2344 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

47 CFR Part 95 

Personal Radio Services. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 2 as follows: 

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. In § 2.803 revise paragraph (c)(2)(i) 

to read as follows: 

§ 2.803 Marketing of radio frequency 

devices prior to equipment authorization. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(i) Conditional sales contracts 

(including agreements to produce new 

devices manufactured in accordance 

with designated specifications), and 

advertisements for such sales, are 

permitted between manufacturers and 

potential customers provided that the 

prospective buyer is advised at the time 

of marketing, through a prominent 

disclosure, that the equipment is subject 

to the FCC rules and delivery to the 

buyer or to centers of distribution is 

conditional upon a determination that 

the equipment complies with the 

applicable equipment authorization and 

technical requirements. Delivery to 

customers of equipment subject to FCC 

rules prior to obtaining the applicable 

equipment authorization and complying 

with the applicable technical 

requirements is prohibited. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 2.1204 by adding 

paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 2.1204 Import Conditions. 

(a) * * * 

(11) The radio frequency device is 

subject to Certification and is being 

imported in quantities of 4,000 or fewer 

units for pre-sale activity. Pre-sale 

activity includes packaging and 

delivering devices to retails locations, as 

well as loading devices with specific 

software to demonstrate specific 

features of the devices when displayed 

at retail locations. The devices will not 

be displayed, operated, offered for sale, 

marketed to consumers, or sold until 

proper equipment authorization has 

been obtained. 

(i) The Chief, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, may approve 

importation of a greater number of units 

in a manner otherwise consistent with 

this paragraph (11) in response to a 

specific request; 

(ii) This exception is only available to 

manufacturers for radiofrequency 

devices who have a reasonable belief 

that authorization will be granted 

within 30 days of importation; 

(iii) Each device imported under this 

exception must contain a temporary 

removable label stating: ‘‘This device 

cannot be displayed, operated, offered 

for sale, marketed to consumers, or sold 

until FCC equipment authorization has 

been granted. Under penalty of law, this 

label may not be removed prior to the 

grant of FCC authorization.’’ 

(iv) Notwithstanding § 2.926, 

radiofrequency devices imported 

pursuant to this paragraph (11) may 

include the expected FCC ID if obscured 

by the temporary label described in this 

section or, in the case of electronic 

displays, if it cannot be viewed prior to 

authorization. 

(v) The radiofrequency devices 

remain under legal ownership of the 

device manufacturer, and only 

possession of the device is transferred 

prior to authorization. Manufacturers 

must have processes in place to retrieve 

the equipment in the event that 

authorization is not received. 

(vi) Manufacturers must maintain, for 

a period of sixty (60) months, records 

identifying the recipient of devices 

imported for pre-sale activities. Such 

records must identify the device name 

and product identifier, the quantity 

shipped, the date on which the device 

authorization was sought, the expected 

FCC ID number, and the identity of the 

recipient, including address and 

telephone number. The manufacturer 

must provide records maintained under 

this paragraph (vi) upon the request of 

Commission personnel. 

PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO 

SERVICES 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 95 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307. 

■ 5. Section 95.391 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and 

sales of non-certified equipment prohibited. 

No person shall manufacture, import, 

sell or offer for sale non-certified 

equipment for the Personal Radio 

Services except as provided for in 

§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) of this chapter. See 

§ 302(b) of the Communications Act (47 

U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart 

I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules 

governing marketing of radiofrequency 

devices. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28906 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 391 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0049] 

RIN 2126–AC21 

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision 

Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend its 

regulations to permit individuals who 

cannot meet either the current distant 

visual acuity or field of vision standard, 

or both, in one eye to be physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. 

Currently, such individuals are 

prohibited from driving CMVs in 

interstate commerce unless they obtain 

an exemption from FMCSA. The Agency 

proposes an alternative vision standard 

for physical qualification that, if 

adopted, would replace the current 

vision exemption program as a basis for 

establishing the physical qualification 

determination for these individuals. 

DATES: You must submit comments on 

this notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) to FMCSA on or before March 

15, 2021. Comments on the collection of 

information must be received on or 

before March 15, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this NPRM identified by docket 

number FMCSA–2019–0049 using any 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: Docket Operations, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2345 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ heading under the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instructions regarding 

submitting comments, including 

collection of information comments for 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rule, contact Ms. Christine A. Hydock, 

Chief, Medical Programs Division, 

FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, by 

telephone at (202) 366–4001, or by 

email at fmcsamedical@dot.gov. If you 

have questions about viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

DOT Docket Operations, (202) 366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

NPRM is organized as follows. 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

E. Comments on the Collection of 

Information 

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols 

III. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Amendments 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions 

C. Benefits and Costs 

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

V. Background 

A. Current Vision Standard 

B. Vision Waiver Study Program and 

Grandfathered Drivers 

C. Federal Vision Exemption Program— 

1998 to the Present 

VI. Assessments of the Vision Standards, 

Waivers, and Exemptions 

VII. Rationale for Proposed Qualification 

Standard 

A. Individuals Adapt to and Compensate 

for Vision Loss 

B. MEs Would Make the Qualification 

Determination 

C. Review of an Individual’s Safety 

Performance Would Continue 

VIII. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

A. Proposed Physical Qualification Process 

B. Road Test in Accordance With 49 CFR 

391.31 

C. Elimination of Vision Exemption 

Program and Grandfather Provisions 

D. Change to the Medical Examination 

Process in 49 CFR 391.43(b)(1) 

E. Benefits of the Proposal to Drivers 

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis 

A. Regulatory Provisions 

B. Guidance Statements and Interpretations 

X. International Impacts 

XI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulations 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

C. Congressional Review Act 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small 

Entities) 

E. Assistance for Small Entities 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of 

Information) 

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

I. Privacy 

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) 

K. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

FMCSA encourages you to participate 

in this rulemaking by submitting 

comments and related materials. Where 

possible, please provide scientific, peerreviewed articles to support your 

comments. 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit comments, please 

include the docket number for this 

rulemaking (FMCSA–2019–0049), 

indicate the heading of the specific 

section of this document to which each 

comment applies, and provide a reason 

for each suggestion or recommendation. 

You may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so the Agency can contact you if it has 

questions regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

www.regulations.gov, type the docket 

number (FMCSA–2019–0049) in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

When the new screen appears, click the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type your 

comment into the text box in the 

following screen. Choose whether you 

are submitting your comment as an 

individual or on behalf of a third party, 

and click ‘‘Submit.’’ 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. 

Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (5 

U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public 

disclosure. If your comments responsive 

to this NPRM contain commercial or 

financial information that is customarily 

treated as private, that you actually treat 

as private, and that is relevant or 

responsive to this NPRM, it is important 

that you clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. FMCSA will treat 

such marked submissions as 

confidential under the Freedom of 

Information Act, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Please mark each page of 

your submission that constitutes CBI as 

‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate it contains 

proprietary information. Submissions 

containing CBI should be sent to Mr. 

Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis 

Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any 

comments FMCSA receives that are not 

specifically designated as CBI will be 

placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period and may make changes 

based on your comments. FMCSA may 

issue a final rule at any time after the 

close of the comment period. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments and any document 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to 

www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 

number (FMCSA–2019–0049) in the 

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ 

button and choose the document listed 

to review. If you do not have access to 

the internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of 

the DOT West Building, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or 

(202) 366–9826 before visiting Docket 

Operations. 

C. 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—Federal Docket Management 

System (FDMS), which can be reviewed 

at https://www.transportation.gov/ 

privacy. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2346 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1A ‘‘major rule’’ means any rule that the 

Administrator of OIRA at OMB finds has resulted 

in or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more; (b) a major 

increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal agencies, State agencies, local 

government agencies, or geographic regions; or (c) 

significant adverse effects on competition, 

employment, investment, productivity, innovation, 

or on the ability of United States-based enterprises 

to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 

domestic and export markets (5 U.S.C. 804(2)). 

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1), FMCSA 

is required to publish an advance notice 

of proposed rulemaking or conduct a 

negotiated rulemaking if a proposed rule 

is likely to lead to the promulgation of 

a major rule.1 As this proposed rule is 

not likely to result in the promulgation 

of a major rule, the Agency is not 

required to issue an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking or to proceed with 

a negotiated rulemaking. 

E. Comments on the Collection of 

Information 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collections discussed in 

this NPRM should be sent to FMCSA 

within 60 days of publication using any 

of the methods described in ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ above. 

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and 

Symbols 

ATA American Trucking Associations, Inc. 

CBI Confidential Business Information 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

E.O. Executive Order 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations 

FR Federal Register 

GES General Estimates System 

ICR Information Collection Request 

Id. Idem—the same author or work 

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management 

Information System 

ME Medical Examiner 

MEC Medical Examiner’s Certificate, Form 

MCSA–7876 

MRB Medical Review Board 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

National Registry National Registry of 

Certified Medical Examiners 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBA Small Business Administration 

Secretary Secretary of Transportation 

§ Section 

TEA–21 Transportation Equity Act for the 

21st Century 

U.S.C. United States Code 

III. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Amendments 

FMCSA proposes to amend its 

regulations to permit an individual who 

cannot meet either the current distant 

visual acuity or field of vision standard, 

or both, in one eye to be physically 

qualified to operate a CMV in interstate 

commerce under specified conditions. 

The individual would need to meet the 

proposed alternative vision standard 

and FMCSA’s other physical 

qualification standards. In addition, 

with limited exceptions, individuals 

physically qualified under the 

alternative standard for the first time 

would complete a road test before 

operating a CMV in interstate 

commerce. The proposed action would 

eliminate the need for the current 

Federal vision exemption program, as 

well as the grandfather provision in 49 

CFR 391.64 for drivers operating under 

the previously administered vision 

waiver study program. Medical 

professionals would evaluate and make 

medical qualification determinations 

instead of FMCSA, as in the current 

exemption program. Motor carriers 

would administer the road tests. The 

proposed alternative vision standard 

would enhance employment 

opportunities while remaining 

consistent with FMCSA’s safety 

mission. 

B. Summary of the Major Provisions 

The proposed alternative vision 

standard is based on recommendations 

from FMCSA’s Medical Review Board 

(MRB). The proposed physical 

qualification process is analogous to the 

regulatory framework FMCSA adopted 

in § 391.46 for individuals with insulintreated diabetes mellitus (see 83 FR 

47486, September 19, 2018). Prior to 

that rulemaking, such individuals were 

prohibited from driving CMVs in 

interstate commerce unless they 

obtained an exemption from FMCSA. 

Like the approach in the rule for 

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, after 

the public comment period for this 

NPRM closes, FMCSA will ask the MRB 

to review all comments from medical 

professionals and associations. If after 

that review the MRB makes material 

changes to its prior recommendations, 

FMCSA will publish a Federal Register 

notice announcing the availability of the 

new MRB recommendations and request 

public comment specific to those 

recommendations. 

The proposed rule provides an 

alternative vision standard for 

individuals who cannot meet either the 

current FMCSA distant visual acuity or 

field of vision standard, or both, in one 

eye and, if adopted, would replace the 

current vision exemption program as a 

basis for determining the physical 

qualification of such individuals to 

operate a CMV. The proposed action 

would ensure that these individuals are 

physically qualified to operate a CMV 

safely. In addition, the proposed process 

would create a clear and consistent 

framework to assist certified medical 

examiners (ME) with making a physical 

qualification determination that is 

equally as effective as a program based 

entirely on granting exemptions under 

49 U.S.C. 31315(b). 

Just as in the alternative standard for 

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, the 

alternative vision standard would 

involve a two-step process for physical 

qualification. First, an individual 

seeking physical qualification would 

obtain a vision evaluation from an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

would record the findings and provide 

specific medical opinions on the 

proposed Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871, which incorporates 

the recommendations of the MRB. Next, 

an ME would perform an examination 

and determine whether the individual 

meets the proposed vision standard, as 

well as FMCSA’s other physical 

qualification standards. If the ME 

determines that the individual meets the 

physical qualification standards, the ME 

could issue a Medical Examiner’s 

Certificate (MEC), Form MCSA–5876, 

for a maximum of 12 months. This 

approach of MEs making the physical 

qualification determination, instead of 

FMCSA as in the current exemption 

program, is consistent with Congress’s 

directive in 49 U.S.C. 31149(d) to have 

trained and certified MEs determine the 

individual’s physical qualification to 

operate a CMV. 

In making the physical qualification 

determination, the ME would consider 

the information in the Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871, and utilize 

independent medical judgment to apply 

four standards. The proposal would 

provide that, to be physically qualified 

under the alternative vision standard, 

the individual must: (1) Have in the 

better eye distant visual acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen), with or without 

corrective lenses, and field of vision of 

at least 70 degrees in the horizontal 

meridian; (2) be able to recognize the 

colors of traffic signals and devices 

showing standard red, green, and amber; 

(3) have a stable vision deficiency; and 

(4) have had sufficient time to adapt to 

and compensate for the change in 

vision. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2347 

2FHWA conducted the vision waiver study 

program from July 1992 through March 31, 1996. 

Drivers who participated in the program and held 

valid waivers from the vision standard at the 

program’s end could continue to operate in 

interstate commerce under grandfather provisions 

in 49 CFR 391.64. The vision waiver study program 

and grandfather provisions are discussed in section 

V.B. below. 

3FMCSA data as of July 2, 2019. 

4As discussed below in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section XI.G. with respect to the information 

collection titled ‘‘Medical Qualification 

Requirements,’’ FMCSA attributes 2,236 annual 

burden hours at a cost of $69,136 for drivers to 

request and maintain a vision exemption. The 

proposed rule would eliminate this entire burden. 

It is well recognized in the literature 

that individuals with vision loss in one 

eye can and do develop compensatory 

viewing behavior to mitigate the vision 

loss. Therefore, if an individual meets 

the proposed vision standard, the 

Agency expects there will be no adverse 

impact on safety due to the individual’s 

vision. That is, once an individual’s 

vision is stable and the individual has 

adapted to and compensated for the 

change in vision, the loss in vision is 

not likely to play a significant role in 

whether the individual can drive a CMV 

safely. 

Instead of requiring 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience with the 

vision deficiency as in the current 

exemption program, individuals 

physically qualified under the proposed 

alternative vision standard for the first 

time would complete a road test before 

operating in interstate commerce. 

Individuals would be excepted from the 

road test requirement if they have 3 

years of intrastate or excepted interstate 

CMV driving experience with the vision 

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision 

exemption, or are medically certified 

under § 391.64(b). These individuals 

have already demonstrated they can 

operate a CMV safely with the vision 

deficiency. Motor carriers would 

conduct the road test in accordance 

with the road test already required by 

§ 391.31. FMCSA finds that a road test 

would be an appropriate indicator of an 

individual’s ability to operate a CMV 

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus, 

the Agency expects there will be no 

adverse impact on safety from 

eliminating the 3-year intrastate driving 

experience criterion. 

The proposed standard takes a 

performance-based approach. The 

standard emphasizes that the individual 

has developed the skills to adapt to and 

compensate for the vision loss once it 

has been deemed stable by a medical 

professional, and that the individual has 

demonstrated the skills to operate a 

CMV safely. The ME would ensure the 

driver is physically qualified to operate 

a CMV in accordance with the physical 

qualification standards. With limited 

exceptions, motor carriers would 

conduct a road test for individuals to 

ensure they possess the skills needed to 

operate a CMV safely with the vision 

deficiency. 

The Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), the predecessor agency to 

FMCSA, and FMCSA have continuously 

monitored the impact of the vision 

waiver study 2 and the exemption 

programs to ensure they cause no 

adverse impact on safety. The proposed 

alternative vision standard would adopt 

the major vision criteria of the existing 

Federal vision exemption program, 

which were also used in the preceding 

Federal vision waiver study program 

since the early 1990s, and would modify 

other criteria from the exemption 

program. Based on nearly 30 years of 

experience with these programs, 

individuals who meet the proposed 

alternative vision standard will be at 

least as safe as the general population of 

CMV drivers. This experience has 

shown that individuals with vision loss 

in one eye are not limited by their lack 

of binocularity with respect to driving 

once they have adapted to and 

compensated for the change in vision. 

If the proposed action is adopted, the 

2,566 vision exemption holders 3 would 

no longer require an exemption. 

Accordingly, these drivers would be 

relieved of the time and paperwork 

burden associated with applying for or 

renewing an exemption.4 The proposed 

rule could increase employment 

opportunities because potential 

applicants who do not have 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience may meet 

the alternative vision standard and be 

able to operate a CMV in interstate 

commerce. In addition, previously 

qualified interstate CMV drivers who 

are no longer able to meet either the 

distant visual acuity or field of vision 

standard, or both, in one eye would be 

able to return to operating in interstate 

commerce sooner. 

FMCSA proposes that the 

approximately 1,900 individuals 

physically qualified under the 

grandfather provisions in § 391.64(b) 

would have 1 year after the effective 

date of any final rule to comply with the 

rule. During that transition year, 

grandfathered individuals could elect to 

seek physical qualification through the 

final rule or § 391.64. This transition 

year would provide time to learn the 

new process for individuals whose 

MEC, Form MCSA–5876, expires near 

the time any final rule becomes 

effective. However, 1 year after the 

effective date of the final rule all MECs, 

Form MCSA–5876, issued under 

§ 391.64(b) would become void. 

Similarly, the 2,566 vision exemption 

holders would have 1 year after the 

effective date of any final rule to comply 

with the rule, at which time all 

exemptions issued under 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b) would become void. Drivers 

who hold a vision exemption would be 

notified by letter with details of the 

transition to the new standard. 

C. Benefits and Costs 

FMCSA estimates that the proposed 

rule would reduce barriers to entry for 

current and future CMV drivers. The 

2,566 drivers holding vision exemptions 

would no longer have to apply for an 

exemption, and potential driver 

applicants who do not have 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience may meet 

the alternative vision standard and be 

able to operate a CMV in interstate 

commerce. A one-time road test would 

be less burdensome on drivers than 

obtaining 3 years of intrastate driving 

experience and addresses the 

consideration that some drivers live in 

States that do not issue vision waivers. 

The proposed rule would result in 

incremental cost savings of 

approximately $1.6 million annually by 

eliminating the need for the Federal 

vision exemption program. This 

estimate includes the additional annual 

impact of approximately $47,000 for the 

road test. The Agency does not 

anticipate any negative impacts on 

safety. 

The proposed rulemaking, if finalized, 

would result in reduced costs and, 

therefore, would be a deregulatory 

action under Executive Order (E.O.) 

13771, Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs. The 

present value of the cost savings, 

measured on an infinite time horizon at 

a 7 percent discount rate, expressed in 

2016 dollars, would be $14.9 million. 

On an annualized basis, these cost 

savings would be $1 million. 

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31136(a) and 31502(b)—delegated to the 

Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i), 

respectively—to establish minimum 

qualifications, including physical 

qualifications, for individuals operating 

CMVs in interstate commerce. Section 

31136(a)(3) requires specifically that the 

Agency’s safety regulations ensure that 

the physical condition of CMV drivers 

is adequate to enable them to operate 

their vehicles safely and that certified 

MEs trained in physical and medical 

examination standards perform the 

physical examinations required of such 

drivers. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2348 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

5Section 206(f) of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 

1984 provides that any Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulation (FMCSR) can be waived if ‘‘such waiver 

is not contrary to the public interest and is 

consistent with the safe operation of [CMVs].’’ 

Public Law 98–554, 98 Stat. 2832, 2835, (October 

30, 1984), originally codified at 49 U.S.C. App. 2505 

and then at former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e). 

In addition to the statutory 

requirements specific to the physical 

qualifications of CMV drivers, section 

31136(a) requires the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) to issue 

regulations on CMV safety, including 

regulations to ensure that CMVs ‘‘are 

maintained, equipped, loaded, and 

operated safely’’ (section 31136(a)(1)). 

The remaining statutory factors and 

requirements in section 31136(a), to the 

extent they are relevant, are also 

satisfied here. The proposed rule would 

not impose any ‘‘responsibilities . . . on 

operators of [CMVs that would] impair 

their ability to operate the vehicles 

safely’’ (section 31136(a)(2)), or ‘‘have a 

deleterious effect on the physical 

condition’’ of CMV drivers (section 

31136(a)(4)). FMCSA also does not 

anticipate that drivers would be coerced 

to operate a vehicle because of this 

rulemaking (section 31136(a)(5)). 

Additionally, in 2005, Congress 

authorized the creation of the MRB, 

composed of experts in a variety of 

medical specialties relevant to the 

driver fitness requirements, to provide 

medical advice and recommendations 

on physical qualification standards (49 

U.S.C. 31149(a)). The position of Chief 

Medical Examiner was authorized at the 

same time (49 U.S.C. 31149(b)). Under 

section 31149(c)(1), the Agency, with 

the advice of the MRB and Chief 

Medical Examiner, is directed to 

establish, review, and revise medical 

standards for CMV drivers that will 

ensure their physical condition is 

adequate to enable them to operate the 

vehicles safely (see also 49 U.S.C. 

31149(d)). 

Finally, prior to prescribing any 

regulations, FMCSA must consider their 

‘‘costs and benefits’’ (49 U.S.C. 

31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those 

factors are discussed in the Regulatory 

Analyses section of this NPRM. 

V. Background 

A. Current Vision Standard 

FMCSA’s mission is to reduce 

crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving 

large trucks and buses. As discussed 

above, FMCSA is authorized by statute 

to establish minimum physical 

qualification standards for drivers of 

CMVs operating in interstate commerce. 

