81 FR 16265 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 58 (March 25, 2016)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 58 (March 25, 2016)
| Page Range | 16265-16267 | |
| FR Document | 2016-06794 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 16265-16267] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-06794] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0072] 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 40 individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or [[Page 16266]] greater than the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these CMV drivers. DATES: The exemptions were granted December 15, 2015. The exemptions expire on December 15, 2017. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. 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 and/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. Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. II. Background On November 12, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the public (80 FR 70060). That notice listed 40 applicants' case histories. The 40 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 40 applications on their merits and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them. III. 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 a 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 red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)). FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 40 exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, chronic optic neuropathy, complete loss of vision, corneal scar, macular scar, macular toxoplasmosis, optic atrophy, optic nerve atrophy, phthisical cornea, prosthetic eye, refractive amblyopia, retinal detachment, and strabismic amblyopia. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. Thirty of the applicants were either born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The 10 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults have had it for a range of 6 to 41 years. Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision requirement 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 of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 40 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 in careers ranging for 3 to 51 years. In the past three years, 1 driver was involved in a crash, and 1 driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the November 12, 2015 notice (80 FR 70060). IV. Basis for Exemption Determination Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption from the vision requirement 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 the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency. To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, 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-1998-3637. FMCSA believes it 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 [[Page 16267]] 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 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 40 applicants, 1 driver was involved in a crash, and 1 driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a 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 that 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 requirement 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 the 40 applicants listed in the notice of November 12, 2015 (80 FR 70060). 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 40 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 requirement 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 have a copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. V. Discussion of Comments FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding. IV. Conclusion Based upon its evaluation of the 40 exemption applications, FMCSA exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10): John W. Adams (TN) David R. Alford (UT) Randy S. Asher (NE) Steven W. Barrows (OR) Steven A. Blinco (MT) Charles W. Bradley (SC) Ricky A. Bray (AR) Ryan M. Coelho (RI) Travis R. Cook (KS) Larry P. Davis (MO) Donald S. Fries (PA) Kerrie K. Furbish (ME) Jerry W. Gibson (TX) Trevor H. Hilton (IL) Michael D. Judy (KS) Karen L. Kelly (DE) Joel H. Kohagen (IA) Kelly K. Kremer (OR) Edward R. Lockhart (MS) Joshua L. Marasek (TX) Rodolfo Martinez, Jr. (TX) Arthur J. McClintic (MI) Dale A. McCoy (ME) Gregory G. Miller (OH) Zack E. Minielly (GA) Tobias G. Olsen (NY) Elroy Perkins (MS) Roy C. Rogers (WV) Michael P. Rydzinski (MI) Dale L. Schneider (IA) Keith R. Seabaugh (MO) Robert G. Seils (NY) Randall C. Stephens (TN) Dale L. Stewart (MI) Warren S. Supulski (NC) Paul J. Vines (AL) Hany A. Wagieh (NJ) Charles W. Williamson (OK) Gregory A. Woodward (OR) Alton R. Young III (MS) 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: March 16, 2016. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy. [FR Doc. 2016-06794 Filed 3-24-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Notices 16265
Counsel, Federal Motor Carrier Safety vehicle in a condition likely to cause an affected vehicles should not be
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. accident or a breakdown. Today’s notice operated, and the operation of an
SE., Washington, DC 20590, by formalizes that determination and unrepaired affected vehicle will
telephone at 202–366–3551 or via email clarifies that FMCSA and its state therefore subject the operator to an out-
at charles.fromm@dot.gov. FMCSA partners under the MCSAP program will of-service order under federal or
office hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., place a vehicle out-of-service if the compatible state regulations.
