Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 48343 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket ID. FMCSA–2009–0154] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt 40 individuals from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable 

these individuals to operate commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate 

commerce without meeting the 

prescribed vision standard. The Agency 

has concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level of safety maintained without the 

exemptions for these CMV drivers. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

September 22, 2009. The exemptions 

expire on September 22, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64– 

224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or 

Room W12–140 on the ground level of 

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

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

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 

365 days each year. If you want 

acknowledgment that we received your 

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or 

postcard or print the acknowledgement 

page that appears after submitting 

comments online. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or of the person signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19476). This information is also 

available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov. 

Background 

On July 28, 2009, FMCSA published 

a notice of receipt of exemption 

applications from certain individuals, 

and requested comments from the 

public (74 FR 37295). That notice listed 

40 applicants’ case histories. The 40 

individuals applied for exemptions from 

the vision requirement in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate 

CMVs in interstate commerce. 

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

FMCSA may grant an exemption for a 2- 

year period if it finds ‘‘such exemption 

would likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved absent 

such exemption.’’ The statute also 

allows the Agency to renew exemptions 

at the end of the 2-year period. 

Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 

40 applications on their merits and 

made a determination to grant 

exemptions to all of them. 

Vision and Driving Experience of the 

Applicants 

The vision requirement in the 

FMCSRs provides: 

A person is physically qualified to 

drive a commercial motor vehicle if that 

person has distant visual acuity of at 

least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye 

without corrective lenses or visual 

acuity separately corrected to 20/40 

(Snellen) or better with corrective 

lenses, distant binocular acuity of 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 (49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10)). 

FMCSA recognizes that some drivers 

do not meet the vision standard, but 

have adapted their driving to 

accommodate their vision limitation 

and demonstrated their ability to drive 

safely. 

The 40 exemption applicants listed in 

this notice are in this category. They are 

unable to meet the vision standard in 

one eye for various reasons, including 

amblyopia, optic nerve defect, retinal 

vein occlusion, pappilodema, optic 

atrophy, prosthesis, retinal detachment, 

retinal scarring, macular scarring, and 

loss of vision due to trauma. In most 

cases, their eye conditions were not 

recently developed. All but 16 of the 

applicants were either born with their 

vision impairments or have had them 

since childhood. The 16 individuals 

who sustained their vision conditions as 

adults have had them for periods 

ranging from 4 to 36 years. 

Although each applicant has one eye 

which does not meet the vision standard 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at 

least 20/40 corrected vision in the other 

eye, and in a doctor’s opinion, has 

sufficient vision to perform all the tasks 

necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors’ 

opinions are supported by the 

applicants’ possession of valid 

commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or 

non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before 

issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to 

knowledge and skills tests designed to 

evaluate their qualifications to operate a 

CMV. 

All these applicants satisfied the 

testing standards for their State of 

residence. By meeting State licensing 

requirements, the applicants 

demonstrated their ability to operate a 

commercial vehicle, with their limited 

vision, to the satisfaction of the State. 

While possessing a valid CDL or nonCDL, these 40 drivers have been 

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate 

commerce, even though their vision 

disqualified them from driving in 

interstate commerce. They have driven 

CMVs with their limited vision for 

careers ranging from 4 to 49 years. In the 

past 3 years, eight of the drivers had 

convictions for traffic violations and 

two of the drivers were involved in 

crashes. 

The qualifications, experience, and 

medical condition of each applicant 

were stated and discussed in detail in 

the July 28, 2009 notice (74 FR 37295). 

Basis for Exemption Determination 

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

FMCSA may grant an exemption from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is likely 

to achieve an equivalent or greater level 

of safety than would be achieved 

without the exemption. Without the 

exemption, applicants will continue to 

be restricted to intrastate driving. With 

the exemption, applicants can drive in 

interstate commerce. Thus, our analysis 

focuses on whether an equal or greater 

level of safety is likely to be achieved by 

permitting each of these drivers to drive 

in interstate commerce as opposed to 

restricting him or her to driving in 

intrastate commerce. 

To evaluate the effect of these 

exemptions on safety, FMCSA 

considered not only the medical reports 

about the applicants’ vision, but also 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
48344 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 

their driving records and experience 

with the vision deficiency. 

To qualify for an exemption from the 

vision standard, FMCSA requires a 

person to present verifiable evidence 

that he/she has driven a commercial 

vehicle safely with the vision deficiency 

for the past 3 years. Recent driving 

performance is especially important in 

evaluating future safety, according to 

several research studies designed to 

correlate past and future driving 

performance. Results of these studies 

support the principle that the best 

predictor of future performance by a 

driver is his/her past record of crashes 

and traffic violations. Copies of the 

studies may be found at docket number 

FMCSA–1998–3637. 

We believe we can properly apply the 

principle to monocular drivers, because 

data from the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver 

study program clearly demonstrate the 

driving performance of experienced 

monocular drivers in the program is 

better than that of all CMV drivers 

collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, 

March 26, 1996). The fact that 

experienced monocular drivers 

demonstrated safe driving records in the 

waiver program supports a conclusion 

that other monocular drivers, meeting 

the same qualifying conditions as those 

required by the waiver program, are also 

likely to have adapted to their vision 

deficiency and will continue to operate 

safely. 

The first major research correlating 

past and future performance was done 

in England by Greenwood and Yule in 

1920. Subsequent studies, building on 

that model, concluded that crash rates 

for the same individual exposed to 

certain risks for two different time 

periods vary only slightly (See Bates 

and Neyman, University of California 

Publications in Statistics, April 1952). 

Other studies demonstrated theories of 

predicting crash proneness from crash 

history coupled with other factors. 

These factors—such as age, sex, 

geographic location, mileage driven and 

conviction history—are used every day 

by insurance companies and motor 

vehicle bureaus to predict the 

probability of an individual 

experiencing future crashes (See Weber, 

Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An 

Application of Multiple Regression 

Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal 

of American Statistical Association, 

June 1971). A 1964 California Driver 

Record Study prepared by the California 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

concluded that the best overall crash 

predictor for both concurrent and 

nonconcurrent events is the number of 

single convictions. This study used 3 

consecutive years of data, comparing the 

experiences of drivers in the first 2 years 

with their experiences in the final year. 

Applying principles from these 

studies to the past 3-year record of the 

40 applicants, seven of the applicants 

had traffic violations for speeding, one 

of the applicants had traffic violation for 

failure to obey a traffic sign, and two of 

the applicants were involved in crashes. 

The applicants achieved this record of 

safety while driving with their vision 

impairment, demonstrating the 

likelihood that they have adapted their 

driving skills to accommodate their 

condition. As the applicants’ ample 

driving histories with their vision 

deficiencies are good predictors of 

future performance, FMCSA concludes 

their ability to drive safely can be 

projected into the future. 

We believe that the applicants’ 

intrastate driving experience and history 

provide an adequate basis for predicting 

their ability to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Intrastate driving, like 

interstate operations, involves 

substantial driving on highways on the 

interstate system and on other roads 

built to interstate standards. Moreover, 

driving in congested urban areas 

exposes the driver to more pedestrian 

and vehicular traffic than exists on 

interstate highways. Faster reaction to 

traffic and traffic signals is generally 

required because distances between 

them are more compact. These 

conditions tax visual capacity and 

driver response just as intensely as 

interstate driving conditions. The 

veteran drivers in this proceeding have 

operated CMVs safely under those 

conditions for at least 3 years, most for 

much longer. Their experience and 

driving records lead us to believe that 

each applicant is capable of operating in 

interstate commerce as safely as he/she 

has been performing in intrastate 

commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds 

that exempting these applicants from 

the vision standard in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. For this reason, the 

Agency is granting the exemptions for 

the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 

31136(e) and 31315 to the 40 applicants 

listed in the notice of July 28, 2009 (74 

FR 37295). 

We recognize that the vision of an 

applicant may change and affect his/her 

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in 

the past. As a condition of the 

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will 

impose requirements on the 40 

individuals consistent with the 

grandfathering provisions applied to 

drivers who participated in the 

Agency’s vision waiver program. 

Those requirements are found at 49 

CFR 391.64(b) and include the 

following: (1) That each individual be 

physically examined every year (a) by 

an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the standard in 49 

CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a medical 

examiner who attests that the individual 

is otherwise physically qualified under 

49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual 

provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s 

or optometrist’s report to the medical 

examiner at the time of the annual 

medical examination; and (3) that each 

individual provide a copy of the annual 

medical certification to the employer for 

retention in the driver’s qualification 

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s 

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a 

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

FMCSA received two comments in 

this proceeding. The comments were 

considered and discussed below. 

The Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation expressed that it had 

reviewed the driving records for Marvin 

Leroy Stein and was in favor of granting 

the Federal vision exemptions to him. 

The second comment was anonymous 

and was submitted in favor of granting 

the Federal vision exemption to Mark 

Anderson. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 40 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts, Michael K. Adams, Michael J. 

Amorese, Mark R. Anderson, Darrell W. 

Bayless, Keith A. Bliss, Lloyd D. 

Burgess, Gary R. Butler, David S. 

Clinger, Ronald L. Cote, John C. Defoe, 

Shennon E. Dorsey, Steve E. Duran, 

Michael M. Edleston, Cecil A. Evey, 

Kamal A. Gaddah, Bradley O. Hart, John 

M. Homchick, Terry L. Hudgens, Eric M. 

Kousgaard, Larry L. Massey, Joe A. 

McIntyre, James F. McMahon, Jr., 

Samuel A. Miller, Marvin L. Motes, John 

W. Myre, Noah I. Pennington, Ronald D. 

Peters, Stephen Pozharsky, Angelo D. 

Rogers, Larry T. Rogers, Ricky J. 

Sanderson, George V. Sorondo, Marcial 

Soto-Rivas, Marvin L. Stein, David C. 

Sybesma, Bruce E. Thulin, Matthew K. 

Tucker, Stanley W. Tyler, Jr., Victor H. 

Vera, and Charles A. Winchell from the 

vision requirement in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10), subject to the 

requirements cited above (49 CFR 

391.64(b)). 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) 

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 182 / Tuesday, September 22, 2009 / Notices 48345 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked 

if: (1) The person fails to comply with 

the terms and conditions of the 

exemption; (2) the exemption has 

resulted in a lower level of safety than 

was maintained before it was granted; or 

(3) continuation of the exemption would 

not be consistent with the goals and 

objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315. 

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E9–22768 Filed 9–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Surface Transportation Board 

[STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2009– 

4)] 

Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor 

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board. 

ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment 

factor. 

SUMMARY: The Board has approved the 

fourth quarter 2009 rail cost adjustment 

factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by 

the Association of American Railroads. 

The fourth quarter 2009 RCAF 

(Unadjusted) is 0.996. The fourth 

quarter 2009 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.450. 

The fourth quarter 2009 RCAF–5 is 

0.427. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245–0333. [Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the 

hearing impaired: 1–800–877–8339.] 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Additional information is contained in 

the Board’s decision, which is available 

on our Web site, http://www.stb.dot.gov. 

Copies of the decision may be 

purchased by contacting the Office of 

Public Assistance, Governmental 

Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245– 

0235. Assistance for the hearing 

impaired is available through FIRS at 

1–800–877–8339. 

This action will not significantly 

affect either the quality of the human 

environment or energy conservation. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we 

conclude that our action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

Decided: September 15, 2009. 

By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice 

Chairman Nottingham, and Commissioner 

Mulvey. 

Jeffrey Herzig, 

Clearance Clerk. 

[FR Doc. E9–22743 Filed 9–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0157] 

Automobili Lamborghini SpA; Receipt 

of Application for Extension of 

Temporary Exemption From Advanced 

Air Bag Requirements of FMVSS No. 

208 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of petition for 

extension of a Temporary Exemption 

from certain provisions of Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 

208, Occupant Crash Protection. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

procedures of 49 CFR Part 555, 

Automobili Lamborghini SpA 

(‘‘Lamborghini’’) has applied for an 

extension of a previously received 

temporary exemption from certain 

requirements of FMVSS No. 208, 

Occupant Crash Protection, for the 

Lamborghini Murcielago model. 

Lamborghini requests extension of its 

temporary exemption for the advanced 

air bag requirements. The basis of the 

application is that compliance would 

cause substantial economic hardship to 

a manufacturer that has tried in good 

faith to comply with the standard. 

NHTSA is publishing this notice of 

receipt of the application in accordance 

with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 

30113(b)(2), and has made no judgment 

on the merits of the application. 

DATES: You should submit your 

comments not later than October 22, 

2009. 

Comments: We invite you to submit 

comments on the application described 

below. You may submit comments 

identified by docket number in the 

heading of this notice by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: DOT Docket Management 

Facility, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

Instructions: All submissions must 

include the agency name and docket 

number. Note that all comments 

received will be posted without change 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information provided. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket in 

order to read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time, or to 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20950, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Confidential Business Information: If 

you wish to submit any information 

under a claim of confidentiality, you 

should submit three copies of your 

complete submission, including the 

information you claim to be confidential 

business information, to the Chief 

Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. In addition, you should 

submit two copies, from which you 

have deleted the claimed confidential 

business information, to Docket 

Management at the address given above. 

When you send a comment containing 

information claimed to be confidential 

business information, you should 

include a cover letter setting forth the 

information specified in our 

confidential business information 

regulation (49 CFR Part 512). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Alves, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, NCC–112, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 

20590. Phone: 202–366–2992; Fax: 202– 

366–3820; E-Mail: sarah.alves@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES