[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 184 (Thursday, September 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57230-57234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24396]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-7006]
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 56 individuals from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: September 21, 2000.
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, Ms. Judith Rutledge, Office of the
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-2519, 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
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at:
http://www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web
page at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
Sixty-one individuals petitioned the FHWA 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 John
W. Arnold, James H. Bailey, Victor F. Brast, Jr., John P. Brooks
[published as James P. Brooks in the Notice of Intent on April 14,
2000], Robert W. Brown, Benny J. Burke, Derric D. Burrell, Anthony J.
Cesternino, Ronald W. Coe, Sr., Richard A. Corey, James A. Creed,
William G. Croy, Craig E. Dorrance, Willie P. Estep, Duane H. Eyre,
James W. Frion, Lee Gallmeyer, Shawn B. Gaston, James F. Gereau, Rodney
M. Gingrich, Esteban Gerardo Gonzalez, Harlan Lee Gunter, Thanh Van Ha,
James O. Hancock, Paul A. Harrison, Joseph H. Heidkamp, Jr., Thomas J.
Holtmann, Larry D. Johnson, Gary Killian, Marvin L. Kiser, Jr., David
R. Lambert, James R. Lanier, Donald Eugene Lee, James Stanley Lewis,
Thomas J. Long, Newton Heston Mahoney, Ronald L. Martsching, Robert
Evans McClure, Jr., Duane D. Mims, James A. Mohr, William A. Moore,
Leonard James Morton, Timothy W. Noble, Kevin J. O'Donnell, Gary L.
Reveal, John W. Robbins, Jr., Doyle R. Roundtree, Charles L. Schnell,
David L. Slack, Everett J. Smeltzer, Philip Smiddy, James C. Smith,
Terry L. Smith, James N. Spencer, Teresa Mary Steeves, Roger R.
Strehlow, Timothy W. Strickland, John T. Thomas, Darel E. Thompson,
Ralph A. Thompson, and Kevin Wayne Windham.
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 evaluated the petitions on their merits and made
a preliminary determination that the waivers should be granted. On
April 14, 2000, the agency published notice of its preliminary
determination and requested comments from the public (65 FR 20245). The
comment period closed on May 15, 2000. Three comments were received,
and their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in reaching
the final decision to grant the petitions.
The FMCSA has not made a decision on five applicants (Donald Eugene
Lee, Thomas J. Long, Robert Evans McClure, Jr., Gary L. Reveal, and
Charles L. Schnell). Subsequent to the publication of the preliminary
determination, the agency received additional information from its
check of these applicants' motor vehicle records, and we are evaluating
that information. A decision on these five petitions will be made in
the future.
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 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.) The
panel's
[[Page 57231]]
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 56 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 14 of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments
or have had them since childhood. The 14 individuals who sustained
their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging
from 8 to 41 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, can perform all the
tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The doctors' opinions are supported
by the applicants' possession of a valid commercial driver's license
(CDL) or non-CDL to operate a CMV. Before issuing a CDL, States subject
drivers to knowledge and performance tests designed to evaluate their
qualifications to operate the 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 56 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 50
years. In the past 3 years, the 56 drivers had 10 convictions for
traffic violations among them. Three drivers were involved in accidents
in their CMVs, but did not receive a citation. The drivers were
convicted of three moving traffic violations; two of them were for
speeding and one was for ``Disobey Traffic Signal.''
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in an April 14, 2000,
notice (65 FR 20245). Except for two applicants (Thanh Van Ha and James
N. Spencer), the docket comments did not focus on the specific merits
or qualifications of any applicant; therefore, we have not repeated the
individual profiles here. The qualifications of Mr. Ha and Mr. Spencer
are further examined below in the discussion of comments. With one
exception, our summary analysis of the applicants as a group is
supported by the information published at 65 FR 20245. In Mr. Killian's
case, his accident was not reported in the April 14, 2000, notice
because it was discovered on a subsequent check of his motor vehicle
record. The police report indicated that Mr. Killian's vehicle was
sideswiped by the other vehicle and the other driver was charged with
``Left of Center.'' Mr. Killian has no other accidents or convictions
in a CMV on his driving record for the 3-year review period.
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. 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.
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.) 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 56 applicants, we note that cumulatively the applicants have had
only three accidents and 10 traffic violations in the last 3 years.
None of the accidents resulted 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 provides
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
[[Page 57232]]
driver to more pedestrian and vehicular traffic than exist 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
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 56 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 its driver
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver 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.
Discussion of Comments
The FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. The comments
were considered and are discussed below.
The Licensing Operations Division of the California Department of
Motor Vehicles commented opposing the granting of an exemption to Mr.
James N. Spencer and Mr. Thanh Van Ha. California is opposed to
granting an exemption to Mr. Spencer because he was cited in 1995 for
driving a CMV on the wrong side of the road, and he was involved in
accidents while operating a CMV in both 1995 and 1996, in which the
officer identified him as being the party most responsible for the
accidents. California also argues that, although the above violations
and accidents are outside the FMCSA's 3-year review period for
exemptions, the actions are serious enough to warrant a denial of the
exemption.
The FMCSA has established the 3-year requirement of driving with a
vision impairment before being eligible for a waiver because: (1) It
takes time for a person with a vision deficiency to compensate for that
deficiency; (2) the best predictor of safety and future performance of
a driver is his past record of accidents and violations; and (3) the 3-
year standard corresponds to the longest period of time that states
uniformly keep driving records.
Mr. Spencer currently holds a valid intrastate CDL with
endorsements for both doubles and triples issued on July 23, 1997, by
the State of California. His driving record with the State of
California does not reflect the instances cited by the Department of
Motor Vehicles. While the FMCSA might agree that an applicant's
exceptionally poor driving record outside the established 3-year period
might give us pause to reconsider the merits of issuing an exemption,
we do not believe that Mr. Spencer's current record warrants a denial.
In fact, it appears that his driving has improved over the years as his
record indicated no accidents and no violations in the last three
years. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor his driving, along with
all other drivers issued exemptions, and will take action to revoke the
exemption, if and when warranted.
The State of California is opposed to granting an exemption to Mr.
Ha because he does not hold a California commercial driver's license
(CDL) and he has never passed a commercial knowledge test or
demonstrated compensation for his vision deficiency on a commercial
driving test.
The FMCSA requires an applicant for a vision exemption to submit
documentation showing that he or she currently holds a intrastate CDL
or a license (non-CDL) to operate a CMV. Mr. Ha submitted a copy of a
valid California Class C license which allows him to operate a Class C
vehicle (having a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or
less). California does not require a CDL to operate a Class C vehicle
unless the vehicle is used to transport hazardous materials/wastes
requiring placards. Mr. Ha has 10 years experience operating a straight
truck having a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds, a CMV as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Mr. Ha has satisfied California licensing
requirements, including a written test and road test, to operate a
Class C vehicle. Consequently, we do not think that Mr. Ha's
application for a vision exemption should be denied because he does not
possess a CDL and has not passed the knowledge and skills testing
required of applicants for CDLs.
The 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) Asks the agency to
clarify the consistency of the exemption application information, (2)
objects to the agency's reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision
waiver program, (3) raises procedural objections to this proceeding,
(4) claims the agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the
granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)), and finally, (5)
suggests that a recent Supreme Court decision affects the legal
validity of vision exemptions.
Most of 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), and 65 FR 159 (January 3, 2000). We will
not address these points again herein but refer interested parties to
those earlier discussions. However, the AHAS has raised some new
issues, and these are addressed in the following discussion.
Relative to the comments on the consistency of the information
presented to the public, the AHAS questions how various aspects of that
information are verified. In particular, the AHAS states that the
public is not advised about outside verification of each applicant's
miles driven, the number of years driving commercial vehicles, the type
of vehicle driven, and the most recent 3-year driving record. The
number of years driving commercial vehicles is not the precise
experience criteria used to determine an applicant's acceptability for
an exemption. That determination is made on the most recent 3 years
experience before application. That experience and the type of truck
driven is verified by the applicant's employer.
The recent 3-year driving record is verified through the Commercial
Driver
[[Page 57233]]
License Information System (CDLIS). This is another criteria used to
determine if an applicant is acceptable. Total miles driven is not a
criteria used to decide acceptability. It has not been stated any place
that mileage is a critical criteria. It is, therefore, not verified.
