Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 51001 

1Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). 

2 Department of Transportation Act, Sec. 

6(e)(6)(C), Pub. L. 89–670, 80 Stat. 931, at 939. 

3Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 

31136(a)(3)). 

4Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 

(42 U.S.C. 12101, Pub. L. 101–336, 104 Stat. 327). 

5 49 CFR 191.2(b), 17 FR 4422, at 4425, May 15, 

1952. 

6 ‘‘Qualifications of Drivers of Commercial Motor 

Vehicles,’’ 35 FR 6463, April 22, 1970, effective 

January 1, 1971. 

7 ‘‘Qualifications of Drivers,’’ 34 FR 9084, June 7, 

1969. 

8 ‘‘Qualifications of Drivers; Vision,’’ 57 FR 6793. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 391 

[Docket No. FHWA–97–2267 Formerly MC 

96–4] 

RIN 2126–AA05 

Physical Qualification of Drivers; 

Vision Standard 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA (formerly the Federal 

Highway Administration’s Office of 

Motor Carriers) withdraws its 1992 

advance notice of proposed rulemaking 

(ANPRM) on the vision standard for 

commercial motor vehicle drivers in 

interstate commerce. The agency sought 

comment on whether it should revise its 

driver qualification requirements 

relating to the vision standard, 

including visual acuity, field of vision 

and color perception. After reviewing 

the public comments received in 

response to the ANPRM, the agency 

believes there is insufficient data to 

support moving forward with a proposal 

to change the vision standard at this 

time. FMCSA has long term plans to 

reevaluate all of its commercial driver 

health standards and guidelines and 

will review the current vision standard 

at that time. 

DATES: The ANPRM with request for 

comments published on February 28, 

1992, is withdrawn effective 

immediately. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical 

Qualifications Division (MC–PSP), (202) 

366–4001, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, 

SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office 

hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. ET, 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA) is authorized 

by statute to establish minimum 

qualification requirements for drivers of 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in 

interstate commerce. This authority was 

originally granted to the Interstate 

Commerce Commission (ICC) in the 

Motor Carrier Act of 1935,1 and then 

transferred to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in 1966 when the 

Department was created.2

In 1984,3 Congress further directed 

the Secretary to establish minimum 

safety standards to ensure ‘‘the physical 

condition of operators of commercial 

motor vehicles is adequate to enable 

them to operate such vehicles safely 

* * *.’’

In several of the congressional 

committee reports for the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),4

Congress expressly stated that while it 

expected persons who wish to drive 

CMVs to meet Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) minimum 

physical qualification standards, it 

expected FHWA to review its standards 

in light of the ADA within 2 years of its 

enactment. 

Efforts To Reassess the Vision Standard 

The agency has used considerable 

resources in assessing its requirements 

for driver vision. The principal agency 

initiatives were the Ketron Panel (1991), 

an ANPRM requesting comments on the 

vision standard (1992), the FHWA 

Vision Research Plan (1996), and the 

Berson Panel (1997–98). Each is 

discussed briefly below. 

Ketron Panel. In the early 1990s, 

FHWA began examining the 

relationship between visual disorders 

and the performance of CMV drivers. In 

1991, FHWA retained Ketron, a division 

of the Bionetics Corporation, to analyze 

this issue. The study had four 

objectives: (1) To assess the basis for the 

current vision standard, (2) to define the 

acceptable level of vision for CMV 

drivers, (3) to recommend revised vision 

tests if needed, and (4) to assess the risk 

associated with establishing objective 

measurements of visual acuity, field of 

vision (FOV), and color perception. 

The Ketron Panel recommended 

clarifying the horizontal FOV standard 

in § 391.41(b)(10). FOV refers to the 

ability to see peripherally and measures 

the ability to detect the presence of an 

object or shape in the periphery without 

moving the head or eyes. 

Individuals tested for FOV focus on a 

point directly in front of them. It could 

be a spot on the wall. It is referred to 

as the ‘‘point of fixation.’’ The 

individual is directed not to move his or 

her head or eyes at any time during the 

test. An object is then presented at 

several locations in the periphery, one 

at a time, at irregular intervals, and at 

varying angles, from the eye of the 

individual. The individual signals the 

examiner when he or she first detects 

the object. The various points at which 

the object is detected are noted, and 

formal measurement is made in degrees. 

Normal horizontal FOV in each eye is 

60 degrees inward toward the nose, and 

100 to 110 degrees outward toward the 

ear, or a total of 160 to 170 degrees. 

In a rule adopted in 1952, the ICC 

required CMV drivers to have a 

horizontal FOV of at least 140 degrees.5

Responsibility for motor carrier safety 

activities, including establishment of 

driver physical qualification standards, 

was transferred to the FHWA in 1966. 

In a 1970 final rule,6 FHWA changed 

the horizontal FOV standard to 70 

degrees in each eye. Other than a 

general statement that the physical 

qualification requirements for drivers 

were being changed based upon 

‘‘discussions with the Administration’s 

medical advisors,’’ the 1970 final rule 

provided no insight into why the agency 

changed the FOV standard from 140 

degrees in each eye, to 70 degrees in 

each eye. The 1969 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) 7 did not mention a 

proposed FOV standard change at all. 

Ketron concluded the 1971 

amendment to the vision standard had 

misstated the appropriate minimum 

horizontal FOV. Ketron recommended 

the horizontal FOV be at least 120 

degrees in each eye. However, the 

Ketron Report included no data 

indicating a driver with a horizontal 

FOV less than 120 degrees in each eye 

is at greater risk for CMV crash 

involvement or a link between 

diminished FOV and higher probability 

of crash involvement. 

Request for Comments on the Vision 

Standard. On February 28, 1992, FHWA 

published an ANPRM 8 requesting 

comment on whether the vision 

standard for drivers should be revised. 

The agency believed a review of the 

vision standard was appropriate in light 

of medical, scientific, and technological 

advances. The ANPRM also was in 

response to enactment of the ADA. The 

agency’s review of the vision standard 

was part of the review of CMV driver 

physical qualification standards 

recommended in several congressional 

committee reports accompanying the 

ADA. The ANPRM asked 14 specific 

questions on the vision standard, 

51002 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

9 ‘‘Proposed Research Plan on Vision Standard,’’

61 FR 28547, June 5, 1996. 

10Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93–112, 87 

Stat. 355, September 26, 1973) (29 U.S.C. 681 et 

seq.). 

including whether the current 70-degree 

horizontal FOV standard should remain. 

Readers were advised medical experts 

believe 120 degrees in each eye is the 

appropriate standard and asked to 

comment on the FOV standard, 

specifically on the effect devices such as 

mirrors might have on assisting persons 

with restricted FOV. 

There were approximately 100 

comments to the ANPRM. The majority 

of the commenters discussed concerns 

about the proposed FHWA Federal 

vision exemption program, as well as 

key issues and research related to 

monocular vision and visual acuity 

testing. 

A small group of commenters focused 

specifically on field of vision. Three 

commenters were physicians who 

directly addressed discrepancies in the 

FOV standards. Other commenters 

included two State agencies, several 

safety advocate organizations, the 

American Trucking Associations and 

the American Optometric Association. 

This group of commenters focused on 

the inadequacy of the FOV 

measurement, but no commenter offered 

data or relevant information to support 

changing this standard. 

FHWA Vision Research Plan. FHWA 

initiated a program to develop a vision 

research plan resulting in a complete 

list of visual performance parameters 

serving as the basis for a new CMV 

driver vision standard. In 1995, Star 

Mountain, Inc., under contract to the 

agency, conducted a literature review on 

this issue. FHWA also consulted with a 

panel of medical and technical experts 

to obtain their views on the design of 

the research plan. 

On June 5, 1996,9 FHWA requested 

public comment on its proposed vision 

research plan. On August 9, 1996, the 

agency held a public hearing on the 

subject in Chicago. FHWA evaluated the 

oral testimony and written comments 

and concluded the best course of action 

was to postpone vision research. First, 

it was generally agreed development of 

predictive vision tests would require 

substantial agency resources. 

Furthermore, validation of the tests 

could require using driving simulators, 

whose scientific validity was highly 

uncertain. FHWA also concluded it 

would need a large number of drivers to 

validate the new vision tests. 

Berson Panel. In September 1997, 

FHWA contracted with the Beth Israel 

Deaconess Medical Center in Boston to 

establish a panel of medical experts to 

develop medically-based 

recommendations for amending the 

current vision standard. The agency 

directed the panel to assess the FHWA 

vision standard and to make 

recommendations for changes, with 

specific limits to the scope of the 

panel’s work: 

• Recommendations must ensure 

drivers operating CMVs are physically 

qualified. 

• Recommendations must be 

consistent with national policy 

objectives expressed in the ADA and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973,10 as 

amended. 

• Recommendations must be based 

on the most current technology in visual 

assessment. 

• Recommendations should include 

any screening protocols found reliable 

for the examination of drivers. 

• The panel must rely upon sound 

medical judgment concerning the 

demands placed on the eyes of drivers 

as they operate CMVs on a daily basis. 

The Berson Panel endorsed the Ketron 

Panel recommendation to change the 

horizontal FOV standard from 70 

degrees in each eye to at least 120 

degrees in each eye. The Berson experts 

agreed the 70-degree FOV standard is 

insufficient. They cited the unique 

visual demands placed upon CMV 

drivers while stopping, accelerating, 

changing lanes, and responding to 

signage. The Berson experts believed the 

poor maneuverability of the typical 

CMV and the potential for severe injury 

and extensive property damage in a 

CMV crash justify a more stringent 

vision standard. Nevertheless, like the 

Ketron Panel Report, the Berson Report 

included no data indicating a driver 

with a horizontal FOV less than 120 

degrees in each eye is at greater risk for 

CMV crash involvement or a link 

between diminished FOV and higher 

probability of crash involvement. 

Withdrawal of Proposal 

Although considerable resources have 

been expended on assessing the vision 

standard in general and the FOV 

provision in particular, FMCSA believes 

there are insufficient crash data to 

support initiating an FOV rulemaking at 

this time. It is clear 70 degrees 

horizontal FOV represents only a 

portion of the ‘‘normal’’ FOV for most 

individuals. However, there are no data 

concerning the relationship between a 

specific horizontal FOV value(s) and 

crash causation. There also are no data 

available to help identify the minimum 

horizontal FOV necessary to safely 

operate a CMV. Therefore, FMCSA is 

withdrawing its ANPRM dated February 

28, 1992, on the vision standard for 

CMV drivers. 

FMCSA has a long-term plan of 

reevaluating CMV driver health and 

wellness issues, including physical 

qualifications, medical advisory criteria, 

and safety research and policy. The 

agency plans to review the horizontal 

FOV standard under that initiative. 

Issued on: August 22, 2005. 

Warren E. Hoemann, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–17102 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2005–21649] 

RIN 2127–AI53 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 

Standards; Rearview Mirrors 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of termination of 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2000, AM 

General Corporation submitted a 

petition for rulemaking seeking to 

amend the Federal motor vehicle safety 

standard for rearview mirrors to permit 

certain vehicles with a gross vehicle 

weight rating (GVWR) of more than 

4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000 pounds) to 

be equipped with passenger-side convex 

mirrors. The standard currently requires 

vehicles in that weight class to be 

equipped with mirrors of unit 

magnification in that location. The 

agency granted the petition on May 23, 

2001 and began to gather data to 

evaluate the request, including 

information obtained from a January 22, 

2003 Request for Comments. Based on 

analysis of the available data, NHTSA is 

terminating this rulemaking proceeding, 

because we have determined that 

convex mirrors are not an adequate 

substitute for mirrors of unit 

magnification in terms of providing 

safety benefits associated with allowing 

the driver to better judge the distance 

and speed of oncoming vehicles, 

particularly during lane change 

maneuvers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Lee, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards, NVS–123, National Highway