54888 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

improvement to ensure it fully complies 

with MOU section 8.2.6. Specifically, 

the first self-assessment conducted by 

Caltrans under the Pilot Program did not 

correlate each identified issue needing 

improvement to the corrective action(s) 

taken to address each issue. 

Findings—Deficient 

(D1) QA/QC Process—Caltrans 

requires each environmental document 

to be reviewed according to the policy 

memo titled ‘‘Environmental Document 

Quality Control Program under the 

NEPA Pilot Program (July 2, 2007).’’ 

Several deficiencies exist with the 

quality control process detailed in the 

aforementioned policy memo, SER 

Chapter 38, and as required by MOU 

section 8.2.5. These deficiencies are: 

a. Completion of Quality Control 

Certification Forms. The required 

Internal and External Certification forms 

used in the environmental document 

review process were not consistently 

completed prior to the approval of each 

environmental document. The QC 

policy memo requires that ‘‘all staff 

personnel who have served as a 

reviewer on a project document shall 

sign a Quality Control Certification 

Form at the conclusion of their review. 

The reviewer’s signature certifies that 

the document meets professional 

standards and Federal and State 

requirements in the reviewer’s area of 

expertise, and is consistent with the 

SER and annotated outlines.’’ Seven of 

11 documents examined identified 

where the signatory approved the 

environmental document prior to the 

completion of the document review 

process (i.e., before the Quality Control 

Certification Form was completed). 

b. Inconsistent Completion of the 

Environmental Document Preparation 

and Review Tool Checklist and the 

Resource/Technical Specialist Review 

Certification on the Internal and 

External Quality Control Certification 

Forms. For EAs and EISs, the specific 

resource topics identified in the 

Environmental Document Preparation 

and Review Tool Checklist were not 

always consistent with the resource 

topics indicated on the Resource/ 

Technical Specialist Review 

Certification forms for the same 

document. 

c. The Peer Reviewer for 3 of 11 

environmental documents examined 

under the audit did not meet the 

requirement in SER Chapter 38 to be ‘‘a 

staff member who has not participated 

in, supervised or technically reviewed 

the project.’’ 

(D2) Pilot Program Self-Assessment— 

Caltrans’ self-assessment process failed 

to fully comply with MOU section 8.2.6 

which requires the identification of 

‘‘any areas needing improvement.’’ The 

Caltrans self-assessment (which 

reviewed the completion of the Quality 

Control Certification forms) did not 

identify that in some cases the peer 

reviewer function was not performed 

according to SER Chapter 38 policy. The 

policy requires an independent review 

by environmental staff not otherwise 

involved in the project. The self 

assessment did not identify that on 3 of 

11 QA/QC certification forms (reviewed 

under this audit and the self 

assessment) used on EA and EIS 

projects, the person signing as the peer 

reviewer also signed as a technical 

expert. 

(D3) Records Management—The 

project filing system in place at District 

4 did not meet the Caltrans Uniform 

Filing System requirements as specified 

in the ‘‘Record Keeping and Retention’’ 

section of the Caltrans Application. This 

determination was made by the Audit 

Team through interviews with district 

personnel during the on-site audit. The 

Uniform Filing System is the records 

management method chosen by Caltrans 

to comply with the records retention 

requirements in MOU section 8.3. This 

filing system was not in use and was not 

implemented as described in the 

Application and SER Chapter 38. 

(D4) Statement Regarding Assumption 

of Responsibility—MOU section 3.2.5 

requires language regarding Caltrans’ 

assumption of responsibility under 23 

U.S.C. 327 be included on the cover 

page of each environmental document 

for all assumed Pilot Program projects. 

The cover pages for two Draft EIS 

documents and one EA reviewed during 

the audit did not include this required 

statement. 

Response to Comments and 

Finalization of Report 

Only one comment was received by 

FHWA during the 60-day comment 

period for the draft audit report. This 

comment was submitted by the Caltrans 

on July 31, 2008. Caltrans wished to 

thank FHWA for the opportunity to 

participate in the pilot program, an 

‘‘opportunity to test a new model for 

implementing the Secretary of 

transportation’s environmental 

responsibilities.’’ Caltrans also stated 

that their relationship with FHWA 

continues to be ‘‘strong and healthy.’’ 

Their comment also stated that they 

were pleased with the FHWA audit 

opinion. They take the pilot program 

responsibilities and commitments 

seriously and appreciate FHWA’s audit 

input and findings as they assist 

Caltrans in continuous improvement. 

The FHWA feels that there was no 

need to revise the draft audit report 

findings to be responsive to this 

comment, with the exception of making 

the ‘‘Background’’ section current and 

the addition of this section. 

[FR Doc. E8–22131 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2008–0231] 

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption 

Applications; Vision 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of final disposition. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its 

decision to exempt 23 individuals from 

the vision requirement in the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable 

these individuals to operate commercial 

motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate 

commerce without meeting the 

prescribed vision standard. The Agency 

has concluded that granting these 

exemptions will provide a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level of safety maintained without the 

exemptions for these CMV drivers. 

DATES: The exemptions are effective 

September 23, 2008. The exemptions 

expire on September 23, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical 

Programs, (202) 366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64– 

224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Electronic Access 

You may see all the comments online 

through the Federal Document 

Management System (FDMS) at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or 

Room W12–140 on the ground level of 

the West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 

365 days each year. If you want 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 54889 

acknowledgment that we received your 

comments, please include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope or 

postcard or print the acknowledgement 

page that appears after submitting 

comments on-line. 

Privacy Act: Anyone may search the 

electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or of the person signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review the DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register published on April 11, 2000 

(65 FR 19476). This information is also 

available at http://Docketsinfo.dot.gov. 

Background 

On August 12, 2008, FMCSA 

published a notice of receipt of 

exemption applications from certain 

individuals, and requested comments 

from the public (73 FR 46973). That 

notice listed 23 applicants’ case 

histories. The 23 individuals applied for 

exemptions from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who 

operate CMVs in interstate commerce. 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

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, FMCSA has evaluated the 

23 applications on their merits and 

made a determination to grant 

exemptions to all of them. The comment 

period closed on September 11, 2008. 

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 

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)). 

FMCSA 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 23 exemption applicants listed in 

this notice are in this category. They are 

unable to meet the vision standard in 

one eye for various reasons, including 

amblyopia, prosthesis, aphakia, macular 

scar, corneal scarring, hyperopia, 

exotropia, and loss of vision due to 

trauma. In most cases, their eye 

conditions were not recently developed. 

All but six of the applicants were either 

born with their vision impairments or 

have had them since childhood. The six 

individuals who sustained their vision 

conditions as adults have had them for 

periods ranging from 4 to 15 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. 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 skills 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 23 drivers have been 

authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate 

commerce, even though their vision 

disqualified them from driving in 

interstate commerce. They have driven 

CMVs with their limited vision for 

careers ranging from 4 to 43 years. In the 

past 3 years, two of the drivers had 

convictions for traffic violations and 

four of them were involved in crashes. 

The qualifications, experience, and 

medical condition of each applicant 

were stated and discussed in detail in 

the August 12, 2008 notice (73 FR 

46973). 

Basis for Exemption Determination 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

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, 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, FMCSA requires a person to 

present verifiable evidence that he/she 

has driven a commercial vehicle safely 

with the vision deficiency for the past 

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 the Federal Highway 

Administration’s (FHWA) former waiver 

study 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). The fact that 

experienced monocular drivers 

demonstrated safe driving records in the 

waiver program 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
54890 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Notices 

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 

23 applicants, two of the applicants had 

a traffic violation for speeding, one of 

the applicants had a traffic violation for 

failure unsafe lane changes, one of the 

applicants had a traffic violation for 

following another vehicle too closely, 

and four of the applicants were involved 

in crashes. 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, 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 

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/she 

has been performing in intrastate 

commerce. Consequently, 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. 

31136(e) and 31315 to 67 of the 23 

applicants listed in the notice of August 

12, 2008 (73 FR 46973). 

We recognize that the vision of an 

applicant may change and affect his/her 

ability to operate a CMV as safely as in 

the past. As a condition of the 

exemption, therefore, FMCSA will 

impose requirements on the 23 

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 

FMCSA received one comment in this 

proceeding. The comment was 

considered and discussed below. 

Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety (Advocates) expressed opposition 

to FMCSA’s policy to grant exemptions 

from the FMCSRs, including the driver 

qualification standards. Specifically, 

Advocates: (1) objects to the manner in 

which 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. 31136(e) and 

31315); 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 64 FR 51568 

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962 

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586 

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January 

3, 2000), 65 FR 57230 (September 21, 

2000), and 66 FR 13825 (March 7, 2001). 

We will not address these points again 

here, but refer interested parties to those 

earlier discussions. 

Conclusion 

Based upon its evaluation of the 23 

exemption applications, FMCSA 

exempts, William C. Ball, Terrence L. 

Benning, Rickie L. Boone, Robert S. 

Bowen, Dennis R. Buszkiewicz, Larry T. 

Byrley, Robert J. Clarke, Eldon D. 

Cochran, Alfred A. Constantino, James 

R. Corley, Larry D. Curry, Brian F. 

Denning, Michael W. Dillard, Kelly M. 

Greene, Sammy K. Hines, John H. 

Holmberg, Gary R. Lomen, Leonardo 

Lopez, Jr., Jeffrey F. Meier, James G. 

Mitchell, Billy R. Pierce, James A. Rapp, 

and Thomas P. Shank 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. 31136(e) 

and 31315, each exemption will be valid 

for 2 years unless revoked earlier by 

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. 31136 and 31315. 

If the exemption is still effective at the 

end of the 2-year period, the person may 

apply to FMCSA for a renewal under 

procedures in effect at that time. 

Issued on: September 17, 2008. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy and 

Program Development. 

[FR Doc. E8–22226 Filed 9–22–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Transit Administration 

Preparation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement on the Proposed 

Southwest Transitway Project in 

Hennepin, Minnesota 

AGENCY: Federal Transit Administration, 

DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Proposed Southwest Transitway Project 

in Hennepin County, Minnesota. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) and the Hennepin 

County Regional Railroad Authority 

(HCRRA) are planning to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Southwest Transitway 

Project, a 14-mile corridor of 

transportation improvements that links 

Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Edina, 

Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and 

Minneapolis neighborhoods and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES