Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision, 94013-94015 [2016-30831]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
Act; the USTR records compiled to
respond to requests and appeals; USTR
personnel assigned to handle requests
and appeals; other agencies or entities
that have referred requests concerning
USTR records, or that have consulted
with USTR regarding the handling of
particular requests; submitters or
subjects of records or information that
have provided assistance to USTR in
making access or amendment
determinations; and The National
Archives and Records Administration
(NARA), Office of Government
Information Services (OGIS).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE
SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND
PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
We may disclose records or
information contained in the records, as
a routine use to:
1. A federal, state, local or foreign
agency or entity for the purpose of
consulting with that agency or entity to
enable USTR to make a determination as
to the propriety of access to or
correction of information, or for the
purpose of verifying the identity of an
individual or the accuracy of
information submitted by an individual
who has requested access to or
amendment of information.
2. A federal agency or entity that
furnished the record or information for
the purpose of permitting that agency or
entity to make a decision as to access to
or correction of the record or
information, or to a federal agency or
entity for purposes of providing
guidance or advice regarding the
handling of particular requests.
3. A submitter or subject of a record
or information in order to assist USTR
in making a determination as to access
or amendment.
4. OGIS, to the extent necessary to
fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C.
552(h), to review administrative agency
policies, procedures and compliance
with the FOIA, and to facilitate OGIS’
offering of dispute resolution services to
resolve disputes between persons
making FOIA requests and
administrative agencies.
5. A congressional office in response
to an inquiry made on behalf or at the
request of the subject individual.
6. The legal representative of USTR or
another federal agency, including the
US Department of Justice, or other
retained counsel, when USTR or any of
its employees are a party to or have a
significant interest in litigation or an
administrative proceeding.
7. A court, magistrate, administrative
tribunal, or alternative dispute
resolution mediator in the course of
presenting evidence, including
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
disclosures to counsel or witnesses in
the course of civil discovery, litigation
or settlement negotiations or in
connection with criminal proceedings,
when the information is relevant and
necessary and USTR or any of its
employees are a party to or have a
significant interest in the proceeding.
8. The appropriate federal, state, local,
territorial, tribal or foreign law
enforcement authority or other
appropriate entity responsible for
investigation, enforcement,
implementation or prosecution, where a
record, either alone or in conjunction
with other information, indicates a
violation or potential violation of law
whether criminal, civil or regulatory in
nature.
9. NARA for purposes of records
management inspections conducted
under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904
and 2906.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORAGE OF
RECORDS:
Records are maintained in file folders
and electronic media.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETRIEVAL OF
RECORDS:
Records are organized by the number
assigned to the request or appeal. USTR
can search the electronic database by
the name of the requester or appellant.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR RETENTION AND
DISPOSAL OF RECORDS:
Records are retained and disposed of
in accordance with NARA’s General
Records Schedule 14.
ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL AND PHYSICAL
SAFEGUARDS:
File folders are maintained in cabinets
in secure facilities and access to the files
is restricted to individuals whose role
requires use of the records. The
computer servers in which records are
stored are located in secure, guarded
facilities. Individuals accessing the
system are authenticated using
encrypted certificates and data stored to
the database may require digital
signatures.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
In accordance with the procedures set
forth in 15 CFR part 2004, subpart C,
direct inquires in writing to the USTR
Privacy Act Office. Heightened security
may delay mail delivery. To avoid mail
delays, we strongly suggest that you
email your request to PRIVACY@
ustr.eop.gov. Our mailing address is:
Privacy Act Office, Office of the US
Trade Representative, Anacostia Naval
Annex, Building 410/Door 123, 250
Murray Lane SW., Washington DC
20509. To make sure that the Privacy
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
94013
Act Office receives your request without
delay, you should include the notation
‘‘Privacy Act Request’’ in the subject
line of your email or on the front of your
envelope and also at the beginning of
your request.
CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
See record access procedures.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES:
See record access procedures.
EXEMPTIONS PROMULGATED FOR THE SYSTEM:
None.
Janice Kaye,
Chief Counsel for Administrative Law, Office
of the U.S. Trade Representative.
[FR Doc. 2016–30496 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3290–F7–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2016–0210]
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 22 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the
vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce without meeting
the prescribed vision requirement in
one eye. 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 were granted
November 22, 2016. The exemptions
expire on November 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division, (202) 366–4001,
fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64–
113, Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
94014
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 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 and/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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
II. Background
On October 20, 2016, FMCSA
published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain
individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 72664). That
notice listed 22 applicants’ case
histories. The 22 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
22 applications on their merits and
made a determination to grant
exemptions to each of them.
III. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR
391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers
do not meet the vision requirement but
have adapted their driving to
accommodate their limitation and
demonstrated their ability to drive
safely. The 22 exemption applicants
listed in this notice are in this category.
They are unable to meet the vision
requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, cataract,
enucleation, glaucoma, macular
atrophy, macular scar, maculopathy,
optic atrophy, optic neuropathy,
prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, and
retinal scar. In most cases, their eye
conditions were not recently developed.
Fourteen of the applicants were either
born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood.
The 8 individuals that sustained their
vision conditions as adults have had it
for a range of 3 to 36 years.
Although each applicant has one eye
which does not meet the vision
requirement 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 requirements for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV, with their limited vision, to the
satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 22 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 in
careers ranging for 3 to 52 years. In the
past three years, no drivers were
involved in crashes and no drivers were
convicted of moving violations in a
CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and
medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in
the October 20, 2016 notice (81 FR
72664).
IV. Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315,
FMCSA may grant an exemption from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 the medical reports about
the applicants’ vision as well as their
driving records and experience with the
vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the
vision requirement, 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.
FMCSA believes it 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,
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
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
22 applicants, no drivers were involved
in crashes and no drivers were
convicted of a moving violations in a
CMV. 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 requirement 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
Agency is granting the exemptions for
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 22 applicants
listed in the notice of October 20, 2016
(81 FR 72664).
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 22
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 requirement 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 have a copy
of the certification when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.
V. Discussion of Comments
FMCSA received two comments in
this proceeding. An anonymous
commenter stated that they believe the
drivers should not be granted the
exemptions, citing safety concerns
related to their vision loss. The basis for
granting exemptions is explained in
Section IV of this document, and
FMCSA has determined that all drivers
listed in this document meet the criteria
required for an exemption. Deb Carlson
stated that Derrick P. Moore currently
holds an intrastate exemption in
Minnesota, and that James F.
McLaughlin was involved in a motor
vehicle crash and cited for an
equipment violation in 2016. The motor
vehicle crash was in Mr. McLaughlin’s
personal vehicle and not a CMV. The
equipment violation was not a moving
violation. Therefore, neither of these
incidents are disqualifying factors for
obtaining a vision exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 22
exemption applications, FMCSA
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
94015
exempts the following drivers from the
vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the
requirements cited above 49 CFR
391.64(b):
Gary A. Behrends (NE)
Harry R. Brewer (TN)
Johnnie B. Bush (MS)
Nathan J. Bute (IN)
Gary L. Cox (KY)
Kevin J. Embrey (IL)
Peter J. Faber (NE)
Ricky L. Gillum (OH)
Johnny E. Hill (AL)
Justin A. Hooper (MO)
John R. Horst (PA)
Robert E. Kelley, Jr. (WA)
David L. Manktelow (MA)
James F. McLaughlin (MN)
Derrick P. Moore (MN)
Richard L. Moores (CO)
Brian T. Morrison (MO)
Tad W. Sexsmith (WA)
Dennis M. Varga, Jr. (OH)
Michael J. Weber (NJ)
Mark B. Wilmer (VA)
Hezekiah Woodrup Sr. (MD)
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, each exemption will be valid
for 2 years unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked
if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the
exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than
was maintained before it was granted; or
(3) continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and
objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the
end of the 2-year period, the person may
apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: December 8, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016–30831 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Railroad Administration
[Docket No. FRA–2000–7257, Notice No. 84]
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting Postponement
Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
FRA announces the
postponement of the fifty-seventh
meeting of the RSAC, a Federal
Advisory Committee that develops
railroad safety regulations through a
consensus process.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94013-94015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30831]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0210]
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 22 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. 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 were granted November 22, 2016. The exemptions
expire on November 22, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
[[Page 94014]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. 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 and/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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.
II. Background
On October 20, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 72664). That notice listed 22 applicants' case
histories. The 22 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 22 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.
III. 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 red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 22
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, enucleation, glaucoma, macular
atrophy, macular scar, maculopathy, optic atrophy, optic neuropathy,
prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, and retinal scar. In most cases,
their eye conditions were not recently developed. Fourteen of the
applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had
them since childhood.
The 8 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 3 to 36 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement 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 requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 22 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 in careers ranging for 3 to 52
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
no drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 20, 2016
notice (81 FR 72664).
IV. Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement 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 the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, 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.
FMCSA believes it 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,
[[Page 94015]]
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 22 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes and no drivers
were convicted of a moving violations in a CMV. 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 requirement
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 22 applicants listed in the notice of October
20, 2016 (81 FR 72664).
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 22 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 requirement 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 have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
V. Discussion of Comments
FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. An anonymous
commenter stated that they believe the drivers should not be granted
the exemptions, citing safety concerns related to their vision loss.
The basis for granting exemptions is explained in Section IV of this
document, and FMCSA has determined that all drivers listed in this
document meet the criteria required for an exemption. Deb Carlson
stated that Derrick P. Moore currently holds an intrastate exemption in
Minnesota, and that James F. McLaughlin was involved in a motor vehicle
crash and cited for an equipment violation in 2016. The motor vehicle
crash was in Mr. McLaughlin's personal vehicle and not a CMV. The
equipment violation was not a moving violation. Therefore, neither of
these incidents are disqualifying factors for obtaining a vision
exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 49 CFR
391.64(b):
Gary A. Behrends (NE)
Harry R. Brewer (TN)
Johnnie B. Bush (MS)
Nathan J. Bute (IN)
Gary L. Cox (KY)
Kevin J. Embrey (IL)
Peter J. Faber (NE)
Ricky L. Gillum (OH)
Johnny E. Hill (AL)
Justin A. Hooper (MO)
John R. Horst (PA)
Robert E. Kelley, Jr. (WA)
David L. Manktelow (MA)
James F. McLaughlin (MN)
Derrick P. Moore (MN)
Richard L. Moores (CO)
Brian T. Morrison (MO)
Tad W. Sexsmith (WA)
Dennis M. Varga, Jr. (OH)
Michael J. Weber (NJ)
Mark B. Wilmer (VA)
Hezekiah Woodrup Sr. (MD)
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.
Issued on: December 8, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30831 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
