[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61493-61495]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21203]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21711]


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 grant exemptions from the 
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs) for 40 individuals. The exemptions will enable these 
individuals to qualify as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) 
in interstate commerce without meeting the vision standard prescribed 
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

DATES: This decision is effective October 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and 
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4001, FMCSA, Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. 
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Document Management 
System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.

Background

    On August 19, 2005, the FMCSA published a notice of receipt of 
exemption applications from 40 individuals, and requested comments from 
the public (70 FR 48797). The 40 individuals petitioned the FMCSA for 
exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which 
applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. They are: Roy L. 
Allen, Calvin D. Atwood, Gregory W. Babington, Lennie D. Baker, Jr., 
John E. Breslin, Arturo Cardozo, William P. Doolittle, Steve R. Felks, 
William M. Gales, III, Jonathan M. Gentry, John N. Guilford, Benny D. 
Hatton, Jr., Robert W. Healey, Jr., Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr., Thomas 
D. Lambert, Thomas (Tom) W. Markham, Eugene P. Martin, Raul Martinez, 
Joseph L. Mast, Randy G. McCloud, Richard L. McEwen, David McKinney, 
Ralph L. Means, Kevin L. Moody, Woody M. Moore, William G. Mote, 
Charles W. Mullenix, James R. Murphy, Kenneth R. Murphy, Gary S. 
Partridge, Nathan (Nate) D. Peterson, John N. Poland, Neal A. Richard, 
Chris A. Ritenour, Brent L. Seaux, Gerald M. Smith, James T. Smith, 
Nicholas J. Turpin, Gary M. Wolff, and George R. Zenor.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the 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, the FMCSA has evaluated the 40 applications on their 
merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The 
comment period closed on September 19, 2005. Two comments were 
received, and their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in 
reaching the final decision to grant the exemptions.

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

[[Page 61494]]

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)).
    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 40 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet 
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including 
amblyopia, macular and retinal scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma. 
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All 
but thirteen of the applicants were either born with their vision 
impairments or have had them since childhood. The thirteen individuals 
who sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for 
periods ranging from 4 to 32 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. The 
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 performance 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 non-CDL, these 40 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 45 
years. In the past 3 years, four of the drivers have had convictions 
for traffic violations. Three of these convictions were for speeding. 
One involved a collision but the driver did not receive a citation.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each 
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the August 19, 2005, 
notice (70 FR 48797). Since there were no substantial docket comments 
on the specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not 
repeated the individual profiles here.

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 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, the FMCSA 
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision, 
but also their driving records and experience with the vision 
deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision standard, the 
FMCSA requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he or she 
has driven a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for 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-98-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular 
drivers, because data from a former FMCSA waiver study program clearly 
demonstrates that 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 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 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 receiving an exemption, we note that the applicants 
have had only one collision and three speeding violations in the last 3 
years. 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 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

[[Page 61495]]

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 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. 31315 and 31136(e) to the 40 applicants listed in 
the notice of August 19, 2005 (70 FR 21711).
    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 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 self-employed. 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

    The FMCSA received two comments in this proceeding. The comments 
were considered and are discussed below.
    An individual, wishing to remain anonymous, commented that they 
have been driving with a vision exemption for several years safely and 
does not believe that vision impaired drivers pose any additional 
danger to the public because of their vision impairment. This 
individual believes drivers who are granted a vision exemption perform 
better than those with normal vision, and hopes that those who oppose 
the Federal exemption program understand that its mere existence is to 
focus on safety on the highways.
    The second comment was received by Advocates for Highway and Auto 
Safety (Advocates) expressing continued opposition to the FMCSA's 
policy to grant exemptions from the FMCSRs, including the driver 
qualification standards. Specifically, Advocates: (1) Objects to the 
manner in which the FMCSA presents driver information to the public and 
makes safety determinations; (2) objects to the agency's reliance on 
conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program; (3) claims the agency 
has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49 
U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  31315 and 31136(e)); and finally (4) suggests that a 
1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision 
exemptions. The issues raised by Advocates were addressed at length in 
70 FR 16887 (April 1, 2005). We will not address these points again 
here, but refer interested parties to those earlier discussions.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, the 
FMCSA exempts Roy L. Allen, Calvin D. Atwood, Gregory W. Babington, 
Lennie D. Baker, Jr., John E. Breslin, Arturo Cardozo, William P. 
Doolittle, Steve R. Felks, William M. Gales, III, Jonathan M. Gentry, 
John N. Guilford, Benny D. Hatton, Jr., Robert W. Healey, Jr., 
Nathaniel H. Herbert, Jr., Thomas D. Lambert, Thomas (Tom) W. Markham, 
Eugene P. Martin, Raul Martinez, Joseph L. Mast, Randy G. McCloud, 
Richard L. McEwen, David McKinney, Ralph L. Means, Kevin L. Moody, 
Woody M. Moore, William G. Mote, Charles W. Mullenix, James R. Murphy, 
Kenneth R. Murphy, Gary S. Partridge, Nathan (Nate) D. Peterson, John 
N. Poland, Neal A. Richard, Chris A. Ritenour, Brent L. Seaux, Gerald 
M. Smith, James T. Smith, Nicholas J. Turpin, Gary M. Wolff, and George 
R. Zenor, 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. 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.

    Issued on: October 18, 2005.
Rose A. McMurray,
Associate Administrator, Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 05-21203 Filed 10-21-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P