Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 12408-12410 [2011-4941]
Download as PDF
12408
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS—Continued
Amendment
approved date
Amendment number, city, state
08–07–C–01–BHM Birmingham, AL ....................................
Issued in Washington, DC on February 23,
2011.
Joe Hebert,
Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger
Facility Charge Branch.
[FR Doc. 2011–4828 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Intent to Rule on Request To
Release Airport Property at Ellington
Field Airport, Houston, Texas
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request to release
airport property.
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to rule and
invite public comment on the release of
land at Ellington Field Airport under
the provisions of Section 125 of the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR
21).
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 4, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this
application may be mailed or delivered
to the FAA at the following address:
Mr. Mike Nicely, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW–
650, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
In addition, one copy of any
comments submitted to the FAA must
be mailed or delivered to Mr. Mario C.
Diaz, Aviation Director, at the following
address:
Mr. Mario C. Diaz, Aviation Director,
Houston Airport System, 16930 John
F. Kennedy Blvd., Houston, Texas
77032.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ben Guttery, Senior Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas
Airports Development Office, ASW–
652, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137–0650, Telephone:
(817) 222–5614, E-mail:
ben.guttery@faa.gov. Fax: (817) 222–
5989.
The request to release property may
be reviewed in person at this same
location.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
01/13/11
Original approved net
PFC revenue
$15,173,639
The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release property at the Ellington Field
Airport under the provisions of the AIR
21.
On February 7, 2011, the FAA
determined that the request to release
property at Ellington Field Airport,
submitted by the Airport, met the
procedural requirements of the Federal
Aviation Regulations, Part 155. The
FAA may approve the request, in whole
or in part, no later than April 4, 2011.
The following is a brief overview of
the request:
Ellington Field Airport requests the
release of 16.019 acres of nonaeronautical airport property. The land
was acquired by the City of Houston via
an Indenture dated July 1, 1984, and
Deed without Warranty and Bill of Sale
dated August 21, 1984. The funds
generated by the release will be used to
improve the Ellington Field Airport.
Any person may inspect the request
in person at the FAA office listed above
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
In addition, any person may, upon
request, inspect the application, notice
and other documents relevant to the
application in person at the FAA Office
listed above or the Houston Airport
System Offices at Ellington Field
Airport.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on February
25, 2011.
Kelvin Solco,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011–5093 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2010–0413]
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 16 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amended approved net
PFC revenue
Original estimated charge
exp. date
Amended estimated charge
exp. date
$13,682,648
03/01/10
07/01/10
(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
March 7, 2011. The exemptions expire
on March 7, 2013.
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 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.
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
Background
On January 10, 2011, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 1493). That
notice listed 16 applicants’ case
histories. The 16 individuals applied for
exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the
level that would be achieved absent
such exemption.’’ The statute also
allows the Agency to renew exemptions
at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the
16 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to each of them.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Vision and Driving Experience of the
Applicants
The vision requirement in the
FMCSRs provides:
A person is physically qualified to
drive a commercial motor vehicle if that
person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye
without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40
(Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least
20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision
of at least 70° in the horizontal meridian
in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices
showing standard red, green, and amber
(49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers
do not meet the vision standard, but
have adapted their driving to
accommodate their vision limitation
and demonstrated their ability to drive
safely. The 16 exemption applicants
listed in this notice are in this category.
They are unable to meet the vision
standard in one eye for various reasons,
including amblyopia, complete loss of
vision, macular drusen, central serous
retinopathy, optic atrophy, retinal
detachment, histoplasmosis, nuclear
sclerosis cataract, and prosthesis. In
most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Eleven of the
applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them
since childhood. The 5 individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had them for periods
ranging from 7 to 27 years.
Although each applicant has one eye
which does not meet the vision standard
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 nonCDL, these 16 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate
commerce, even though their vision
disqualified them from driving in
interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision for
careers ranging from 2 to 44 years. In the
past 3 years, 2 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 January 10, 2011 notice (76 FR
1493).
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
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12409
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–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
16 applicants, two of the applicants
were convicted for a moving violation
and none of the applicants were
involved in a crash. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12410
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2011 / Notices
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 16 applicants
listed in the notice of January 10, 2011
(76 FR 1493).
We recognize that the vision of an
applicant may change and affect his/her
ability to operate a CMV as safely as in
the past. As a condition of the
exemption, therefore, FMCSA will
impose requirements on the 16
individuals consistent with the
grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the
Agency’s vision waiver program.
Those requirements are found at 49
CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be
physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye
continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical
examiner who attests that the individual
is otherwise physically qualified under
49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:54 Mar 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
Ms. Tanya Lyons of the Delaware
DMV medical section was in favor of
granting a Federal vision exemption to
Thomas S. Roth, she indicated that he
has had a clear safety driving record
since he became a CDL license holder in
the State of Delaware.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 16
exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Michael L. Ballantyne, Terry
Brown, Delbert M. Carson, Wingson
Chang, Richard C. Dickinson, Richard
A. Guthrie, Kennth L. Handy, Thomas J.
Ivins, Bryon K. Lavender, Victor M.
McCants, William K. Otwell, Donald R.
Pointer, Steve A. Reece, Thomas S.
Roth, Mark A. Steckmyer, and James M.
Tennyson 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: February 25, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011–4941 Filed 3–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
[Docket No. NHTSA–2010–0180; Notice 1]
BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt
of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance
BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) 1
a subsidiary of BMW AG, Munich,
Germany, has determined that certain
BMW vehicles equipped with ‘‘run-flat’’
tires do not fully comply with
paragraphs S4.3(c) and S4.3(d) of 49
CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire
selection and rims and motor home/
recreation vehicle trailer load carrying
capacity information for motor vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less. BMW filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR
Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports dated
November 2, 2010.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) (see implementing rule at 49
CFR part 556), BMW has petitioned for
an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
This notice of receipt of BMW’s,
petition is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent
any agency decision or other exercise of
judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
BMW estimates that approximately
54,200 vehicles equipped with ‘‘run flat’’
tires are affected. The affected vehicle
models are certain: Model Year 2008–
2011 BMW X5 SAV multipurpose
passenger vehicles, manufactured from
February 2, 2008 through October 26,
2010; Model Year 2008–2011 BMW X6
SAC multipurpose passenger vehicles,
manufactured from September 19, 2008
through October 26, 2010; and 2011
BMW 5–Series, BMW 5–Series Gran
Turismo, and BMW 7–Series passenger
cars, manufactured from September 1,
2010 through October 26, 2010.
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) notes that the
statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h)) that permit manufacturers
to file petitions for a determination of
inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to
exempt manufacturers only from the
duties found in sections 30118 and
30120, respectively, to notify owners,
1 BMW of North America, LLC (BMW) is a vehicle
manufacturer incorporated under the laws of the
state of New Jersey.
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\07MRN1.SGM
07MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12408-12410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4941]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0413]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 16 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting
the 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 March 7, 2011. The exemptions
expire on March 7, 2013.
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.
[[Page 12409]]
Background
On January 10, 2011, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (76 FR 1493). That notice listed 16 applicants' case
histories. The 16 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 16 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to 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 16 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, macular drusen, central serous
retinopathy, optic atrophy, retinal detachment, histoplasmosis, nuclear
sclerosis cataract, and prosthesis. In most cases, their eye conditions
were not recently developed. Eleven of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The 5
individuals who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had
them for periods ranging from 7 to 27 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 16 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2 to 44
years. In the past 3 years, 2 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 January 10, 2011
notice (76 FR 1493).
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-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 16 applicants, two of the applicants were convicted for a moving
violation and none of the applicants were involved in a crash. All the
applicants achieved a record of safety while
[[Page 12410]]
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 16 applicants listed in the notice of January
10, 2011 (76 FR 1493).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 16 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Discussion of Comments
FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
Ms. Tanya Lyons of the Delaware DMV medical section was in favor of
granting a Federal vision exemption to Thomas S. Roth, she indicated
that he has had a clear safety driving record since he became a CDL
license holder in the State of Delaware.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 16 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Michael L. Ballantyne, Terry Brown, Delbert M. Carson, Wingson
Chang, Richard C. Dickinson, Richard A. Guthrie, Kennth L. Handy,
Thomas J. Ivins, Bryon K. Lavender, Victor M. McCants, William K.
Otwell, Donald R. Pointer, Steve A. Reece, Thomas S. Roth, Mark A.
Steckmyer, and James M. Tennyson 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: February 25, 2011.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4941 Filed 3-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P