[Federal Register: October 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 204)]
[Notices]
[Page 61493-61495]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24oc05-98]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21711]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its decision to grant exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) for 40 individuals. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs)
in interstate commerce without meeting the vision standard prescribed
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: This decision is effective October 24, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4001, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
You may see all the comments online through the Document Management
System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.
Background
On August 19, 2005, the FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 40 individuals, and requested comments from
the public (70 FR 48797). The 40 individuals petitioned the FMCSA for
exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which
applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. They are: Roy L.
Allen, Calvin D. Atwood, Gregory W. Babington, Lennie D. Baker, Jr.,
John E. Breslin, Arturo Cardozo, William P. Doolittle, Steve R. Felks,
William M. Gales, III, Jonathan M. Gentry, John N. Guilford, Benny D.
Hatton, Jr., Robert W. Healey, Jr., Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr., Thomas
D. Lambert, Thomas (Tom) W. Markham, Eugene P. Martin, Raul Martinez,
Joseph L. Mast, Randy G. McCloud, Richard L. McEwen, David McKinney,
Ralph L. Means, Kevin L. Moody, Woody M. Moore, William G. Mote,
Charles W. Mullenix, James R. Murphy, Kenneth R. Murphy, Gary S.
Partridge, Nathan (Nate) D. Peterson, John N. Poland, Neal A. Richard,
Chris A. Ritenour, Brent L. Seaux, Gerald M. Smith, James T. Smith,
Nicholas J. Turpin, Gary M. Wolff, and George R. Zenor.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the 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, the FMCSA has evaluated the 40 applications on their
merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on September 19, 2005. Two comments were
received, and their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in
reaching the final decision to grant the exemptions.
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
[[Page 61494]]
person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to
20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular
acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without
corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the
horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize the
colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard red, green, and
amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
The FMCSA also 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 40 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, macular and retinal scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All
but thirteen of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The thirteen individuals
who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for
periods ranging from 4 to 32 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. The
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 performance tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV. All these
applicants satisfied the testing standards for their State of
residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants
demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 40 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualifies them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 45
years. In the past 3 years, four of the drivers have had convictions
for traffic violations. Three of these convictions were for speeding.
One involved a collision but the driver did not receive a citation.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 19, 2005,
notice (70 FR 48797). Since there were no substantial docket comments
on the specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not
repeated the individual profiles here.
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the 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, the 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, the
FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he or she
has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at docket number FMCSA-98-3637.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from a former FMCSA waiver study program clearly
demonstrates that 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 with good driving records in the waiver
program demonstrated their ability to drive safely 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 40 applicants receiving an exemption, we note that the applicants
have had only one collision and three speeding violations in the last 3
years. The applicants achieved this record of safety while driving with
their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that they have
adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. As the
applicants' ample driving histories with their vision deficiencies are
good predictors of future performance, the FMCSA concludes their
ability to drive safely can be projected into the future.
We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These
[[Page 61495]]
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 or she has been performing in intrastate
commerce. Consequently, the 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. 31315 and 31136(e) to the 40 applicants listed in
the notice of August 19, 2005 (70 FR 21711).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the
past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA will impose
requirements on the 40 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
The FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments
were considered and are discussed below.
An individual, wishing to remain anonymous, commented that they
have been driving with a vision exemption for several years safely and
does not believe that vision impaired drivers pose any additional
danger to the public because of their vision impairment. This
individual believes drivers who are granted a vision exemption perform
better than those with normal vision, and hopes that those who oppose
the Federal exemption program understand that its mere existence is to
focus on safety on the highways.
The second comment was received by Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates) expressing continued opposition to the FMCSA's
policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs, including the driver
qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates: (1) Objects to the
manner in which the FMCSA presents driver information to the public and
makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the agency's reliance on
conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3) claims the agency
has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 31315 and 31136(e)); and finally (4) suggests that a
1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision
exemptions. The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in
70 FR 16887 (April 1, 2005). We will not address these points again
here, but refer interested parties to those earlier discussions.
Conclusion
Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, the
FMCSA exempts Roy L. Allen, Calvin D. Atwood, Gregory W. Babington,
Lennie D. Baker, Jr., John E. Breslin, Arturo Cardozo, William P.
Doolittle, Steve R. Felks, William M. Gales, III, Jonathan M. Gentry,
John N. Guilford, Benny D. Hatton, Jr., Robert W. Healey, Jr.,
Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr., Thomas D. Lambert, Thomas (Tom) W. Markham,
Eugene P. Martin, Raul Martinez, Joseph L. Mast, Randy G. McCloud,
Richard L. McEwen, David McKinney, Ralph L. Means, Kevin L. Moody,
Woody M. Moore, William G. Mote, Charles W. Mullenix, James R. Murphy,
Kenneth R. Murphy, Gary S. Partridge, Nathan (Nate) D. Peterson, John
N. Poland, Neal A. Richard, Chris A. Ritenour, Brent L. Seaux, Gerald
M. Smith, James T. Smith, Nicholas J. Turpin, Gary M. Wolff, and George
R. Zenor, 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. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the 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. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to the FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Issued on: October 18, 2005.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 05-21203 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P