[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 177 (Thursday, September 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-05-21254]


Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the 
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Regulations for 13 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to 
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions 
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has reviewed the 
comments submitted in response to the previous announcement and 
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety 
that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety 
maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle 
(CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical 
Qualifications Division, (202) 366-4001, [email protected], 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 Document Management 
System (DMS) at http://dmses.dot.gov.

Background

    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 statutes also allow the 
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The Notice 
was published on July 24, 2007. The comment period ended on August 23, 
2007.

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 FMCSR, 
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

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these 
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its 
evaluation of the 13 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal 
vision exemptions for George L. Cannon, Anthony Ciancone, Jr., Andrew 
B. Clayton, Kenneth D. Daniels, Allen R. Fasen, William D. Hodgins, 
Hazel L. Hopkins, Jr., Donald M. Jenson, Dean A. Maystead, Jason L. 
McBride, Sr., Donald L. Murphy, Carl V. Murphy, Sr., and Thomas D. 
Reynolds.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal 
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.

    Issued on: September 7, 2007.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E7-18078 Filed 9-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P