Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 1395-1397 [E8-106]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2007–0017]
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 28 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 8, 2008. The exemptions expire
on January 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs, (202)–366–4001,
fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64–
224, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online
through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at https://
www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or
Room W12–140 on the ground level of
the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The
FDMS is available 24 hours each day,
365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a selfaddressed, 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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
comment (or of the person signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78; Apr. 11, 2000). This
information is also available at https://
Docketinfo.dot.gov.
Background
On November 28, 2007, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (72 FR 67341). That
notice listed 28 applicants’ case
histories. The 28 individuals applied for
exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
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
28 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on December 28, 2007.
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 28 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, retinal
detachment, macular scar, macular
degeneration, cataract, retinal scar,
alternating exotropia, and loss of vision
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1395
due to trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but seven of the applicants were
either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since
childhood. The seven individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for periods
ranging from 4 to 25 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 28 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 42 years. In the
past 3 years, four of the drivers had
convictions for traffic violations and
three of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the November 28, 2007 notice (72 FR
67341).
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
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
1396
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices
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 the past
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
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
28 applicants, three of the applicants
had a traffic violation for speeding, one
of the applicants had a traffic violation
for passing in a wrong lane, and three
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 28 applicants
listed in the notice of November 28,
2007 (72 FR 67341).
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 28
individuals consistent with the
grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the
Agency’s vision waiver program.
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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
FMCSA received two comments in
this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition
to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions
from the FMCSRs, 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.
One individual opposes the granting
of vision exemptions to vision impaired
drivers. She believes that granting
vision exemptions to drivers makes the
roads more dangerous. This individual
also believes that the Agency’s policies
are too lax.
In regard to this comment, the
discussion under the heading, ‘‘Basis for
Exemption Determination,’’ explains in
detail the evaluation methods the
Agency utilizes prior to granting an
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 5 / Tuesday, January 8, 2008 / Notices
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.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 28
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Thomas E. Anderson, Garry A.
Baker, Richard D. Becotte, Timothy W.
Bickford, James E. Blazer, Terry S.
Brookshire, Jr., Wayne A. Burnett,
Theodore W. Cozat, Zibbie L. Dawsey,
Alex G. Dlugolenski, Karen Y. Duvall,
Gordon R. Fritz, John A. Graham, Jimmy
D. Gregory, Taras G. Hamilton, Larry K.
Lentz, Boleslaw Makowski, Joseph W.
Meacham, Charles M. Moore, Anthony
D. Ovitt, John R. Parsons, III, Steven S.
Reinsvold, Michael J. Richard, Glenn T.
Riley, George E. Todd, Gary S. Warren,
Bradley A. Weiser, and Eddie L.
Williams, 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:32 Jan 07, 2008
Jkt 214001
Issued on: December 31, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8–106 Filed 1–7–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of an Alternatives
Analysis/Environmental Impact
Statement for High-Capacity Transit
Improvements in the Tempe South
Corridor
Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Alternatives Analysis/Environmental
Impact Statement.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and Valley Metro
Rail, Inc. (METRO) intend to prepare an
Alternatives Analysis (AA) and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
on proposed high capacity transit
improvements, including potential bus
rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit
(LRT), modern streetcar, or commuter
rail in the Tempe South Corridor in the
Cities of Tempe and Chandler in
Maricopa County, Arizona. The
proposed study area is bounded on the
north by the Loop 202 (Red Mountain
Freeway); Loop 101 (Price Freeway) on
the east; Loop 202 (Santan Freeway) on
the south; and the Tempe Branch of the
Union Pacific Railroad on the west. The
AA/EIS will be prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
its implementing regulations. The AA/
EIS process will be initiated with a
scoping process that provides
opportunities for the public to comment
on the scope of the EIS, including the
project’s purpose and need, the
alternatives to be considered, and the
impacts to be evaluated in the AA and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS). This input will be used to assist
decisionmakers in determining a locally
preferred alternative (LPA) for the
Tempe South Corridor. Upon selection
of an LPA, METRO will request
permission from FTA to enter into
preliminary engineering per
requirements of New Starts regulations
49 CFR Part 611. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
will be issued after FTA approves
entrance into preliminary engineering.
The purpose of this notice is to alert
interested parties regarding the intent to
prepare the AA/EIS, to provide
information on the nature of the
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1397
proposed project and possible
alternatives, to invite public
participation in the AA/EIS process,
including comments on the scope of the
EIS as proposed in this notice, to
announce that public scoping meetings
will be conducted, and to identify
participating agency contacts.
DATES: Written and e-mailed comments
on the scope of study, including the
project’s purpose and need, the
alternatives to be considered, and the
impacts to be assessed, should be sent
to Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) on
or before February 13. See ADDRESSES
below for the street address and e-mail
address to which written comments may
be sent. Public scoping meetings to
accept comments on the scope of the
study will be held on the following
dates:
• Tuesday, January 29, 2007 at 6 p.m.,
Corona del Sol High School, 1001 East
Knox Road, Tempe, Arizona 85284.
• Wednesday, January 30, 2007 at 6
p.m., Tempe Public Library, 3500 South
Rural Road, Tempe, Arizona 85282.
Potential participating and
cooperating agencies will be invited by
phone or letter to an interagency
scoping meeting planned to be held on
the following date:
• Thursday, February 7, 2007 at 10
a.m., Valley Metro Rail (METRO), 101
North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix,
AZ 85003.
The project’s purpose and need and
the initial set of alternatives proposed
for study will be presented at these
meetings. The buildings used for the
scoping meetings are accessible to
persons with disabilities. Any
individual who requires special
assistance, such as a sign language
interpreter, to participate in a scoping
meeting should contact Dawn Coomer,
City of Tempe, 31 E. Fifth Street,
Tempe, AZ 85281, 480–350–8550 at
least 48 hours in advance of a meeting
in order for METRO and the City of
Tempe to make the necessary
arrangements.
Scoping materials will be available at
the meetings and through the project’s
Web site at https://
www.metrolightrail.org/tempesouth.
Hard copies of the scoping materials are
also available from Mr. Marc Soronson,
whose contact information is given in
ADDRESSES below.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent to the attention of Mr. Marc
Soronson, Valley Metro Rail, Inc., 101
North 1st Avenue, Suite 1300, Phoenix,
AZ 85003. E-mail:
tempesouth@metrolightrail.org. Phone:
(602) 744–5545 Fax: (602) 252–7453.
The locations of the public scoping
meetings are given above under DATES.
E:\FR\FM\08JAN1.SGM
08JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1395-1397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-106]
[[Page 1395]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0017]
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 28 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 8, 2008. The exemptions
expire on January 8, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs, (202)-366-4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, 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 Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to https://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78; Apr. 11, 2000).
This information is also available at https://Docketinfo.dot.gov.
Background
On November 28, 2007, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (72 FR 67341). That notice listed 28 applicants' case
histories. The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
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 28 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on December 28, 2007.
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 28 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, retinal detachment, macular scar, macular degeneration,
cataract, retinal scar, alternating exotropia, and loss of vision due
to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. All but seven of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The seven
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 4 to 25 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 28 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 42
years. In the past 3 years, four of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and three of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 28, 2007
notice (72 FR 67341).
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
[[Page 1396]]
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 the past 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 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 28 applicants, three of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for passing in
a wrong lane, and three 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 28 applicants listed in the notice of
November 28, 2007 (72 FR 67341).
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 28 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
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments were
considered and discussed below.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expressed
opposition to FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs,
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.
One individual opposes the granting of vision exemptions to vision
impaired drivers. She believes that granting vision exemptions to
drivers makes the roads more dangerous. This individual also believes
that the Agency's policies are too lax.
In regard to this comment, the discussion under the heading,
``Basis for Exemption Determination,'' explains in detail the
evaluation methods the Agency utilizes prior to granting an
[[Page 1397]]
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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Thomas E. Anderson, Garry A. Baker, Richard D. Becotte, Timothy
W. Bickford, James E. Blazer, Terry S. Brookshire, Jr., Wayne A.
Burnett, Theodore W. Cozat, Zibbie L. Dawsey, Alex G. Dlugolenski,
Karen Y. Duvall, Gordon R. Fritz, John A. Graham, Jimmy D. Gregory,
Taras G. Hamilton, Larry K. Lentz, Boleslaw Makowski, Joseph W.
Meacham, Charles M. Moore, Anthony D. Ovitt, John R. Parsons, III,
Steven S. Reinsvold, Michael J. Richard, Glenn T. Riley, George E.
Todd, Gary S. Warren, Bradley A. Weiser, and Eddie L. Williams, 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: December 31, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-106 Filed 1-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P