Mileage is presented as an indication of overall experience with
commercial motor vehicles.
The AHAS states that the FMCSA needs to provide an accurate mileage
figure for the recent 3-year period. This mileage is needed, it is
stated, to determine whether applicant's crashes and violations are
accumulated at low or high exposure in the three years preceding the
application. While this may be an interesting determination in some
contexts, it is not relevant to the determination of the driver's
acceptability. An applicant is acceptable relative to a driving record
if there are no crashes for which the driver was issued a citation nor
was a contributing factor. It is not relevant whether these types of
crashes occur at high or low exposure. If they are present, the driver
is disqualified.
The AHAS states that the FMCSA should require a minimum average
annual miles driven or total mileage in order to qualify for an
exemption. In making this statement, the AHAS notes that mileage driven
by applicants in the Federal Register notice ranges from as little as
40,000 and 66,000 miles (for 4 and 3 years, respectively) to over three
million miles for applicants with 20 or more years driving experience.
The AHAS further states that drivers in the Vision Waiver Program
appear to have far more driving miles than the applicants to the
exemption program (no data were offered). This comparison seems to be
presented to support the need for a minimum number of miles to be
driven before these drivers can apply for an exemption. This comparison
is not valid because the data from the Vision Waiver Program do not
support the AHAS statement. An examination of the data from the years
the program was in operation shows the annual mileage driven ranged
from as little as 1,000 miles to a maximum of 160,000 miles. The median
annual miles driven was about 40,000 with 25 percent of the waiver
holders usually driving less than 17,000 per year. Defining a required
minimum mileage for application would enact a spurious screening
standard.
Claiming that a maximum mileage standard is not feasible does not
mean that miles driven has no value as a measure. It is part of the
basis for establishing whether a program has achieved a ``level of
safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that
would have been achieved'' absent from exemption. The other part of the
safety determination is the number of accidents experienced by an
exemption group where accidents and mileage are related through a
statistical model named Poisson regression. In this model, the
relationship is given as the number of accidents (na) being equal to a
rate (r) times mileage (m) (na=r x m ). The rate in this model is
usually referred to as the accident rate per some convenient unit of
miles driven (1 million, for example). This rate is the basis through
which the safety level of a program is determined and miles driven are
an integral part of the determination. This framework, however, does
not suggest that there is a minimum level of mileage that could be
arbitrarily used for a screening decision.
The AHAS states that, while the FMCSA provides some information on
the applicant's separate experience with combination tractor-trailers
and the straight trucks, the agency has not assessed the relative value
in terms of driving experience between driving these two types of
vehicle configurations. This statement is somewhat unclear. If it is
made in the context of the paragraph, then the relative value of the
experience is presumed to be related to the granting of an exemption.
This would suggest that there should be separate experience
specifications for each type of CMV and that an exemption would be
issued for a particular type of vehicle. Relative to this, the AHAS
also points to research literature concerned with the differences
between the two types of trucks. This literature, however, does not
address the operation of the two types of CMVs in relation to the
visual conditions which are the focus of the exemption program. The
best evidence of possible disparities in the operation of the CMV types
is taken from the earlier Vision Waiver Program, the AHAS doubts
notwithstanding. The data taken from the program show that those
driving straight trucks had an accident that was slightly higher than
that of the combination truck operators (2.15 accidents per million
miles driven versus 1.76). This difference was not statistically
significant. As a result, it appears that a consideration of truck type
in the application process is not necessary.
The same conclusion can be drawn in relation to the AHAS statement
concerned with driving routines. The AHAS states that the FMCSA has not
made any attempt to distinguish between the kinds of driving routine
the applicants experienced based on the type of driving they had done.
To support the need to do this, they note that the agency distinguishes
between five types of drivers and driving regimens in its recently
issued proposed rule on driver rest and sleep for safe operations. This
proposal is concerned with driver fatigue. There is no evidence that
there is a differential effect of fatigue on drivers with the vision
conditions that are the focus of exemptions. Consequently, the FMCSA
does not believe there is a need to issue exemptions for specific types
of driving routine.
