. Houser, Richard G.
Isenhart, Ricky G. Jacks, Damir Kocijan, Timothy P. Keogh, Joe E.
Jones, William S. LaMar, Sr., Robert T. Lantry, John W. Laskey, Johnny
L. Lindsey, Calvin E. Lloyd, Kenneth Liuzza, Samson B. Margison,
Terrence L. McKinney, Michael W. McClain, Ellis T. McKneely, Dennis N.
McQuiston, Garth R. Mero, Donald G. Meyer, Ross W. Mockler, Ronald C.
Morris, Harry M. Oxendine, Kenneth E. Parrott, Charles R. Patten,
Lionel Payne, Jr., Randel G. Pierce, Darrol W. Rippee, Edgardo Rivera,
Myriam Rodriguez, Raymond E. Royer, James E. Savage, Steven M.
Scholfield, Randal C. Schmude, Raymond C. Simpkins, Dennis J. Smith,
W.C. Sparks, James A. Strickland, David C. Stitt, Jesse J. Sutton, Gary
L. Taylor, Kevin L. Truxell, Brian S. Tuttle, Humberto A. Valles, Earl
M. Vaughan, Bruce A Walker, Harold R. Wallace, Lee A. Wiltjer, John H.
Wisner, Harold E. White, and Theron L. 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. 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: January 3, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Office Director, Bus and Truck Standards and Operations.
[FR Doc. E7-96 Filed 1-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P