Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 63255-63258 [2010-25839]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
6. Project Sponsor and Facility: Citrus
Energy (Susquehanna River),
Washington Township, Wyoming
County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of
up to 1.994 mgd.
7. Project Sponsor and Facility: Geary
Enterprises (Buttermilk Creek), Falls
Township, Wyoming County, Pa.
Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.099
mgd.
8. Project Sponsor: New Morgan
Landfill Company, Inc. Project Facility:
Conestoga Landfill, New Morgan
Borough, Berks County, Pa.
Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.003
mgd from the Shop Well and surface
water withdrawal of up to 0.249 mgd
from the Quarry Pond.
9. Project Sponsor and Facility: Novus
Operating, LLC (Cowanesque River),
Westfield Township, Tioga County, Pa.
Surface water withdrawal of up to 0.750
mgd.
10. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Smith Transport Warehouse (Bald Eagle
Creek), Snyder Township, Blair County,
Pa. Surface water withdrawal of up to
0.160 mgd.
11. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Sugar Hollow Trout Park and Hatchery,
Eaton Township, Wyoming County, Pa.
Groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.864
mgd combined total from Wells 1, 2,
and 3 (Hatchery Well Field).
12. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Talisman Energy USA Inc. (Seeley
Creek), Wells Township, Bradford
County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of
up to 0.750 mgd.
13. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Talisman Energy USA Inc. (Wyalusing
Creek), Stevens Township, Bradford
County, Pa. Surface water withdrawal of
up to 2.000 mgd.
14. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Williams Production Appalachia, LLC
(Snake Creek), Liberty Township,
Susquehanna County, Pa. Modification
to project features of the withdrawal
approval (Docket No. 20090302).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
1. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Anadarko E&P Company LP (Wolf Run),
Snow Shoe Township, Centre County,
Pa. Application for surface water
withdrawal of up to 0.499 mgd.
2. Project Sponsor and Facility: Chief
Oil & Gas LLC (Martins Creek), Hop
Bottom Borough, Susquehanna County,
Pa. Application for surface water
withdrawal of up to 0.360 mgd.
3. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Mansfield Borough Municipal
Authority, Richmond Township, Tioga
County, Pa. Application for
groundwater withdrawal of up to 0.079
mgd from Well 3.
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
Public Hearing—Diversion Project
Approved
1. Project Sponsor: Gettysburg
Municipal Authority. Project Facility:
Hunterstown Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Straban Township, Adams
County, Pa. Application for an existing
into-basin diversion of up to 0.123 mgd
from the Potomac River Basin.
Public Hearing—Rescission of Project
Approvals
1. Project Sponsor: McNeil PPC.
Project Facility: Johnson & Johnson
(Docket No. 20050906), Lititz Borough,
Lancaster County, Pa.
2. Project Sponsor: Northampton Fuel
Supply Company, Inc. Project Facility:
Loomis Bank Operation (Docket No.
20040904), Hanover Township, Luzerne
County, Pa.
Authority: Pub. L. 91–575, 84 Stat. 1509 et
seq., 18 CFR parts 806, 807, and 808.
Dated: September 30, 2010.
Thomas W. Beauduy,
Deputy Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010–25792 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7040–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee Meeting
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice
to advise the public that a meeting of
the Federal Aviation Administration Air
Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee
(ATPAC) will be held to review present
air traffic control procedures and
practices for standardization, revision,
clarification, and upgrading of
terminology and procedures.
DATES: The meeting will be held
Tuesday, October 26, and Wednesday
October 27, 2010 from 8:30 a.m. to
5 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
Gaylord National Resort, and
AGENCY:
Public Hearing—Projects Tabled
VerDate Mar<15>2010
4. Project Sponsor and Facility: Novus
Operating, LLC (Tioga River), Covington
Township, Tioga County, Pa.
Application for surface water
withdrawal of up to 1.750 mgd.
5. Project Sponsor and Facility:
Walker Township Water Association,
Walker Township, Centre County, Pa.
Modification to increase the total
groundwater system withdrawal limit
(30-day average) from 0.523 mgd to
0.962 mgd (Docket No. 20070905).
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63255
Convention Center, 201 Waterfront St.,
National Harbor, MD 20745.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Jehlen, ATPAC Executive
Director, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone
(202) 493–4527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–
463; 5 U.S.C. App.2), notice is hereby
given of a meeting of the ATPAC to be
held Tuesday, October 26, and
Wednesday, October 27, 2010, from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
The agenda for this meeting will cover
a continuation of the ATPAC’s review of
present air traffic control procedures
and practices for standardization,
revision, clarification, and upgrading of
terminology and procedures. It will also
include:
1. Approval of Minutes;
2. Submission and Discussion of
Areas of Concern;
3. Discussion of Potential Safety
Items;
4. Report from Executive Director;
5. Items of Interest; and
6. Discussion and agreement of
location and dates for subsequent
meetings.
Attendance is open to the interested
public but limited to space available.
With the approval of the Chairperson,
members of the public may present oral
statements at the meeting. Persons
desiring to attend and persons desiring
to present oral statements should notify
Mr. Richard Jehlen no later than October
19, 2010. Any member of the public
may present a written statement to the
ATPAC at any time at the address given
above.
Issued in Washington, DC, on October 6,
2010.
Richard Jehlen,
Executive Director, Air Traffic Procedures
Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010–25838 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0187]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Applications; Vision
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces its
decision to exempt 21 individuals from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
63256
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
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
October 14, 2010. The exemptions
expire on October 15, 2012.
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:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD 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
comment (or of the person signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT’s Privacy Act
Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17,
2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/
E8–785.pdf.
Background
On August 9, 2010, FMCSA published
a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals,
and requested comments from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
public (75 FR 47883). That notice listed
21 applicants’ case histories. The 21
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
21 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to each of them.
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 21 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, complete loss of
vision, hamartoma, loss of vision,
macular scarring, prosthesis,
pseudoangioma, retinal detachment and
retinal scarring. In most cases, their eye
conditions were recently developed.
Eight of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have
had them since childhood. The 13
individuals who sustained their vision
conditions as adults have had them for
periods ranging from 4 to 30 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
PO 00000
Frm 00116
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 of 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 21 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 35 years. In the
past 3 years, 4 of the drivers were
involved in crashes or convicted of
moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the August 9, 2010 notice (75 FR 47883).
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
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
studies may be found at Docket Number
FMCSA–1998–3637.
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
21 applicants, two of the applicants had
traffic violations for speeding and two of
the applicants were involved in crashes.
All the applicants achieved a 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
We believe that 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 21 applicants
listed in the notice of August 9, 2010 (75
FR 47883).
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 21
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
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63257
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. These comments were
considered and discussed below.
The Colorado Department of Motor
Vehicles stated that it was in favor of
granting a Federal vision exemption to
Richard W. Gleiforst.
An anonymous individual stated that
he feels the Agency is negligent and he
feels that it is unsafe for individuals
with vision deficiencies to be operating
vehicles on public roads.
In response to this comment,
FMCSA’s exemption process supports
drivers with vision deficiencies who
seek to operate in interstate commerce.
In addition, FMSCA relies on the expert
medical opinion of the optometrist or
ophthalmologist, who are required to
attest that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and the medical
examiner, who is required to attest that
the individual is otherwise physically
qualified under 49 CFR 391.41. Until
the Agency issues a Final Rule,
however, drivers with vision
deficiencies must continue to apply for
exemptions from FMCSA, and request
renewals of such exemptions. FMCSA
will grant exemptions only to those
applicants who meet the specific
conditions and comply with all the
requirements of the exemption.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 21
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Randall J. Benson, Larry D.
Brown, Julian W. Collins, James G.
Etheridge, Jerry A. Evans, Guys R.
Flowers, Jr., Jeremy L. Fricke, Richard
W. Gleiforst, Edward P. Hynes, II, Keith
R. Jordan, Theodore D. Kirby, Joseph A.
Leigh, Jr., John L. Lethcoe, Ronald J.
McTague, Benito Saldana, Julius
Simmons, Jr., Kenneth J. Weaver, Carl V.
Wheeler, Stephen B. Whitt, Darrell F.
Woolsey and Jason M. Zaragoza 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
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
63258
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 198 / Thursday, October 14, 2010 / Notices
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 24, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and
Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010–25839 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Maritime Administration
[Docket No. MARAD 2010–0086, 2010–0087,
2010–0088]
Vessel Re-Designations
U.S. Department of
Transportation, Maritime
Administration.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
On September 4, 2009, the
United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), the United States Department
of Transportation’s Maritime
Administration (MARAD), and the
United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
regarding the proper implementation of
the Cargo Preference Act (CPA). The
MOU was published in the Federal
Register in 74 FR 47308 (Sept. 15,
2009). The MOU is also available at
https://www.marad.dot.gov/documents/
MAR730.AG-2009-02.pdf.
That MOU establishes procedures and
standards by which owners and
SUMMARY:
operators of oceangoing cargo ships may
seek to designate each of their vessels as
either a dry bulk carrier or a dry cargo
liner, according to specified servicebased criteria. This Notice both
announces that MARAD has received an
application to re-designate three vessels
and invites comments there on from
interested parties. MARAD will
thereafter consider all the information
submitted regarding the requested redesignation and other evidence in the
record in reaching its decision on the
appropriate vessel classification.
DATES: Comments are due October 25,
2010.
ADDRESSES: All comments should
prominently refer to the docket assigned
to the vessel to which they pertain.
Interested persons are strongly
encouraged to submit their comments
electronically via the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket
number provided below that pertains to
the relevant vessel and follow
instructions for submitting comments.
Comments may also be submitted via
Fax or by hand or express delivery. Fax:
(202) 493–2251. Hand or express
delivery: Docket Clerk, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations,
M–30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Yarrington, Maritime
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Washington, DC 20590; phone:
(202) 366–1915; fax: (202) 366–5522; or
e-mail: michael.yarrington@dot.gov.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the
above individuals during business
hours. The FIRS is available twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week, to leave
a message or question with the above
individuals. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
Background
The CPA requires that federal
agencies take ‘‘necessary and
practicable’’ steps to ensure that
privately-owned U.S.-flag vessels
transport at least 50 percent of the gross
tonnage of cargo sponsored under
Federal programs ‘‘(computed separately
for dry bulk carriers, dry cargo liners,
and tankers) to the extent such vessels
are available at fair and reasonable rates
for commercial vessels of the United
States, in a manner that will ensure a
fair and reasonable participation of
commercial vessels of the United States
in those cargoes by geographic areas.’’ 46
U.S.C. 55305(b). An additional 25
percent of gross tonnage of certain food
assistance programs is to be transported
in accordance with the requirements of
46 U.S.C. 55314.
The MOU adopts standards and
procedures to be used to classify the
vessels transporting preference cargo.
Owners and operators of the vessels
listed below have submitted
applications to re-designate their ships
as cargo liners. Each vessel has been
assigned a separate docket containing
the materials submitted. Interested
persons are invited to submit comments
regarding these vessels to the
appropriate docket no later than 5 p.m.
EDT on [Insert ten days after date of
publication]. Commentators are advised
to address their comments to the
service-based criteria listed in the MOU.
APPLICATIONS TO RE-DESIGNATE
Owner/operator
MARAD–2010–0086 .........................................................
MARAD–2010–0087 .........................................................
MARAD–2010–0088 .........................................................
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Docket
Liberty Maritime Corp ......................................................
Liberty Maritime Corp ......................................................
Liberty Maritime Corp ......................................................
MARAD will issue such
determinations no later than 15 calendar
days from the close of the comment
period. Vessel owners and operators
who object to MARAD’s designation
may appeal to the MARAD
Administrator within 10 calendar days.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:30 Oct 13, 2010
Jkt 223001
MARAD will issue its final
determination in such cases within 30
calendar days after consultation with
USAID, USDA, and the U.S. Department
of State.
Vessel
Dated: October 7, 2010.
Christine Gurland,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2010–25840 Filed 10–13–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–81–P
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
M/VLIBERTY EAGLE.
M/VLIBERTY GLORY.
M/VLIBERTY GRACE.
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 198 (Thursday, October 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63255-63258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25839]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0187]
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 21 individuals from
[[Page 63256]]
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 October 14, 2010. The exemptions
expire on October 15, 2012.
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 DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
https://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
Background
On August 9, 2010, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (75 FR 47883). That notice listed 21 applicants' case histories.
The 21 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 21 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
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 21 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, complete loss of vision, hamartoma, loss of vision, macular
scarring, prosthesis, pseudoangioma, retinal detachment and retinal
scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions were recently developed.
Eight of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments
or have had them since childhood. The 13 individuals who sustained
their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging
from 4 to 30 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 of 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 21 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 35
years. In the past 3 years, 4 of the drivers were involved in crashes
or convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 9, 2010
notice (75 FR 47883).
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
[[Page 63257]]
studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
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 21 applicants, two of the applicants had traffic violations for
speeding and two of the applicants were involved in crashes. All the
applicants achieved a 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 that 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 21 applicants listed in the notice of August
9, 2010 (75 FR 47883).
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 21 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. These comments were
considered and discussed below.
The Colorado Department of Motor Vehicles stated that it was in
favor of granting a Federal vision exemption to Richard W. Gleiforst.
An anonymous individual stated that he feels the Agency is
negligent and he feels that it is unsafe for individuals with vision
deficiencies to be operating vehicles on public roads.
In response to this comment, FMCSA's exemption process supports
drivers with vision deficiencies who seek to operate in interstate
commerce. In addition, FMSCA relies on the expert medical opinion of
the optometrist or ophthalmologist, who are required to attest that the
vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), and the medical examiner, who is required to attest that
the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41.
Until the Agency issues a Final Rule, however, drivers with vision
deficiencies must continue to apply for exemptions from FMCSA, and
request renewals of such exemptions. FMCSA will grant exemptions only
to those applicants who meet the specific conditions and comply with
all the requirements of the exemption.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 21 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts, Randall J. Benson, Larry D. Brown, Julian W. Collins, James G.
Etheridge, Jerry A. Evans, Guys R. Flowers, Jr., Jeremy L. Fricke,
Richard W. Gleiforst, Edward P. Hynes, II, Keith R. Jordan, Theodore D.
Kirby, Joseph A. Leigh, Jr., John L. Lethcoe, Ronald J. McTague, Benito
Saldana, Julius Simmons, Jr., Kenneth J. Weaver, Carl V. Wheeler,
Stephen B. Whitt, Darrell F. Woolsey and Jason M. Zaragoza 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
[[Page 63258]]
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 24, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-25839 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P