In a supplemental comment to the docket, the AHAS states its
concern with the use of a 3-year driving record to screen drivers who
apply for exemptions. They first claim that it is misleading to report
a driving record for the most recent 3-year period in conjunction with
drivers' self report of the total number of years driving. This is
misleading, they state, because the addition of the unverified total
years of driving gives the impression of a longer period of safe
driving. The FMCSA had no intention of conveying this type of
interpretation. Total years driving was reported, as was mileage, to
give an overall indication of experience. For the purposes of
screening, a recent 3-year driving record is the critical focus
relative to safe driving.
The AHAS then argues that a 3-year record may not be sufficient to
guarantee a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than that
present in the absence of an exemption program. In support of this, it
points to the comments filed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
for the State of California relative to a driver from that State who
applied for an exemption (Mr. James N. Spencer at 65 FR 20245, April
14, 2000). The California DMV opposed the granting of an exemption to
this driver because of his accident involvement and citation record in
years 4 and 5 before application for an exemption. The FMCSA finds this
comment inconsistent because the driver has a valid California
intrastate CDL issued on July 23, 1997, by the State of California.
The FMCSA believes that the submission of a driving record for a
period longer than 3 years is not necessary. As the AHAS correctly
points out, not all states maintain driving records for more than 3
years. Requiring some drivers to submit 3-year records and others to
submit ones for a longer duration, as the AHAS suggests, would be
arbitrary and capricious.
The FMCSA believes that using a 3-year driving record as a
screening procedure in the application process is
[[Page 57234]]
very adequate to insure the required level of safety. The basis for
this is that there is compelling evidence to show the efficacy of a 3-
year window. This evidence is taken from the earlier Vision Waiver
Program where the driving record in the most recent 3 years was used to
screen all applicants to that program. That program existed from July
1992 until March 1996 and, during that period, those holding waivers
had an accident rate of 1.902 accidents per million miles driven. In
the comparable period, the national accident rate for large trucks was
2.348 (General Estimates System; 1992-1995, a database managed by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). These data verify that
a 3-year screening period ensures the required safety level for almost
4 years after application. This is sufficient for safety in a 2-year
exemption period where the recipient must renew his or her exemption
using a new, most recent 3-year driving record. The process used in the
exemption program is even more rigorous than that used in the waiver
program. If drivers have an accident in an exemption period for which
they receive a citation or are a contributing factor, they will be
ineligible to renew their exemption. Under this framework, the
exemption program is even more conservative than the Vision Waiver
Program which clearly demonstrated its acceptable level of safety.
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 56 veteran drivers 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 56 exemption applications in accordance with the
Rauenhorst decision, the FMCSA exempts John W. Arnold, James H. Bailey,
Victor F. Brast, Jr., John P. Brooks [published as James P. Brooks in
the Notice of Intent on April 14, 2000], Robert W. Brown, Benny J.
Burke, Derric D. Burrell, Anthony J. Cesternino, Ronald W. Coe, Sr.,
Richard A. Corey, James A. Creed, William G. Croy, Craig E. Dorrance,
Willie P. Estep, Duane H. Eyre, James W. Frion, Lee Gallmeyer, Shawn B.
Gaston, James F. Gereau, Rodney M. Gingrich, Esteban Gerardo Gonzalez,
Harlan Lee Gunter, Thanh Van Ha, James O. Hancock, Paul A. Harrison,
Joseph H. Heidkamp, Jr., Thomas J. Holtmann, Larry D. Johnson, Gary
Killian, Marvin L. Kiser, Jr., David R. Lambert, James R. Lanier, James
Stanley Lewis, Newton Heston Mahoney, Ronald L. Martsching, Duane D.
Mims, James A. Mohr, William A. Moore, Leonard James Morton, Timothy W.
Noble, Kevin J. O'Donnell, John W. Robbins, Jr., Doyle R. Roundtree,
David L. Slack, Everett J. Smeltzer, Philip Smiddy, James C. Smith,
Terry L. Smith, James N. Spencer, Teresa Mary Steeves, Roger R.
Strehlow, Timothy W. Strickland, John T. Thomas, Darel E. Thompson,
Ralph A. Thompson, and Kevin Wayne Windham 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 its driver qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver 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: September 18, 2000.
Julie Anna Cirillo,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-24396 Filed 9-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P