[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 184 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57230-57234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24396]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006]


Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 56 individuals from 
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

DATES: September 21, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the vision 
exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Bus and 
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-2987; for information about 
legal issues related to this notice, Ms. Judith Rutledge, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-2519, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 
a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at: 
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web 
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    Sixty-one individuals petitioned the FHWA for an exemption of the 
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of 
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. They are John 
W. Arnold, James H. Bailey, Victor F. Brast, Jr., John P. Brooks 
[published as James P. Brooks in the Notice of Intent on April 14, 
2000], Robert W. Brown, Benny J. Burke, Derric D. Burrell, Anthony J. 
Cesternino, Ronald W. Coe, Sr., Richard A. Corey, James A. Creed, 
William G. Croy, Craig E. Dorrance, Willie P. Estep, Duane H. Eyre, 
James W. Frion, Lee Gallmeyer, Shawn B. Gaston, James F. Gereau, Rodney 
M. Gingrich, Esteban Gerardo Gonzalez, Harlan Lee Gunter, Thanh Van Ha, 
James O. Hancock, Paul A. Harrison, Joseph H. Heidkamp, Jr., Thomas J. 
Holtmann, Larry D. Johnson, Gary Killian, Marvin L. Kiser, Jr., David 
R. Lambert, James R. Lanier, Donald Eugene Lee, James Stanley Lewis, 
Thomas J. Long, Newton Heston Mahoney, Ronald L. Martsching, Robert 
Evans McClure, Jr., Duane D. Mims, James A. Mohr, William A. Moore, 
Leonard James Morton, Timothy W. Noble, Kevin J. O'Donnell, Gary L. 
Reveal, John W. Robbins, Jr., Doyle R. Roundtree, Charles L. Schnell, 
David L. Slack, Everett J. Smeltzer, Philip Smiddy, James C. Smith, 
Terry L. Smith, James N. Spencer, Teresa Mary Steeves, Roger R. 
Strehlow, Timothy W. Strickland, John T. Thomas, Darel E. Thompson, 
Ralph A. Thompson, and Kevin Wayne Windham.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an 
exemption for a renewable 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.'' 
Accordingly, the FMCSA evaluated the petitions on their merits and made 
a preliminary determination that the waivers should be granted. On 
April 14, 2000, the agency published notice of its preliminary 
determination and requested comments from the public (65 FR 20245). The 
comment period closed on May 15, 2000. Three comments were received, 
and their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in reaching 
the final decision to grant the petitions.
    The FMCSA has not made a decision on five applicants (Donald Eugene 
Lee, Thomas J. Long, Robert Evans McClure, Jr., Gary L. Reveal, and 
Charles L. Schnell). Subsequent to the publication of the preliminary 
determination, the agency received additional information from its 
check of these applicants' motor vehicle records, and we are evaluating 
that information. A decision on these five petitions will be made in 
the future.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement 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 deg. in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to 
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard 
red, green, and amber.'' 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

    Since 1992, the FHWA has undertaken studies to determine if this 
vision standard should be amended. The final report from our medical 
panel recommends changing the field of vision standard from 70 deg. to 
120 deg., while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See 
Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello, 
M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, M.D., ``Visual Requirements and 
Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, filed in the docket.) The 
panel's

[[Page 57231]]

conclusion supports the FMCSA's (and previously the FHWA's) view that 
the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a general standard 
to ensure highway safety. The FMCSA also recognizes that some drivers 
do not meet the vision standard, but have adapted their driving to 
accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to 
drive safely.
    The 56 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet 
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including 
amblyopia, corneal and macular scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma. 
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All 
but 14 of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments 
or have had them since childhood. The 14 individuals who sustained 
their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging 
from 8 to 41 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, can perform all the 
tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The doctors' opinions are supported 
by the applicants' possession of a valid commercial driver's license 
(CDL) or non-CDL to operate a CMV. Before issuing a CDL, States subject 
drivers to knowledge and performance tests designed to evaluate their 
qualifications to operate the 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. The Federal interstate qualification 
standards, however, require more.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 56 drivers have been 
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce even though their 
vision disqualifies them from driving in interstate commerce. They have 
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 3 to 50 
years. In the past 3 years, the 56 drivers had 10 convictions for 
traffic violations among them. Three drivers were involved in accidents 
in their CMVs, but did not receive a citation. The drivers were 
convicted of three moving traffic violations; two of them were for 
speeding and one was for ``Disobey Traffic Signal.''
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each 
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in an April 14, 2000, 
notice (65 FR 20245). Except for two applicants (Thanh Van Ha and James 
N. Spencer), the docket comments did not focus on the specific merits 
or qualifications of any applicant; therefore, we have not repeated the 
individual profiles here. The qualifications of Mr. Ha and Mr. Spencer 
are further examined below in the discussion of comments. With one 
exception, our summary analysis of the applicants as a group is 
supported by the information published at 65 FR 20245. In Mr. Killian's 
case, his accident was not reported in the April 14, 2000, notice 
because it was discovered on a subsequent check of his motor vehicle 
record. The police report indicated that Mr. Killian's vehicle was 
sideswiped by the other vehicle and the other driver was charged with 
``Left of Center.'' Mr. Killian has no other accidents or convictions 
in a CMV on his driving record for the 3-year review period.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an 
exemption from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the 
exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety 
than would be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, 
applicants will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With 
the exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our 
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is 
likely to be achieved by permitting these drivers to drive in 
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting them to driving in 
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, the FMCSA 
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision, 
but also their driving records and experience with the vision 
deficiency. 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 accidents and traffic 
violations. Copies of the studies have been added to the docket.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers 
because data from the vision waiver 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.) That experienced monocular drivers with good 
driving records in the waiver program demonstrated their ability to 
drive safely supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, 
meeting the same qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver 
program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and 
will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance 
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, 
building on that model, concluded that accident 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 accident proneness from accident 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 accidents. (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 accident 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 56 applicants, we note that cumulatively the applicants have had 
only three accidents and 10 traffic violations in the last 3 years. 
None of the accidents resulted in the issuance of a citation against 
the applicant. The applicants achieved this record of safety while 
driving with their vision impairment, demonstrating the likelihood that 
they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate their condition. 
As the applicants' ample driving histories with their vision 
deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, the FMCSA 
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the 
future.
    We believe the applicants' intrastate driving experience provides 
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

[[Page 57232]]

driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exist on 
interstate highways. Faster reaction to traffic and traffic signals is 
generally required because distances are more compact than on highways. 
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 or she has been performing in 
intrastate commerce. Consequently, the FMCSA finds that exempting 
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 will grant the exemptions for 
the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect 
his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the 
past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the FMCSA will impose 
requirements on the 56 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 its driver 
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver qualification file 
if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the 
certification when driving so it may be presented to a duly authorized 
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    The FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments 
were considered and are discussed below.
    The Licensing Operations Division of the California Department of 
Motor Vehicles commented opposing the granting of an exemption to Mr. 
James N. Spencer and Mr. Thanh Van Ha. California is opposed to 
granting an exemption to Mr. Spencer because he was cited in 1995 for 
driving a CMV on the wrong side of the road, and he was involved in 
accidents while operating a CMV in both 1995 and 1996, in which the 
officer identified him as being the party most responsible for the 
accidents. California also argues that, although the above violations 
and accidents are outside the FMCSA's 3-year review period for 
exemptions, the actions are serious enough to warrant a denial of the 
exemption.
    The FMCSA has established the 3-year requirement of driving with a 
vision impairment before being eligible for a waiver because: (1) It 
takes time for a person with a vision deficiency to compensate for that 
deficiency; (2) the best predictor of safety and future performance of 
a driver is his past record of accidents and violations; and (3) the 3-
year standard corresponds to the longest period of time that states 
uniformly keep driving records.
    Mr. Spencer currently holds a valid intrastate CDL with 
endorsements for both doubles and triples issued on July 23, 1997, by 
the State of California. His driving record with the State of 
California does not reflect the instances cited by the Department of 
Motor Vehicles. While the FMCSA might agree that an applicant's 
exceptionally poor driving record outside the established 3-year period 
might give us pause to reconsider the merits of issuing an exemption, 
we do not believe that Mr. Spencer's current record warrants a denial. 
In fact, it appears that his driving has improved over the years as his 
record indicated no accidents and no violations in the last three 
years. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor his driving, along with 
all other drivers issued exemptions, and will take action to revoke the 
exemption, if and when warranted.
    The State of California is opposed to granting an exemption to Mr. 
Ha because he does not hold a California commercial driver's license 
(CDL) and he has never passed a commercial knowledge test or 
demonstrated compensation for his vision deficiency on a commercial 
driving test.
    The FMCSA requires an applicant for a vision exemption to submit 
documentation showing that he or she currently holds a intrastate CDL 
or a license (non-CDL) to operate a CMV. Mr. Ha submitted a copy of a 
valid California Class C license which allows him to operate a Class C 
vehicle (having a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or 
less). California does not require a CDL to operate a Class C vehicle 
unless the vehicle is used to transport hazardous materials/wastes 
requiring placards. Mr. Ha has 10 years experience operating a straight 
truck having a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds, a CMV as 
defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Mr. Ha has satisfied California licensing 
requirements, including a written test and road test, to operate a 
Class C vehicle. Consequently, we do not think that Mr. Ha's 
application for a vision exemption should be denied because he does not 
possess a CDL and has not passed the knowledge and skills testing 
required of applicants for CDLs.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) expresses 
continued opposition to the FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including the driver 
qualification standards. Specifically, the AHAS: (1) Asks the agency to 
clarify the consistency of the exemption application information, (2) 
objects to the agency's reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision 
waiver program, (3) raises procedural objections to this proceeding, 
(4) claims the agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the 
granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)), and finally, (5) 
suggests that a recent Supreme Court decision affects the legal 
validity of vision exemptions.
    Most of the issues raised by the AHAS were addressed at length in 
64 FR 51568 (September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 (November 30, 1999), 64 
FR 69586 (December 13, 1999), and 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000). We will 
not address these points again herein but refer interested parties to 
those earlier discussions. However, the AHAS has raised some new 
issues, and these are addressed in the following discussion.
    Relative to the comments on the consistency of the information 
presented to the public, the AHAS questions how various aspects of that 
information are verified. In particular, the AHAS states that the 
public is not advised about outside verification of each applicant's 
miles driven, the number of years driving commercial vehicles, the type 
of vehicle driven, and the most recent 3-year driving record. The 
number of years driving commercial vehicles is not the precise 
experience criteria used to determine an applicant's acceptability for 
an exemption. That determination is made on the most recent 3 years 
experience before application. That experience and the type of truck 
driven is verified by the applicant's employer.
    The recent 3-year driving record is verified through the Commercial 
Driver

[[Page 57233]]

License Information System (CDLIS). This is another criteria used to 
determine if an applicant is acceptable. Total miles driven is not a 
criteria used to decide acceptability. It has not been stated any place 
that mileage is a critical criteria. It is, therefore, not verified. 
Mileage is presented as an indication of overall experience with 
commercial motor vehicles.
    The AHAS states that the FMCSA needs to provide an accurate mileage 
figure for the recent 3-year period. This mileage is needed, it is 
stated, to determine whether applicant's crashes and violations are 
accumulated at low or high exposure in the three years preceding the 
application. While this may be an interesting determination in some 
contexts, it is not relevant to the determination of the driver's 
acceptability. An applicant is acceptable relative to a driving record 
if there are no crashes for which the driver was issued a citation nor 
was a contributing factor. It is not relevant whether these types of 
crashes occur at high or low exposure. If they are present, the driver 
is disqualified.
    The AHAS states that the FMCSA should require a minimum average 
annual miles driven or total mileage in order to qualify for an 
exemption. In making this statement, the AHAS notes that mileage driven 
by applicants in the Federal Register notice ranges from as little as 
40,000 and 66,000 miles (for 4 and 3 years, respectively) to over three 
million miles for applicants with 20 or more years driving experience. 
The AHAS further states that drivers in the Vision Waiver Program 
appear to have far more driving miles than the applicants to the 
exemption program (no data were offered). This comparison seems to be 
presented to support the need for a minimum number of miles to be 
driven before these drivers can apply for an exemption. This comparison 
is not valid because the data from the Vision Waiver Program do not 
support the AHAS statement. An examination of the data from the years 
the program was in operation shows the annual mileage driven ranged 
from as little as 1,000 miles to a maximum of 160,000 miles. The median 
annual miles driven was about 40,000 with 25 percent of the waiver 
holders usually driving less than 17,000 per year. Defining a required 
minimum mileage for application would enact a spurious screening 
standard.
    Claiming that a maximum mileage standard is not feasible does not 
mean that miles driven has no value as a measure. It is part of the 
basis for establishing whether a program has achieved a ``level of 
safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that 
would have been achieved'' absent from exemption. The other part of the 
safety determination is the number of accidents experienced by an 
exemption group where accidents and mileage are related through a 
statistical model named Poisson regression. In this model, the 
relationship is given as the number of accidents (na) being equal to a 
rate (r) times mileage (m) (na=r x m ). The rate in this model is 
usually referred to as the accident rate per some convenient unit of 
miles driven (1 million, for example). This rate is the basis through 
which the safety level of a program is determined and miles driven are 
an integral part of the determination. This framework, however, does 
not suggest that there is a minimum level of mileage that could be 
arbitrarily used for a screening decision.
    The AHAS states that, while the FMCSA provides some information on 
the applicant's separate experience with combination tractor-trailers 
and the straight trucks, the agency has not assessed the relative value 
in terms of driving experience between driving these two types of 
vehicle configurations. This statement is somewhat unclear. If it is 
made in the context of the paragraph, then the relative value of the 
experience is presumed to be related to the granting of an exemption. 
This would suggest that there should be separate experience 
specifications for each type of CMV and that an exemption would be 
issued for a particular type of vehicle. Relative to this, the AHAS 
also points to research literature concerned with the differences 
between the two types of trucks. This literature, however, does not 
address the operation of the two types of CMVs in relation to the 
visual conditions which are the focus of the exemption program. The 
best evidence of possible disparities in the operation of the CMV types 
is taken from the earlier Vision Waiver Program, the AHAS doubts 
notwithstanding. The data taken from the program show that those 
driving straight trucks had an accident that was slightly higher than 
that of the combination truck operators (2.15 accidents per million 
miles driven versus 1.76). This difference was not statistically 
significant. As a result, it appears that a consideration of truck type 
in the application process is not necessary.
    The same conclusion can be drawn in relation to the AHAS statement 
concerned with driving routines. The AHAS states that the FMCSA has not 
made any attempt to distinguish between the kinds of driving routine 
the applicants experienced based on the type of driving they had done. 
To support the need to do this, they note that the agency distinguishes 
between five types of drivers and driving regimens in its recently 
issued proposed rule on driver rest and sleep for safe operations. This 
proposal is concerned with driver fatigue. There is no evidence that 
there is a differential effect of fatigue on drivers with the vision 
conditions that are the focus of exemptions. Consequently, the FMCSA 
does not believe there is a need to issue exemptions for specific types 
of driving routine.
    In a supplemental comment to the docket, the AHAS states its 
concern with the use of a 3-year driving record to screen drivers who 
apply for exemptions. They first claim that it is misleading to report 
a driving record for the most recent 3-year period in conjunction with 
drivers' self report of the total number of years driving. This is 
misleading, they state, because the addition of the unverified total 
years of driving gives the impression of a longer period of safe 
driving. The FMCSA had no intention of conveying this type of 
interpretation. Total years driving was reported, as was mileage, to 
give an overall indication of experience. For the purposes of 
screening, a recent 3-year driving record is the critical focus 
relative to safe driving.
    The AHAS then argues that a 3-year record may not be sufficient to 
guarantee a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than that 
present in the absence of an exemption program. In support of this, it 
points to the comments filed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 
for the State of California relative to a driver from that State who 
applied for an exemption (Mr. James N. Spencer at 65 FR 20245, April 
14, 2000). The California DMV opposed the granting of an exemption to 
this driver because of his accident involvement and citation record in 
years 4 and 5 before application for an exemption. The FMCSA finds this 
comment inconsistent because the driver has a valid California 
intrastate CDL issued on July 23, 1997, by the State of California.
    The FMCSA believes that the submission of a driving record for a 
period longer than 3 years is not necessary. As the AHAS correctly 
points out, not all states maintain driving records for more than 3 
years. Requiring some drivers to submit 3-year records and others to 
submit ones for a longer duration, as the AHAS suggests, would be 
arbitrary and capricious.
    The FMCSA believes that using a 3-year driving record as a 
screening procedure in the application process is

[[Page 57234]]

very adequate to insure the required level of safety. The basis for 
this is that there is compelling evidence to show the efficacy of a 3-
year window. This evidence is taken from the earlier Vision Waiver 
Program where the driving record in the most recent 3 years was used to 
screen all applicants to that program. That program existed from July 
1992 until March 1996 and, during that period, those holding waivers 
had an accident rate of 1.902 accidents per million miles driven. In 
the comparable period, the national accident rate for large trucks was 
2.348 (General Estimates System; 1992-1995, a database managed by the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). These data verify that 
a 3-year screening period ensures the required safety level for almost 
4 years after application. This is sufficient for safety in a 2-year 
exemption period where the recipient must renew his or her exemption 
using a new, most recent 3-year driving record. The process used in the 
exemption program is even more rigorous than that used in the waiver 
program. If drivers have an accident in an exemption period for which 
they receive a citation or are a contributing factor, they will be 
ineligible to renew their exemption. Under this framework, the 
exemption program is even more conservative than the Vision Waiver 
Program which clearly demonstrated its acceptable level of safety.
    Notwithstanding the FMCSA's ongoing review of the vision standard, 
as evidenced by the medical panel's report dated October 16, 1998, and 
filed in this docket, the FMCSA must comply with Rauenhorst v. United 
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 95 
F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual exemptions under 
standards that are consistent with public safety. Meeting those 
standards, the 56 veteran drivers in this case have demonstrated to our 
satisfaction that they can continue to operate a CMV with their current 
vision safely in interstate commerce because they have demonstrated 
their ability in intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they qualify for an 
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).

Conclusion

    After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its 
evaluation of the 56 exemption applications in accordance with the 
Rauenhorst decision, the FMCSA exempts John W. Arnold, James H. Bailey, 
Victor F. Brast, Jr., John P. Brooks [published as James P. Brooks in 
the Notice of Intent on April 14, 2000], Robert W. Brown, Benny J. 
Burke, Derric D. Burrell, Anthony J. Cesternino, Ronald W. Coe, Sr., 
Richard A. Corey, James A. Creed, William G. Croy, Craig E. Dorrance, 
Willie P. Estep, Duane H. Eyre, James W. Frion, Lee Gallmeyer, Shawn B. 
Gaston, James F. Gereau, Rodney M. Gingrich, Esteban Gerardo Gonzalez, 
Harlan Lee Gunter, Thanh Van Ha, James O. Hancock, Paul A. Harrison, 
Joseph H. Heidkamp, Jr., Thomas J. Holtmann, Larry D. Johnson, Gary 
Killian, Marvin L. Kiser, Jr., David R. Lambert, James R. Lanier, James 
Stanley Lewis, Newton Heston Mahoney, Ronald L. Martsching, Duane D. 
Mims, James A. Mohr, William A. Moore, Leonard James Morton, Timothy W. 
Noble, Kevin J. O'Donnell, John W. Robbins, Jr., Doyle R. Roundtree, 
David L. Slack, Everett J. Smeltzer, Philip Smiddy, James C. Smith, 
Terry L. Smith, James N. Spencer, Teresa Mary Steeves, Roger R. 
Strehlow, Timothy W. Strickland, John T. Thomas, Darel E. Thompson, 
Ralph A. Thompson, and Kevin Wayne Windham from the vision requirement 
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the following conditions: (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 its driver qualification file, or keep 
a copy in his/her driver qualification file if he/she is self-employed. 
The driver must also have a copy of the certification when driving so 
it may be presented to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local 
enforcement official.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption 
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the FMCSA. The 
exemption will be revoked if (1) the person fails to comply with the 
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted 
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; 
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the 
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year 
period, the person may apply to the FMCSA for a renewal under 
procedures in effect at that time.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136; 49 CFR 1.73.

    Issued on: September 18, 2000.
Julie Anna Cirillo,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-24396 Filed 9-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P