To ensure the physical qualification of 

CMV drivers, the Agency has 

established several standards. As vision 

plays an important role in the driving 

task, one of the standards provides 

vision requirements (see 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10)). 

FHWA adopted the current vision 

standard in 1970 (35 FR 6458, 6463, 

April 22, 1970). Under this standard, an 

individual is physically qualified to 

drive a CMV if the individual 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 degrees 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)). This standard has not 

changed since it became effective on 

January 1, 1971. 

FMCSA’s physical qualification 

standards cover 13 areas that relate 

directly to the driving function. With 

respect to most of the standards, an 

individual’s qualification to drive is 

determined by an ME who is 

knowledgeable about the on-the-job 

functions performed by a commercial 

driver and whether the driver has a 

condition that would interfere with the 

operation of a CMV. In the case of three 

standards, including vision, the 

standard is absolute and provides no 

discretion to the ME. Thus, any 

individual who does not meet the vision 

standard in its entirety cannot be 

physically qualified to drive a CMV in 

interstate commerce. 

B. Vision Waiver Study Program and 

Grandfathered Drivers 

On March 25, 1992, FHWA published 

notice of its intent to accept 

applications from CMV drivers for 

temporary waivers of certain 

requirements contained in the vision 

standard, pursuant to the waiver 

provision of former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

(57 FR 10295). To avoid any adverse 

impact on highway safety, FHWA 

outlined specific criteria that applicants 

had to meet to receive the vision waiver. 

The waiver program’s goal was to 

provide objective data to be considered 

in a future rulemaking that would 

explore the feasibility of relaxing the 

absolute vision standard in favor of a 

more individualized standard. To do so, 

FHWA invited CMV drivers who met 

the vision standard to participate in a 

study comparing a group of experienced 

drivers who did not meet the vision 

standard with a control group of drivers 

who did meet the standard. 

Subsequently, on June 3, 1992, FHWA 

modified some of the program’s 

conditions, clarified some of its details, 

and requested comments on the 

proposed vision waiver study program 

(57 FR 23370, June 3, 1992). 

In July 1992, FHWA announced its 

decision to issue waivers of the vision 

requirements and published the final 

criteria for the vision waiver study 

program (57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992). 

FHWA concluded that the program met 

the statutory requirements for granting 

waivers because the program was in the 

public interest and included conditions 

that allowed FHWA to find that such 

waivers were consistent with the safe 

operation of CMVs.5 FHWA reiterated 

that the vision waiver study program 

would provide the empirical data 

necessary to evaluate the relationships 

between specific vision deficiencies and 

the operation of CMVs. 

Under the vision waiver study 

program, FHWA issued waivers to 

drivers following an individual 

determination of each driver’s capability 

to operate a CMV safely. The 

determination included a review of each 

individual’s vital statistics, experience 

operating CMVs, anticipated postwaiver operations, and status of driving 

privilege as recorded on the licensing 

State’s motor vehicle record for the past 

3 years. The determination also 

included a review of an opinion by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist attesting 

to the visual acuity of each driver, that 

the visual acuity had not worsened 

since the last vision examination, and 

that the driver was able to perform the 

driving tasks required to operate a CMV. 

The waiver study program required 

visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen), 

corrected or uncorrected, in the better 

eye, as well as satisfaction of the other 

applicable vision standard requirements 

(i.e., field of vision of at least 70 degrees 

in the horizontal meridian in the better 

eye and the ability to recognize red, 

green, and amber colors). 

Drivers eligible for vision waivers had 

to have driving records that surpassed 

those of their peers who met the vision 

requirements. FHWA aimed to eliminate 

unsafe drivers by requiring applicants to 

have 3 years of intrastate CMV driving 

experience with the vision deficiency 

and a record that showed: 

(1) No suspensions or revocations of his or 

her driver’s license for operating violations in 

any motor vehicle; 

(2) No involvement in a reportable accident 

in a CMV in which the applicant was cited 

for a moving traffic violation; 

(3) No convictions for a disqualifying 

offense, as described in 49 CFR 383.51 (e.g., 

driving a CMV while under the influence of 

alcohol or a controlled substance, leaving the 

scene of an accident involving a CMV, or the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2349 

6Section 383.5 was amended to remove the 

definition of a ‘‘serious traffic violation’’ effective 

July 8, 2011 (76 FR 26854, 26878, May 9, 2011). 

Section 383.51(c) contains a list of serious traffic 

violations and the periods for which an individual 

is disqualified from operating a CMV. 

7Sheridan J, and DuLaney A., Qualification of 

Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy. 

Final Report, McLean, VA: Conwal, Inc.; May 30, 

1997, p. 7, which is available at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/ 

NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ 

PB98142649.xhtml (last accessed August 23, 2019) 

and in the docket. Note that this report is cited as 

Conwal, Inc. in this rulemaking. 

8FHWA stated that during the same period there 

were 6 fatal accidents in which waived drivers were 

involved, and one more occurred after June 30, 

1994. A review of the police accident reports, 

however, revealed that none of the waived drivers 

was found to be at fault by the reporting police 

officer (59 FR 59389). 

9Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 

1998. 

10Copies of these documents are in the docket for 

this rulemaking and available on FMCSA’s website 

at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driverContinued 

commission of a felony involving the use of 

a CMV), or more than one serious traffic 

violation, as that term was defined in § 383.5 

at the applicable time 6 (e.g., excessive 

speeding, reckless driving, improper or 

erratic lane changes, following the vehicle 

ahead too closely, or a violation arising in 

connection with a fatality, all while driving 

a CMV); and 

(4) No more than two convictions for any

other moving traffic violations while driving 

a CMV. 

FHWA accepted 2,686 drivers into the 

vision waiver study program.7 Once 

granted a waiver, a driver had to report 

or submit certain information to FHWA 

during the term of the waiver. Each 

driver was required to: 

(1) Report any citation for a moving

violation involving the operation of a CMV; 

(2) Report the disposition of such citation;

(3) Report any accident involvement while

operating a CMV; 

(4) Submit documentation of an annual

evaluation by an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist; and 

(5) Submit monthly driving reports that

included the number of miles driving a CMV 

during the preceding month (with daylight 

and nighttime hours reported separately) and 

the number of days a CMV was not operated 

during the preceding month. 

FHWA periodically verified the waived 

drivers’ reported accidents and citations 

through State motor vehicle records and 

the waived drivers’ medical reports. 

On August 2, 1994, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit found that FHWA’s 

determination that the vision waiver 

study program would not adversely 

affect the safe operation of CMVs lacked 

empirical support in the record 

(Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety v. FHWA, 28 F.3d 1288, 1294 

(D.C. Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the court 

found that FHWA failed to meet the 

exacting statutory requirements to grant 

a waiver. Consequently, the court 

concluded that FHWA’s adoption of the 

waiver program was contrary to law and 

vacated and remanded the decision to 

FHWA. 

On November 17, 1994, FHWA 

published notice of its final 

determination to continue the vision 

waiver study program through March 

31, 1996, and announced a change in 

the research plan (59 FR 59386). FHWA 

determined that issuing waivers to the 

drivers through the conclusion of the 

program was consistent with the public 

interest and the safe operation of CMVs. 

FHWA based its decision, in part, on 

data collected on the group of waived 

drivers indicating that they had 

performed and continued to perform 

more safely than drivers in the general 

population of commercial drivers. As 

discussed above, drivers were required 

to have a 3-year safe driving history in 

intrastate commerce to participate in the 

program. A statistical analysis of the 

driving performance of individuals 

participating in the program from July 

1992 to July 1994 revealed the total 

accident rate of drivers in the waived 

group was 1.636 per million vehicle 

miles traveled compared to the higher 

national accident rate of 2.531 per 

million vehicle miles traveled (59 FR 

59389).8

On March 26, 1996, FHWA issued a 

rule to allow those drivers participating 

in the vision waiver study program and 

holding valid waivers from the vision 

standard to continue to operate in 

interstate commerce after March 31, 

1996 (61 FR 13338). FHWA amended 49 

CFR part 391 by adding a new provision 

at § 391.64 to grant grandfather rights to 

these drivers, subject to certain 

conditions. FHWA required a physical 

qualification examination for the 

grandfathered drivers every year, rather 

than every 2 years as required of most 

other drivers, as an extra precaution to 

ensure the continued safe operation of 

these drivers. Under § 391.64(b), the 

grandfathered drivers, like all other 

interstate drivers, must be otherwise 

physically qualified under § 391.41(b) 

(including a field of vision of at least 70 

degrees in the horizontal meridian in 

the better eye and the ability to 

recognize red, green, and amber colors). 

In addition, the grandfathered vision 

drivers must obtain an annual vision 

examination by an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist indicating that they have 

been examined and that the distant 

visual acuity in the better eye continues 

to measure at least 20/40 (Snellen). This 

information must be submitted to the 

certifying ME at the time of the 

individual’s annual physical 

qualification examination. Currently, 

FMCSA checks the driving records of 

grandfathered drivers to determine if 

they continue to operate CMVs safely. 

C. Federal Vision Exemption Program—

1998 to the Present

FHWA established the current Federal 

vision exemption program on December 

8, 1998 (63 FR 67600) following the 

enactment of amendments to the 

statutes governing exemptions made by 

section 4007 of the Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA– 

21).9 With the enactment of TEA–21, 

FHWA was authorized to grant an 

exemption to relieve an individual from 

compliance in whole or in part with 

certain regulations if FHWA determined 

that the exemption would likely achieve 

a level of safety equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level that would be achieved 

by complying with the regulation to 

which the exemption would apply (49 

U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)). 

FMCSA processes exemption letters 

of application in accordance with 49 

CFR part 381, subpart C. Qualifying 

individuals may apply for an exemption 

from specified provisions of the 

FMCSRs, including physical 

qualification standards specified under 

§ 391.41(b) (see 49 CFR 381.300(c)(3)).

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b),

FMCSA may grant an exemption for up

to a 5-year period and may renew an

exemption at the end of the 5-year

period. However, FMCSA grants vision

exemptions for up to a 2-year period to

align with the maximum duration of a

driver’s physical qualification

certification. The Agency considers

vision exemptions on a case-by-case

basis upon application by CMV drivers

who do not meet either the distant

visual acuity or field of vision standard,

or both, of § 391.41(b)(10) in one eye.

The Agency does not grant exemptions

for color blindness.

The criteria currently considered 

when reviewing an application for a 

Federal vision exemption have been in 

place since the program began in 1998. 

The vision criteria are consistent with 

criteria used in the preceding Federal 

vision waiver study program that began 

in July 1992. 

As part of the current vision 

exemption program, there is a template 

that CMV drivers can use to prepare a 

letter of application for a Federal vision 

exemption. In addition to the template, 

there are two instructional letters for 

applicants residing in Florida or Indiana 

that provide the unique State processes 

for requesting a copy of a motor vehicle 

record.10


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2350 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

medical-requirements/driver-exemption-programs 

(last accessed October 1, 2019). 

The template outlines the information 

and documents drivers should include 

to be considered for an exemption. In 

general, drivers should submit 

information relating to vital statistics, 

experience driving a CMV (number of 

years driving, types of vehicles driven, 

miles driven per year), and present 

employment (contact information, types 

of vehicles, items transported, driving 

hours). Drivers also should submit 

documentation to support the 

application, such as a copy of the 

driver’s license to operate a CMV; an 

official copy of the driving record issued 

by a State; copies of any citations, crash 

reports, or court records; a signed 

statement on letterhead from present or 

past employers (or a notarized statement 

if letterhead is not available); and a 

signed statement on letterhead by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist. 

Applicants are not permitted to 

operate a CMV in interstate commerce 

during the time in which an application 

for a new exemption is pending. The 

Agency encourages drivers to begin the 

renewal process well in advance of an 

exemption’s expiration. In addition, the 

Agency provides such drivers with a 

deadline by which their renewal 

package must be complete. Drivers who 

miss the deadline risk having their 

exemptions expire, resulting in a lapse 

of their permission to operate a CMV in 

interstate commerce. 

Under the current program, FMCSA 

considers exemptions from either the 

distant visual acuity or field of vision 

standard, or both, in one eye only for 

those individuals who: 

(1) Hold a valid license (an intrastate

commercial driver’s license (CDL) or a nonCDL license to operate a CMV); 

(2) Are at least 21 years old;

(3) Have 3 years of legal CMV driving

experience, driving at least 10 hours per 

week in intrastate commerce with the vision 

deficiency, immediately preceding the date 

of the application; 

(4) Have had a driving record for the 3-year

period immediately preceding the date of 

application that contains: 

(a) No suspensions or revocations of a

driver’s license for the operation of any 

motor vehicle (including a personal vehicle); 

(b) No involvement in a crash for which

the driver contributed or received a citation 

for a moving traffic violation; 

(c) No convictions for a disqualifying

offense, as defined in § 383.51(b); 

(d) No more than one serious traffic

violation, as defined in § 383.51(c), driving a 

CMV that disqualified or should have 

disqualified the driver in accordance with 

the driver disqualification provisions of 

§ 383.51; and

(e) No more than two convictions for any

other moving traffic violations in a CMV. 

(5) Provide a signed statement that reads,

‘‘I acknowledge that I must be otherwise 

qualified under 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1)–(13) 

before I can legally operate a commercial 

motor vehicle in interstate commerce’’; 

(6) Have visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen), corrected or uncorrected, in the 

better eye; 

(7) Have field of vision, including central

and peripheral fields, of at least 70 degrees 

in the horizontal meridian in the better eye 

utilizing a testing modality that tests to at 

least 120 degrees in the horizontal (Formal 

perimetry is required. The doctor must 

submit the formal perimetry for each eye and 

interpret the results in degrees of field 

vision.); 

(8) Can recognize the colors of traffic

control signals and devices showing red, 

green, and amber; and 

(9) Have been examined in the last 3

months by an ophthalmologist or optometrist 

who: 

(a) Identifies the vision deficiency;

(b) Defines the nature of the vision

deficiency, including how long the driver has 

had the deficiency; 

(c) States the date of the examination;

(d) Certifies that the vision deficiency is

stable; and 

(e) Provides an opinion that the driver has

sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks 

required to operate a CMV. 

FMCSA is required to publish a notice 

in the Federal Register explaining that 

a medical exemption request has been 

submitted to the Agency for 

consideration. The notice provides the 

driver’s name, age, and class of license 

with issuing State, as well as the 

specific cause and duration of the 

driver’s vision deficiency and current 

distant visual acuity in at least the better 

eye. The notice identifies the provisions 

from which the individual seeks 

exemption and the effective period, and 

provides an opportunity for public 

comment. After the 30-day comment 

period, FMCSA must publish a notice in 

the Federal Register of its decision to 

approve or deny the request and all the 

terms and conditions of any exemption 

granted. 

The Agency imposes the following 

requirements on drivers who are granted 

an exemption from the vision standards 

in § 391.41(b)(10): 

(1) The exempted driver must be examined

every year by: 

(a) An ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the driver’s vision continues to 

meet the standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) 

in the better eye (i.e., that the individual has 

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 

(Snellen), field of vision of at least 70 degrees 

in the horizontal meridian, and can recognize 

red, green, and amber colors); and 

(b) An ME who determines that the driver

is otherwise qualified under § 391.41 and 

provides an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, that 

includes a statement that the driver is 

medically qualified when accompanied by a 

Federal vision exemption. 

(2) The driver must provide a copy of the

ophthalmologist or optometrist report to the 

ME at the time of the driver’s annual physical 

qualification examination. 

(3) The driver must keep a copy of the

annual MEC, Form MCSA–5876, in his or her 

qualification file if the driver is selfemployed or provide a copy to the driver’s 

employer for retention in the driver’s 

qualification file. 

(4) The driver must possess a copy of the

exemption and MEC, Form MCSA–5876, 

when driving, for presentation to any legally 

authorized Federal, State, or local 

enforcement official. 

(5) The driver must obtain and display the

appropriate driver’s license from his or her 

State of domicile and comply with any 

restrictions placed thereon regarding use of 

eyeglasses, mirrors, or other visual aids. 

(6) The driver must report any changes in

personal information (i.e., address, telephone 

number, employment status) to FMCSA 

immediately, as well as changes in the type 

of vehicle driven. 

At any time during the authorized 

exemption period, the Agency may 

require the exempted CMV driver to 

provide information regarding driving 

experience and performance as it relates 

to citations, crashes, license 

suspensions or revocations, and medical 

status (78 FR 76590, 76591, December 

18, 2013). 

FMCSA monitors each driver’s 

performance operating a CMV on a 

quarterly basis. FMCSA may revoke an 

exemption immediately if (1) the driver 

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 the 

exemption was granted; or (3) 

continuation of the exemption is 

determined by FMCSA to be 

inconsistent with the goals and 

objectives of the FMCSRs (49 CFR 

381.330(b)). 

On December 18, 2013, FMCSA 

proposed changes to the eligibility 

requirements for the exemption 

program, including changes to the 

driving experience, convictions and 

violations, and driver statement criteria 

(78 FR 76590). After receiving 

comments that both supported and 

opposed the proposed changes, the 

Agency elected not to revise the 

exemption program criteria at that time. 

As suggested by some comments, the 

development of a fuller record in a 

rulemaking proceeding will assist the 

Agency in making an appropriate 

determination about modifying the 

vision standard instead of modifying the 

exemption criteria. 

FMCSA’s October 2017 annual report 

to Congress on waivers, exemptions, 

and pilot programs noted that the vision 

exemption program received 1,147 

applications and granted 479 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2351 

11FMCSA. Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot 

Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 

2016, October 2017, p. 3, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/reports-congress 

(last accessed July 15, 2019) and in the docket. 

12FMCSA: Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot 

Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 

2017, September 2018, p. 3, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/reports-congress 

(last accessed July 15, 2019) and in the docket. 

13 Decina L, Breton M, and Staphlin L., Visual 

Disorders and Commercial Drivers (Report No. 

DTFH61–90–C–00093), Malvern, PA: Ketron 

Division of the Bionetics Corp., Washington, DC: 

FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers (FHWA–MC–92– 

003), November 1991, available at https://

ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/ 

titleDetail/PB92143015.xhtml (last accessed August 

20, 2019). Note that this report is cited as ‘‘Ketron’’ 

in this rulemaking. 

14 Id. at Technical Report Documentation Page 

(Abstract); see also p. 15. 

15 Id. at iv. 

16 Id. at 15. 

17 Id. at 34. 

18 Id. at iv; see also p. 13. 

19Sheridan J, and DuLaney A., Qualifications of 

Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy, 

Final Report, McLean, VA: Conwal, Inc., May 30, 

1997, available at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/ 

dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ 

PB98142649.xhtml (last accessed August 23, 2019). 20 28 F.3d 1288, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (see section 

V.B. above for additional information relating to 

this lawsuit). 21FHWA originally conceived a study that would 

determine the associated level of risk of allowing 

CMV drivers who did not meet the physical 

qualification standards relating to vision, diabetes, 

epilepsy, and hearing to operate interstate. These 

conditions were chosen because the related 

standards were absolute at the time, providing no 

discretion to the ME. Because of the lawsuit, FHWA 

did not initiate the hearing and epilepsy waiver 

study programs. 

22The GES is a national survey of police accident 

reports in the United States conducted by the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

23The seven monitoring reports are included in 

Appendix 12 of the May 1997 final report titled 

‘‘Qualification of Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing 

and Epilepsy’’ by Conwal, Inc. 

exemptions in Federal fiscal year 

2016.11 The September 2018 annual 

report to Congress noted that the vision 

exemption program received 793 

applications and granted 286 

exemptions in Federal fiscal year 

2017.12

As of July 2, 2019, there were 2,566 

drivers with active exemptions issued 

pursuant to the Federal vision 

exemption program. From January 2016 

through July 2019, the most prevalent 

reasons for denial of exemption requests 

were insufficient intrastate driving 

experience (i.e., less than 3 years of 

experience) and not meeting the vision 

standard in the better eye. 

VI. Assessments of the Vision 

Standards, Waivers, and Exemptions 

FHWA and FMCSA have a long 

history of examining the relationship 

between the vision standards in 

§ 391.41(b)(10) and the performance of 

CMV drivers. Since the early 1990s, 

FHWA and FMCSA have continuously 

monitored the impact of the vision 

waiver study and vision exemption 

programs to ensure they cause no 

adverse impact on safety. The basis for 

this rulemaking is the safety 

performance of the drivers in these 

programs, which is at least as good as 

that of the general population of CMV 

drivers. 

Consistent with statutory 

requirements, the Agency consults with 

the MRB and Chief Medical Examiner to 

establish, review, and revise physical 

qualification standards for CMV drivers. 

FMCSA also engages these medical 

professionals to assist with medical and 

scientific reports and analyses prepared 

for the Agency. The reports and 

analyses undertaken since 1990 to 

gather information and evaluate the 

vision standards, the waiver study 

program, and exemption program, as 

well as MRB recommendations 

pertaining to vision, are summarized 

below and are available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

In November 1991, FHWA received a 

report titled ‘‘Visual Disorders and 

Commercial Drivers’’ prepared by the 

Ketron Division of the Bionetics 

Corporation.13 The primary objective of 

this project was to reassess the adequacy 

of the Federal vision standards for CMV 

drivers. In that regard, the report 

concluded that a review of the most 

recent scientific research that 

investigated the vision performance of 

passenger and commercial drivers 

‘‘revealed no conclusive evidence to 

support definitive changes to the 

current standard.’’ 14 The report found 

the studies ‘‘were able to demonstrate 

only weak relationships between 

measures of vision and correlates of 

driver safety.’’ 15 Only a few studies 

examined the relationship between the 

driving performance record of CMV 

drivers and their vision performance.16

The project considered the need to 

exclude drivers with substantial vision 

loss only in one eye. Ketron convened 

a focused workshop discussion 

consisting of a panel of doctors, 

ophthalmologists, optometrists, 

professors in academic ophthalmology 

departments, and traffic and safety 

professionals in private industry. ‘‘Most 

panelists agreed that the available 

research results linking driver safety to 

lowered acuity in one eye were 

sufficient to change the current standard 

to allow monocular drivers or drivers 

with vision that is substantially worse 

in one eye.’’ 17 However, the panelists 

did not reach a consensus. 

The Ketron report noted the 

difficulties associated with determining 

minimum vision criteria. It stated that 

‘‘[n]umerous studies have shown that 

visual deficits are rarely the primary 

cause of major accidents. Typically, 

many factors are found to contribute.’’ 18

It continued that individuals involved 

in accidents have already been screened 

for visual deficits, which reduces the 

number of visually poor drivers on the 

road. Accordingly, tests of primary 

visual capability cannot reasonably be 

expected to correlate highly with 

measures of driver safety or to provide 

unambiguous cutoff points for screening 

out unsafe drivers. 

In June 1992, FHWA stated that the 

Ketron project illuminated the lack of 

empirical data on the link between 

vision disorders and CMV safety (57 FR 

23370, June 3, 1992). FHWA proposed 

the vision waiver study program to 

obtain the empirical data that the Ketron 

project did not provide. Accordingly, 

FHWA began the vision waiver study 

program in July 1992 that concluded in 

March 1996. 

In May 1997, Conwal, Inc. presented 

FHWA with the final report titled 

‘‘Qualification of Drivers—Vision, 

Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy’’ 19 that 

described the findings of the vision 

waiver study program. The program’s 

goal was to determine the associated 

risk, based on accident involvement, of 

allowing CMV drivers who did not meet 

the vision standard to drive under a 

granted waiver in interstate commerce. 

FHWA determined that the findings 

showed the waiver group did not 

represent a threat to public safety. 

The original design of the vision 

waiver study program was an 

observational, nonrandomized study 

with a prospective cohort structure. 

However, the Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety v. FHWA 20 lawsuit 

prevented the implementation of the 

study, and the study was converted to 

a monitoring program to ensure that the 

public was not exposed to excessive 

risk.21

Monitoring focused on comparing the 

accident rates of the waivered drivers to 

rates of a reference group that 

represented the prevailing safety level 

for drivers of large trucks (10,000 

pounds or larger) in the United States. 

FHWA selected the General Estimates 

System (GES) as the best measure of the 

prevailing national norm relative to 

large truck accidents.22 A series of seven 

monitoring reports was completed 

during the vision waiver study program 

to report periodically on the number of 

accidents occurring in the group of 

drivers who were issued waivers.23

The seventh monitoring report in the 

series was completed in February 1996 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2352 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

24FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers. The Seventh 

Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial 

Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision Waivers, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, February 29, 1996, p. 1. 

25 Id. at 2. 

26 Id. at 2–3. 

27 Id. at 3, note. 

28FHWA, Office of Motor Carrier Research and 

Standards, Qualifications of Drivers—Vison and 

Diabetes, Tech Brief (FHWA–MCRT–99–017), 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, September 1999, available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14291 (last 

accessed July 15, 2019). 29Berson F, Kuperwaser M, Aiello L, and 

Rosenberg J., Visual Requirements and Commercial 

Drivers, Final Report, Boston, MA: Beth Israel 

Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical 

School, October 16, 1998, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/ 

visionfinalreport10-16-98.pdf (last accessed July 15, 

2019). 

30 Id. at 12 (original bolding deleted). 

31Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Medical 

Exemption Program Study: Preliminary Report of 

Findings, Final Report, Chevy Chase, MD: 

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., October 13, 2006, 

available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16459 

(last accessed July 16, 2019). 

32 Id. at 7–1. 

and reported driving behavior for the 

drivers who were still in the program as 

of November 1995. From August 1992 to 

November 1995, 510 total accidents (i.e., 

not limited to accidents where fault was 

assigned to the waivered driver) were 

reported in this group.24

To effectively monitor the waiver 

program, FHWA established a 

framework to notify FHWA if the waiver 

group proved to be unsafe. The 

framework involved the use of a 

decision strategy that identified when 

the waiver group’s accident rate was 

sufficiently larger than the national 

accident rate that there could be a threat 

to public safety. More specifically, the 

90 percent confidence interval 

associated with the waiver group’s 

accident rate was compared to the 

national rate. The national rate was 

treated as a constant because it was 

given frequently as an official rate 

without a confidence interval. The 

decision was made to notify FHWA 

when the lower 90 percent confidence 

bound associated with the accident rate 

of the waiver group was larger than the 

national rate. That strategy was seen as 

conservative in that it limited the 

waiver group’s accident exposure.25

Based on analysis of the data 

collected from August 1992 to 

November 1995, Table 1 provides a 

comparison of the accident rate in the 

waiver group to the national rate. 

Relative to the 90 percent confidence 

interval calculated for the waiver 

group’s rate, the data show the lower 

bound was not larger than the national 

rate. In fact, the waiver group’s overall 

accident rate was lower than the 

national rate. Thus, FHWA determined 

that the waiver group did not represent 

a threat to public safety.26

Table 1 also presents comparisons 

between the waiver group and national 

accident rates relative to accident 

severity. FHWA routinely investigated 

serious accidents and violations 

involving members of the waiver group. 

‘‘In the case of these accidents, the 

drivers were not found to be at fault nor 

were any of the accidents related to a 

vision deficiency.’’ 27 In none of the 

severity categories did the lower 90 

percent confidence bounds of the 

relevant waiver group rates exceed the 

respective national rates. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF ACCIDENT RATES EXPERIENCED BY COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS WITH VISION

WAIVERS TO NATIONAL ACCIDENT RATES IN RELATION TO TOTAL ACCIDENTS AND ACCIDENT SEVERITY

Waiver group 

accident rate 1

(number of 

accidents) 

90% Confidence interval 

(lower and upper) 

National 

accident rate 2

(number of 

accidents) 

Total Accidents 3 ........................................................................................ 1.706 (510) 1.582 1.830 2.605 (444,000)

Accident Severity 

Property Damage Only .............................................................................. 1.284 (384) 1.177 1.392 2.048 (349,000) 

Injury Involved ............................................................................................ .408 (122) .347 .469 .534 (95,000) 

Fatality Involved ......................................................................................... .013 (4) .002 .024 .026 (4,615) 

1 Rate is calculated based on 299 million vehicle miles traveled by the waiver group between July 1992 and November 1995. 

2 National accident estimates are for large trucks given by the GES 1994, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Rate calculated 

based on 170,415 million vehicle miles traveled in 1994. 3Total accidents experienced by the waiver group between July 1992 and November 1995. 

Source: FHWA. Office of Motor Carriers. The Seventh Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision 

Waivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; February 29, 1996, Table 1. 

A September 1999 FHWA Tech Brief 

titled ‘‘Qualifications of Drivers — 

Vision and Diabetes’’ 28 summarizes the 

May 1997 report discussed above. The 

Tech Brief notes that the report’s risk 

analysis was performed to support the 

grandfathering of drivers to permanent 

waiver status after the vision waiver 

study program was closed; therefore, the 

generalizability of the results was 

limited. 

In October 1998, FHWA received a 

report titled ‘‘Visual Requirements and 

Commercial Drivers’’ prepared by a 

panel of medical experts associated with 

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center 

and Harvard Medical School.29 The 

report stated that the data obtained from 

the vision waiver study program was 

‘‘extremely compelling. The waiver 

group accident rate was consistently 

below the national accident rate 

(cumulative comparison) and for drivers 

still in the program in August 1995, the 

waiver group accident rate consistently 

decreased to well below the national 

accident rate, exceeding the latter only 

during the first 6 months of the 

program.’’ 30 The report continued that 

the program resulted in a useful 

database that clearly supported a new 

ongoing waiver program, and provided 

sufficient rationale for a follow-up study 

that might modify the current vision 

requirements for commercial drivers. 

In October 2006, FMCSA received a 

report titled ‘‘Medical Exemption 

Program Study’’ prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc.31 This project 

provided process and outcome 

information regarding the vision 

exemption program. The main 

conclusion of this project was that the 

vision exemption program did not 

appear to impact safety negatively on 

the nation’s highways.32 Additionally, 

the project found the overall vision 

exemption program to be effective. 

Drivers in the vision exemption 

program had 20 percent fewer reported 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2353 

33 Id. at 7–1. 

34 Id. at 6–14. 

35 Id. 7–2. 

36 Id. at 4–22. 

37 Id. at 4–22. 

38 Id. at 4–22. 

39 Id. at 4–12. 

40Tregear S, Reed M, Tiller M, and Reston J., 

Vision and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver 

Safety, Volume 1: Evidence Report, McLean, VA: 

Manila Consulting Group, Inc. and Plymouth 

Meeting, PA: The ECRI Institute, June 6, 2008, 

available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16502 

(last accessed July 16, 2019). 

41 Id. at 2–3. 

42 Id. at 3. 

43 Id. at 3. 

44Berson F, Owsley C, and Peli E., Vision and 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety, Expert 

Panel Recommendations, March 14, 2008, available 

at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

files/docs/MEP-Recommendations-Vision-v2- 

prot.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2019). The expert 

panel reviewed a draft of the ‘‘Vision and 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety’’ evidence 

report. While the expert panel agreed with the 

findings of the draft evidence report, the panel 

disagreed with the reasoning for including and 

excluding several studies. The research team 

considered the panel’s criticism and agreed to 

amend the report before it was finalized. The 

revised executive summary for the 2008 evidence 

report is Appendix A of the expert panel 

recommendations report and is included in the 

final June 2008 evidence report discussed above. 

45 Id. at 4. 

46FMCSA Medical Review Board, Meeting 

Summary, April 7, 2008, p. 15, available at https:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/ 

April_7_MRB_Meeting_Minutes_71708_Final_

Updated10108.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2019). 

47FMCSA Medical Review Board, MRB Task 15– 

02 Report, September 1, 2015, available at https:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/final-mrb-task-15-02-report 

(last accessed July 16, 2019). 

collisions than a control set of drivers. 

Participation in the exemption program 

was shown to have a 94.4 percent 

confidence interval of reducing the 

number of reported collisions 

attributable to the driver.33 While most 

of the analysis compared the exemption 

program drivers to the entire set of 

control drivers, one analysis compared 

a subset of the control drivers who had 

no reported collisions during the 3 years 

ending on the ‘‘control date’’ of 

December 31, 2003, to the exemption 

program drivers. The analysis showed 

‘‘little difference in reported collision 

rate between the program and control 

sets.’’ 34 Thus, when controlling for 

previous collision rates over a 3-year 

period, the collision rates for visually 

impaired ‘‘safe’’ drivers were not found 

to be higher than the non-impaired 

‘‘safe’’ drivers.35

Cambridge Systematics summarized 

the findings from the various studies in 

the scientific literature into a set of key 

points, and stated that ‘‘[a]lmost all of 

the studies examined in the area of 

vision deficiencies illustrate similar 

challenges in the design, 

implementation, and patterns of their 

findings.’’ 36 The challenges were 

summarized as confounding factors, 

outcome definitions, and impairment 

definitions. Confounding effect is 

observed when a factor that is not 

controlled statistically or by the study 

design obscures the effect of treatment. 

Examples of such factors impacting the 

field of vision and driving were age, 

driving exposure, and compensating 

behavior. With respect to compensating 

behavior, Cambridge Systematics stated 

that ‘‘[i]t is well recognized that visually 

impaired drivers develop effective 

compensatory strategies to 

accommodate their impairments. 

Therefore, relying on medical test scores 

and ignoring actual driving performance 

can easily obscure the treatment effect 

under study.’’ 37 Traffic safety outcomes 

may be defined in terms of crashes, 

violations, crash or violation rates per 

miles driven, performance in on-road 

tests and driving simulations, and selfreported incidence involvement rates 

and other habits. However, because ‘‘the 

relationship between these outcomes is 

not clearly established, making 

comparisons across different studies 

becomes tenuous.’’ 38 Inconsistencies in 

impairment definitions and measuring 

can result from incorrect reports of the 

presence or absence of an eye condition 

and the different thresholds used to 

designate subjects as impaired or 

unimpaired. With respect to monocular 

drivers being granted commercial 

licenses, Cambridge Systematics 

pointed out ‘‘[t]he term ‘monocular’ is 

typically used quite broadly in the 

research literature on this topic and 

denotes drivers who have a total 

absence of function in one eye and 

additionally those who have visual 

function in one eye below the minimum 

level for commercial licensing.’’ 39

In June 2008, FMCSA received the 

final evidence report titled ‘‘Vision and 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver 

Safety’’ prepared by the Manila 

Consulting Group, Inc. and the ECRI 

Institute.40 The evidence report 

addressed several key questions 

developed by FMCSA pertaining to 

vision and CMV driver safety by 

summarizing the best evidence that was 

available in the literature. The key 

question relevant to this proposal was 

an inquiry to determine whether 

monocular vision is associated with an 

increased crash risk. Due to 

methodological limitations and 

inconsistency among the findings of 

different studies, the authors concluded 

that the evidence was insufficient to 

determine whether individuals with 

monocular vision were at increased risk 

of a crash.41

The authors identified three studies 

that provided crash data for drivers with 

monocular vision in general driver 

populations. ‘‘Because of a number of 

methodological flaws, [the authors’] 

confidence in the findings of all three of 

the studies [was] low. While two studies 

found no evidence to support the 

contention that individuals with 

monocular vision are at an increased 

risk for a motor vehicle crash, the third 

study did find an association between 

monocular vision and increased crash 

risk. Given the low quality of the 

included studies and the fact that the 

findings of these studies were 

inconsistent, [the authors did] not draw 

an evidence-based conclusion.’’ 42 The 

authors stated, however, that ‘‘the 

possibility that individuals with 

monocular vision have an increased 

crash risk cannot be ruled out.’’ 43

In March 2008, a medical expert panel 

made recommendations, titled ‘‘Vision 

and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver 

Safety,’’ associated with the evidence 

report for the MRB to consider.44 With 

respect to monocular vision, the panel 

agreed that the current evidence was 

insufficient to justify a change in the 

vision standard. The panel noted that 

the evidence report did not rule out the 

possibility of increased crash risk for 

monocular drivers. Nonetheless, the 

panel stated ‘‘that the Exemption 

Program should be continued and a 

protocol established to obtain the data 

necessary for a future 

recommendation.’’ 45

During an April 2008 meeting, the 

MRB made recommendations to the 

Agency pertaining to driver vision 

requirements based on presentations 

and discussions of the 2008 draft 

evidence report, the related medical 

expert panel recommendations, and 

public comment. With respect to 

monocular vision, the MRB 

recommended that ‘‘[t]he current 

standard which precludes individuals 

with monocular vision from driving a 

CMV for the purposes of interstate 

commerce should not be changed at this 

time.’’ 46

In September 2015, the MRB provided 

recommendations to the Agency in 

response to MRB Task 15–2, which 

requested that the MRB recommend 

criteria and identify factors the Agency 

should consider in deciding about a 

future rulemaking regarding vision 

criteria. The MRB provided the 

following recommendations: 47

I. If FMCSA considers removing the 

current Visual Exemption program, the MRB 

recommends the following changes to the 

vision standard regulations: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2354 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

48FMCSA, Safety Performance of Drivers with 

Medical Exemptions: How safe are drivers in a 

medical exemption program compared to those who 

are not?, Analysis Brief (FMCSA RRA–16–019b), 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, November 2016, available at 

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31521 (last 

accessed July 16, 2019). 

49 Id. at 5, Table 5. 

50See id. at 5–6, Tables 6–8. 

51 Id. at 5. 

A. Provide a form/questionnaire to the eye 

specialist (ophthalmologist or optometrist) 

that includes all information required by the 

current Visual Exemption program. Form 

should be given to the Certified Medical 

Examiner (CME). 

B. Length of certification with vision 

exemption: MRB recommends 1 year but 

FMCSA should seek comment from eye 

specialist (ophthalmologist or optometrist) 

associations on recommended frequency of 

examination. 

II. FMCSA should seek comment from the 

eye specialist (ophthalmologist or 

optometrist) associations regarding: 

A. Whether there is additional information 

that would be useful to collect. 

B. What is the minimum amount of time 

they would feel comfortable allowing 

someone to drive who has sudden change 

from binocular vision? (Current Visual 

Exemption Program requires a safe driving 

record with such an eye condition for 3 

years.) 

C. Co-condition/disease process. 

D. Recommendations on field of vision 

criteria (e.g., not supposed to be 70° as stated 

in the current vision standard). 

The proposed alternative vision 

standard incorporates the MRB’s 2015 

recommendations. 

In November 2016, FMCSA published 

an Analysis Brief 48 that reviewed the 

safety performance of drivers in the 

vision exemption program. The study’s 

purpose was to compare the crash rates 

of CMV drivers enrolled in the vision 

exemption program with drivers not 

enrolled in the program. The Agency 

assessed drivers in terms of their crash 

rates and inspection violation rates. 

FMCSA assessed the safety performance 

of drivers in the program for 5 years 

from 2011 through 2015. 

Table 2 compares the crash rate for 

drivers in the vision exemption program 

to the national crash rate. The data show 

that the crash rate for drivers in the 

vision exemption program is lower than 

the national crash rate.49

TABLE 2—CRASH RATES FOR VISION EXEMPTION PROGRAM DRIVERS COMPARED TO NATIONAL CRASH RATES, CRASHES

PER DRIVER PER YEAR, 2011–2015 

Number of 

exemption drivers 

Number of 

exemption driver 

crashes 

Vision 

exemption crash rate 

(crashes per driver 

per year) 

National 

average annual 

number of drivers 

National 

average annual 

number of crashes 

National crash rate 

(crashes per driver 

per year) 

1,117 144 0.02578 4,599,623 143,289 0.03115 

The Agency also compared drivers 

enrolled in the exemption program to a 

control group that was established using 

the Driver Information Resource, which 

captures drivers’ driving histories. 

Drivers were chosen at random and 

added to the control group in proportion 

to the age and carrier size of the 

corresponding exemption program 

group until the control group contained 

three times as many drivers as the 

respective exemption program group. To 

determine whether any differences in 

crash rates were statistically significant, 

FMCSA conducted statistical testing at 

the 95 percent confidence level. Table 3 

shows the results.50

TABLE 3—COMPARISON OF VISION EXEMPTION PROGRAM GROUP AND CONTROL GROUP CRASH AND VIOLATION RATES

Crash or violation rates 

Number of 

exemption 

program group 

drivers 

Exemption 

program group 

crash or 

violation rate 

Control group 

crash or 

violation rate 

Statistically significant 

difference 

Crash Rates ................................................................................... 680 0.03853 0.02819 Yes. 

Violation Rates ............................................................................... 680 1.9721 2.4911 Yes. 

Out-of-Service Violation Rates ....................................................... 680 0.22353 0.29870 Yes. 

The crash rate for the vision 

exemption program group was 

statistically different from its control 

group, being slightly higher at 0.03853 

crashes per driver per year than the 

control group rate of 0.02819. ‘‘This 

equates to about one more crash per 

year for every 100 drivers in the vision 

exemption program than for similar 

drivers not in the vision exemption 

program.’’ 51 The driver violation rate 

and driver out-of-service violation rate 

were lower than the control group, with 

the difference being statistically 

significant. FMCSA concluded in 2016 

that further studies should be done 

using larger sample sizes to confirm or 

challenge the results from this study. 

There are several limitations 

regarding the Analysis Brief’s findings. 

For example, the crash information did 

not consider whether the CMV driver 

was at fault in any given crash. It is not 

possible to know whether visual 

function caused or contributed to the 

crash. It also is not possible to 

determine whether including only those 

drivers who were in the vision 

exemption program for the full 5-year 

period impacted the results, if at all. 

The control group was selected based on 

age of the driver and the size of the 

employing motor carrier, rather than 

individual visual function criteria. 

The Agency finds that the increased 

crash rate for the vision exemption 

program group as compared to its 

control group demonstrated in the 

Analysis Brief is not cause for concern. 

The findings of the Analysis Brief 

represent a limited period and are 

subject to the additional limitations 

discussed previously. FMCSA monitors 

the performance of individual drivers in 

the vision exemption program 

continuously. FMCSA does not have 

evidence to suggest drivers in the 

exemption program are less safe than 

the general population of CMV drivers. 

Every year the Agency reports to 

Congress regarding the vision 

exemptions granted and any impact on 

safety. The Agency has consistently 

informed Congress that FMCSA has 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2355 

52FMCSA, Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot 

Programs Annual Reports to Congress Fiscal Years 

1999–2013, February 2016, p. 25; Fiscal Year 2014, 

April 2017, p. 9; Fiscal Year 2015, May 2017, p. 15; 

Fiscal Year 2016, October 2017, p. 11; and Fiscal 

Year 2017, September 2018, p. 10. These reports are 

available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/ 

policy/reports-congress (last accessed July 15, 

2019). 

53FMCSA Medical Review Board, Meeting 

Minutes, July 15–16, 2019, p. 3, available at https:// 

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020- 

08/MRB-meeting-minutes-july-2019-508c.pdf (last 

accessed September 2, 2020). 

54Ball K, Heaton K, McGwin G, Owsley C, and 

Stavrinos D., Examining the FMCSA Vision 

Standard for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers 

(Report No. FMCSA–RRR–19–011).), Washington, 

DC: FMCSA, 2019, available at https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42735 (last accessed 

December 09, 2019). 

55The study uses the term ‘‘field of view,’’ which 

is synonymous with the FMCSR term ‘‘field of 

vision.’’ To avoid confusion, the term is replaced 

in this discussion of the study with ‘‘field of 

vision.’’ 

56FMCSA notes that the study found no evidence 

that CMV drivers with monocular vision were at 

increased risk of collision. The Agency is not 

relying on that finding to support this rulemaking 

due to limitations set forth in the study relating to 

the study’s design and dataset. 

57 Id. at 5. 

58McKnight AJ, Shinar D, and Hilburn B., ‘‘The 

visual and driving performance of monocular and 

binocular heavy-duty truck drivers,’’ Accident 

Analysis & Prevention 23(4), pp. 225–237 (1991). 

This study was performed under contract to FHWA. 

59 Dionne G, Desjardins D, Laberge-Nadeau C, and 

Maag U., ‘‘Medical conditions, risk exposure, and 

truck drivers’ accidents: an analysis with count data 

regression models,’’ Accident Analysis & Prevention 

27(3), pp. 295–305 (1995). 

60Laberge-Nadeau C, Dionne G, Maag U, 

Desjardins D, Vanasse C, and E ́ koe ́ J–M., ‘‘Medical 

conditions and the severity of commercial motor 

vehicle drivers’ road accidents,’’ Accident Analysis 

& Prevention 28(1), pp. 43–51 (1996). 

61Maag U, Vanasse C, Dionne G, and LabergeNadeau C., ‘‘Taxi drivers’ accidents: how binocular 

vision problems are related to their rate and severity 

in terms of the number of victims,’’ Accident 

Analysis & Prevention 29(2), pp. 217–224 (1997). 

62FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers, The Seventh 

Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial 

Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision Waivers, 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, February 29, 1996. 

63Ball K, Heaton K, McGwin G, Owsley C, and 

Stavrinos D., Examining the FMCSA Vision 

Standard for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers 

(Report No. FMCSA–RRR–19–011), Washington, 

DC: FMCSA 2019, p. 5, available at https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42735 (last accessed 

December 09, 2019). 

observed no adverse impacts on CMV 

safety due to the vision exemption 

program.52

During its June 2018 meeting, the 

MRB discussed the MRB Task 15–2 

report and was presented draft findings 

of a study performed by the University 

of Alabama at Birmingham examining 

the FMCSA vision standard for CMV 

drivers. The MRB made no changes to 

its previous recommendations in MRB 

Task 15–2. 

During its July 2019 meeting, FMCSA 

updated the MRB on the University of 

Alabama study. The MRB discussed the 

draft findings of the study and the 

vision exemption program. The MRB 

did not change its MRB Task 15–2 

recommendations. The MRB continued 

the status quo by recommending that 

FMCSA maintain the current vision 

standard and continue the vision 

exemption program. In addition, the 

MRB recommended that FMCSA 

investigate shortening the 3-year 

intrastate driving experience criterion. 

The MRB also voted to review the vision 

exemption program at a future meeting 

when more information is available.53

In November 2019, FMCSA published 

the University of Alabama at 

Birmingham report titled ‘‘Examining 

the FMCSA Vision Standard for 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers’’ 

(Ball et al., 2019).54 One of the study’s 

overall objectives was to determine the 

safety efficacy of FMCSA’s current 

vision standards. The research team 

procured a dataset from a third-party 

provider that included all vision-related 

data obtained during an FMCSA 

physical qualification examination on 

nearly 190,000 CMV drivers. The 

research team merged the data with 

crash records obtained from the Motor 

Carrier Management Information System 

(MCMIS). From the examination dataset, 

the results of vision function testing, 

including visual acuity, horizontal field 

of vision,55 color recognition, and 

monocular vision, were compared for 

drivers who met the vision standard 

versus drivers who did not meet the 

vision standard. Evidence from the 

literature review, consultation with 

experts, and analysis of CMV driver 

vision and crash data supported the 

measurement of visual acuity and 

horizontal field of vision using the 

current cut-points.56

As relevant to this proposal, Ball, et 

al. (2019) found that the literature 

regarding how monocularity impacts 

driving performance is mixed.57 Some 

studies suggest that monocularity is not 

related to CMV performance decrements 

in specific skills such as visual search, 

lane placement, clearance judgment, gap 

judgment, hazard detection, and 

information recognition.58 The literature 

also is mixed with respect to how 

monocularity impacts motor vehicle 

collision rates, with several studies 

finding elevated collision rates or more 

severe collisions for monocular 

drivers,59 60 61 and another study 

showing that commercial monocular 

drivers did not have a higher collision 

rate than drivers with normal vision in 

both eyes. In that study (discussed 

above), FHWA evaluated commercial 

vehicle drivers who received waivers of 

the CMV driver vision requirements.62

Results indicated that the waiver 

group’s crash rates were not higher than 

the national reference group, nor were 

their crashes more severe. Ball, et al. 

(2019) noted, however, that ‘‘one 

limitation of this analysis is that it is 

unknown whether the reference group 

was similar to the waiver group on other 

factors (e.g., age, other visual function 

measures) that may be related to crash 

risk.’’ 63

The report continues that findings 

across studies in the literature are 

inconsistent with respect to the safety of 

monocular drivers, which is not 

surprising given that the definition of 

monocularity across the studies is not 

consistent. The definition of 

‘‘monocular’’ is variable and can range 

from the total absence of vision in one 

eye, to vision in one eye that involves 

a lack of binocular visual function, such 

as depth perception, or is below some 

standard. 

FMCSA Conclusions 

The foregoing reports and analyses do 

not call into question the existence of 

the vision exemption program. As early 

as 1991, most of the panelists convened 

by Ketron agreed there was sufficient 

evidence relating to lowered acuity to 

change the vision standard to allow 

monocular drivers or drivers with vision 

substantially worse in one eye. The 

1997 Conwal report showed the vision 

waiver study program group’s overall 

accident rate was lower than the 

national rate and FHWA determined the 

waiver group did not represent an 

increased risk to public safety. In 1998, 

a panel of medical experts stated the 

data from the vision waiver study 

program was ‘‘extremely compelling’’ 

and clearly supported a new waiver 

program. 

In 2006, Cambridge Systematics’ 

review of the vision exemption program 

concluded the program did not appear 

to impact safety negatively. The 2008 

evidence report found the three studies 

that provided crash data for drivers with 

monocular vision in general driver 

populations were insufficient to 

determine whether individuals with 

monocular vision were at increased risk 

of a crash. Because the report did not 

provide any conclusions, neither the 

medical expert panel nor the MRB 

recommended changing the vision 

standard. The 2008 medical expert 

panel recommended that the exemption 

program continue. The MRB has never 

recommended that the exemption 

program end and has continued its 2015 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2356 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

recommendations for FMCSA to 

consider if it changes the vision 

standard. 

The reports and analyses discussed 

above do not establish strong 

relationships between specific measures 

of vision and correlates of driver safety. 

They do, however, point out the 

numerous difficulties associated with 

obtaining empirical data to determine 

minimum vision criteria and the 

methodological flaws associated with 

many studies evaluating vision criteria 

and crash risk. Most of the available 

data come from drivers in general and 

not CMV drivers specifically. Usually, 

crash information does not indicate 

whether the driver was at fault in any 

given crash. In addition, it is rarely 

possible to determine whether visual 

function was the cause of a crash. 

Data on the relationship between 

monocular vision and crash 

involvement is sparse, conflicting with 

respect to crash risk, and not definitive. 

Moreover, the Agency must exercise 

caution when interpreting the data 

because of the different definitions of 

‘‘monocular vision’’ in the literature. 

After full consideration of the 

foregoing reports and analyses, FMCSA 

finds the experience with the vision 

waiver study and exemption programs 

is most relevant in establishing an 

alternative vision standard. These 

programs have allowed FMCSA to 

evaluate the vision criteria used in the 

programs since 1992 in the context of 

actual CMV driving experience. 

Considering the long period over which 

the programs have operated, FMCSA 

has sufficient information to reach 

generalized conclusions. 

FHWA and FMCSA monitored the 

safety performance of drivers in the 

vision waiver study and the current 

exemption programs continuously. 

Based on the experience with the vision 

waiver study and exemption programs, 

FMCSA has determined that the safety 

performance of individuals in these 

programs is at least as good as that of 

the general population of CMV drivers. 

Indeed, the Agency has continued to 

grant vision exemptions because 

experience has shown that individuals 

with vision loss in one eye are not 

limited by their lack of binocularity 

with respect to driving once they have 

adapted to and compensated for the 

change in vision. 

The Agency’s ability to draw on its 

experience from the vision waiver study 

and exemption programs to develop 

modifications of the existing standard is 

consistent with one of the purposes of 

the authority provided by the enactment 

of TEA–21 that established a new 

process for granting regulatory 

exemptions in 49 U.S.C. 31315. TEA–21 

gave the Agency ‘‘broader discretion to 

grant waivers and exemptions from 

motor carrier and driver safety 

regulations which are necessary to 

develop performance based regulations 

and evaluate the effectiveness of 

existing regulations.’’ H. Report 105–550 

at 489 (1998). 

Accordingly, the Agency proposes to 

adopt most of the existing vision 

exemption program criteria and modify 

other of the criteria as a vision standard 

to be applied in lieu of the vision 

exemption program. Therefore, the 

alternative vision standard would 

require individuals, to be physically 

qualified, to have in the better eye 

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 

(Snellen) (with or without corrective 

lenses) and field of vision of at least 70 

degrees in the horizontal meridian; the 

ability to recognize the colors of traffic 

signals and devices showing standard 

red, green, and amber; stability of the 

vision deficiency; and sufficient time to 

adapt to and compensate for the change 

in vision. Instead of requiring 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience with the 

vision deficiency, with limited 

exceptions, individuals physically 

qualified under the proposed alternative 

vision standard for the first time would 

complete a road test before operating in 

interstate commerce. FMCSA expects 

that individuals who satisfy these 

criteria would not create an increased 

risk of injury to themselves or others 

due to their vision. 

VII. Rationale for Proposed 

Qualification Standard 

The Agency proposes to adopt most of 

the existing vision exemption program 

criteria and to modify other program 

criteria as an alternative vision 

standard. The proposed standard takes a 

performance-based approach. The 

standard emphasizes that the individual 

has developed the skills to adapt to and 

compensate for the vision loss once it 

has been deemed stable by a medical 

professional, and that the individual has 

demonstrated the skills to operate a 

CMV safely. The ME would ensure the 

individual is physically qualified to 

operate a CMV in accordance with the 

physical qualification standards. Motor 

carriers would maintain the 

responsibility for reviewing the 

individual’s safety performance and, 

with limited exceptions, would conduct 

a road test for individuals. 

A. Individuals Adapt to and 

Compensate for Vision Loss 

As stated above, it is well recognized 

that individuals with vision loss in one 

eye can and do develop compensatory 

viewing behavior to mitigate the vision 

loss. Therefore, if an individual meets 

the proposed vision standard, the 

Agency expects there will be no adverse 

impact on safety due to the individual’s 

vision. That is, once an individual’s 

vision is stable and the individual has 

adapted to and compensated for the 

change in vision, the loss in vision is 

not likely to play a significant role in 

whether the individual can drive a CMV 

safely. 

Instead of requiring 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience with the 

vision deficiency as in the current 

exemption program, FMCSA proposes 

that individuals physically qualified 

under the proposed alternative vision 

standard for the first time satisfactorily 

complete a road test before operating in 

interstate commerce. Individuals would 

be excepted from the road test 

requirement if they have 3 years of 

intrastate or excepted interstate CMV 

driving experience with the vision 

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision 

exemption, or are medically certified 

under § 391.64(b). These individuals 

have already demonstrated they can 

operate a CMV safely with the vision 

deficiency. 

The requirement for 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience with the 

vision deficiency has been equated to 

sufficient time for the driver to adapt to 

and compensate for the change in 

vision. FHWA stated the 3-year safe 

driving history with the vision 

deficiency requirement was based on 

studies ‘‘indicating that past experience 

can be used to predict future 

performance, especially when combined 

with other predictive factors such as 

geographic location, mileage driven, and 

conviction history’’ (59 FR 50887, 

50888, October 6, 1994). FHWA 

continued that it relied on opinions 

from the medical community that 

individuals with a vision deficiency are 

often able to compensate for their 

impairment over time. ‘‘Because of the 

discrepancy as to how much time is 

necessary to allow an individual to 

compensate for an impairment (which 

generally ranged from several months to 

a full year), [FHWA’s] choice of three 

years provided added assurance that 

drivers would have had sufficient time 

to develop compensatory behavior. It 

was also the longest period for which 

driver histories were uniformly 

available from State motor vehicle 

departments’’ (59 FR 50888–89). 

Although it was considered 

appropriate for FHWA to proceed 

conservatively and to ensure adequate 

time for individuals to adapt to and 

compensate for vision changes when 

beginning the waiver study program, it 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2357 

64Coday MP, Warner MA, Jahrlin KV, and Rubin 

PA, ‘‘Acquired Monocular Vision: Functional 

Consequences from the Patient’s Perspective,’’ 

Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 

18(1), pp. 56–63 (2002), available at https://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11910326 (last 

accessed March 24, 2020). 

65On December 18, 2013, FMCSA proposed 

changes to the eligibility requirements for the 

exemption program. As relevant here, FMCSA 

proposed to reduce the length of driving experience 

to 1 year of intrastate driving experience with the 

stable visual deficiency or to remove the driving 

experience criterion altogether (78 FR 76590, 

76592). The American Optometric Association 

supported removing the requirement for a specific 

amount of driving experience, in part, because an 

examination by an ophthalmologist or optometrist 

within the prior 3 months from the date of 

application would help to assess whether the driver 

had experienced recent vision deterioration. This 

comment is available in docket number FMCSA– 

2013–0097 at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FMCSA-2013-0097-0004 (last 

accessed March 13, 2020). 

appears that the primary factor in 

selecting the 3 years of intrastate driving 

experience criterion was that it 

coincided with the typical period of 

motor vehicle driving histories. Three 

years of experience driving with the 

vision deficiency exceeded by several 

months to a full year, according to 

opinions of the medical community, the 

period necessary to compensate for the 

vision loss. Eliminating the driving 

experience criterion would not allow 

potentially hazardous drivers to 

participate in interstate commerce 

because medical professionals would 

ensure drivers have had the time to 

adapt to and compensate for the vision 

change. The driving experience criterion 

has the limitation that many drivers are 

not able to obtain intrastate driving 

experience because not all States issue 

vision waivers. For these reasons, 

FMCSA is not proposing to continue the 

exemption program’s requirement for 3 

years of intrastate driving experience 

with the vision deficiency in the 

alternative vision standard. 

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ensure 

an individual possesses the skills 

needed to operate a CMV safely with the 

vision deficiency. 

As an alternative to the 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience criterion, 

FMCSA proposes, with limited 

exceptions, that individuals physically 

qualified under the alternative vision 

standard for the first time satisfactorily 

complete a road test before operating in 

interstate commerce. The road test 

would be conducted in accordance with 

the road test already required by 

§ 391.31. When FHWA adopted the road 

test in § 391.31, it stated that the 

interests of CMV safety would be 

promoted by ensuring drivers have 

demonstrated their skill by completing 

the road test (35 FR 6458, 6450 (April 

22, 1970)). FMCSA finds that a road test 

would be an appropriate indicator of an 

individual’s ability to operate a CMV 

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus, 

the Agency expects there will be no 

adverse impact on safety from 

eliminating the intrastate driving 

experience criterion. 

The proposed alternative vision 

standard also would not continue the 3- 

year safe driving history criterion. 

Selecting only drivers with a history of 

safe driving to participate in the vision 

waiver study program allowed FHWA to 

focus on the impact of vision on driving. 

After nearly 30 years with the vision 

waiver study and exemption programs, 

experience has shown that individuals 

with vision loss in one eye are not 

limited by their lack of binocularity 

with respect to driving once they have 

adapted to and compensated for the 

change in vision. Accordingly, the 3- 

year safe driving history criterion has 

served its purpose and is no longer 

necessary. 

FMCSA declines to propose specific 

periods for which an individual’s vision 

deficiency must be stable and for what 

constitutes sufficient time to adapt to 

and compensate for the change in 

vision. The causes of vision loss are 

many and varied. Vision loss may be 

present at birth, the result of trauma, 

due to medical treatment intervention, 

or the result of a progressive eye 

condition or disease. The cause of the 

vision loss is a primary factor in how 

long it takes for an individual to adapt 

to and compensate for the change in 

vision. In general, those who experience 

sudden loss of vision in one eye require 

more time to adapt to and compensate 

for the change than those who lose their 

vision gradually. For example, Coday, et 

al. (2002) found the time for patients to 

adapt to sudden vision loss was 8.8 

months and to adapt to gradual vision 

loss was 3.6 months.64

Therefore, the Agency proposes that 

medical decisions regarding whether an 

individual’s vision deficiency is stable 

and whether the individual has adapted 

to and compensated for the change in 

vision be made by medical 

professionals. These medical decisions 

should be based on an individualized 

assessment by a medical professional 

rather than a regulation.65

B. MEs Would Make the Qualification 

Determination 

The proposed alternative vision 

standard would place the case-by-case 

physical qualification determination 

with the ME who examines the 

individual, which is consistent with 

FMCSA’s rule to adopt an alternative 

physical qualification standard for 

individuals with insulin-treated 

diabetes mellitus (see 83 FR 47486, 

September 19, 2018). Thus, licensed 

healthcare professionals listed on the 

Agency’s National Registry of Certified 

Medical Examiners (National Registry) 

would consider the information in the 

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA– 

5871, and determine whether an 

individual meets the proposed vision 

standard. This approach of MEs making 

the physical qualification 

determination, instead of FMCSA, is 

consistent with Congress’s directive in 

49 U.S.C. 31149(d) to have trained and 

certified MEs assess the individual’s 

health status. In addition, the proposed 

process would create a clear and 

consistent framework to assist MEs with 

making a physical qualification 

determination that is equally as effective 

as a program based entirely on granting 

exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b). 

C. Review of an Individual’s Safety 

Performance Would Continue 

FMCSA is not proposing to change 

the current regulations that require 

motor carriers to review an individual’s 

safety performance. FMCSA has 

regulatory requirements in place to 

ensure that motor carriers review the 

safety performance of all their drivers. 

For example, motor carriers are required 

to review both the motor vehicle records 

and the safety performance history, 

which must include accident 

information, from previous employers 

for the prior 3 years when hiring a 

driver (49 CFR 391.23(a) and (d)). Also, 

motor carriers are required to review the 

motor vehicle records for all drivers 

annually (49 CFR 391.25). In addition, 

the road test would demonstrate 

whether individuals are able to operate 

a CMV safely with the vision deficiency. 

As previously stated, the 3-year safe 

driving history criterion has served its 

purpose and is no longer necessary. 

Accordingly, the safety performance of 

individuals who can satisfy the 

proposed alternative vision standard 

should be evaluated in the same manner 

as other drivers. 

VIII. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

FMCSA elects to respond to the 

MRB’s request to investigate shortening 

the 3-year intrastate driving experience 

criterion and to provide more 

information about the vision exemption 

program by publishing this NPRM and 

proposing a rule that includes the 

MRB’s 2015 recommendations. This 

approach provides the MRB with 

background on the exemption program, 

summaries of prior reports and analyses, 

a specific proposal and its rationale to 

consider, and public comment on the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2358 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

66FMCSA notes that proceeding with an NPRM 

is also responsive to stakeholder comment. For 

example, in the rulemaking to change the physical 

qualification standard relating to insulin-treated 

diabetes mellitus, the American Trucking 

Associations, Inc. (‘‘ATA’’) commented that it was 

pleased that FMCSA was using the rulemaking 

process to adjust that standard. Additionally, ATA 

‘‘implore[d] FMCSA to also conduct rulemaking on 

its other ‘absolute’ medical standards for which it 

is currently issuing exemptions en masse including 

the vision and hearing standards.’’ ATA continued 

that ‘‘[e]xemptions from these medical standards 

only create confusion in the industry as to what 

constitutes a medically safe driver and what does 

not. It also creates an unnecessary, but easily 

solvable, predicament for motor carriers.’’ This 

comment is available in docket number FMCSA– 

2005–23151 at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FMCSA-2005-23151-0960 (last access 

March 13, 2020). 

proposal.66 As noted above, the Agency 

will follow a rulemaking process like 

the one used when FMCSA adopted the 

alternative physical qualification 

standard for insulin-treated diabetes 

mellitus. After the public comment 

period closes, FMCSA will ask the MRB 

to review all comments to the NPRM 

from medical professionals and 

associations. If after that review the 

MRB makes material changes to its prior 

recommendations in MRB Task 15–2, 

FMCSA will publish a Federal Register 

notice announcing the availability of the 

new MRB recommendations and request 

public comment specific to those 

recommendations. 

FMCSA proposes to establish an 

alternative physical qualification 

standard for individuals who cannot 

satisfy either the distant visual acuity or 

field of vision standard, or both, in 

§ 391.41(b)(10) in one eye. If adopted, 

the alternative vision standard would 

replace the current vision exemption 

program as a basis for determining the 

physical qualification of these 

individuals to operate a CMV. It also 

would eliminate the need for the 

grandfather provisions under 

§ 391.64(b). The proposed alternative 

vision standard would enhance 

employment opportunities and reduce 

the paperwork burden for drivers, while 

remaining consistent with FMCSA’s 

safety mission. 

Specifically, the Agency proposes to 

adopt most of the existing vision 

exemption program criteria and modify 

other of the criteria as a vision standard 

to be applied in lieu of the vision 

exemption program. The alternative 

vision standard would require 

individuals, to be physically qualified, 

to have in the better eye distant visual 

acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) (with 

or without corrective lenses) and field of 

vision of at least 70 degrees in the 

horizontal meridian; the ability to 

recognize the colors of traffic signals 

and devices showing standard red, 

green, and amber; stability of the vision 

deficiency; and sufficient time to adapt 

to and compensate for the change in 

vision. With limited exceptions, FMCSA 

also would require individuals 

physically qualified under the proposed 

alternative vision standard for the first 

time to complete a road test 

administered by the motor carrier 

satisfactorily before operating in 

interstate commerce. 

A. Proposed Physical Qualification 

Process 

FMCSA proposes a two-step process 

for physical qualification. The process 

would be analogous to what the Agency 

adopted in § 391.46 for individuals with 

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (see 83 

FR 47486, September 19, 2018). First, an 

individual seeking physical 

qualification would obtain a vision 

evaluation from an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist who would record the 

findings and provide specific medical 

opinions on the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

which incorporates the 

recommendations of the MRB. Next, at 

a physical qualification examination, an 

ME would consider the information 

provided on the vision report and 

exercise independent medical judgment 

to determine whether the individual 

meets the proposed vision standard, as 

well as FMCSA’s other physical 

qualification standards. If the ME 

determines that the individual meets the 

physical qualification standards to 

operate a CMV safely, the ME could 

issue an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, for a 

maximum of 12 months. 

FMCSA is not proposing changes to 

the current vision standard found in 

§ 391.41(b)(10). The current standard 

would be redesignated as paragraph 

(b)(10)(i). An alternative vision standard 

would be added in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) 

to allow an individual who cannot 

satisfy either the distant visual acuity or 

field of vision standard, or both, in one 

eye to be physically qualified if the 

individual satisfies the requirements of 

proposed § 391.44. 

Proposed § 391.44 would set forth the 

provisions of the alternative vision 

standard. It would provide that an 

individual who cannot satisfy either the 

current distant visual acuity or field of 

vision standard, or both, in one eye is 

physically qualified to operate a CMV in 

interstate commerce if the individual (1) 

meets FMCSA’s other physical 

qualification standards in § 391.41 (or 

has an exemption or skill performance 

evaluation certificate, if required), and 

(2) has the vision evaluation and 

medical examination required by 

§ 391.44. 

Individuals would be evaluated by a 

licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist 

no more than 45 days before each 

annual or more frequent examination by 

an ME. Even individuals who have a 

non-functional eye or have lost an eye 

would be required to undergo vision 

evaluations at least annually. Because of 

the potential for vision changes in the 

remaining eye, it is important to 

monitor that eye’s compliance with the 

vision standard. 

During the vision evaluation, the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist would 

complete the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871. 

The report’s instructions to the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist state 

that completion of the report does not 

imply that the ophthalmologist or 

optometrist is making a decision to 

qualify the individual to drive a CMV. 

The instructions state further that any 

determination as to whether the 

individual is physically qualified to 

drive a CMV will be made by an ME. 

The Agency is aware that the 

definition of ‘‘monocular vision’’ varies; 

therefore, the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

includes FMCSA’s definition of the 

term. The report defines monocular 

vision as (1) in the better eye, distant 

visual acuity of at least 20/40 (with or 

without corrective lenses) and field of 

vision of at least 70 degrees in the 

horizontal meridian, and (2) in the 

worse eye, either a distant visual acuity 

of less than 20/40 (with or without 

corrective lenses) or field of vision of 

less than 70 degrees in the horizontal 

meridian, or both. FMCSA’s monocular 

vision definition has been applied 

consistently for nearly 30 years. 

The proposed Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871, includes 

instructions to the individual regarding 

the timeframe for providing the report to 

the ME. The individual would be 

required to begin the physical 

qualification examination no later than 

45 calendar days after the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist signs 

and dates the report, after which time 

the Vision Evaluation Report is no 

longer valid. This timeframe would 

ensure the ME is receiving the results of 

a recent vision evaluation. 

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form 

MCSA–5871, collects the individual’s 

name, date of birth, driver’s license 

number, and State of issuance. In 

addition, the report collects the 

following information: 

(1) Whether the individual completing the 

report is an ophthalmologist or an 

optometrist; 

(2) The date of the vision evaluation; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2359 

(3) The distant visual acuity in each eye 

(corrected and uncorrected), and, if 

corrected, the type of correction; 

(4) The field of vision, including central 

and peripheral fields in each eye, utilizing a 

testing modality that tests to at least 120 

degrees in the horizontal. A formal perimetry 

test interpreted in degrees is required and 

must be attached to the report; 

(5) Whether the individual can recognize 

red, green, and amber colors; 

(6) The date of the last comprehensive eye 

examination; 

(7) Whether the individual has monocular 

vision as defined by FMCSA; 

(8) The cause of the monocular vision; 

(9) When the monocular vision began; 

(10) The current treatment for the 

monocular vision; 

(11) A medical opinion regarding whether 

the vision deficiency is stable; 

(12) A medical opinion regarding whether 

sufficient time has passed to allow the 

individual to adapt to and compensate for the 

change in vision; and 

(13) Information regarding progressive eye 

conditions and diseases, including the date 

of diagnosis, severity, current treatment, 

whether the condition is stable, and a 

medical opinion regarding whether a vision 

evaluation is required more often than 

annually, and if so, how often. 

The report requires the individual 

completing the report to attest that the 

individual is an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist and that the information 

provided is true and correct to the best 

of the individual’s knowledge. The 

report includes the date, printed name 

and medical credential of the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist, 

signature, professional license number 

and issuing State, phone number, and 

email and street addresses. The report 

would be available on FMCSA’s 

website. 

The draft Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871, is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. The Agency 

seeks public comment on the substance 

and form of the report, as well as the 

four questions posed in section XI.G. 

below, relating to the information 

collection titled ‘‘Medical Qualification 

Requirements,’’ regarding FMCSA’s 

request for OMB approval of the report 

and related information collection 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Under the proposed regulation, the 

individual examined, ophthalmologist, 

or optometrist could provide the signed 

report to an ME. An ME would have to 

receive a completed report for each 

examination of an individual needing 

evaluation under § 391.44. A report 

would be considered complete when a 

response is provided to all data fields 

and the ophthalmologist or optometrist 

signs, dates, and provides his or her full 

name, office address, and telephone 

number on the report. The report would 

be treated as part of the Medical 

Examination Report Form, MCSA–5875, 

and would be retained by the ME for at 

least 3 years from the date of the 

examination as required by 49 CFR 

391.43(i). 

Under the alternative vision standard, 

an individual would be medically 

examined and certified by an ME at 

least annually as physically qualified to 

operate a CMV. The ME would 

determine whether the individual meets 

the physical qualification standards in 

§ 391.41. In making that determination, 

the ME would consider the information 

in the Vision Evaluation Report, Form 

MCSA–5871, and utilize independent 

medical judgment to apply the 

following four standards proposed in 

§ 391.44: 

(1) The individual would not be physically 

qualified to operate a CMV if in the better eye 

the distant visual acuity is not at least 20/40 

(Snellen), with or without corrective lenses, 

and the field of vision is not at least 70 

degrees in the horizontal meridian. 

(2) The individual would not be physically 

qualified to operate a CMV if the individual 

is not able to recognize the colors of traffic 

signals and devices showing standard red, 

green, and amber. 

(3) The individual would not be physically 

qualified to operate a CMV if the individual’s 

vision deficiency is not stable. 

(4) The individual would not be physically 

qualified to operate a CMV if there has not 

been sufficient time to allow the individual 

to adapt to and compensate for the change in 

vision. 

The ME would consider the data and 

medical opinions provided by the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist to assist 

in making a qualification determination. 

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form 

MCSA–5871, should include sufficient 

information for the ME to determine 

whether the opinions expressed by the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist appear 

informed and appropriate. 

Consistent with current practice for 

any medical condition, if the ME 

determines that additional information 

is necessary to make the qualification 

determination, the ME could confer 

with the ophthalmologist or optometrist 

for additional information concerning 

the individual’s related vision medical 

history and status, make requests for 

other appropriate referrals, or request 

medical records from the individual’s 

treating provider, all with appropriate 

consent. Because the ME is 

knowledgeable about the physical 

requirements to operate a CMV and the 

physical qualification regulations, the 

ME would continue to determine 

whether an individual meets FMCSA’s 

physical qualification standards. 

In addition to adding the alternative 

vision standard in § 391.44, the 

proposed rule would add a paragraph in 

§ 391.45 that would require individuals 

physically qualified under proposed 

§ 391.44 to be medically examined and 

certified at least annually. As with any 

individual, an ME would have 

discretion to certify an individual for 

less than the maximum year if medical 

conditions warrant. 

B. Road Test in Accordance With 49 

CFR 391.31 

With limited exceptions, FMCSA 

proposes that individuals physically 

qualified under the alternative vision 

standard for the first time must 

successfully complete a road test before 

operating a CMV in interstate 

commerce. The road test would 

demonstrate individuals are able to 

operate a CMV safely with the vision 

deficiency. Once an individual is 

physically qualified under § 391.44 for 

the first time and receives an MEC, 

Form MCSA–5876, the individual 

would consult § 391.44(d) to determine 

whether a road test may be required. 

The ME issuing the MEC, Form MCSA– 

5876, would have no role with respect 

to the road test. 

Paragraph (d)(1) would provide the 

general rule that, subject to limited 

exceptions, an individual physically 

qualified under § 391.44 for the first 

time could not drive a CMV until the 

individual has successfully completed a 

subsequent road test and has been 

issued a certificate of driver’s road test 

in accordance with § 391.31. Such an 

individual would be required to inform 

the motor carrier responsible for 

completing the road test under 

§ 391.31(b) when the individual is 

required by § 391.44(d) to have a road 

test. Motor carriers would conduct the 

road test and issue a certificate of 

driver’s road test in accordance with 

§ 391.31(b) thorough (g). Motor carriers 

are currently required to conduct a road 

test under § 391.31 when they hire a 

new driver, subject primarily to 

exceptions in § 391.33. Therefore, many 

motor carriers and drivers are already 

familiar with the road test and related 

documentation requirements. 

Section 391.31(b) provides the road 

test must be given by the motor carrier 

employing the individual or a person 

designated by the motor carrier. If the 

individual is also a motor carrier (e.g., 

an owner-operator), the road test must 

be given by a person other than the 

individual. The road test must be given 

by a person competent to evaluate and 

determine whether the individual taking 

the test demonstrated that the 

individual is capable of operating the 

CMV, and associated equipment, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2360 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

motor carrier intends to assign to the 

individual for operation. 

The road test also must be of 

sufficient duration to enable the person 

giving it to evaluate the skill of the 

individual taking it at handling the 

CMV, and associated equipment, the 

motor carrier intends to assign to the 

individual (49 CFR 391.31(c)). At a 

minimum, the road test must include: 

(1) The pre-trip inspection required by 

§ 392.7; 

(2) Coupling and uncoupling of 

combination units (if the equipment the 

individual may drive includes combination 

units); 

(3) Placing the CMV in operation; 

(4) Use of the CMV’s controls and 

emergency equipment; 

(5) Operating the CMV in traffic and while 

passing other motor vehicles; 

(6) Turning the CMV; 

(7) Braking and slowing the CMV by means 

other than braking; and 

(8) Backing and parking the CMV. 

The motor carrier provides a road test 

form on which the person giving the 

road test rates the individual taking it at 

each operation that is a part of the test. 

The person giving the test signs the form 

once it is complete (49 CFR 391.31(d)). 

If the road test is successfully 

completed, the person giving it 

completes a certificate of driver’s road 

test in substantially the form prescribed 

in § 391.31(f) (49 CFR 391.31(e)). A copy 

of the certificate of driver’s road test is 

given to the individual tested (49 CFR 

391.31(g)). The motor carrier retains in 

the individual’s driver qualification file 

the original of the signed road test form 

and the original, or a copy, of the 

certificate of driver’s road test (49 CFR 

391.31(g)(1) and (2)). 

The Agency seeks public comment on 

the information collection associated 

with the § 391.31 road test, particularly 

as required by proposed § 391.44 and 

the exception to the road test for 

intrastate and excepted interstate 

drivers discussed below. The 

information collection titled ‘‘391.31 

Road Test Requirement’’ is described in 

section XI.G. below regarding FMCSA’s 

request for OMB approval of the 

information collection under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. Also, the 

draft supporting statement for the 

information collection is available in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

Paragraph (d)(2) would provide that 

the alternatives to a § 391.31 road test in 

§ 391.33 do not apply to individuals 

required to have a road test by 

§ 391.44(d). Accordingly, a motor carrier 

could not accept certain CDLs or a copy 

of a certificate of driver’s road test 

issued within the preceding 3 years as 

an alternative to the required road test. 

However, after an individual required to 

have a road test by § 391.44(d) 

successfully completes a road test and is 

issued a certificate of driver’s road test 

in accordance with § 391.31 once, the 

provisions of § 391.33 would apply to 

the individual as they would normally 

operate. FMCSA notes that motor 

carriers always have the option to 

require any individual to take a road test 

as a condition of employment (see 49 

CFR 391.33(c)). 

Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of 

§ 391.44(d) would provide exceptions to 

the general requirement for a road test. 

These individuals would be excepted 

because they have already demonstrated 

they can operate a CMV safely with the 

vision deficiency. Accordingly, a road 

test would not be necessary. 

Paragraph (3) would except an 

individual from the road test 

requirement if the motor carrier 

determines the individual possessed a 

valid CDL or non-CDL to operate, and 

did operate, a CMV in either intrastate 

commerce or in interstate commerce 

excepted by § 390.3T(f) or § 391.2 from 

the requirements of 49 CFR part 391, 

subpart E, with the vision deficiency for 

the 3-year period immediately 

preceding the date of physical 

qualification under § 391.44 for the first 

time. To qualify for the exception, the 

individual would certify in writing to 

the motor carrier the date the vision 

deficiency began. The motor carrier 

would review employment information 

to determine whether the individual 

operated a CMV for the required 3 years 

with the vision deficiency. Many motor 

carriers would use employment 

information obtained when 

investigating the individual’s safety 

performance history from previous 

employers for the prior 3 years when 

hiring a driver, as required by 

§ 391.23(a)(2) and (d). 

If the motor carrier determines the 

individual operated a CMV in intrastate 

or excepted interstate commerce with 

the vision deficiency for the required 3 

years, the motor carrier would prepare 

a written statement to that effect with 

the finding that the individual is not 

required by § 391.44(d) to complete a 

road test. A copy of the written 

statement would be provided to the 

individual. The motor carrier would 

retain the original of the written 

statement and the original, or a copy, of 

the individual’s certification regarding 

the date the vision deficiency began in 

the driver qualification file. Section 

391.51, which provides what documents 

must be included in a driver 

qualification file, would be amended to 

include the written statement and 

certification. 

Paragraphs (4) and (5) of § 391.44(d), 

respectively, would except individuals 

holding a valid Federal vision 

exemption or medically certified under 

§ 391.64(b) on the effective date of any 

final rule from the requirement to have 

a road test. Such individuals would not 

be required to inform the motor carrier 

that they are excepted from the 

requirement in § 391.44(d)(1) to have a 

road test. 

The development of this proposed 

rule provided FMCSA with the 

opportunity to review § 391.31 in the 

context of current privacy 

considerations. Section 391.31(e) 

provides that, if the road test is 

successfully completed, the motor 

carrier must complete a certificate of 

driver’s road test ‘‘substantially’’ in the 

form prescribed in paragraph (f). 

Paragraph (f) provides a Certification of 

Road Test that lists, in part, the driver’s 

social security number, the driver’s 

license number, and the State of 

issuance of the driver’s license. Because 

the road test is completed when hiring 

a driver, the motor carrier already 

would have collected this information 

on other employment documents. The 

motor carrier also would have verified 

the identity of the driver and that the 

driver has a driver’s license. 

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to 

remove this information from the list in 

paragraph (f) because it is unnecessary 

and duplicative. 

C. Elimination of Vision Exemption 

Program and Grandfather Provisions 

The proposed rule would eliminate 

the need for the current vision 

exemption program and the grandfather 

provisions of § 391.64(b). As discussed 

above in the background section of this 

NPRM, drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver study program 

and were holding valid waivers from the 

vision standard on March 31, 1996 

could continue to operate in interstate 

commerce under the grandfather 

provisions of § 391.64(b). If the 

proposed rule is adopted, the Agency 

believes the grandfathering provisions 

would be redundant. Therefore, FMCSA 

proposes that the approximately 1,900 

individuals physically qualified under 

§ 391.64(b) would have 1 year after the 

effective date of any final rule to comply 

with the rule. During that transition 

year, grandfathered individuals could 

elect to seek physical qualification 

through the final rule or § 391.64. This 

transition year would provide time to 

learn the new process for individuals 

whose MEC, Form MCSA–5876, expires 

near the time any final rule becomes 

effective. However, 1 year after the 

effective date of the final rule all MECs, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2361 

67As discussed below in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section XI.G. regarding the Medical 

Qualification Requirements information collection, 

FMCSA attributes 2,236 annual burden hours at a 

cost of $69,136 for drivers to obtain and maintain 

a vision exemption. The proposed rule would 

eliminate this entire burden. 

68The fact that some States have vision waiver 

programs for intrastate CMV drivers provides 

additional evidence that individuals who cannot 

meet either FMCSA’s distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye are driving 

safely in intrastate commerce. When FMCSA 

proposed changes to the eligibility requirements for 

the exemption program in December 2013, an 

individual commented that he did not understand 

why FMCSA requires driving experience when his 

State issues a waiver without driving experience. 

The comment is available in docket number 

FMCSA–2013–0097 at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FMCSA-2013-0097-0003. 

Form MCSA–5876, issued under 

§ 391.64(b) would become void. 

FMCSA anticipates that individuals 

physically qualified under § 391.64(b) 

would not be adversely affected by the 

proposed action. Grandfathered drivers 

are already required to obtain annual 

vision evaluations performed by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist before 

their physical qualification 

examinations and the proposed rule 

includes similar qualification criteria. 

However, FMCSA seeks public 

comment regarding whether the 

proposed alternative vision standard 

would adversely affect any driver who 

is operating currently under § 391.64(b). 

Similarly, the 2,566 vision exemption 

holders would have 1 year after the 

effective date of any final rule to comply 

with the rule, at which time all 

exemptions issued under 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b) would become void. Drivers 

who hold a vision exemption would be 

notified by letter with details of the 

transition to the new standard. 

D. Change to the Medical Examination 

Process in 49 CFR 391.43(b)(1) 

The Agency proposes to amend 

§ 391.43(b)(1) by adding an 

ophthalmologist as a category of eye 

care professional who may perform the 

part of the physical qualification 

examination that involves visual acuity, 

field of vision, and the ability to 

recognize colors. Currently, the 

provision is limited to licensed 

optometrists. When § 391.43(a) was 

adopted in 1970, it provided that the 

medical examination must be performed 

by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, 

which allowed an ophthalmologist to 

perform any part of the examination (35 

FR 6458, 6463, April 22, 1970). An 

exception was provided in paragraph (b) 

to allow optometrists to perform the part 

of the medical examination that 

involves visual acuity, field of vision, 

and the ability to recognize colors. 

Section 391.43 has been amended 

several times since 1970 and now 

provides that the medical examination 

must be performed by an ME listed on 

the National Registry. The Agency did 

not amend § 391.43 at the time of the 

prior amendments to continue to allow 

ophthalmologists to perform the vision 

portion of the medical examination. 

Accordingly, the proposed rule would 

correct that oversight. 

E. Benefits of the Proposal to Drivers 

The physical qualification process 

proposed in § 391.44 would eliminate 

the need for individuals to obtain and 

renew an exemption. Drivers would no 

longer be required to create and 

assemble the substantial amount of 

information and documentation 

necessary to apply for or renew an 

exemption, or to respond to subsequent 

requests for information.67 Publishing 

personal and medical information in the 

Federal Register and seeking public 

comment about drivers would be 

discontinued. Also, individuals would 

no longer be required to carry a copy of 

the vision exemption when on duty as 

required by § 391.41(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(iii) 

or provide a copy to their employers. 

Eliminating the prohibition on 

certifying individuals who cannot meet 

either the current visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye 

(without an exemption) would enable 

more qualified individuals to operate as 

interstate CMV drivers without 

compromising safety. The criterion that 

an individual should have 3 years of 

experience driving a CMV with the 

vision deficiency precludes many 

individuals from being eligible to obtain 

a Federal exemption. The only way for 

an individual to get the CMV driving 

experience is to obtain intrastate driving 

experience. To do that, the individual 

must obtain a State vision waiver to 

operate in intrastate commerce, but not 

all States issue vision waivers.68 The 

road test alternative addresses this 

limitation and is much less burdensome 

than obtaining 3 years of intrastate 

driving experience. Thus, the proposed 

rule would provide an opportunity to 

operate as an interstate CMV driver 

regardless of the driver’s State of 

domicile. Individuals who live in a 

State that issues vision waivers also 

would be able to begin a career as an 

interstate CMV driver more quickly and 

may have more employment 

opportunities. 

Previously qualified interstate CMV 

drivers who are no longer able to meet 

either the distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye 

would be able to return to operating 

interstate sooner. Currently, such 

individuals would have to obtain 3 

years of intrastate CMV driving 

experience, assuming they lived in a 

State that offers vision waivers, once 

their vision is stable and they have had 

time to adapt to and accommodated for 

the change in their vision before they 

would be eligible to obtain a Federal 

exemption and return to interstate 

driving. 

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis 

This section includes a summary of 

the proposed changes to 49 CFR part 

391. The regulatory changes proposed 

will be discussed first in numerical 

order, followed by a discussion of 

proposed changes to Agency guidance. 

A. Regulatory Provisions 

Section 391.31 Road Test 

In § 391.31, paragraph (f) would be 

amended by removing the entries for the 

driver’s social security number, the 

driver’s license number, and the State of 

issuance of the driver’s license from the 

Certification of Road Test. A new 

paragraph (h) would be added that 

provides OMB reviewed the information 

collection requirements in § 391.31 and 

assigned an OMB control number. 

Section 391.41 Physical Qualifications 

for Drivers 

In § 391.41(b)(10), the current vision 

standard would be renumbered as 

paragraph (b)(10)(i) without any textual 

changes. An alternative standard would 

be added in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) that 

would allow an individual who cannot 

satisfy either the current distant visual 

acuity or field of vision standard, or 

both, in one eye to be physically 

qualified under proposed § 391.44. 

Section 391.43 Medical Examination; 

Certificate of Physical Examination 

In § 391.43(b)(1), an ophthalmologist 

would be added as a category of eye care 

professional who may perform the part 

of the physical qualification 

examination that involves visual acuity, 

field of vision, and the ability to 

recognize colors. Textual changes also 

would be made to improve readability. 

Section 391.44 Physical Qualification 

Standards for an Individual Who Cannot 

Satisfy Either the Distant Visual Acuity 

or Field of Vision Standard, or Both, in 

One Eye 

A new § 391.44 would be added. 

Paragraph (a) would apply so an 

individual who cannot satisfy either the 

current distant visual acuity or field of 

vision standard, or both, in one eye can 

be physically qualified to operate a 

CMV in interstate commerce. Such an 

individual would be physically 

qualified if the individual meets the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2362 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

69See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/drivermedical-requirements/what-are-physicalqualification-requirements-operating-cmv (last 

accessed August 20, 2020). 

other physical qualification standards in 

§ 391.41(b) (or has an exemption or skill 

performance evaluation certificate, if 

required), and has the vision evaluation 

and medical examination required by 

paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively. 

Paragraph (b) would require the 

individual to have a vision evaluation 

completed by a licensed 

ophthalmologist or optometrist before 

each physical qualification examination. 

The ophthalmologist or optometrist 

would complete the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

during the individual’s evaluation, 

including signing and dating the report 

and providing business contact 

information. 

Paragraph (c) would set forth the 

requirements for the ME’s examination, 

including that the examination must 

begin no later than 45 days after the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist signs 

and dates the Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871. The ME would have 

to receive a completed report for each 

examination of an individual needing 

evaluation under § 391.44. The report 

would be treated and retained as part of 

the Medical Examination Report Form, 

MCSA–5875. The ME would make a 

physical qualification determination by 

considering the information in the 

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA– 

5871, and using independent medical 

judgment in applying four standards. 

The standards would provide that the 

individual must (1) have in the better 

eye distant visual acuity of at least 20/ 

40 (Snellen), with or without corrective 

lenses, and field of vision of at least 70 

degrees in the horizontal meridian; (2) 

be able to recognize the colors of traffic 

signals and devices showing standard 

red, green, and amber; (3) have a stable 

vision deficiency; and (4) have had 

sufficient time to adapt to and 

compensate for changes in vision. 

Paragraph (d) would provide an 

individual physically qualified under 

§ 391.44(d) for the first time could not 

drive a CMV until the individual has 

successfully completed a road test 

subsequent to physical qualification and 

has been issued a certificate of driver’s 

road test in accordance with § 391.31. A 

motor carrier could not accept in place 

of a road test required by § 391.44(d) the 

alternatives provided in § 391.33. 

Individuals would be excepted from the 

road test requirement if they had a valid 

license and operated in intrastate or 

excepted interstate commerce with the 

vision deficiency for the 3-year period 

immediately preceding the date of 

physical qualification under § 391.44 for 

the first time, or held a valid Federal 

vision exemption or were medically 

certified under § 391.64(b) on the 

effective date of any final rule. 

Section 391.45 Persons Who Must Be 

Medically Examined and Certified 

Section 391.45 would be amended by 

renumbering existing paragraphs (f) and 

(g) as paragraphs (g) and (h), 

respectively. A new paragraph (f) would 

be added to require any driver certified 

under proposed § 391.44 to be 

recertified at least every 12 months. 

Conforming changes would be made in 

paragraph (b) to reflect the addition of 

a new paragraph to this section. 

Section 391.51 General Requirements 

for Driver Qualification Files 

Conforming changes would be made 

to § 391.51. Paragraph (b)(3) would be 

amended to include in the driver 

qualification file the original of the 

written statement from the motor carrier 

required by § 391.44(d)(3)(ii)(A), as well 

as the original, or a copy, of the 

certification from the driver required by 

§ 391.44(d)(3)(i). 

Section 391.64 Grandfathering for 

Certain Drivers Who Participated in the 

Vision Waiver Study Program 

FMCSA would revise the title of 

§ 391.64 to reflect that the regulation is 

now applicable only to drivers who 

participated in the vision waiver study 

program. Language would be inserted at 

the beginning of existing paragraph (b) 

to provide that any final rule resulting 

from this NPRM would not apply to 

individuals certified pursuant to 

§ 391.64(b) until 1 year after the 

effective date of the rule. During that 

year, individuals certified under the 

grandfather provisions could choose to 

be certified under § 391.64(b) or the 

final rule. A new paragraph (b)(4) would 

be added to remove and void all of 

paragraph (b) 1 year after the effective 

date of the final rule; thus, eliminating 

certification under § 391.64(b). 

Paragraph (b)(4) would provide that any 

MEC, Form MCSA–5876, issued under 

the provisions of § 391.64(b) would 

become void 1 year after the effective 

date of the final rule. In addition, 

instructions would be provided to 

remove and reserve § 391.64 1 year after 

the effective date of the final rule. Cross 

references to § 391.64 in existing 

regulations would be eliminated in 

future rulemakings. 

B. Guidance Statements and 

Interpretations 

This rulemaking proposes to amend a 

regulation that has associated guidance 

statements or interpretations. Such 

guidance statements do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not 

meant to bind the public in any way. 

They are intended only to provide 

clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or FMCSA 

policies. Guidance statements will not 

be relied on by FMCSA as a separate 

basis for affirmative enforcement action 

or other administrative penalty. 

Conformity with guidance statements is 

voluntary, and nonconformity will not 

affect rights and obligations under 

existing statutes or regulations. Rather, 

guidance is strictly advisory and 

intended to provide information that 

helps to support the application of the 

standards in the regulations or to serve 

as a reference. A guidance statement 

does not alter the meaning of a 

regulation. 

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical 

Advisory Criteria 

Appendix A to Part 391 is published 

at the end of part 391 in the CFR. The 

appendix contains guidelines in the 

form of Medical Advisory Criteria to 

help MEs assess a driver’s physical 

qualification to operate a CMV under 

the standards set forth in § 391.41(b). 

FMCSA proposes to remove section II. 

J., Vision: § 391.41(b)(10), of Appendix 

A to Part 391 in its entirety. 

Interpretations for § 391.41 

Interpretations for specific regulations 

are available through the Guidance 

Portal on FMCSA’s website. FMCSA 

proposes to revise the guidance to 

Question 3 of the interpretations for 

§ 391.41.69 FMCSA would conform the 

language to the number of medical 

conditions that would not be subject to 

an ME’s judgment (i.e., two), and 

remove ‘‘vision’’ from the list of 

conditions for which an ME has no 

discretion. The interpretative guidance 

for Question 3 would thus read as 

follows: 

Question 3: What are the physical 

qualification requirements for operating 

a CMV in interstate commerce? 

Guidance: The physical qualification 

regulations for drivers in interstate 

commerce are found at § 391.41. 

Instructions to medical examiners 

performing physical examinations of 

these drivers are found at § 391.43. 

The qualification standards cover 13 

areas, which directly relate to the 

driving function. All but two of the 

standards require a judgment by the 

medical examiner. A person’s 

qualification to drive is determined by 

a medical examiner who is 

knowledgeable about the driver’s 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2363 

70A copy of the application template is available 

in the docket and at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/ 

sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/medical/ 

driver-medical-requirements/10451/visionexemption-package-0918.pdf (last accessed July 16, 

2019). 71Applicants should have 3 years of intrastate 

driving experience in a CMV; no suspensions or 

revocations of the applicant’s license for operating 

violations in any motor vehicle; no involvement in 

a crash in which the applicant contributed or was 

cited for a moving traffic violation; no convictions 

for a disqualifying offense, as described in 49 CFR 

383.51(b) (e.g., driving while under the influence of 

alcohol or a controlled substance, leaving the scene 

of an accident, or the commission of a felony 

involving the use of a vehicle); more than one 

serious traffic violation, as described in § 383.51(c) 

(e.g., excessive speeding, reckless driving, improper 

or erratic lane changes, following the vehicle ahead 

too closely, or a violation arising in connection with 

a fatality) while driving a CMV; and no more than 

two convictions for any other moving traffic 

violations while driving a CMV. 

72FMCSA data as of July 2, 2019. 

73FMCSA 2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and 

Bus Statistics, available at https://www.fmcsa.

dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/dataand-statistics/413361/fmcsa-pocket-guide-2018- 

final-508-compliant-1.pdf (last accessed July 16, 

2019). 

74Compared to all (interstate and intrastate) CMV 

drivers, 6.1 million, or CDL drivers, 4.2 million, the 

percentage is even lower. 

75The provisions of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) do not 

apply to drivers who were in good standing on 

March 31, 1996, in a vision waiver study program; 

provided, they meet certain conditions (49 CFR 

391.64(b)). This figure may not represent active 

drivers. 

functions and whether a particular 

condition would interfere with the 

driver’s ability to operate a CMV safely. 

In the case of hearing and epilepsy, the 

current standards are absolute, 

providing no discretion to the medical 

examiner. However, drivers who do not 

meet the current requirements may 

apply for an exemption as provided by 

49 CFR part 381. 

X. International Impacts 

The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to 

the FMCSRs, apply only within the 

United States (and, in some cases, 

United States territories). Motor carriers 

and drivers are subject to the laws and 

regulations of the countries in which 

they operate, unless an international 

agreement states otherwise. Drivers and 

carriers should be aware of the 

regulatory differences among nations. 

Pursuant to the terms of the 1998 

medical reciprocity agreement with 

Canada, the United States would notify 

Canada if an alternative vision standard 

is adopted and propose the countries 

review their applicable vision standards 

to determine whether they remain 

equivalent. 

XI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulations 

FMCSA performed an analysis of the 

impacts of the proposed rule and 

determined it is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, 

as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011), Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. 

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it 

under that Order. It is also not 

significant within the meaning of DOT 

regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)). The 

Agency has determined that the 

proposed rule would result in cost 

savings. 

A preliminary Regulatory Impact 

Assessment follows: 

Baseline for the Analysis 

The current physical qualification 

standard to drive a CMV requires 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 degrees in the 

horizontal meridian of 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)). This standard has been 

in effect since 1971. 

Drivers who do not meet either the 

distant visual acuity or field of vision 

standard, or both, in one eye may apply 

to FMCSA for an exemption from the 

standard to operate CMVs in interstate 

commerce (49 CFR part 381, subpart C). 

To do so, the driver must submit a letter 

of application and supporting 

documents to enable FMCSA to evaluate 

the safety impact of the exemption.70

Among the documentation is a signed 

statement by an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist showing evaluation of the 

driver within the last 3 months and 

which: 

• Identifies and defines the nature of 

the vision deficiency, including how 

long the individual has had the 

deficiency; 

• States the date of examination; 

• Certifies that the vision deficiency 

is stable; 

• Identifies the visual acuity of each 

eye, corrected and uncorrected; 

• Identifies the field of vision of each 

eye, including central and peripheral 

fields, utilizing a testing modality that 

tests to at least 120 degrees in the 

horizontal; 

• Identifies whether the individual 

can recognize the colors of traffic 

control signals and devices showing red, 

green, and amber; and 

• Certifies that in his or her medical 

opinion, the individual has sufficient 

vision to perform the driving tasks 

required to operate a commercial 

vehicle. 

FMCSA must publish notice of the 

request for an exemption and provide 

the public opportunity to comment. The 

notice granting the exemption must 

identify the individual who will receive 

the exemption, the provisions from 

which the individual will be exempt, 

the effective period, and all terms and 

conditions of the exemption. The 

Agency’s terms and conditions must 

ensure that the exemption will likely 

achieve a level of safety that is 

equivalent to or greater than the level 

that would be achieved by complying 

with the regulations. 

Currently, FMCSA grants exemptions 

to applicants who meet specific criteria, 

including stable vision and experience 

safely operating a CMV with the vision 

deficiency.71 If granted, the driver must 

meet certain conditions to maintain the 

exemption. The driver must receive an 

annual vision evaluation by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist and an 

annual physical qualification 

examination by an ME. In addition, the 

Agency must monitor the 

implementation of each exemption and 

immediately revoke an exemption if the 

driver fails to comply with the terms 

and conditions; the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before the exemption; 

or continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of the FMCSRs (49 CFR 

381.330). 

FMCSA monitors vision-exempted 

drivers on a quarterly basis. If any 

potentially disqualifying information is 

identified, FMCSA will request a copy 

of the violation or crash report from the 

driver. Should the violation be 

disqualifying, FMCSA will revoke the 

exemption immediately. 

Currently, 2,566 drivers hold a vision 

exemption.72 Compared to all interstate 

CMV drivers operating in the United 

States in 2017 (3.7 million, including 

3.2 million who hold CDLs),73 these 

drivers represent less than 0.1 percent of 

the population.74

There are approximately 1,900 active 

grandfathered drivers.75 FMCSA checks 

the driving records of grandfathered 

drivers to determine if they continue to 

operate CMVs safely. 

Since the inception of the vision 

exemption program, the predominant 

reason for denial of an exemption is less 

than 3 years of experience operating 

with the vision deficiency. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Impact of the Proposed Rule: Physical 

Qualification and Road Test 

Physical Qualification 

Should this proposal become a final 

rule, an individual who cannot meet 

either the distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye 

could be physically qualified without 

applying for or receiving an exemption. 

The individual would still have to 

receive a vision evaluation by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist. The 

ophthalmologist or optometrist would 

complete the Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871, which in part: 

• States the date of the vision 

evaluation; 

• Identifies the distant visual acuity 

in both eyes, uncorrected and corrected; 

• Identifies the field of vision, 

including central and peripheral fields, 

utilizing a testing modality that tests to 

at least 120 degrees in the horizontal; 

• Identifies whether the individual 

can recognize the standard red, green, 

and amber traffic control signal colors; 

• Identifies whether the individual 

has monocular vision as it is defined by 

FMCSA and if so, the cause and when 

it began; 

• Identifies current treatment; 

• Provides a medical opinion 

regarding whether the vision deficiency 

is stable; 

• Provides a medical opinion 

regarding whether sufficient time has 

passed to allow the individual to adapt 

to and compensate for monocular 

vision; 

• Identifies whether the individual 

has any progressive eye condition or 

disease and if so, the date of diagnosis, 

severity (mild, moderate, or severe), 

current treatment, and whether the 

condition is stable; and 

• Provides a medical opinion 

regarding whether a vision evaluation is 

required more often than annually and 

if so, how often. 

The individual examined, 

ophthalmologist, or optometrist would 

provide the signed report to an ME who 

would determine whether the 

individual is physically qualified to 

operate a CMV. Upon receipt of a 

completed and signed MEC, Form 

MCSA–5876, the individual would not 

incur any further delay in qualification. 

Under the vision exemption program, 

the Agency determines whether to 

provide the exemption that enables the 

driver to obtain physical qualification. 

Under the proposed rule, the ME would 

make the physical qualification 

determination. The Agency lacks data to 

determine how the proposed change 

might affect qualification 

determinations. However, the outcomes 

of the ME qualification determinations 

may differ from those that would be 

made under the exemption program. 

For those who obtain an MEC, Form 

MCSA–5876, the proposed action may 

represent a streamlined process 

compared to the requirements of the 

vision exemption program in that the 

driver would not need to compile and 

submit the letter of application and 

supporting documentation to FMCSA, 

or respond to any subsequent requests 

for information. However, it is possible 

that the ME could issue a certificate that 

is valid for a shorter time to monitor the 

condition. In such circumstances, under 

the vision exemption program, the 

applicant would likely not receive an 

exemption. For those who do not obtain 

an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, the result 

may or may not have been the same 

under the vision exemption program. 

If the proposed rule becomes a final 

rule, it would result in the 

discontinuation of the Federal vision 

exemption program. Instead, the 

physical qualification determination of 

these individuals would be made by the 

ME, who is trained and qualified to 

make such determinations, considering 

the information received in the vision 

report from the ophthalmologist or 

optometrist. 

Road Test 

Instead of requiring 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience with the 

vision deficiency as in the current 

exemption program, FMCSA proposes 

that individuals physically qualified 

under the proposed alternative vision 

standard for the first time must 

complete a road test before operating in 

interstate commerce. As described in 

Section VII. Rationale for Proposed 

Qualification Standard, individuals 

would be excepted from the road test 

requirement if they have 3 years of 

intrastate or excepted interstate CMV 

driving experience with the vision 

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision 

exemption, or are medically certified 

under § 391.64(b). These individuals 

have already demonstrated they can 

operate a CMV safely with the vision 

deficiency. The road test would be 

conducted by motor carriers in 

accordance with the road test already 

required by § 391.31. 

FMCSA finds that a road test would 

be an appropriate indicator of an 

individual’s ability to operate a CMV 

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus, 

the Agency expects there will be no 

adverse impact on safety from 

eliminating the intrastate driving 

experience criterion. When FHWA 

adopted the road test in § 391.31, it 

stated that the interests of CMV safety 

would be promoted by ensuring drivers 

have demonstrated their skill by 

completing the road test (35 FR 6458, 

6450 (April 22, 1970)). 

The intrastate driving experience 

criterion has the limitation that some 

States do not have waiver programs 

through which drivers can obtain the 

driving experience necessary to comply 

with the criteria of the Federal vision 

exemption program. The removal of the 

3-year experience criterion under the 

proposed rule could more readily allow 

these individuals to operate in interstate 

commerce. However, the current 

number of exemption holders, 

grandfathered drivers, and applicants 

denied exemptions represents less than 

1 percent of all interstate CMV drivers. 

The Agency anticipates the proposed 

action would be safety neutral. FMCSA 

notes that, although it would no longer 

directly monitor the safety performance 

of drivers, motor carriers would 

continue to monitor individuals’ safety 

performance when hiring drivers and 

during the annual inquiry and review of 

the driving record required by §§ 391.23 

and 391.25, respectively. 

Costs 

FMCSA estimates that the proposed 

rule would result in incremental cost 

savings of approximately $1.6 million 

annually from the elimination of the 

Federal vision exemption program and 

contract expenditures (Table 4). As 

described in detail below, FMCSA also 

accounts for the annual cost of a road 

test at approximately $47,000. 

TABLE 4—COST SAVINGS: FEDERAL VISION EXEMPTION PROGRAM CONTRACT AND ROAD TEST

Fiscal year Contract cost Road test Total 

2020–2021 ................................................................................................................................... ($1,531,633) $47,137 ($1,484,496) 

2021–2022 ................................................................................................................................... (1,577,268) 47,137 (1,530,131) 

2022–2023 ................................................................................................................................... (1,624,586) 47,137 (1,577,449) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2365 

76FMCSA recognizes that using 1,085 as the 

driver population is a high estimation and 

overstates the burden associated with the proposed 

requirement in § 391.44 for a road test. Some of the 

individuals would already be required to obtain a 

road test under § 391.31, in the absence of the 

requirement in § 391.44(d). However, FMCSA lacks 

internal data to estimate how many individuals 

would already be required to obtain a § 391.31 road 

test. Therefore, FMCSA opted for a conservative 

approach of assuming all 1,085 individuals would 

require a road test. 

77 In 2017 there were 1,151 applicants, in 2018 

there were 1,073, and in 2019 there were 1,030 

((1,151 + 1,073 + 1,030)/3 = 1,085). 

78Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020). 

‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2019, 

13–1041 Compliance Officers,’’ available at https:// 

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm (last 

accessed August 16, 2020). 

79 ($51.13 × 0.55) + ($27.88 × 0.55) = $43.46. 

TABLE 4—COST SAVINGS: FEDERAL VISION EXEMPTION PROGRAM CONTRACT AND ROAD TEST—Continued 

Fiscal year Contract cost Road test Total 

2023–2024 ................................................................................................................................... (1,673,324) 47,137 (1,626,187) 

Note: For years 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, FMCSA estimated an average contract cost increase of 3 percent and extrapolated based on the

percent increase of previous years. 

The 2,566 current vision exemption 

holders would no longer have to apply 

for an exemption, and potential 

applicants who do not have 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience may meet 

the alternative vision standard and be 

able to operate a CMV in interstate 

commerce. As described in Section VIII. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule, this may 

lead to a reduction in burden, as drivers 

would no longer be required to create 

and assemble the substantial amount of 

information and documentation 

necessary to apply for or renew an 

exemption, or to respond to subsequent 

requests for information. However, the 

affected population is small (less than 1 

percent of CMV drivers), and the 

relative advantages for these individuals 

are unlikely to affect market conditions 

in the truck and bus industries. 

FMCSA estimates that the road test 

would result in a total annual cost 

impact of $47,000 (Table 5). There 

would be approximately 1,085 drivers 76

requiring a road test under § 391.44 each 

year. This number is the average of new 

applications for the vision exemption 

program FMCSA received over years 

2017 through 2019.77 As described 

above, motor carriers would be 

responsible for administering the test to 

the drivers, which is estimated to take 

0.55 hours (33 minutes). For the hourly 

wage rates, FMCSA used $28 for the 

drivers (Table 6) and $51 for the motor 

carrier’s compliance officer.78

TABLE 5—ROAD TEST COST

CALCULATIONS

[2019$] 

Drivers/Motor Carriers .......... 1,085 

Test Hours ............................ 0.55 

Driver Wage .......................... $27.88 

Subtotal ......................... $16,634 

Compliance Officer Wage .... $51.13 

Subtotal ......................... $30,502 

Sum ........................ $47,137 

TABLE 6—WAGE RATES FOR CMV TRUCK DRIVERS

Occupational title BLS SOC 

code 

North American Industry 

Classification System 

(NAICS) occupational 

designation 

Total 

employees 

Median 

hourly base 

wage 

Fringe 

benefits 

rate 

(%) 

Median hourly 

base wage + 

fringe benefits 

Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 53–3032 All Industry ...................... 1,856,130 $21.76 45 $31.55 

Light Truck or Delivery Service Driver ... 53–3033 All Industry ...................... 923,050 16.70 45 24.22 

Weighted Driver Wage ........................... .................... ......................................... .................... .................... .................... 27.88 

Source: BLS. May 2019 OES Database, National, All Industries, available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/ (last accessed September 10, 2020). 

Although the Agency acknowledges 

there may be motor carriers employing 

multiple drivers, FMCSA lacks data to 

estimate the exact number of motor 

carriers. Therefore, to ensure the 

inclusion of all affected motor carriers, 

FMCSA opted for a conservative 

approach of assuming a 1:1 ratio of 

drivers per motor carrier, making 

$47,000 a likely overestimate. 

Additionally, there may be some drivers 

who are motor carriers, in which case 

the test must be given by a person other 

than themselves (49 CFR 391.31(b)). 

FMCSA treats the impacts on these 

drivers as equivalent to those of all 

affected drivers, and the Agency invites 

public comment from owner-operators 

to further inform this assumption. Using 

this approach, the Agency estimates a 

per entity impact of $43.46.79

Benefits 

As described in Section VIII. 

Discussion of Proposed Rule, 

eliminating the prohibition on certifying 

individuals who cannot meet either the 

current visual acuity or field of vision 

standard, or both, in one eye (without 

an exemption) would enable more 

qualified individuals to operate as an 

interstate CMV driver without 

compromising safety. The proposed 

alternative vision standard would allow 

previously qualified interstate CMV 

drivers who are no longer able to meet 

either the distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye 

to return to operating interstate sooner. 

Additional employment opportunities 

may also result from the removal of the 

3-years of intrastate driving experience 

requirement, which is a criterion of the 

current exemption program. Drivers 

who do not have 3 years of intrastate 

driving experience may meet the 

alternative vision standard and be able 

to operate a CMV interstate. A one-time 

road test would also be less burdensome 

on drivers than obtaining 3 years of 

intrastate driving experience. It also 

addresses the consideration that many 

drivers live in States that do not issue 

vision waivers. The road test would 

provide more drivers the opportunity to 

operate a CMV. 

Regarding risk, the Agency anticipates 

no changes in risk resulting from the 

very small number of additional 

individuals affected by this proposed 

rule relative to those of the baseline. 

Therefore, FMCSA considers the 

proposed rule to be safety neutral. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2366 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

80Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 

1996. 

81 ‘‘North American Industry Classification 

System’’ (2017), available at https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_

NAICS_Manual.pdf (last accessed January 15, 

2020). 

82SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘A Guide for 

Government Agencies. How to Comply with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (2017), available at 

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/ 

How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf (last 

accessed January 16, 2020). 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

The Agency expects this proposed 

rule to have total costs less than zero, 

and, if finalized, to qualify as an E.O. 

13771 deregulatory action. The present 

value of the cost savings of this 

proposed rule, measured on an infinite 

time horizon at a 7 percent discount 

rate, expressed in 2016 dollars, and 

discounted to 2021 (the year the 

proposed rule would go into effect and 

cost savings would first be realized), 

would be $20.9 million. On an 

annualized basis, these cost savings 

would be $1.5 million. 

For E.O. 13771 accounting, the April 

5, 2017, OMB guidance requires that 

agencies also calculate the costs and 

cost savings discounted to year 2016. In 

accordance with this requirement, the 

present value of the cost savings of this 

rule, measured on an infinite time 

horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, 

expressed in 2016 dollars, and 

discounted to 2016, would be $14.9 

million. On an annualized basis, the 

cost savings would be $1 million. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined under the Congressional 

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808). 

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small 

Entities) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,80

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the impact of their regulatory actions on 

small entities, analyze effective 

alternatives that minimize small entity 

impacts, and make their analyses 

available for public comment. The term 

‘‘small entities’’ means small businesses 

and not-for-profit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations under 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 

601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy 

requires an analysis of the impact of all 

regulations on small entities, and 

mandates that agencies strive to lessen 

any adverse effects on these entities. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

Agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking 

is not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

This rule would affect drivers and 

motor carriers. Drivers are not 

considered small entities because they 

do not meet the definition of a small 

entity in section 601 of the RFA. 

Specifically, drivers are considered 

neither a small business under section 

601(3) of the RFA, nor are they 

considered a small organization under 

section 601(4) of the RFA. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines the size standards used to 

classify entities as small. SBA 

establishes separate standards for each 

industry, as defined by the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS).81 This rule could affect 

many different industry sectors in 

addition to the Transportation and 

Warehousing sector (NAICS sectors 48 

and 49); for example, the Construction 

sector (NAICS sector 23), the 

Manufacturing sector (NAICS sectors 31, 

32, and 33), and the Retail Trade sector 

(NAICS sectors 44 and 45). Industry 

groups within these sectors have size 

standards for qualifying as small based 

on the number of employees (e.g., 500 

employees), or on the amount of annual 

revenue (e.g., $27.5 million in revenue). 

To determine the NAICS industries 

potentially affected by this rule, FMCSA 

cross-referenced occupational 

employment statistics from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics with NAICS industry 

codes. 

The RFA does not define a threshold 

for determining whether a specific 

regulation results in a significant 

impact. However, the SBA, in guidance 

to government agencies, provides some 

objective measures of significance that 

the agencies can consider using.82 One 

measure that could be used to illustrate 

a significant impact is labor costs, 

specifically, if the cost of the regulation 

exceeds 1 percent of the average annual 

revenues of small entities in the sector. 

Given the proposed rule’s average 

annual per-entity impact of $43.46, a 

small entity would need to have average 

annual revenues of less than $4,346 to 

experience an impact greater than 1 

percent of average annual revenue, 

which is an average annual revenue that 

is smaller than would be required for a 

firm to support one employee. 

Therefore, I certify this rule would not 

have a significant impact on the entities 

affected. 

E. Assistance for Small Entities 

In accordance with section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

themselves and participate in the 

rulemaking initiative. If the proposed 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance; please consult the FMCSA 

point of contact, Ms. Christine Hydock, 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations to 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. To 

comment on actions by employees of 

FMCSA, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888– 

734–3247). DOT has a policy regarding 

the rights of small entities to regulatory 

enforcement fairness and an explicit 

policy against retaliation for exercising 

these rights. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$168 million (which is the value 

equivalent of $100 million in 1995, 

adjusted for inflation to 2019 levels) or 

more in any 1 year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, the Agency discusses 

the effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection 

of Information) 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) requires that an 

agency consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. An agency is prohibited from 

collecting or sponsoring an information 

collection, as well as imposing an 

information collection requirement, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2367 

83The OMB control number will be determined 

and assigned by OMB upon approval of the ICR. 

unless it displays a valid OMB control 

number (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi)). 

The proposed rule would impact an 

existing information collection request 

(ICR) titled ‘‘Medical Qualification 

Requirements,’’ OMB control number 

2126–0006, and a new ICR titled 

‘‘391.31 Road Test Requirement,’’ OMB 

control number 2126–TBD.83 The ICRs 

will be discussed separately below, 

followed by a discussion of the net 

information collection and reporting 

burdens of the proposed rule. 

1. Related Information Collection 

Requests 

a. Medical Qualification Requirements 

ICR 

This proposed rule would amend the 

existing approved Medical Qualification 

Requirements ICR, OMB control number 

2126–0006, which expires on November 

30, 2021. Specifically, FMCSA seeks 

approval for the revision of the ICR due 

to the Agency’s development of this 

proposed rule, which includes the use 

of the proposed Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871. In 

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), 

FMCSA will submit the proposed 

information collection amendments to 

OIRA at OMB for its approval. 

Title: Medical Qualification 

Requirements. 

OMB Control Number: 2126–0006. 

Type of Review: Revision of a 

currently-approved information 

collection. 

Summary: FMCSA proposes to 

establish an alternative vision standard 

for individuals who cannot satisfy either 

the current distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in one eye. 

FMCSA proposes a two-step process for 

physical qualification of these 

individuals that, if adopted, would 

replace the current vision exemption 

program as a basis for determining the 

physical qualification of these 

individuals to operate a CMV. First, an 

individual seeking physical 

qualification would obtain a vision 

evaluation from an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist who would record the 

findings and provide specific medical 

opinions on the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871. 

Next, at a physical qualification 

examination, an ME would consider the 

information provided on the Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

and determine whether the individual 

meets the proposed alternative vision 

standard and FMCSA’s other physical 

qualification standards. If so, the ME 

could issue an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, 

for up to a maximum of 12 months. The 

proposed Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871, supports safety by 

ensuring that CMV drivers are 

physically qualified to operate trucks 

and buses on our nation’s highways. 

Because of the proposed action, a new 

information collection, IC–8 

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision 

Standard, would be added to the 

existing ICR. FMCSA estimates that 

ophthalmologists and optometrists 

would complete 3,614 Vision 

Evaluation Reports, Form MCSA–5871, 

annually and that it would take them 8 

minutes to complete a report. Thus, the 

estimated annual burden hours 

associated with the proposed 

information collection is 482 hours 

(3,614 forms × 8 minutes per form ÷ 60 

minutes = 482 hours, rounded to the 

nearest whole hour). At an average 

hourly labor cost of $82.40 for 

optometrists, the estimated salary cost 

associated with this information 

collection is $39,717 ($82.40 hourly 

labor costs × 482 hours = $39,717, 

rounded to the nearest dollar). 

Additional information is provided in 

the draft supporting statement for the 

Medical Qualification Requirements 

ICR, which is available in the docket. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

3,614 ophthalmologists and 

optometrists. 

Estimated responses: 3,614. 

Frequency: At least annually. 

Estimated burden hours: 482. 

Estimated cost: $39,717. 

The proposed alternative vision 

standard would eliminate the need for 

the Federal vision exemption program 

and the related information collection 

(IC–3a). The current vision exemption 

program requires individuals to submit 

personal, health, and driving 

information during the application 

process. In addition, motor carriers must 

copy and file the vision exemption in 

the driver qualification file. FMCSA 

attributes 2,236 annual burden hours to 

obtain and maintain a vision exemption, 

and this proposed rule would eliminate 

this entire burden. However, it would 

add 482 burden hours for the 

information collection associated with 

completion of the Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871. Thus, the 

net effect of the proposed rule would be 

a reduction in burden hours of 1,754 

(482 hours related to the vision 

report¥2,236 hours related to the 

current vision exemption program = 

¥1,754). The net effect of the proposed 

rule with respect to cost would be a 

reduction of $29,419 ($39,717 related to 

the vision report ¥$69,136 related to 

the current vision exemption program = 

¥$29,419). 

The revised total annual estimated 

burden associated with the Medical 

Qualification Requirements ICR that 

reflects the addition of this proposed 

information collection and the 

completion of the Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871; the 

elimination of the Federal vision 

exemption program; updated driver 

population, program statistics, National 

Registry statistics, and wage data; and 

regulatory changes is as follows. 

Total estimated number of 

respondents: 5,586,232 CMV drivers, 

motor carriers, MEs, treating clinicians, 

ophthalmologists, and optometrists. 

Total estimated responses: 

27,202,863. 

Total estimated burden hours: 

2,251,571. 

Total estimated cost: $171,044,474. 

b. Section 391.31 Road Test 

Requirement ICR 

FMCSA proposes a new § 391.31 Road 

Test Requirement ICR. The ICR 

estimates the paperwork burden motor 

carriers incur to comply with the 

reporting and recordkeeping tasks 

required for the road test associated 

with 49 CFR 391.31. FMCSA has not 

previously accounted for the burden 

associated with § 391.31 road tests; 

accordingly, the ICR accounts for the 

burden. The ICR also would include the 

incremental burden for motor carriers 

associated with § 391.31 road tests due 

to FMCSA’s development of this 

proposed rule. In accordance with 44 

U.S.C. 3507(d), FMCSA will submit the 

new ICR to OIRA at OMB for its 

approval. 

Title: 391.31 Road Test Requirement. 

OMB Control Number: 2126–TBD. 

Type of Review: Approval of a new 

information collection. 

Summary: The road test provision in 

§ 391.31 provides an individual must 

not drive a CMV until the individual 

has successfully completed a road test 

and has been issued a certificate of 

driver’s road test. It was adopted by 

FHWA in 1970 (35 FR 6458, 6462, April 

22, 1970). At that time, FHWA stated 

that the interests of CMV safety would 

be promoted by ensuring drivers have 

demonstrated their skill by completing 

a road test (35 FR 6459). The related 

requirement in § 391.51 that the motor 

carrier include information relating to 

the road test in the driver qualification 

file was also adopted in 1970 (35 FR 

6465). The information documents the 

driver’s ability to operate a CMV safely. 

Sections 391.31 and 391.51 are based 

on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2368 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

84Public Law 74–255, 49 Stat. 543, August 9, 

1935. 

85Public Law 98–554, 98 Stat. 2829, 2832, 

October 30, 1984. 

of 1935 84 (1935 Act) and the Motor 

Carrier Safety Act of 1984 85 (1984 Act), 

both as amended. The 1935 Act, as 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), 

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe 

requirements for the qualifications of 

employees of a motor carrier and the 

safety of operation and equipment of a 

motor carrier. The 1984 Act, as codified 

at 49 U.S.C. 31136, provides concurrent 

authority to regulate drivers, motor 

carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 

31136(a) requires the Secretary to issue 

regulations on CMV safety, including 

regulations to ensure that CMVs are 

operated safely. The Secretary has 

discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 

31133(a)(8) to prescribe recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements. The 

Administrator of FMCSA is delegated 

authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out 

the functions vested in the Secretary by 

49 U.S.C. Chapters 311 and 315 as they 

relate to CMV operators, programs, and 

safety. 

Motor carriers must ensure each 

driver has the skill to operate a CMV 

safely. The information collected and 

maintained by motor carriers in each 

driver qualification file related to the 

road test substantiates the driver can 

operate a CMV safely and the motor 

carrier has fulfilled its regulatory 

requirements. It also aids Federal and 

State safety investigators in assessing 

the qualifications of drivers. 

Public interest in highway safety 

dictates that employers hire drivers who 

can safely operate CMVs amidst the 

various physical and mental demands of 

truck driving. Section 391.31 requires a 

motor carrier to conduct a road test 

when the motor carrier hires a new 

driver. The motor carrier is required to 

rate the performance of the driver 

during the test on a road test form. If the 

road test is successfully completed, the 

motor carrier completes a certificate of 

driver’s road test and provides a copy to 

the driver. Motor carriers may maintain 

the required road test form and 

certificate electronically or via paper 

copy. The motor carrier must retain the 

signed road test form and the signed 

certificate in the driver qualification 

file. Generally, driver qualification files 

must be maintained at the motor 

carrier’s principal place of business. 

Neither the road test form nor the 

certificate is routinely submitted to 

FMCSA. A motor carrier would only 

make the information available when 

requested by an FMCSA or State safety 

investigator for an investigation or 

audit. 

There are three reporting and 

recordkeeping tasks motor carriers 

perform regarding the road test required 

by § 391.31 when they hire a new 

driver. The three tasks are: 

1. The motor carrier completes and signs 

the road test form while the driver performs 

a pre-trip inspection and the driving portion 

of the road test (49 CFR 391.31(d)). 

2. If the driver successfully passes the road 

test, the motor carrier completes a certificate 

of driver’s road test in substantially the form 

prescribed in § 391.31(f) (49 CFR 391.31(e)) 

and gives the driver a copy (49 CFR 

391.31(g)). 

3. The motor carrier retains in the driver 

qualification file the original signed road test 

form and the original, or a copy, of the signed 

certificate of driver’s road test (49 CFR 

391.31(g)(1) and (2)). 

To estimate the total burden hours, 

FMCSA multiplies the number of 

respondents by the hourly burden per 

response. FMCSA estimates a burden of 

30 minutes for the motor carrier to 

complete the road test form while 

conducting the road test. Should the 

driver successfully pass the road test, 

FMCSA assumes it will take the motor 

carrier 2 minutes to complete the 

certification of driver’s road test and an 

additional 1 minute to store documents 

in the driver qualification file. 

To estimate burden costs, FMCSA 

assumes a compliance officer will be the 

person who will complete the road test 

form and associated certificate, and a 

file clerk will be the person who will 

store the documents. The median salary 

for a compliance officer is $51.13 per 

hour. The median salary for a file clerk 

is $25.63 per hour. 

The ICR estimates the informationcollection burden incurred by motor 

carriers associated with the § 391.31 

road test in two circumstances. The first 

is when the road test is required by 

§ 391.31 (IC–1); the second is when the 

road test is required as part of the 

alternative vision standard in proposed 

§ 391.44 (IC–2). 

IC–1 consists of the three reporting 

and recordkeeping tasks motor carriers 

perform regarding the road test required 

by § 391.31 when they hire a new 

driver. The respondent universe is the 

number of motor carriers required to 

complete a road test for drivers hired. 

To determine the number of drivers who 

will be hired and require a road test, 

FMCSA first determines the driver 

population subject to the road test 

requirement. Because § 391.33 allows 

motors carriers to accept a valid CDL 

instead of the § 391.31 road test, the 

driver population is non-CDL interstate 

and intrastate drivers. To find the driver 

populations in 2022, 2023, and 2024 

(the 3 years projected to be reflected in 

the ICR), FMCSA adjusts the driver 

population by multiplying it by the 

growth rate for driver occupations 

typical in the light vehicle industry (i.e., 

5 percent). Next, FMCSA estimates the 

total number of job openings per year by 

multiplying the adjusted total driver 

population by the industry turnover rate 

(i.e., 79.2 percent). Because drivers may 

present a certificate of driver’s road test 

for up 3 years from when it is completed 

under § 391.33, FMCSA estimates onethird of drivers will be required to have 

a road test each year of the ICR. The 

resulting number is the respondent 

universe, i.e., the number of motor 

carriers required to complete a road test 

for drivers hired. 

For each of the three § 391.31 road 

test reporting and recordkeeping tasks 

motor carriers perform when they hire 

a new driver, FMSCA estimates the 

motor carrier burden hours by 

multiplying the number of respondents 

by the hourly burden for each task. 

Then FMCSA estimates the motor 

carrier cost by multiplying the burden 

hours by the median salary for the 

person performing the task. The total 

motor carrier burden hours and cost for 

the three tasks is reflected below in the 

total burden and cost amounts for the 

ICR. 

IC–2 consists of the incremental 

burden associated with the requirement 

in this proposed rule that individuals 

physically qualified under the 

alternative vision standard in § 391.44 

for the first time would be required to 

complete a road test in accordance with 

§ 391.31. FMCSA uses the same three 

reporting and recordkeeping tasks, time 

estimates, labor costs, and overall 

methodology discussed above to 

calculate the annual burden hours and 

cost associated with the proposed rule. 