Monday through Friday, except Federal necessary repair or replacement has not FMCSA is directing its investigators
holidays. been made, based on the identified out- and state partners conducting roadside
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On of-service defect under 49 CFR inspections to perform a Level IV
February 16, 2016, Volvo Trucks 393.209(c), which requires that a inspection on any unrepaired affected
initiated a safety recall affecting nearly steering column to be securely fastened. vehicles and to place the vehicle out of
16,000 Class 8 motor vehicles in the The Secretary of Transportation has service based on the violation of 49 CFR
United States. According to Volvo, a statutory authority to set minimum 393.209(c). Level IV inspections, which
condition exists which could lead to standards for commercial motor vehicle are typically performed on a one-time
separation of the steering shaft from the safety, including ensuring that basis on a particular item as a special
junction block. Also, the bolt connecting commercial motor vehicles ‘‘are inspection, are not included in
the upper steering shaft to the lower maintained, equipped, loaded, and FMCSA’s Safety Measurement System
steering shaft may not have been operated safely’’ and to prescribe (SMS), and therefore the out-of-service
requirements for the ‘‘safety of operation declaration will not affect a motor
properly tightened. Volvo’s report to
and equipment of, a motor carrier.’’ (49 carrier’s SMS score.
NHTSA states that either condition can
U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) and 49 U.S.C. Placing the vehicle out-of-service
lead to separation of the steering shaft under this Notice is not intended to
31502(b)). The Secretary also has broad
and immediate loss of steering ability provide a basis for further enforcement
power in carrying out motor carrier
and control, which could lead to a action and seeks only the immediate
safety statutes and regulations to, among
crash. Volvo Trucks issued a Safety cessation of the operation of vehicles
other things, ‘‘inspect the equipment of
Recall Alert on March 10, which that have been deemed to be in an
a carrier or lessor’’ and ‘‘perform other
directed all owners of the affected unsafe condition. Operators of vehicles
acts the Secretary considers
vehicles to take the vehicles out of declared out-of-service, however, must
appropriate.’’ (49 U.S.C. 504(c)(1) and
operation as soon as possible and 49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(10)). The comply with an out-of-service order.
cautioned that the separation can occur Administrator of FMCSA has been Motor carrier operators who violate an
without warning and amended its safety delegated authority under 49 CFR out-of-service order will be subject to
recall on March 15, alerting NHTSA of 1.87(f), (i) and (j) to carry out the civil penalties and other enforcement as
the more serious hazard. Volvo Trucks functions vested in the Secretary of provided in the Federal Motor Carrier
strongly recommends that these vehicles Transportation by 49 U.S.C. chapter Safety Regulations.
remain out of service until repairs are 311, subchapter III, 49 U.S.C. chapter
made. NHTSA is overseeing Volvo Issued under the authority delegated in 49
315, and 49 U.S.C. 504. This delegation CFR 1.87 on: March 22, 2016.
Truck’s recall efforts to ensure prompt of authority includes the authority to
notification of the defect to vehicle T. F. Scott Darling, III,
declare unsafe vehicles out-of-service Acting Administrator.
owners and that vehicles are not under 49 CFR 396.9. Under 49 U.S.C.
operated in a defective condition. [FR Doc. 2016–06880 Filed 3–23–16; 11:15 am]
31102, MCSAP State partners agree to
Volvo’s Safety Recall Report is available conduct roadside inspections. In 49 CFR BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
on its Web site at: http://www-odi.nhtsa. part 350, MCSAP state partners agree to
dot.gov/owners/SearchDetails?search adopt state safety laws and regulations
Criteria.prod_ids=1991310&search DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
that are compatible with 49 CFR parts
Criteria.model_yr=2016&searchCriteria. 390–397. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
make=VOLVO&searchCriteria.model=
Out-of-Service Determination Administration
VNL&activeTab=0&searchType=PROD&
prodType=V&targetCategory=A&cmpl FMCSA has determined that [Docket No. FMCSA–2015–0072]
Count=1&rclCount=3&invCount=1& commercial motor vehicles subject to
tsbCount=0. Volvo Trucks’ Safety Recall (NHTSA Qualification of Drivers; Exemption
Additionally, to assist with Part 573 Safety Recall Report No. 16V– Applications; Vision
notification efforts, on March 18, 2016, 097000), that have not already received AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
FMCSA posted an Inspection Bulletin the interim or permanent recall remedy Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
on its Web site. https://www.fmcsa.dot. repair specified by Volvo in the above- ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
gov/newsroom/urgent-inspection- referenced recall, are likely to cause an
bulletin-safety-recall-issued-volvo- accident or breakdown and are therefore SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its
trucks. The Inspection Bulletin advised in an unsafe condition. The condition of decision to exempt 40 individuals from
FMCSA inspectors and state partners the steering column is also a violation the vision requirement in the Federal
under the Motor Carrier Safety of 49 CFR 393.209(c) which requires the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
Assistance Program (MCSAP) of the steering column to be securely fastened. (FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the
condition of the affected vehicles and Because of the potential consequences vision requirement in one eye for
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
requested inspectors to direct the associated with continued operation of various reasons. The exemptions will
operators of such vehicles to contact these vehicles, through this notice enable these individuals to operate
Volvo Customer Service before FMCSA is declaring unsafe the commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
continuing in operation. The Inspection operation of any unrepaired vehicle interstate commerce without meeting
Bulletin also noted that continued affected by the Volvo Trucks recall the prescribed vision requirement in
operation of the affected vehicles could under NHTSA Campaign No. one eye. The Agency has concluded that
be considered a violation of 49 CFR 16V097000 and declaring such vehicles granting these exemptions will provide
396.7, which prohibits operation of a to be in an out-of-service condition. The a level of safety that is equivalent to or
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Mar 24, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM 25MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_16323/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2016 / Notices 16267
demonstrated safe driving records in the and vehicular traffic than exists on IV. Conclusion
waiver program supports a conclusion interstate highways. Faster reaction to Based upon its evaluation of the 40
that other monocular drivers, meeting traffic and traffic signals is generally exemption applications, FMCSA
the same qualifying conditions as those required because distances between exempts the following drivers from the
required by the waiver program, are also them are more compact. These vision requirement in 49 CFR
likely to have adapted to their vision conditions tax visual capacity and 391.41(b)(10):
deficiency and will continue to operate driver response just as intensely as
safely. John W. Adams (TN)
interstate driving conditions. The David R. Alford (UT)
The first major research correlating veteran drivers in this proceeding have
past and future performance was done Randy S. Asher (NE)
operated CMVs safely under those Steven W. Barrows (OR)
in England by Greenwood and Yule in conditions for at least 3 years, most for
1920. Subsequent studies, building on Steven A. Blinco (MT)
much longer. Their experience and Charles W. Bradley (SC)
that model, concluded that crash rates
driving records lead us to believe that Ricky A. Bray (AR)
for the same individual exposed to
each applicant is capable of operating in Ryan M. Coelho (RI)
certain risks for two different time
periods vary only slightly (See Bates interstate commerce as safely as he/she Travis R. Cook (KS)
and Neyman, University of California has been performing in intrastate Larry P. Davis (MO)
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). commerce. Consequently, FMCSA finds Donald S. Fries (PA)
Other studies demonstrated theories of that exempting these applicants from Kerrie K. Furbish (ME)
predicting crash proneness from crash the vision requirement in 49 CFR Jerry W. Gibson (TX)
history coupled with other factors. 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level Trevor H. Hilton (IL)
These factors—such as age, sex, of safety equal to that existing without Michael D. Judy (KS)
geographic location, mileage driven and the exemption. For this reason, the Karen L. Kelly (DE)
conviction history—are used every day Agency is granting the exemptions for Joel H. Kohagen (IA)
by insurance companies and motor the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. Kelly K. Kremer (OR)
vehicle bureaus to predict the 31136(e) and 31315 to the 40 applicants Edward R. Lockhart (MS)
probability of an individual listed in the notice of November 12, Joshua L. Marasek (TX)
experiencing future crashes (See Weber, 2015 (80 FR 70060). Rodolfo Martinez, Jr. (TX)
Donald C., ‘‘Accident Rate Potential: An Arthur J. McClintic (MI)
We recognize that the vision of an Dale A. McCoy (ME)
Application of Multiple Regression applicant may change and affect his/her
Analysis of a Poisson Process,’’ Journal Gregory G. Miller (OH)
ability to operate a CMV as safely as in Zack E. Minielly (GA)
of American Statistical Association, the past. As a condition of the
June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Tobias G. Olsen (NY)
exemption, therefore, FMCSA will Elroy Perkins (MS)
Record Study prepared by the California impose requirements on the 40
Department of Motor Vehicles Roy C. Rogers (WV)
individuals consistent with the Michael P. Rydzinski (MI)
concluded that the best overall crash grandfathering provisions applied to
predictor for both concurrent and Dale L. Schneider (IA)
drivers who participated in the Keith R. Seabaugh (MO)
nonconcurrent events is the number of
Agency’s vision waiver program. Robert G. Seils (NY)
single convictions. This study used 3
consecutive years of data, comparing the Those requirements are found at 49 Randall C. Stephens (TN)
experiences of drivers in the first 2 years CFR 391.64(b) and include the Dale L. Stewart (MI)
with their experiences in the final year. following: (1) That each individual be Warren S. Supulski (NC)
Applying principles from these physically examined every year (a) by Paul J. Vines (AL)
studies to the past 3-year record of the an ophthalmologist or optometrist who Hany A. Wagieh (NJ)
40 applicants, 1 driver was involved in attests that the vision in the better eye Charles W. Williamson (OK)
a crash, and 1 driver was convicted of continues to meet the requirement in 49 Gregory A. Woodward (OR)
a moving violation in a CMV. All the CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical Alton R. Young III (MS)
applicants achieved a record of safety examiner who attests that the individual In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
while driving with their vision is otherwise physically qualified under and 31315, each exemption will be valid
impairment, demonstrating the 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual for 2 years unless revoked earlier by
likelihood that they have adapted their provide a copy of the ophthalmologist’s FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked
driving skills to accommodate their or optometrist’s report to the medical if: (1) The person fails to comply with
condition. As the applicants’ ample examiner at the time of the annual the terms and conditions of the
driving histories with their vision medical examination; and (3) that each exemption; (2) the exemption has
deficiencies are good predictors of individual provide a copy of the annual resulted in a lower level of safety than
future performance, FMCSA concludes medical certification to the employer for was maintained before it was granted; or
their ability to drive safely can be retention in the driver’s qualification (3) continuation of the exemption would
projected into the future. not be consistent with the goals and
file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s
We believe that the applicants’ objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
intrastate driving experience and history qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must have a copy If the exemption is still effective at the
provide an adequate basis for predicting
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
of the certification when driving, for end of the 2-year period, the person may
their ability to drive safely in interstate apply to FMCSA for a renewal under
commerce. Intrastate driving, like presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement procedures in effect at that time.
interstate operations, involves
substantial driving on highways on the official. Issued on: March 16, 2016.
interstate system and on other roads Larry W. Minor,
V. Discussion of Comments
built to interstate standards. Moreover, Associate Administrator for Policy.
driving in congested urban areas FMCSA received no comments in this [FR Doc. 2016–06794 Filed 3–24–16; 8:45 am]
exposes the driver to more pedestrian proceeding. BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:30 Mar 24, 2016 Jkt 238001 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\25MRN1.SGM 25MRN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_16323/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-02 15:18:20
Document Modified: 2018-02-02 15:18:20
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of final disposition. | |
| Dates | The exemptions were granted December 15, 2015. The exemptions expire on December 15, 2017. | |
| Contact | Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, (202) 366-4001, [email protected], FMCSA, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 16265 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR