57230 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices

Grant, 08/29/00, Exemption No. 6002C

Docket No.: 26378

Petitioner: DaimlerChysler Aerospace,

MTU Maintenance Hannover GmbH

(MTU)

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

145.47(c)(1)

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit MTU to extend

its certification privileges as an FAAapproved foreign repair station to

contract the maintenance and repair

of engine components of International

Aero Engines AG Model V2500

turbine engines to facilities that are

not FAA-certificated repair stations,

U.S.-original equipment

manufacturers, or approved

manufacturing licensees for such

engines.

Grant, 08/25/00, Exemption No. 5337D

Docket No.: 26608

Petitioner: Phillips Alaska, Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

43.3(a), 43.7(a), 91.407(a)(2),

91.417(a)(2)(v), and 121.379

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit ARCO Alaska,

Inc. (ARCO Alaska), and British

Petroleum Exploration, Inc. (BPX), to

use the approved maintenance

recordkeeping procedures for Alaska

Airlines, Inc. (ASA) for Boeing 737–

200 aircraft leased and operated by

ARCO Alaska and BPX. It also permits

ASA to perform maintenance,

preventive maintenance, alterations,

inspections, major repairs, and major

alterations, and subsequently return

to service Boeing 737–200 aircraft

leased and operated by ARCO Alaska

and BPX in accordance with ASA’s

continuous airworthiness

maintenance program and

maintenance procedures.

Grant, 08/25/00, Exemption No. 5667D

[FR Doc. 00–23814 Filed 9–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

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° 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° to 120°, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices 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 nonCDL, 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

57232 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices

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 selfemployed. 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices 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

57234 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 184 / Thursday, September 21, 2000 / Notices

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 selfemployed. 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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. 2000–7165]

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 60 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 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-three individuals petitioned the

FMCSA for an exemption of the vision

requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),