[Federal Register: August 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 153)]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2005-21254]
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 24 individuals from
the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). The exemptions will enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce
without meeting the vision standard prescribed in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: August 10, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Office of Bus and
Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4001, FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
You may see all the comments online through the Document Management
System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.
On May 31, 2005, the FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from 24 individuals, and requested comments from
the public (70 FR 30999). The 24 individuals petitioned the FMCSA for
exemptions from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which
applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce. They are: Linda L.
Billings, George L. Cannon, Anthony Ciancone, Jr., Andrew B. Clayton,
Kenneth D. Daniels, Jerry A. Davidson, Richard D. Espey, Jr., Allen R.
Fasen, Tommy K. Floyd, Franklin G. Hermann, William W. Hodgins, Hazel
L. Hopkins, Jr., Donald M. Jenson, Dean A. Maystead, Jason L. McBride,
Sr., Willie J. Morgan, Carl V. Murphy, Jr., Donald L. Murphy, Mark D.
Page, Larry D. Reynolds, Thomas D. Reynolds, Walter J. Savage, Jr.,
Thomas J. Sweeny, Jr., and Louis E. Villa, Jr.
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the 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, the FMCSA has evaluated the 24 applications on their
merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to all of them. The
comment period closed on June 30, 2005. Two comments were received, and
their contents were carefully considered by the FMCSA in reaching the
final decision to grant the exemptions.
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[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 agency 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, FMCSA-98-4334.) The
panel's conclusion supports the agency's view that the present visual
acuity 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
The 24 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, macular and retinal scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All
but seven of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The seven individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods
ranging from 4 to 45 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.
While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 24 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, three of the drivers have had convictions
for traffic violations. Two of these convictions were for speeding, and
one was for "failure to obey traffic control device." Three drivers
were involved in four crashes among them, but did not receive a
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the May 31, 2005,
notice (70 FR 30999). Since there were no substantial docket comments
on the specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not
repeated the individual profiles here, but note that information
presented at 70 FR 30999 indicating that applicant 2, George L. Cannon,
has driven straight truck for 50 years, is in error. The information
should have indicated that Mr. Cannon has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 50 years. Our summary analysis of the applicants is
supported by this correction and the information published on May 31,
2005 (70 FR 30999).
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 each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
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 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 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 a former FMCSA waiver study program clearly
demonstrates that 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
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 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 24 applicants receiving an exemption, we note that the applicants
have had only four crashes and three traffic violations in the last 3
years. 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 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 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 is granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e) to the 24 applicants listed in the notice of
May 31, 2005 (70 FR 30999).
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 24 individuals consistent with the grandfathering
provisions applied to drivers who participated in the agency's vision
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 [[Page 46569]]
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.
Ms. Barb Sachau believes that vision exemptions are granted based
on outdated research information from 1920 and 1952, therefore,
compromising public safety on the highways. Also, she believes that
medical examination information should not be accepted unless it is
dated in the year the exemption is granted.
In regard to the first issue, the discussion above under the
heading, "Basis for Exemption Determination," refers to research
information completed in 1920 as the "first major research" and the
study completed in 1952 as one of multiple "subsequent studies." The
references show that the correlation between past and future driving
performance has stood the test of time. We cite more recent research
from 1964 and 1971, as well as the agency's vision waiver study program
of the early 1990s. (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996.) In
addition, the agency assembled a panel of physicians expert in
diagnosing and treating vision problems and utilized data from the
previous vision waiver program (early 1990s) to provide a scientific
basis for the current Federal vision exemption program.
In regard to the second issue, each applicant has been examined
within one year of receiving the exemption by an ophthalmologist or
optometrist who certifies the driver's vision has been stable for at
least 3 years preceding the date of application. The FMCSA requires
each driver upon receiving an exemption to be physically examined 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
provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to a
medical examiner who conducts a medical examination and certifies the
driver under 49 CFR 391.43. Thereafter, each exempted driver must have
an eye examination and be certified annually. Because each applicant
has had stable vision for at least 3 years, and each applicant will
undergo an eye examination upon receipt of the exemption, and yearly
after receipt of the exemption, the FMCSA considers an exam performed
within the last year to be consistent with the requirements of the
vision program. In addition, it is consistent with the screening
criteria of the vision waiver study program of the early 1990s. Those
monocular drivers who participated in that program demonstrated a
greater level of safety than that of all CMV drivers collectively.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) expresses
continued opposition to the FMCSA's policy to grant exemptions from the
FMCSRs, including the driver qualification standards. Specifically,
Advocates: (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 1999 Supreme Court decision affects the legal
validity of vision exemptions. The issues raised by Advocates were
addressed at length in 70 FR 16887 (April 1, 2005). We will not address
these points again here, but refer interested parties to those earlier
Based upon its evaluation of the 24 exemption applications, the
FMCSA exempts Linda L. Billings, George L. Cannon, Anthony Ciancone,
Jr., Andrew B. Clayton, Kenneth D. Daniels, Jerry A. Davidson, Richard
D. Espey, Jr., Allen R. Fasen, Tommy K. Floyd, Franklin G. Hermann,
William W. Hodgins, Hazel L. Hopkins, Jr., Donald M. Jenson, Dean A.
Maystead, Jason L. McBride, Sr., Willie J. Morgan, Carl V. Murphy, Jr.,
Donald L. Murphy, Mark D. Page, Larry D. Reynolds, Thomas D. Reynolds,
Walter J. Savage, Jr., Thomas J. Sweeny, Jr., and Louis E. Villa, Jr.
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. 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.
Issued on: August 4, 2005.
Pamela M. Pelcovits,
Director, Office of Policy, Plans, and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 05-15784 Filed 8-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P