Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 54888-54890 [E8-22226]
Download as PDF
54888
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
improvement to ensure it fully complies
with MOU section 8.2.6. Specifically,
the first self-assessment conducted by
Caltrans under the Pilot Program did not
correlate each identified issue needing
improvement to the corrective action(s)
taken to address each issue.
Findings—Deficient
(D1) QA/QC Process—Caltrans
requires each environmental document
to be reviewed according to the policy
memo titled ‘‘Environmental Document
Quality Control Program under the
NEPA Pilot Program (July 2, 2007).’’
Several deficiencies exist with the
quality control process detailed in the
aforementioned policy memo, SER
Chapter 38, and as required by MOU
section 8.2.5. These deficiencies are:
a. Completion of Quality Control
Certification Forms. The required
Internal and External Certification forms
used in the environmental document
review process were not consistently
completed prior to the approval of each
environmental document. The QC
policy memo requires that ‘‘all staff
personnel who have served as a
reviewer on a project document shall
sign a Quality Control Certification
Form at the conclusion of their review.
The reviewer’s signature certifies that
the document meets professional
standards and Federal and State
requirements in the reviewer’s area of
expertise, and is consistent with the
SER and annotated outlines.’’ Seven of
11 documents examined identified
where the signatory approved the
environmental document prior to the
completion of the document review
process (i.e., before the Quality Control
Certification Form was completed).
b. Inconsistent Completion of the
Environmental Document Preparation
and Review Tool Checklist and the
Resource/Technical Specialist Review
Certification on the Internal and
External Quality Control Certification
Forms. For EAs and EISs, the specific
resource topics identified in the
Environmental Document Preparation
and Review Tool Checklist were not
always consistent with the resource
topics indicated on the Resource/
Technical Specialist Review
Certification forms for the same
document.
c. The Peer Reviewer for 3 of 11
environmental documents examined
under the audit did not meet the
requirement in SER Chapter 38 to be ‘‘a
staff member who has not participated
in, supervised or technically reviewed
the project.’’
(D2) Pilot Program Self-Assessment—
Caltrans’ self-assessment process failed
to fully comply with MOU section 8.2.6
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
which requires the identification of
‘‘any areas needing improvement.’’ The
Caltrans self-assessment (which
reviewed the completion of the Quality
Control Certification forms) did not
identify that in some cases the peer
reviewer function was not performed
according to SER Chapter 38 policy. The
policy requires an independent review
by environmental staff not otherwise
involved in the project. The self
assessment did not identify that on 3 of
11 QA/QC certification forms (reviewed
under this audit and the self
assessment) used on EA and EIS
projects, the person signing as the peer
reviewer also signed as a technical
expert.
(D3) Records Management—The
project filing system in place at District
4 did not meet the Caltrans Uniform
Filing System requirements as specified
in the ‘‘Record Keeping and Retention’’
section of the Caltrans Application. This
determination was made by the Audit
Team through interviews with district
personnel during the on-site audit. The
Uniform Filing System is the records
management method chosen by Caltrans
to comply with the records retention
requirements in MOU section 8.3. This
filing system was not in use and was not
implemented as described in the
Application and SER Chapter 38.
(D4) Statement Regarding Assumption
of Responsibility—MOU section 3.2.5
requires language regarding Caltrans’
assumption of responsibility under 23
U.S.C. 327 be included on the cover
page of each environmental document
for all assumed Pilot Program projects.
The cover pages for two Draft EIS
documents and one EA reviewed during
the audit did not include this required
statement.
Response to Comments and
Finalization of Report
Only one comment was received by
FHWA during the 60-day comment
period for the draft audit report. This
comment was submitted by the Caltrans
on July 31, 2008. Caltrans wished to
thank FHWA for the opportunity to
participate in the pilot program, an
‘‘opportunity to test a new model for
implementing the Secretary of
transportation’s environmental
responsibilities.’’ Caltrans also stated
that their relationship with FHWA
continues to be ‘‘strong and healthy.’’
Their comment also stated that they
were pleased with the FHWA audit
opinion. They take the pilot program
responsibilities and commitments
seriously and appreciate FHWA’s audit
input and findings as they assist
Caltrans in continuous improvement.
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The FHWA feels that there was no
need to revise the draft audit report
findings to be responsive to this
comment, with the exception of making
the ‘‘Background’’ section current and
the addition of this section.
[FR Doc. E8–22131 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2008–0231]
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 23 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
September 23, 2008. The exemptions
expire on September 23, 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
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices
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
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 19476). This information is also
available at https://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Background
On August 12, 2008, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (73 FR 46973). That
notice listed 23 applicants’ case
histories. The 23 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
23 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to all of them. The comment
period closed on September 11, 2008.
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 at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with
or without corrective lenses, field of
vision of at least 70° in the horizontal
meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals
and devices showing standard red,
green, and amber (49 CFR
391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers
do not meet the vision standard, but
have adapted their driving to
accommodate their vision limitation
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
and demonstrated their ability to drive
safely.
The 23 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, prosthesis, aphakia, macular
scar, corneal scarring, hyperopia,
exotropia, and loss of vision due to
trauma. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
All but six of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood. The six
individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for
periods ranging from 4 to 15 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 23 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate
commerce, even though their vision
disqualified them from driving in
interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision for
careers ranging from 4 to 43 years. In the
past 3 years, two of the drivers had
convictions for traffic violations and
four of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the August 12, 2008 notice (73 FR
46973).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54889
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 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
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54890
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices
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
23 applicants, two of the applicants had
a traffic violation for speeding, one of
the applicants had a traffic violation for
failure unsafe lane changes, one of the
applicants had a traffic violation for
following another vehicle too closely,
and four 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 67 of the 23
applicants listed in the notice of August
12, 2008 (73 FR 46973).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:54 Sep 22, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 23
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
FMCSA received one comment in this
proceeding. The comment was
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 23
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, William C. Ball, Terrence L.
Benning, Rickie L. Boone, Robert S.
Bowen, Dennis R. Buszkiewicz, Larry T.
Byrley, Robert J. Clarke, Eldon D.
Cochran, Alfred A. Constantino, James
R. Corley, Larry D. Curry, Brian F.
Denning, Michael W. Dillard, Kelly M.
Greene, Sammy K. Hines, John H.
Holmberg, Gary R. Lomen, Leonardo
Lopez, Jr., Jeffrey F. Meier, James G.
Mitchell, Billy R. Pierce, James A. Rapp,
and Thomas P. Shank 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: September 17, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8–22226 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Transit Administration
Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement on the Proposed
Southwest Transitway Project in
Hennepin, Minnesota
AGENCY:
Federal Transit Administration,
DOT.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement on the
Proposed Southwest Transitway Project
in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) and the Hennepin
County Regional Railroad Authority
(HCRRA) are planning to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the proposed Southwest Transitway
Project, a 14-mile corridor of
transportation improvements that links
Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Edina,
Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and
Minneapolis neighborhoods and
E:\FR\FM\23SEN1.SGM
23SEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 23, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54888-54890]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22226]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0231]
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 23 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 September 23, 2008. The exemptions
expire on September 23, 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
[[Page 54889]]
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 19476). This information is
also available at https://Docketsinfo.dot.gov.
Background
On August 12, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (73 FR 46973). That notice listed 23 applicants' case
histories. The 23 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 23 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on September 11, 2008.
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 at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
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 23 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, prosthesis, aphakia, macular
scar, corneal scarring, hyperopia, exotropia, and loss of vision due to
trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. All but six of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The six
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 4 to 15 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 23 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 4 to 43
years. In the past 3 years, two of the drivers had convictions for
traffic violations and four of them were involved in crashes.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 12, 2008
notice (73 FR 46973).
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 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
[[Page 54890]]
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 23 applicants, two of the applicants had a traffic violation for
speeding, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for failure
unsafe lane changes, one of the applicants had a traffic violation for
following another vehicle too closely, and four 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 67 of the 23 applicants listed in the notice of
August 12, 2008 (73 FR 46973).
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 23 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 one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
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.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 23 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, William C. Ball, Terrence L. Benning, Rickie L. Boone, Robert
S. Bowen, Dennis R. Buszkiewicz, Larry T. Byrley, Robert J. Clarke,
Eldon D. Cochran, Alfred A. Constantino, James R. Corley, Larry D.
Curry, Brian F. Denning, Michael W. Dillard, Kelly M. Greene, Sammy K.
Hines, John H. Holmberg, Gary R. Lomen, Leonardo Lopez, Jr., Jeffrey F.
Meier, James G. Mitchell, Billy R. Pierce, James A. Rapp, and Thomas P.
Shank 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: September 17, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-22226 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P