[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 57 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16311-16314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7279]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2001-8398]


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 exempt 35 individuals from

[[Page 16312]]

the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

DATES: March 23, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the vision 
exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Bus and 
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-2987; for information about 
legal issues related to this notice, Mr. Joe Solomey, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1374, FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:45 
a.m. to 4:15 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

    Thirty-five individuals petitioned the FMCSA for an exemption of 
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to 
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. 
They are: Carl W. Adams, David F. Bardsley, William E. Beckley, Joseph 
M. Blankenship, Willie Burnett, Awilda S. Colon, Robert P. Conrad, 
Jerald O. Edwards, William W. Ferrell, Marion R. Fox, Jr., Thomas E. 
Howard, James L. Johnson, Spencer E. Leonard, John K. Love, Robert C. 
Lueders, Thomas F. Marczewski, Samson B. Margison, Velmer L. 
McClelland, Duane A. McCord, Gene L. Miller, John E. Musick, Bobby G. 
Pool, Sr., Robert Radcliff, Jr., Randolph M. Riffey, Billy G. Saunders, 
George D. Schell, Gerald L. Smith, Scottie Stewart, Clarence L. Swann, 
Jr., Robert Tatum, Thaddeus E. Temoney, Roberto R. Turpaud, Roy B. 
Waggoner, Harry C. Weber, and Yu Weng.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FMCSA may grant an 
exemption for a renewable 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.'' 
Accordingly, the FMCSA has evaluated the 35 petitions on their merits 
and made a determination to grant the exemptions to all of them. On 
December 14, 2000, the agency published notice of its receipt of 
applications from these 35 individuals, and requested comments from the 
public (65 FR 78256). The comment period closed on January 16, 2001. 
Two comments were received, and their contents were carefully 
considered by the FMCSA in reaching the final decision to grant the 
petitions.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement 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 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)

    Since 1992, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 
undertaken studies to determine if this vision standard should be 
amended. The final report from our medical panel recommends changing 
the field of vision standard from 70 deg. to 120 deg., while leaving 
the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark 
C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, 
M.D., ``Visual Requirements and Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, 
filed in the docket, FHWA-98-4334.) The panel's conclusion supports the 
FMCSA's (and previously the FHWA's) view that the present standard is 
reasonable and necessary as a general standard to ensure highway 
safety. 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 35 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet 
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including 
amblyopia, corneal and macular scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma. 
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All 
but 26 of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments 
or have had them since childhood. The 9 individuals who sustained their 
vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 4 to 
51 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. The Federal 
interstate qualification standards, however, require more.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 35 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 4 to 45 
years. In the past 3 years, the 35 drivers had 11 convictions for 
traffic violations among them. Seven of these convictions were for 
speeding. The other convictions consisted of: ``Driver Failure to Obey 
All Trucks Stop at Scales''; ``Failure to Stop''; ``Failure to Obey 
Stop Sign''; and ``Failure to [Use Chains] When Required.'' One driver 
was involved in an accident in a CMV, but did not receive a citation.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each 
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in a December 14, 2000, 
notice (65 FR 78256). Since the docket comments did not focus on the 
specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not 
repeated the individual profiles here. Our summary analysis of the 
applicants as a group is supported by the information published at 65 
FR 78256.

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 these drivers to drive in 
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting them 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

[[Page 16313]]

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 accidents and traffic violations. Copies of the 
studies have been added to the docket. (FHWA-98-3637)
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular 
drivers, because data from the vision waiver 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 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 accident 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 accident proneness from accident 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 accidents. (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 accident 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 35 applicants receiving an exemption, we note that cumulatively the 
applicants have had only one accident and 11 traffic violations in the 
last 3 years. That single accident did not result in the issuance of a 
citation against the applicant. 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 are more compact than on highways. 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 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 will grant the exemptions for the 2-year period 
allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).
    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 35 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.
    James L. Johnson, one of the applicants under consideration, wrote 
encouraging the FMCSA to approve his application for an exemption.
    Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) expresses continued 
opposition to the FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), including the driver 
qualification standards. Specifically, the AHAS: (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 recent 
Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of vision exemptions.
    The issues raised by the AHAS 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.
    Notwithstanding the FMCSA's ongoing review of the vision standard, 
as evidenced by the medical panel's report dated October 16, 1998, and 
filed in this docket, the FMCSA must comply with Rauenhorst v. United 
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 95 
F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual exemptions under 
standards that are consistent with public safety. Meeting those 
standards, the 35 veteran drivers

[[Page 16314]]

in this case have demonstrated to our satisfaction that they can 
continue to operate a CMV with their current vision safely in 
interstate commerce, because they have demonstrated their ability in 
intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they qualify for an exemption under 
49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).

Conclusion

    After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its 
evaluation of the 35 exemption applications in accordance with the 
Rauenhorst decision, the FMCSA exempts Carl W. Adams, David F. 
Bardsley, William E. Beckley, Joseph M. Blankenship, Willie Burnett, 
Awilda S. Colon, Robert P. Conrad, Jerald O. Edwards, William W. 
Ferrell, Marion R. Fox, Jr., Thomas E. Howard, James L. Johnson, 
Spencer E. Leonard, John K. Love, Robert C. Lueders, Thomas F. 
Marczewski, Samson B. Margison, Velmer L. McClelland, Duane A. McCord, 
Gene L. Miller, John E. Musick, Bobby G. Pool, Sr., Robert Radcliff, 
Jr., Randolph M. Riffey, Billy G. Saunders, George D. Schell, Gerald L. 
Smith, Scottie Stewart, Clarence L. Swann, Jr., Robert Tatum, Thaddeus 
E. Temoney, Roberto R. Turpaud, Roy B. Waggoner, Harry C. Weber, and Yu 
Weng from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to 
the following conditions: (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, so 
it may be presented to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local 
enforcement official.
    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.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136; 49 CFR 1.73.

    Issued on: March 16, 2001.
Stephen E. Barber,
Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-7279 Filed 3-22-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P