Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28547

CONVERSION TABLE FOR 43 CFR

PARTS 6000–9000—Continued

Existing parts New

parts Comments

8400 ................. .............. Removed 04/09/

96, 61 FR

15722.

8600 ................. .............. To be removed.

9100, 9180,

9183, 9185.

.............. Moved to Part

2000.

9210 ................. .............. To be removed.

Dated: May 24, 1996.

Bob Armstrong,

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 96–14095 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–84–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 391

[FHWA Docket No. MC–96–4]

Proposed Research Plan on Vision

Standard

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), Department of

Transportation.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting

comments on a proposed research plan

to explore performance-based

alternatives to the existing vision

standard for drivers of commercial

motor vehicles (CMV). The findings of

this research effort may result in the

modification of that standard. The

FHWA seeks comments on all aspects of

the research plan, including its

scientific merit, likelihood of achieving

its objective, methodological validity,

consideration of all relevant research,

and other practical issues.

The FHWA is also announcing a

public hearing to obtain comments on

the proposed research plan. The hearing

is designed to obtain public input on the

proposed research plan, not to

determine the status of individual

drivers or participants in the vision

waiver program. At the hearing, the

FHWA does not intend to discuss the

status, results, or recommendations that

might result from the vision waiver

program.

A review of scientific literature

relevant to the vision standard and the

proposed research plan have been

placed in FHWA Docket MC–96–4. In

addition, both documents are accessible

electronically through the Federal

Highway Administration’s World Wide

Web (WWW) site.

DATES: The comment period will remain

open until further notification in the

Federal Register. The public hearing

will be held on August 9, 1996, at the

Chicago O’Hare Marriot, 8535 West

Higgins Road, Chicago, IL, 60631, (312)

693–4444.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket MC–96–4,

Room 4232, HCC–10, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street.,

SW., Washington, DC 20590.

The literature review and proposed

research plan are on the Federal

Highway Administration’s World Wide

Web site (http://cti1.volpe.dot.gov/

ohim/whtnewhd). Users with questions

about the operation of the WWW site

should call the FHWA Computer Help

Desk at (202) 366–1120.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Charles Rombro, Federal Highway

Administration, Office of Motor

Carriers, 400 Seventh Street SW., room

3104, Washington, DC 20590, telephone

(202) 366–5615. Office hours are from

7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA is authorized by statute to

establish minimum physical

qualification requirements for drivers of

commercial motor vehicles. 49 USC

31502.

The Congress provided the FHWA

with complementary regulatory

authority with the enactment of the

Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984,

codified in substantial part at 49 U.S.C.

31101–31162. This Act directed the

Secretary to establish minimum safety

standards to ensure, inter alia, that ‘‘the

physical condition of operators of

commercial motor vehicles is adequate

to enable them to operate such vehicles

safely * * *.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3).

The physical qualification regulations

for CMV drivers in interstate commerce

are found at 49 CFR 391.41. The

qualification standards cover 13 areas

which directly relate to the driving

function. All but four of the standards

adopted by the FHWA permit the

individual determination of a driver’s

qualification. A person’s qualification to

drive is determined by a medical

examiner who is knowledgeable about

the on-the-job functions performed by a

commercial driver and whether a

particular condition would interfere

with the driver’s ability to operate a

CMV safely. In the case of vision,

hearing, insulin-using diabetes and

epilepsy, the current standards are

absolute, providing no discretion to the

medical examiner.

The current vision standard specifies

that drivers must meet the following

three conditions:

1. distant visual acuity in each eye of

at least 20/40, and distant binocular

acuity of at least 20/40 in both eyes; and

2. field of vision of at least 70 degrees

in the horizontal meridian of each eye;

and

3. the ability to recognize the colors

of traffic signals.

In order to improve protection for the

public and provide for individual

determinations of fitness to drive

wherever possible, the Agency is

interested in developing performancebased standards. In a Federal Register

notice on the vision waiver program

published on November 17, 1994 (59 FR

59386), the FHWA announced its

intention to initiate a research plan to

‘‘develop parameters for performancebased visual standards for all

commercial drivers.’’ 59 FR at 59389.

The research plan outlined in this

notice is designed to move the Agency

towards a performance-based vision

standard. This standard would

incorporate the measurement of those

visual capabilities deemed necessary for

the safe operation of commercial

vehicles. The research discussed below

is designed to relate specific visual

functions to specific driving tasks, such

as the ability to stay in a lane. The

standards would still be prescriptive in

that they would establish a minimum

score which individuals would be

required to meet to be allowed to drive;

however, the scoring scheme would be

based on detailed research on the visual

attributes required to safely operate a

CMV.

Research Plan

The FHWA has developed a proposed

research plan, an outline of which is

provided below.

Background

The FHWA’s review of the existing

literature on vision and driving research

led the FHWA to the following

conclusions:

1. The current testing standard lacks

criterion, or predictive, validity; that is,

it is not clear that central visual acuity

by itself is a good predictor of safe

driving. This detracts from the

perceived fairness of the standard. The

principal shortcoming of the current

standard is the emphasis on central

visual acuity, which is a measure of

how well an individual can discern

static images in the center of vision

under conditions of high luminance.

Since many driving situations involve

dynamic images under low luminance,

other visual capacities may be equally
28548 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

or more important than central visual

acuity.

2. Improving the criterion validity of

the vision standard would most likely

require testing a broader array of visual

capabilities than those included in the

current standard.

3. There is no assurance that a

standard based on a better

understanding of the relationship

between different visual capabilities and

driving would result in a significant,

measurable improvement in safety, in

part because vision is a contributor to

only a small number of crashes. CMV

drivers comprise a small proportion of

drivers, and are represented in a small

proportion of crashes, not all of which

are caused by failures of visual

performance as currently measured.

However, the weak observed causal

relationship between vision and crashes

may be a shortcoming with the current

measurement of vision. It is therefore

possible that the measurement of other

visual functions could reveal a more

significant and direct connection

between vision and driving ability.

The goals of the proposed research are

threefold:

1. Establish a list of visual

performance parameters that appear to

hold promise as a basis for a new

standard, and design or adapt

performance tests to measure these

capabilities.

2. Evaluate the predictive validity of

these tests.

3. Based on the results of these tests,

establish a trial vision standard, and test

that standard to evaluate its validity.

Outline of the Research Plan

The research contains both a longterm and a short-term track. The Agency

may decide to conduct either of the two

tracks individually, both tracks

simultaneously, both tracks

consecutively, or neither track. The

emphasis of the short-term plan is to

build on existing knowledge to develop

an improved vision test, with the goal

of adding two or three existing vision

tests to the battery currently tested. This

track does not call for significant new

research, but rather seeks to take

advantage of already completed work.

This track could result in the

development of a two-tier standard,

with an expanded battery of tests in the

first (screening) tier, and various

administrative measures proposed for

the drivers who do not pass this first

tier. Administrative measures may

include provisional or restricted

licenses, waivers, or in-use monitoring

of drivers.

The long-term plan consists of new

research and analysis, which may lead

to the development of a new standard.

Two phases of the research are

already complete. The short-term

research consists of six or seven

additional stages, as explained below.

The long-term research would consist of

four additional phases.

The phases of the research are

described below.

Research Completed or Underway

1. Development of the research plan.

This phase is complete, and the work

described below is the output of the

planning effort. This phase describes the

proposed approaches in some detail;

certain elements are necessarily

unspecified. For example, the choice of

specific visual function tests cannot be

made before further research and

analysis are complete.

2. Design of testing strategy. This

phase involves selecting and developing

the form of the candidate tests, as well

as the measures that the tests must

predict. This phase is currently

underway.

Selecting the candidate tests includes

a general selection of visual functions to

be tested, an inventory of the tests

already available, and identification of

new tests to be developed and validated.

Tests should have broad acceptance and

stable underlying population norms.

The protocols for testing should be

developed and accepted by researchers

and testers, and results must be stable

regardless of who administers the test.

Acceptable population norms are

necessary if a test is to be used to

classify individuals based on ‘‘normal’’

results in the population of CMV

drivers.

While some tests, such as the Snellen

Letter test of visual acuity, are broadly

accepted and have stable and well

understood population norms, other

tests of potentially important visual

functions do not meet these standards.

These latter tests would have to be

evaluated. The evaluation would

consider how important the visual

function is in the driving task, the

extent to which the test results are

stable and reliable, and how readily the

tests can be developed for broad usage.

Our review of the literature has led us

to focus on the following visual

functions as most relevant to the driving

task: static acuity, contrast sensitivity,

dynamic acuity, working field of view,

dark focus, low contrast acuity, glare

sensitivity, and vection.

The FHWA, with the assistance of a

contractor, is in the process of

identifying the behaviors that the tests

must predict—the measures of

effectiveness. This will be followed by

the systematic development of measures

to be validated by the visual

performance tests. Theoretically, we

would prefer to be able to relate a

driver’s performance on vision tests to

an actual driving record, especially the

driver’s accident record. Because of the

infrequency of accidents, however, we

would need to test a very large number

of drivers over many years to obtain

reliable results. In addition, a ‘‘clean’’

experiment would require that we allow

drivers who we suspect may be

deficient in some key visual function to

operate CMVs on the road. Allowing

potentially hazardous drivers to operate

CMVs poses obvious safety problems,

and contravenes the FHWA’s mandate

to protect highway safety.

As a proxy for accidents, we are

developing a list of candidate visuallyrelated driving behaviors. This is a

reasonable proxy because it is the

driver’s behavior that connects visual

deficiencies and accidents. An example

might include the time a driver takes to

initiate a braking maneuver. Behaviors

will be selected for further testing based

on their likely validity and practicality.

Since we will not be measuring

accidents, it is especially important that

the measures are closely related to

driving performance.

After choosing behavioral measures,

the Agency will develop test procedures

and protocols.

Proposed Short-Term Research

3. Define criteria for selection of

vision tests. The likely criteria will

include: test availability with little or no

modification, scientific reliability,

construct validity, practicality of use in

a testing environment, and acceptability

to researchers and testers. While other

criteria are possible, the FHWA

anticipates that the factors listed above

will be used to screen tests for their

suitability for further research. Much of

the work required to define the criteria

has already been completed under tasks

1 and 2.

4. Select candidate tests. The

researchers would select 3 to 5

candidate tests for further research. The

tests would have to meet the criteria

identified above. The researchers would

determine which tests meet these

criteria through a survey of the scientific

community and other interest groups,

and through the literature review

conducted in task 1.

5. Design demonstration/evaluation

project. This task consists of specifying

the details of the testing procedures.

The researchers would select a site for

the tests, choose criteria for obtaining
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules 28549

test subjects, and detail the protocols for

administering the vision tests.

6. Conduct empirical evaluation of

operational feasibility. This is the actual

testing component, in which the drivers

will be tested in an operational setting

to ensure that the new test battery’s

facilities requirements are not excessive,

its personnel needs are realistic, and

that the tests can be administered,

scored, and interpreted in a timely

fashion by the individuals responsible

for administering the tests.

7. Conduct empirical evaluation of

validity of pass/fail criteria for those

candidate vision tests without

sufficiently demonstrated construct

validity. The first step in this task

would be to define the study sample.

The most likely sample would be agematched ’visually impaired’ and

’visually unimpaired’ subjects on the

candidate tests (all subjects would be

required to hold a valid CDL). The

researchers would then conduct the

vision and performance tests and

analyze the differences in performance

between the two groups. Differences

would be measured relative to

alternative cutoff scores, so that the

Agency could determine the

significance of choosing different levels

of stringency.

The FHWA could decide to bypass

task 7, the empirical validation phase, if

it determines that enough information

currently exists to establish a new

standard, or that additional research

would be unlikely to lead to significant

safety improvements. The Agency

estimates that skipping task 7 would

reduce the time needed to complete the

research by one year.

8. Recommend tests and pass/fail

criteria. Based on the work completed

above, the researchers would propose

specific tests to be added to the existing

testing battery and cutoff scores for each

test.

9. Convene interest groups to develop

operational recommendations. These

groups would include motor vehicle

licensing administrators, researchers,

industry associations, and safety

advocates.

Proposed Long-Term Research

10. Design of tests and protocols. This

includes developing the visual

performance and behavioral tests

specified in task 2, generating initial

data from a pilot test, and designing

draft protocols to be used in later stages.

The visual function test would

include some combination of existing

and new tests. The Agency would

arrange the practical testing aspects,

including the purchasing and licensing

of tests, acquiring any software and

documentation required, and

developing the test protocols.

Pilot tests would be conducted on a

small sample of drivers to verify test

reliability and suitability for large scale

testing. The Agency would modify

procedures and protocols as

appropriate. Upon completion of the

pilot test, the FHWA would conduct the

visual function tests on a medium-sized

sample of drivers. The sample would be

large enough to allow the Agency to

analyze test score characteristics. Use of

pilot tests would allow the Agency to

ensure that a test would produce

useable results. In addition, correlation

between tests may be observed, in

which case some tests may be

eliminated from the final battery as

redundant.

For driver behavior measures, the

agency would develop simulator

materials and closed-course testing

procedures. To the extent possible, the

FHWA would employ procedures which

can be used on multimedia personal

computers with a minimum of special

equipment. The Agency would develop

hardware, software, and testing

protocols.

The extent of the work performed in

this task will depend on whether the

Agency conducts the short-term

research. Some of the work outlined

above may be conducted in task 2 of the

short-term track. If that is the case, we

will not repeat the work in this task.

11. Laboratory Simulation. This phase

consists of evaluating the candidate

tests in a controlled setting, to identify

and correct any problems in the testing

or protocols. This step is essentially a

‘‘dress rehearsal’’ for the full scale test.

Because the next phase is the most

costly in terms of time and resources,

this phase was designed to allow the

Agency to make a final decision about

whether to continue with the research

prior to commencing with the next

phase of the plan, the full testing and

evaluation.

A limited number of subjects would

be given all the proposed visual

function and driver behavior tests. The

results of these tests would be analyzed

extensively, including relationships

between and among both sets of tests.

The analysis would address the

following issues:

a. Are the distributions of scores

useable?

b. Is there sufficient variance to

discern relationships between visual

and driving tests?

c. How well do visual tests predict

driving results, by themselves and in

combination with other tests? How

much of the variance between

individuals in driving behavior can the

vision tests explain?

The agency would also conduct a

preliminary cost-benefit analysis. In

addition to projecting the cost of the

next phases of the research program, the

analysis would estimate the cost of

implementing a new vision standard

and the possible safety benefits.

12. Validation Testing. This phase

consists of two sequential activities, test

preparation and data collection, the

crux of the proposed research.

Test preparation includes selection

and configuration of test sites, plus

selection and preparation of subjects.

The site (or sites) selected must have, or

be able to accommodate, a driving

simulator, a closed test course, and a

road test course. Site preparation

includes configuring the testing

equipment for the site, surveying the

road test course, and preparing and

deploying signs and obstacles for the

closed test course. Preparation of the

subjects consists of briefing the

participants and pre-testing them for the

visual measures.

A final closed-course pilot test would

then be conducted, using a small

number of drivers. This would provide

the Agency with a final opportunity to

modify the test procedures.

Validation testing would probably

include at least two distinct activities,

simulation and closed-course testing,

and would possibly also include

controlled road testing. Variables would

be strictly controlled in these simulation

tests to ensure the accuracy and

reliability of results. The FHWA expects

that the simulators used for this phase

would be more sophisticated, with

higher video resolution than those used

in the previous pilot test.

Closed-course testing would be used

to test drivers under low visibility

conditions. This is difficult to imitate on

a simulator and is unsafe to test on the

road.

If road testing is conducted, it would

consist of non-intrusive instruments to

record driver responses, such as eye

movement patterns, blink rates, pupil

diameter, and fixation points. This

information, combined with data on the

roadway obstacles, provides a stream of

data related to working field of view,

detection time, and how drivers react to

critical events. The road test would be

conducted under normal driving

conditions to assure that the results are

generalizable to normal CMV operating

practices. There are a number of hurdles

to using a road test, including the need

to perform the test for an impractically

long period to obtain sufficient data,

and the possibility that drivers would

modify their behavior if they are aware
28550 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 109 / Wednesday, June 5, 1996 / Proposed Rules

1 A vehicle stability metric is a measured vehicle

characteristic that is analyzed to determine whether

it is related to a vehicle’s likelihood of rollover

involvement.

2 The tilt table test involves placing the vehicle

on a platform which is then tilted about an axis

parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal axis. TTA is

the angle at which the last tire on the upper side

of the platform loses contact with the platform and

the vehicle begins to fall off the platform. This

metric is influenced by changes in a vehicle’s mass,

center of gravity height, track width, and

suspension movement, all of which are physically

related to rollover stability.

3 Critical sliding velocity includes the roll

moment of inertia as well as the various static

factors included in tilt table angle. CSV is

calculated from an equation which can be found in

the June 28, 1994 notice, as corrected on July 26,

1994 (59 FR 38038).

that they are under observation. The

FHWA would decide whether to

conduct the road test after analyzing the

results obtained in the simulation and

closed-course tests.

13. Standard Development. The

results of the preceding task would be

analyzed for validity, reliability, and

practicality. If the results of the

validation testing justify specification of

a new standard, a decision framework

for that standard would be constructed.

Specific Questions

The FHWA is specifically interested

in comments addressing the following

issues:

1. Are there any methodological

shortcomings in the research plan

outlined above that need to be

addressed?

2. Is the plan likely to meet the

objective of leading to an improved,

performance-based vision standard?

3. Does the plan reflect an

understanding of the current literature

and consider its implications?

4. Is the plan capable of adequately

addressing practical matters, such as the

cost of any new testing machinery

developed, the level of training required

to conduct new tests, and the time

needed to take tests?

5. Has this type of research been

conducted in other professions? What

were the results?

6. Should the FHWA proceed with the

short-term plan, the long-term plan,

both, or neither?

7. Should the FHWA proceed with an

alternative plan? If so, describe that

plan.

Current Status of the Research Program

The FHWA is currently in the midst

of step 2 of the research plan, which

consists of inventorying existing tests

and evaluating them against a number of

criteria, including their cost, which

visual functions they measure, overlap

between different tests, and the amount

of training required to conduct the tests.

Format of Public Hearing

The FHWA announced in the

November 17th notice (59 FR 59386) its

intention to hold a public hearing to

discuss the research plan. The public

hearing will be held on August 9, 1996,

at the Chicago O’Hare Marriot, 8535

West Higgins Road, Chicago, IL 60631,

(312) 693–4444. The hearing will begin

at 8:30 a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m.

Individuals wishing to speak at the

hearing should contact the FHWA at the

address or phone number listed above

under the heading ‘‘For Further

Information Contact.’’ Individuals may

submit written comments in addition to,

or in place of, oral testimony. All

commentors will be limited to ten

minutes of oral remarks.

The hearing will commence with an

explanation of the proposed research

plan, including a brief description of the

background to this effort, the goals of

the proposed research, and the steps of

the proposed plan. The FHWA will then

accept questions from audience

members, with individuals who have

contacted the FHWA given the first

opportunity to speak.

(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3), 31502)

Issued on: May 20, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–14041 Filed 6–4–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. 91–68; Notice 5]

RIN 2127–AC64

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Rollover Prevention

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Denial of petitions for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

denial of petitions for reconsideration of

the agency’s decision to terminate

rulemaking to develop a vehicle rollover

stability standard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The

following persons at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20590:

For non-legal issues: Gayle

Dalrymple, Office of Crash Avoidance

Standards, telephone (202) 366–5559,

facsimile (202) 366–4329.

For legal issues: Steve Wood, Office of

the Chief Counsel, NCC–20, telephone

(202) 366–2992, facsimile (202) 366–

3820.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 1994 Notice Terminating Rulemaking

on a Vehicle Rollover Stability

Standard

On June 28, 1994, NHTSA published

a notice in the Federal Register

announcing two agency actions: (1) the

termination of rulemaking to develop a

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

on vehicle rollover stability; and (2) the

proposal of a consumer regulation for

labeling vehicles with rollover stability

information. (59 FR 33254)

In the portion of the 1994 notice

terminating rulemaking, the agency

examined the suitability of using a

variety of vehicle stability metrics 1 as a

basis for a rollover standard. NHTSA

concluded that two such metrics, tilt

table angle (TTA) 2 and critical sliding

velocity (CSV),3 can each separately

account for approximately half of the

variability in rollover risk in single

vehicle accidents remaining after

considering driver, roadway, and

environmental factors. NHTSA stated:

The suitability of a vehicle safety standard

based on rollover stability depends on the

importance of rollover stability, as

represented by a vehicle metric, relative to

other rollover influences, such as vehicle

handling properties, vehicle condition, the

nature of the roadway and shoulder terrain,

and driver behavior. The agency sought to

determine whether vehicle stability metrics

are significant variables in a statistical model

of the risk of rollover. If they are, then a

standard regulating stability might be

justified, depending on the results of a

comparison of benefits and costs for such a

standard.

After analyzing a number of static and

dynamic rollover metrics, the agency

concluded that two vehicle metrics, tilt table

angle and critical sliding velocity, can

account for about 50 percent of the variability

in rollover risk in single vehicle accidents,

after considering driver, roadway, and

environmental factors. (Rollover risk is the

number of single vehicle rollovers involving

a particular make/model divided by the

number of single vehicle crashes of all types

involving the same make/model.) This

statistical analysis was conducted on all light

duty vehicles treated as a group. However,

analysis of accident data indicated that

certain subgroups of light duty vehicles are

more likely to roll over than other subgroups.

For example, sport utility vehicles and

compact pickup trucks tend to be the most

likely vehicles to roll over. Large passenger

cars tend to be the least likely to roll over.

59 FR 33254, at 33258.

While NHTSA concluded that the two

vehicle stability metrics were of some

value in estimating the likelihood that a

single vehicle accident involving a

particular model of vehicle would result