However, FMCSA estimates the 

respondent universe of 1,085 motor 

carriers by averaging the number of new 

requests for a Federal vision exemption 

in 2017, 2018, and 2019 ((1,151 + 1,073 

+ 1,030)/3 = 1,085). 

FMCSA recognizes that using 1,085 as 

the driver population is a high 

estimation and overstates the burden 

associated with the proposed 

requirement in § 391.44 for a road test. 

Some of the individuals would already 

be required to obtain a road test under 

§ 391.31, in the absence of the 

requirement in § 391.44(d). However, 

FMCSA lacks internal data to estimate 

how many individuals would already be 

required to obtain a § 391.31 road test. 

Therefore, FMCSA opted for a 

conservative approach of assuming all 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2369 

86Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 

December 8, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 552a note). 

1,085 individuals would require a road 

test. 

In addition, § 391.44(d)(3) would 

provide an exception to the road test 

requirement for some individuals. If the 

motor carrier determines an individual 

possessed a valid CDL or non-CDL 

license to operate, and did operate, a 

CMV in either intrastate commerce or in 

exempt interstate commerce with the 

vision deficiency for the 3-year period 

immediately preceding the date of 

physical qualification under § 391.44 for 

the first time, the individual would not 

be required to complete a § 391.31 road 

test. FMCSA lacks internal data to 

estimate how many individuals would 

be excepted from a road test by this 

provision, but expects only a small 

number of individuals would qualify for 

the exception. In addition, the 

paperwork burden to except an 

individual from the road test 

requirement would be less than the 

burden for the individual to take the 

road test. Therefore, FMCSA opted for a 

conservative approach of assuming all 

1,085 individuals would require a road 

test. 

The estimated incremental annual 

burden associated with the requirement 

in the proposed rule that individuals 

physically qualified under § 391.44 for 

the first time would be required to 

complete a road test in accordance with 

§ 391.31 (IC–2), is as follows. 

Estimated number of respondents: 

1,085 motor carriers. 

Estimated responses: 3,255. 

Estimated burden hours: 609. 

Estimated cost: $30,578. 

The total estimated annual burden 

associated with the 391.31 Road Test 

Requirement ICR for IC–1 and IC–2 is as 

follows: 

Total estimated number of 

respondents: 560,809 motor carriers. 

Total estimated responses: 2,306,709. 

Total estimated burden hours: 

430,588. 

Total estimated cost: $21,623,811. 

Additional information for the 

assumptions, calculations, and 

methodology summarized above is 

provided in the draft supporting 

statement for the 391.31 Road Test 

Requirement ICR. The supporting 

statement is available in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

2. Net Information Collection Reporting 

Burdens 

As shown above, the net effect of the 

proposed rule on the Medical 

Qualification Requirements ICR would 

be a reduction in burden hours of 1,754 

and in cost of $29,419. The effect of the 

proposed rule on the 391.31 Road Test 

Requirement ICR would be an addition 

in burden hours of 609 and in cost of 

$30,578. Thus, the net effect of the 

proposed rule would be a reduction in 

burden hours of 1145 (¥1,754 hours 

related to the Medical Qualification 

Requirements ICR + 609 hours related to 

the 391.31 Road Test Requirement ICR 

= ¥1,145). The net effect of the 

proposed rule with respect to cost 

would be an addition of $1,159 

(¥$29,419 related to the Medical 

Qualification Requirements ICR + 

$30,578 related to the 391.31 Road Test 

Requirement ICR = $1,159). 

3. Request for Comments 

FMCSA asks for comment on the 

information collection requirements of 

this proposed rule, as well as the 

revised total estimated burden 

associated with the Medical 

Qualification Requirements ICR and the 

total estimated burden associated with 

the new 391.31 Road Test Requirement 

ICR. Specifically, the Agency asks for 

comment on: (1) Whether the proposed 

information collections are necessary for 

FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) 

how the Agency can improve the 

quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; (3) the 

accuracy of FMCSA’s estimate of the 

burden of this information collection; 

and (4) how the Agency can minimize 

the burden of the information 

collection. 

If you have comments on the 

collection of information, you must 

submit those comments as outlined 

under section I.E. at the beginning of 

this NPRM. 

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ FMCSA 

determined that this proposal would not 

have substantial direct costs on or for 

States, nor would it limit the 

policymaking discretion of States. 

Nothing in this document preempts any 

State law or regulation. Therefore, this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Impact Statement. 

I. Privacy 

Section 522 of title I of division H of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005,86 requires the Agency to conduct 

a privacy impact assessment of a 

regulation that will affect the privacy of 

individuals. In accordance with this 

Act, a privacy impact assessment is 

warranted to address any privacy 

implications contemplated in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

With respect to the proposed Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

the DOT Chief Privacy Officer has 

evaluated the risks and effects that this 

rulemaking might have on collecting, 

storing, and sharing personally 

identifiable information and has 

examined protections and alternative 

information handling processes in 

developing the proposal to mitigate 

potential privacy risks. The privacy 

risks and effects associated with this 

proposed rule are not unique and have 

been addressed previously by the DOT/ 

FMCSA 009—National Registry of 

Certified Medical Examiners system of 

records notice published on October 4, 

2019 (84 FR 53211), available at https:// 

www.transportation.gov/privacy. The 

DOT Chief Privacy Officer has 

determined that a new system of records 

notice for this rulemaking is not 

required. 

In this rulemaking, FMCSA proposes 

a two-step process for the physical 

qualification of individuals who cannot 

satisfy either the current distant visual 

acuity or field of vision standard, or 

both, in one eye. First, an individual 

seeking physical qualification would 

obtain a vision evaluation from an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

would record the requested information 

on the proposed Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871. Next, at a 

physical qualification examination, an 

ME would consider the information 

provided on the Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871, and 

determine whether the individual is 

physically qualified to operate a CMV 

safely. The Vision Evaluation Report, 

Form MCSA–5871, would be used 

exclusively as part of the physical 

qualification process and would collect 

only information that is necessary to 

assist the ME in making a physical 

qualification determination. 

The information collected on the 

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA– 

5871, would provide a means for 

healthcare professionals to exchange 

information about an individual who 

cannot satisfy either the current distant 

visual acuity or field of vision standard, 

or both, in one eye. This is the same 

type of communication that occurs 

when the ME needs to follow up with 

an individual’s primary care provider 

regarding the individual’s health and 

exchanges information. Therefore, no 

new category of medical or privacy 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2370 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

information would be generated because 

of this proposed rule. 

The Agency expects that this 

information would be safeguarded along 

with all the other medical information 

that these healthcare providers 

maintain. In other words, the 

ophthalmologist or optometrist would 

maintain certain medical records about 

the individual based on his or her vision 

evaluation, and the ME would maintain 

certain medical records to support the 

physical qualification determination. 

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form 

MCSA–5871, would be attached to the 

Medical Examination Report Form, 

MCSA–5875, that must be maintained 

by the ME for at least 3 years from the 

date of the examination. The Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

would be provided only to FMCSA 

upon request if there were an 

investigation or audit. Therefore, this 

proposed rule would provide a privacypositive outcome because it results in 

less sensitive data being held by the 

Agency. There is privacy risk not 

controlled by the Agency because the 

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA– 

5871, would be maintained by the ME 

at his or her office. However, as 

healthcare providers, MEs are required 

to maintain and disclose medical 

information and personally identifiable 

information in accordance with 

applicable Federal and State privacy 

laws. 

With respect to the proposed 

requirement for a road test as part of the 

alternative vision standard, the Agency 

has completed a Privacy Threshold 

Assessment to evaluate the risks and 

effects the proposed requirement might 

have on collecting, storing, and sharing 

personally identifiable information. The 

Privacy Threshold Assessment has been 

submitted to FMCSA’s Privacy Officer 

for review and preliminary adjudication 

and will be submitted to DOT’s Privacy 

Officer for review and final 

adjudication. 

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule 

for purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and determined 

this action is categorically excluded 

from further analysis and 

documentation in an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 

(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 

2, paragraph 6.z. The content in this 

rule is covered by the Categorical 

Exclusions in paragraph 6.z.(1) 

regarding the minimum qualifications 

for individuals who drive CMVs, and in 

paragraph 6.z.(2) regarding the 

minimum duties of motor carriers with 

respect to the qualifications of their 

drivers. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 391 

Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug 

testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Safety, Transportation. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend 

49 CFR part 391 as follows: 

PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF 

DRIVERS AND LONGER 

COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV) 

DRIVER INSTRUCTORS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 391 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 

31136, 31149, 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L. 

102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub. 

L. 103–311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215, 

Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 

32934, Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; 

secs. 5403 and 5524, Pub. L. 114–94, 129 

Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115– 

105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Amend § 391.31 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (f) by deleting 

the entry lines for ‘‘Social Security No’’, 

‘‘Operator’s or Chauffeur’s License No’’, 

and ‘‘State’’ in the Certification of Road 

Test form; and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (h). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 391.31 Road test. 

* * * * * 

(h) The information collection 

requirements of this section have been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, 

et seq.) and have been assigned OMB 

control number 2126–TBD. 

■ 3. Revise § 391.41 paragraph (b)(10) to 

read as follows: 

§ 391.41 Physical qualifications for 

drivers. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(10)(i) Has distant visual acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye 

without corrective lenses or visual 

acuity separately corrected to 20/40 

(Snellen) or better with corrective 

lenses, distant binocular acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with 

or without corrective lenses, field of 

vision of at least 70° in the horizontal 

Meridian in each eye, and the ability to 

recognize the colors of traffic signals 

and devices showing standard red, 

green, and amber; or 

(ii) Meets the requirements in 

§ 391.44; 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise § 391.43 paragraph (b)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 391.43 Medical examination; certificate 

of physical examination. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) A licensed ophthalmologist or 

optometrist may perform the part of the 

medical examination that involves 

visual acuity, field of vision, and the 

ability to recognize colors as specified 

in § 391.41(b)(10). 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Add § 391.44 to read as follows: 

§ 391.44 Physical qualification standards 

for an individual who cannot satisfy either 

the distant visual acuity or field of vision 

standard, or both, in one eye. 

(a) General. An individual who 

cannot satisfy either the distant visual 

acuity or field of vision standard, or 

both, in § 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye is 

physically qualified to operate a 

commercial motor vehicle in interstate 

commerce provided: 

(1) The individual meets the other 

physical qualification standards in 

§ 391.41 or has an exemption or skill 

performance evaluation certificate, if 

required; and 

(2) The individual has the vision 

evaluation required by paragraph (b) of 

this section and the medical 

examination required by paragraph (c) 

of this section. 

(b) Evaluation by an ophthalmologist 

or optometrist. Prior to the examination 

required by § 391.45 or the expiration of 

a medical examiner’s certificate, the 

individual must be evaluated by a 

licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist. 

(1) During the evaluation of the 

individual, the ophthalmologist or 

optometrist must complete the Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871. 

(2) Upon completion of the Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 2371 

the ophthalmologist or optometrist must 

sign and date the Report and provide his 

or her full name, office address, and 

telephone number on the Report. 

(c) Examination by a medical 

examiner. At least annually, but no later 

than 45 days after an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist signs and dates the Vision 

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871, 

an individual who cannot satisfy either 

the distant visual acuity or field of 

vision standard, or both, in 

§ 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye must be 

medically examined and certified by a 

medical examiner as physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle in accordance with § 391.43. 

(1) The medical examiner must 

receive a completed Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871, signed and 

dated by an ophthalmologist or 

optometrist for each required 

examination. This Report shall be 

treated and retained as part of the 

Medical Examination Report Form, 

MCSA–5875. 

(2) The medical examiner must 

determine whether the individual meets 

the physical qualification standards in 

§ 391.41 to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle. In making that determination, 

the medical examiner must consider the 

information in the Vision Evaluation 

Report, Form MCSA–5871, signed by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist and, 

utilizing independent medical 

judgment, apply the following standards 

in determining whether the individual 

may be certified as physically qualified 

to operate a commercial motor vehicle. 

(i) The individual is not physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle if in the better eye the distant 

visual acuity is not at least 20/40 

(Snellen), with or without corrective 

lenses, and the field of vision is not at 

least 70° in the horizontal meridian. 

(ii) The individual is not physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle if the individual is not able to 

recognize the colors of traffic signals 

and devices showing standard red, 

green, and amber. 

(iii) The individual is not physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle if the individual’s vision 

deficiency is not stable. 

(iv) The individual is not physically 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle if there has not been sufficient 

time to allow the individual to adapt to 

and compensate for the change in 

vision. 

(d) Road test. (1) Except as provided 

in paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (5) of this 

section, an individual physically 

qualified under this section for the first 

time shall not drive a commercial motor 

vehicle until the individual has 

successfully completed a road test 

subsequent to physical qualification and 

has been issued a certificate of driver’s 

road test in accordance with § 391.31 of 

this part. An individual physically 

qualified under this section for the first 

time must inform the motor carrier 

responsible for completing the road test 

under § 391.31(b) that the individual is 

required by § 391.44(d) to have a road 

test. The motor carrier must conduct the 

road test in accordance with § 391.31(b) 

thorough (g). 

(2) For road tests required by 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the 

provisions of § 391.33 of this part for the 

equivalent of a road test do not apply. 

If an individual required to have a road 

test by paragraph (d)(1) of this section 

successfully completes the road test and 

is issued a certificate of driver’s road 

test in accordance with § 391.31, then 

any otherwise applicable provisions of 

§ 391.33 will apply thereafter to such 

individual. 

(3) An individual physically qualified 

under this section for the first time is 

not required to complete a road test in 

accordance with § 391.31 if the motor 

carrier responsible for completing the 

road test under § 391.31(b) determines 

the individual possessed a valid 

commercial driver’s license or noncommercial driver’s license to operate, 

and did operate, a commercial motor 

vehicle in either intrastate commerce or 

in interstate commerce excepted by 

§ 390.3T(f) of this subchapter or § 391.2 

of this part from the requirements of 

subpart E of this part with the vision 

deficiency for the 3-year period 

immediately preceding the date of 

physical qualification under this section 

for the first time. 

(i) The individual must certify in 

writing to the motor carrier the date the 

vision deficiency began. 

(ii) If the motor carrier determines the 

individual possessed a valid 

commercial driver’s license or noncommercial driver’s license to operate, 

and did operate, a commercial motor 

vehicle in either intrastate commerce or 

in interstate commerce excepted by 

either § 390.3T(f) or § 391.2 from the 

requirements of subpart E of this part 

with the vision deficiency for the 3-year 

period immediately preceding the date 

of physical qualification in accordance 

with § 391.44 for the first time, the 

motor carrier must— 

(A) Prepare a written statement to the 

effect that the motor carrier determined 

the individual possessed a valid license 

and operated a commercial motor 

vehicle in intrastate or excepted 

interstate commerce (as applicable) with 

the vision deficiency for the 3-year 

period immediately preceding the date 

of physical qualification in accordance 

with § 391.44 for the first time and, 

therefore, is not required by § 391.44(d) 

to complete a road test; 

(B) Give the individual a copy of the 

written statement; and 

(C) Retain in the individual’s driver 

qualification file the original of the 

written statement and the original, or a 

copy, of the individual’s certification 

regarding the date the vision deficiency 

began. 

(4) An individual physically qualified 

under this section for the first time is 

not required to complete a road test in 

accordance with § 391.31 if the 

individual holds on [DATE 60 DAYS 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register] a valid exemption from the 

vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10) issued 

by FMCSA under 49 CFR part 381. Such 

an individual is not required to inform 

the motor carrier that the individual is 

excepted from the requirement in 

§ 391.44(d)(1) to have a road test. 

(5) An individual physically qualified 

under this section for the first time is 

not required to complete a road test in 

accordance with § 391.31 if the 

individual is medically certified on 

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register] under the 

provisions of § 391.64(b) for drivers who 

participated in a previous vision waiver 

study program. Such an individual is 

not required to inform the motor carrier 

that the individual is excepted from the 

requirement in § 391.44(d)(1) to have a 

road test. 

■ 6. Amend § 391.45 by: 

■ a. Redesignating existing paragraphs 

(f) and (g) as paragraphs (g) and (h), 

respectively; 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (f); and 

■ c. Revising paragraph (b). 

The addition and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 391.45 Persons who must be medically 

examined and certified. 

* * * * * 

(b) Any driver who has not been 

medically examined and certified as 

qualified to operate a commercial motor 

vehicle during the preceding 24 months, 

unless the driver is required to be 

examined and certified in accordance 

with paragraph (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h) 

of this section; 

* * * * * 

(f) Any driver who cannot satisfy 

either the distant visual acuity or field 

of vision standard, or both, in 

§ 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye and who 

has obtained a medical examiner’s 

certificate under the standards in 

§ 391.44, if such driver’s most recent 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2372 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

medical examination and certification 

as qualified to drive did not occur 

during the preceding 12 months; 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 391.51 by revising 

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 391.51 General requirements for driver 

qualification files. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) The certificate of driver’s road test 

issued to the driver pursuant to 

§ 391.31(e), a copy of the license or 

certificate which the motor carrier 

accepted as equivalent to the driver’s 

road test pursuant to § 391.33, or the 

original of the written statement 

providing that the motor carrier 

determined the driver is not required by 

§ 391.44(d) to complete a road test 

pursuant to § 391.44(d)(3)(ii)(A) and the 

original, or a copy, of the driver’s 

certification required by 

§ 391.44(d)(3)(i); 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 391.64 by revising the 

section title and paragraph (b) 

introductory text, and adding paragraph 

(b)(4) to read as follows. 

§ 391.64 Grandfathering for certain drivers 

who participated in the vision waiver study 

program. 

* * * * * 

(b) Until [DATE 60 DAYS AND 1 

YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF 

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE 

IN THE Federal Register], the 

provisions of § 391.41(b)(10) do not 

apply to a driver who was a participant 

in good standing on March 31, 1996, in 

a waiver study program concerning the 

operation of commercial motor vehicles 

by drivers with visual impairment in 

one eye; provided: 

* * * * * 

(4) On [DATE 60 DAYS AND 1 YEAR 

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION 

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 

Register], the provisions of paragraph 

(b) of this section are removed, and any 

medical examiner’s certificate issued 

under § 391.43 of this part on the basis 

that the driver is qualified by operation 

of the provisions of 49 CFR 391.64(b), 

related to drivers with visual 

impairment in one eye, is void. 

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical 

Advisory Criteria [Amended] 

■ 9. Remove and reserve paragraph II. J., 

Vision: § 391.41(b)(10), of Appendix A 

to Part 391. 

Issued under the authority of delegation in 

49 CFR 1.87. 

James W. Deck, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28848 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Parts 223 

[Docket No. 201125–0320] 

RIN 0648–BK00 

Endangered and Threatened Species: 

Designation of Nonessential 

Experimental Population of Central 

Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in 

the Upper Yuba River Upstream of 

Englebright Dam, CA; Extension of 

Public Comment Period 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce the 

extension of the public comment period 

on our December 11, 2020, 30-day 

proposal of a rule to designate and 

authorize the release of a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) of 

Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) in the upper Yuba River and its 

tributaries upstream of Englebright Dam, 

California, and establish take exceptions 

for the NEP for particular activities. A 

draft environmental assessment (EA) 

has been prepared on this proposed 

action and is available for comment. As 

part of that proposed action, we 

solicited comment on the proposed rule 

and EA over a 30-day period to end on 

January 11, 2021. Today, we update 

contact information, website addresses 

and extend the public comment period 

by 60 days to March 12, 2021. 

Comments previously submitted need 

not be resubmitted, as they will be fully 

considered in the agency’s proposed 

action. 

DATES: The deadline for receipt of 

comments is extended from January 11, 

2021 until March 12, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this proposed rule, identified by 

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2020–0139’’ by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NOAA-NMFS-2020-0139/document 

click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

• Phone: (916) 930–3717; Fax: (916) 

930–3629. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method, to any other address or 

individual, or received after the end of 

the comment period, may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are part of the public record 

and will generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All personal identifying information 

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential 

business information, or otherwise 

sensitive information submitted 

voluntarily by the sender will be 

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept 

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in 

the required fields if you wish to remain 

anonymous). Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats 

only. 

You may access a copy of the draft EA 

and other supporting documents by 

visiting the NMFS website at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/ 

proposed-rule-authorize-reintroductioncentral-valley-spring-run-chinooksalmon-upper-yuba. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Ambrose, by phone at (916) 

930–3717, or by mail at National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall, 

Suite 5–100, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 11, 2020, we published 

a proposed rule to designate and 

authorize the release of a NEP of CV 

spring-run Chinook salmon under the 

ESA in the upper Yuba River and its 

tributaries upstream of Englebright Dam, 

California, and establish take exceptions 

for the NEP for particular activities. In 

that notice we also announced a 30-day 

public comment period and the 

availability of a draft EA. 

We received a request to extend the 

public comment period by 90 days in 

order to provide the public with 

additional time to adequately comment 

on the proposed rule. We considered the 

request and concluded that a 60-day 

extension should allow sufficient time 

for responders to submit comments 

without significantly delaying 

finalization of the proposed rule. We are 

therefore extending the close of the 

public comment period from January 11, 

2021, to March 12, 2021. In addition to 

extending the public comment period, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS