Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Notices 61493 

I or III of chapter 135, title 49, U.S.C., 

must agree to offer arbitration to HHGs 

shippers as a means of settling disputes 

concerning damage or loss to the 

household goods transported. Under 49 

U.S.C. 14708(g)), the Secretary is 

required to complete an assessment of 

the dispute settlement program and if, 

after notice and comment, it is 

determined that changes to the program 

are necessary, the Secretary will 

implement such changes and provide a 

report to Congress on the changes made. 

The General Accountability Office 

(GAO) recommended such an 

assessment in their March 2001 review 

(Report Number GAO–01–318). The 

Secretary has delegated authority 

pertaining to these registrations and 

arbitration matters to FMCSA. 

Since the passage of the ICCTA, the 

level of Federal involvement in 

mitigating interstate HHGs disputes has 

been significantly reduced. FMCSA is 

responsible for overseeing the 

arbitration process, but has provided 

only limited attention, staffing, and 

resources to this non-safety related 

function. Shippers of household goods 

unhappy about loss or damage to 

property during their move with an 

interstate HHGs carrier may follow one 

of several paths to settle disputes: (1) 

File a complaint with consumer 

assistance organizations or FMCSA; (2) 

agree to participate in a binding 

arbitration process with the American 

Moving and Storage Association 

(AMSA) or some other organization that 

runs an arbitration process; or (3) 

pursue civil litigation. Each carrier 

providing transportation of household 

goods must agree to offer to shippers of 

HHGs neutral arbitration, as well as a 

concise easy-to-read, accurate summary 

of the arbitration procedure, any 

applicable costs, and disclosure of the 

legal effects of election to utilize 

arbitration and inform shippers about 

the availability of this process to resolve 

complaints (49 U.S.C. 14708 (a) and 

(b)(2)). As mandated by Congress, 

FMCSA is required to determine the 

effectiveness of arbitration as a means of 

settling HHGs disputes from the point of 

view of both interstate household goods 

shippers and carriers. The increasing 

number of consumer complaints related 

to HHGs shipments received by FMCSA 

and other consumer protection 

organizations demonstrates the current 

need for such an assessment. 

Type of Information Collection 

Request: New collection. 

Title of Information Collection: 

Assessing the Effectiveness of the 

Arbitration Program as a Means of 

Settling Household Goods Disputes. 

OMB Approval Number: 2126–XXXX. 

Frequency: Annually. 

Use: This collection will be used by 

FMCSA to assess the effectiveness of the 

arbitration program as a means of 

settling disputes from the perspective of 

the household goods shippers and 

carriers. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

300 [100 respondents × 3 surveys = 300 

respondents]. 

Respondents: Household goods 

shippers and carriers. 

Total Annual Hours Requested: The 

estimated total annual burden is 150 

hours for the information collection 

comprised of three arbitration 

satisfaction surveys—one for HHGs 

carriers, one for HHGs shippers who 

have used arbitration, and one for HHGs 

shippers who have filed claims (or 

complaints with FMCSA). Each survey 

requires 100 responses to achieve 

statistical significance of the results [100 

respondents per survey × 1⁄2 hour per 

respondent × 3 surveys = 150 hours]. 

Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended; 

49 U.S.C. 13901, 13902, 13903, 13904 and 

14708; the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. 

L. 104–88, 109 Stat. 803 (December 29, 

1995)); and 49 CFR § 1.73. 

Issued on: October 17, 2005. 

Annette M. Sandberg, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 05–21202 Filed 10–21–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

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 

61494 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Notices 

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)). 

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 nonCDL, 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 204 / Monday, October 24, 2005 / Notices 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 selfemployed. The driver must also have a 

copy of the certification when driving, 

for presentation to a duly authorized 

Federal, State, or local enforcement 

official. 

Discussion of Comments 

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. §§ 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Agency Request for Emergency 

Processing of Collection of 

Information by the Office of 

Management and Budget 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: FRA hereby gives notice that 

it has submitted the following 

information collection request (ICR) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for emergency processing under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). 

FRA requests that OMB authorize the 

collection of information identified 

below on or before October 31, 2005, for 

a period of 180 days after the date of 

issuance of this notice in the Federal 

Register. A copy of this individual ICR, 

with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

calling FRA’s clearance officers, Robert 

Brogan (telephone number (202) 493–

6292) or Victor Angelo (telephone 

number (202) 493–6470; these numbers 

are not toll-free), or by contacting Mr. 

Brogan via facsimile at (202) 493–6270 

or Mr. Angelo via facsimile at (202) 

493–6170, or via e-mail by contacting 

Mr. Brogan at robert.brogan@fra.dot.gov. 

or by contacting Mr. Angelo at 

victor.angelo@fra.dot.gov. Comments 

and questions about the ICR identified 

below should be directed to the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for FRA. 

Title: FRA Emergency Order No. 24, 

Notice No. 1.