Qualifications of Drivers; Vision Standard

2344

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

47 CFR Part 95

Personal Radio Services.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 2 as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

■1. The authority citation for part 2

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and

336, unless otherwise noted.

■2. In § 2.803 revise paragraph (c)(2)(i)

to read as follows:

§ 2.803 Marketing of radio frequency

devices prior to equipment authorization.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * *

(i) Conditional sales contracts

(including agreements to produce new

devices manufactured in accordance

with designated specifications), and

advertisements for such sales, are

permitted between manufacturers and

potential customers provided that the

prospective buyer is advised at the time

of marketing, through a prominent

disclosure, that the equipment is subject

to the FCC rules and delivery to the

buyer or to centers of distribution is

conditional upon a determination that

the equipment complies with the

applicable equipment authorization and

technical requirements. Delivery to

customers of equipment subject to FCC

rules prior to obtaining the applicable

equipment authorization and complying

with the applicable technical

requirements is prohibited.

* * * * *

■3. Amend § 2.1204 by adding

paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows:

§ 2.1204 Import Conditions.

(a) * * *

(11) The radio frequency device is

subject to Certification and is being

imported in quantities of 4,000 or fewer

units for pre-sale activity. Pre-sale

activity includes packaging and

delivering devices to retails locations, as

well as loading devices with specific

software to demonstrate specific

features of the devices when displayed

at retail locations. The devices will not

be displayed, operated, offered for sale,

marketed to consumers, or sold until

proper equipment authorization has

been obtained.

(i) The Chief, Office of Engineering

and Technology, may approve

importation of a greater number of units

in a manner otherwise consistent with

this paragraph (11) in response to a

specific request;

(ii) This exception is only available to

manufacturers for radiofrequency

devices who have a reasonable belief

that authorization will be granted

within 30 days of importation;

(iii) Each device imported under this

exception must contain a temporary

removable label stating: ‘‘This device

cannot be displayed, operated, offered

for sale, marketed to consumers, or sold

until FCC equipment authorization has

been granted. Under penalty of law, this

label may not be removed prior to the

grant of FCC authorization.’’

(iv) Notwithstanding § 2.926,

radiofrequency devices imported

pursuant to this paragraph (11) may

include the expected FCC ID if obscured

by the temporary label described in this

section or, in the case of electronic

displays, if it cannot be viewed prior to

authorization.

(v) The radiofrequency devices

remain under legal ownership of the

device manufacturer, and only

possession of the device is transferred

prior to authorization. Manufacturers

must have processes in place to retrieve

the equipment in the event that

authorization is not received.

(vi) Manufacturers must maintain, for

a period of sixty (60) months, records

identifying the recipient of devices

imported for pre-sale activities. Such

records must identify the device name

and product identifier, the quantity

shipped, the date on which the device

authorization was sought, the expected

FCC ID number, and the identity of the

recipient, including address and

telephone number. The manufacturer

must provide records maintained under

this paragraph (vi) upon the request of

Commission personnel.

PART 95—PERSONAL RADIO

SERVICES

■4. The authority citation for part 95

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307.

■5. Section 95.391 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 95.391 Manufacturing, importation, and

sales of non-certified equipment prohibited.

No person shall manufacture, import,

sell or offer for sale non-certified

equipment for the Personal Radio

Services except as provided for in

§ 2.803(c)(2)(i) of this chapter. See

§ 302(b) of the Communications Act (47

U.S.C. 302a(b)). See also part 2, subpart

I (§ 2.801 et seq.) of this chapter for rules

governing marketing of radiofrequency

devices.

[FR Doc. 2020–28906 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 391

[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0049]

RIN 2126–AC21

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision

Standard

AGENCY

: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION

: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY

: FMCSA proposes to amend its

regulations to permit individuals who

cannot meet either the current distant

visual acuity or field of vision standard,

or both, in one eye to be physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce.

Currently, such individuals are

prohibited from driving CMVs in

interstate commerce unless they obtain

an exemption from FMCSA. The Agency

proposes an alternative vision standard

for physical qualification that, if

adopted, would replace the current

vision exemption program as a basis for

establishing the physical qualification

determination for these individuals.

DATES

: You must submit comments on

this notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM) to FMCSA on or before March

15, 2021. Comments on the collection of

information must be received on or

before March 15, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: You may submit comments

on this NPRM identified by docket

number FMCSA–2019–0049 using any

one of the following methods:

•Federal eRulemaking Portal:

www.regulations.gov.

•Fax: (202) 493–2251.

•Mail: Docket Operations, U.S.

Department of Transportation, West

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140,

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

•Hand Delivery: Docket Operations,

U.S. Department of Transportation,

West Building Ground Floor, Room

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590–0001, between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2345

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

To avoid duplication, please use only

one of these four methods. See the

‘‘Public Participation and Request for

Comments’’ heading under the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section

below for instructions regarding

submitting comments, including

collection of information comments for

the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

: If

you have questions about this proposed

rule, contact Ms. Christine A. Hydock,

Chief, Medical Programs Division,

FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington, DC 20590–0001, by

telephone at (202) 366–4001, or by

email at fmcsamedical@dot.gov. If you

have questions about viewing or

submitting material to the docket, call

DOT Docket Operations, (202) 366–

9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

: This

NPRM is organized as follows.

I. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

A. Submitting Comments

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

C. Privacy Act

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

E. Comments on the Collection of

Information

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols

III. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Amendments

B. Summary of the Major Provisions

C. Benefits and Costs

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

V. Background

A. Current Vision Standard

B. Vision Waiver Study Program and

Grandfathered Drivers

C. Federal Vision Exemption Program—

1998 to the Present

VI. Assessments of the Vision Standards,

Waivers, and Exemptions

VII. Rationale for Proposed Qualification

Standard

A. Individuals Adapt to and Compensate

for Vision Loss

B. MEs Would Make the Qualification

Determination

C. Review of an Individual’s Safety

Performance Would Continue

VIII. Discussion of Proposed Rule

A. Proposed Physical Qualification Process

B. Road Test in Accordance With 49 CFR

391.31

C. Elimination of Vision Exemption

Program and Grandfather Provisions

D. Change to the Medical Examination

Process in 49 CFR 391.43(b)(1)

E. Benefits of the Proposal to Drivers

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

A. Regulatory Provisions

B. Guidance Statements and Interpretations

X. International Impacts

XI. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and

DOT Regulations

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs)

C. Congressional Review Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small

Entities)

E. Assistance for Small Entities

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection of

Information)

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

I. Privacy

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

K. National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

I. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

FMCSA encourages you to participate

in this rulemaking by submitting

comments and related materials. Where

possible, please provide scientific, peer-

reviewed articles to support your

comments.

A. Submitting Comments

If you submit comments, please

include the docket number for this

rulemaking (FMCSA–2019–0049),

indicate the heading of the specific

section of this document to which each

comment applies, and provide a reason

for each suggestion or recommendation.

You may submit your comments and

material online or by fax, mail, or hand

delivery, but please use only one of

these means. FMCSA recommends that

you include your name and a mailing

address, an email address, or a phone

number in the body of your document

so the Agency can contact you if it has

questions regarding your submission.

To submit your comment online, go to

www.regulations.gov, type the docket

number (FMCSA–2019–0049) in the

‘‘Keyword’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’

When the new screen appears, click the

‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type your

comment into the text box in the

following screen. Choose whether you

are submitting your comment as an

individual or on behalf of a third party,

and click ‘‘Submit.’’

If you submit your comments by mail

or hand delivery, submit them in an

unbound format, no larger than 8

1

⁄

2

by

11 inches, suitable for copying and

electronic filing. If you submit

comments by mail and would like to

know that they reached the facility,

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed

postcard or envelope.

Confidential Business Information:

Confidential Business Information (CBI)

is commercial or financial information

that is both customarily and actually

treated as private by its owner. Under

the Freedom of Information Act (5

U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public

disclosure. If your comments responsive

to this NPRM contain commercial or

financial information that is customarily

treated as private, that you actually treat

as private, and that is relevant or

responsive to this NPRM, it is important

that you clearly designate the submitted

comments as CBI. FMCSA will treat

such marked submissions as

confidential under the Freedom of

Information Act, and they will not be

placed in the public docket for this

rulemaking. Please mark each page of

your submission that constitutes CBI as

‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate it contains

proprietary information. Submissions

containing CBI should be sent to Mr.

Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis

Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any

comments FMCSA receives that are not

specifically designated as CBI will be

placed in the public docket for this

rulemaking.

FMCSA will consider all comments

and material received during the

comment period and may make changes

based on your comments. FMCSA may

issue a final rule at any time after the

close of the comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments and any document

mentioned in this preamble as being

available in the docket, go to

www.regulations.gov, insert the docket

number (FMCSA–2019–0049) in the

‘‘Keyword’’ box, and click ‘‘Search.’’

Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’

button and choose the document listed

to review. If you do not have access to

the internet, you may view the docket

online by visiting Docket Operations in

Room W12–140 on the ground floor of

the DOT West Building, 1200 New

Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. To be sure someone is there to

help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or

(202) 366–9826 before visiting Docket

Operations.

C. 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—Federal Docket Management

System (FDMS), which can be reviewed

at https://www.transportation.gov/

privacy.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2346

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

1

A ‘‘major rule’’ means any rule that the

Administrator of OIRA at OMB finds has resulted

in or is likely to result in (a) an annual effect on

the economy of $100 million or more; (b) a major

increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual

industries, Federal agencies, State agencies, local

government agencies, or geographic regions; or (c)

significant adverse effects on competition,

employment, investment, productivity, innovation,

or on the ability of United States-based enterprises

to compete with foreign-based enterprises in

domestic and export markets (5 U.S.C. 804(2)).

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1), FMCSA

is required to publish an advance notice

of proposed rulemaking or conduct a

negotiated rulemaking if a proposed rule

is likely to lead to the promulgation of

a major rule.

1

As this proposed rule is

not likely to result in the promulgation

of a major rule, the Agency is not

required to issue an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking or to proceed with

a negotiated rulemaking.

E. Comments on the Collection of

Information

Written comments and

recommendations for the proposed

information collections discussed in

this NPRM should be sent to FMCSA

within 60 days of publication using any

of the methods described in ‘‘Public

Participation and Request for

Comments’’ above.

II. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and

Symbols

ATA American Trucking Associations, Inc.

CBI Confidential Business Information

CDL Commercial Driver’s License

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

E.O. Executive Order

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations

FR Federal Register

GES General Estimates System

ICR Information Collection Request

Id. Idem—the same author or work

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management

Information System

ME Medical Examiner

MEC Medical Examiner’s Certificate, Form

MCSA–7876

MRB Medical Review Board

NAICS North American Industry

Classification System

National Registry National Registry of

Certified Medical Examiners

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBA Small Business Administration

Secretary Secretary of Transportation

§ Section

TEA–21 Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century

U.S.C. United States Code

III. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Amendments

FMCSA proposes to amend its

regulations to permit an individual who

cannot meet either the current distant

visual acuity or field of vision standard,

or both, in one eye to be physically

qualified to operate a CMV in interstate

commerce under specified conditions.

The individual would need to meet the

proposed alternative vision standard

and FMCSA’s other physical

qualification standards. In addition,

with limited exceptions, individuals

physically qualified under the

alternative standard for the first time

would complete a road test before

operating a CMV in interstate

commerce. The proposed action would

eliminate the need for the current

Federal vision exemption program, as

well as the grandfather provision in 49

CFR 391.64 for drivers operating under

the previously administered vision

waiver study program. Medical

professionals would evaluate and make

medical qualification determinations

instead of FMCSA, as in the current

exemption program. Motor carriers

would administer the road tests. The

proposed alternative vision standard

would enhance employment

opportunities while remaining

consistent with FMCSA’s safety

mission.

B. Summary of the Major Provisions

The proposed alternative vision

standard is based on recommendations

from FMCSA’s Medical Review Board

(MRB). The proposed physical

qualification process is analogous to the

regulatory framework FMCSA adopted

in § 391.46 for individuals with insulin-

treated diabetes mellitus (see 83 FR

47486, September 19, 2018). Prior to

that rulemaking, such individuals were

prohibited from driving CMVs in

interstate commerce unless they

obtained an exemption from FMCSA.

Like the approach in the rule for

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, after

the public comment period for this

NPRM closes, FMCSA will ask the MRB

to review all comments from medical

professionals and associations. If after

that review the MRB makes material

changes to its prior recommendations,

FMCSA will publish a Federal Register

notice announcing the availability of the

new MRB recommendations and request

public comment specific to those

recommendations.

The proposed rule provides an

alternative vision standard for

individuals who cannot meet either the

current FMCSA distant visual acuity or

field of vision standard, or both, in one

eye and, if adopted, would replace the

current vision exemption program as a

basis for determining the physical

qualification of such individuals to

operate a CMV. The proposed action

would ensure that these individuals are

physically qualified to operate a CMV

safely. In addition, the proposed process

would create a clear and consistent

framework to assist certified medical

examiners (ME) with making a physical

qualification determination that is

equally as effective as a program based

entirely on granting exemptions under

49 U.S.C. 31315(b).

Just as in the alternative standard for

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus, the

alternative vision standard would

involve a two-step process for physical

qualification. First, an individual

seeking physical qualification would

obtain a vision evaluation from an

ophthalmologist or optometrist who

would record the findings and provide

specific medical opinions on the

proposed Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871, which incorporates

the recommendations of the MRB. Next,

an ME would perform an examination

and determine whether the individual

meets the proposed vision standard, as

well as FMCSA’s other physical

qualification standards. If the ME

determines that the individual meets the

physical qualification standards, the ME

could issue a Medical Examiner’s

Certificate (MEC), Form MCSA–5876,

for a maximum of 12 months. This

approach of MEs making the physical

qualification determination, instead of

FMCSA as in the current exemption

program, is consistent with Congress’s

directive in 49 U.S.C. 31149(d) to have

trained and certified MEs determine the

individual’s physical qualification to

operate a CMV.

In making the physical qualification

determination, the ME would consider

the information in the Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871, and utilize

independent medical judgment to apply

four standards. The proposal would

provide that, to be physically qualified

under the alternative vision standard,

the individual must: (1) Have in the

better eye distant visual acuity of at

least 20/40 (Snellen), with or without

corrective lenses, and field of vision of

at least 70 degrees in the horizontal

meridian; (2) be able to recognize the

colors of traffic signals and devices

showing standard red, green, and amber;

(3) have a stable vision deficiency; and

(4) have had sufficient time to adapt to

and compensate for the change in

vision.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2347

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

2

FHWA conducted the vision waiver study

program from July 1992 through March 31, 1996.

Drivers who participated in the program and held

valid waivers from the vision standard at the

program’s end could continue to operate in

interstate commerce under grandfather provisions

in 49 CFR 391.64. The vision waiver study program

and grandfather provisions are discussed in section

V.B. below.

3

FMCSA data as of July 2, 2019.

4

As discussed below in the Paperwork Reduction

Act section XI.G. with respect to the information

collection titled ‘‘Medical Qualification

Requirements,’’ FMCSA attributes 2,236 annual

burden hours at a cost of $69,136 for drivers to

request and maintain a vision exemption. The

proposed rule would eliminate this entire burden.

It is well recognized in the literature

that individuals with vision loss in one

eye can and do develop compensatory

viewing behavior to mitigate the vision

loss. Therefore, if an individual meets

the proposed vision standard, the

Agency expects there will be no adverse

impact on safety due to the individual’s

vision. That is, once an individual’s

vision is stable and the individual has

adapted to and compensated for the

change in vision, the loss in vision is

not likely to play a significant role in

whether the individual can drive a CMV

safely.

Instead of requiring 3 years of

intrastate driving experience with the

vision deficiency as in the current

exemption program, individuals

physically qualified under the proposed

alternative vision standard for the first

time would complete a road test before

operating in interstate commerce.

Individuals would be excepted from the

road test requirement if they have 3

years of intrastate or excepted interstate

CMV driving experience with the vision

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision

exemption, or are medically certified

under § 391.64(b). These individuals

have already demonstrated they can

operate a CMV safely with the vision

deficiency. Motor carriers would

conduct the road test in accordance

with the road test already required by

§ 391.31. FMCSA finds that a road test

would be an appropriate indicator of an

individual’s ability to operate a CMV

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus,

the Agency expects there will be no

adverse impact on safety from

eliminating the 3-year intrastate driving

experience criterion.

The proposed standard takes a

performance-based approach. The

standard emphasizes that the individual

has developed the skills to adapt to and

compensate for the vision loss once it

has been deemed stable by a medical

professional, and that the individual has

demonstrated the skills to operate a

CMV safely. The ME would ensure the

driver is physically qualified to operate

a CMV in accordance with the physical

qualification standards. With limited

exceptions, motor carriers would

conduct a road test for individuals to

ensure they possess the skills needed to

operate a CMV safely with the vision

deficiency.

The Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the predecessor agency to

FMCSA, and FMCSA have continuously

monitored the impact of the vision

waiver study

2

and the exemption

programs to ensure they cause no

adverse impact on safety. The proposed

alternative vision standard would adopt

the major vision criteria of the existing

Federal vision exemption program,

which were also used in the preceding

Federal vision waiver study program

since the early 1990s, and would modify

other criteria from the exemption

program. Based on nearly 30 years of

experience with these programs,

individuals who meet the proposed

alternative vision standard will be at

least as safe as the general population of

CMV drivers. This experience has

shown that individuals with vision loss

in one eye are not limited by their lack

of binocularity with respect to driving

once they have adapted to and

compensated for the change in vision.

If the proposed action is adopted, the

2,566 vision exemption holders

3

would

no longer require an exemption.

Accordingly, these drivers would be

relieved of the time and paperwork

burden associated with applying for or

renewing an exemption.

4

The proposed

rule could increase employment

opportunities because potential

applicants who do not have 3 years of

intrastate driving experience may meet

the alternative vision standard and be

able to operate a CMV in interstate

commerce. In addition, previously

qualified interstate CMV drivers who

are no longer able to meet either the

distant visual acuity or field of vision

standard, or both, in one eye would be

able to return to operating in interstate

commerce sooner.

FMCSA proposes that the

approximately 1,900 individuals

physically qualified under the

grandfather provisions in § 391.64(b)

would have 1 year after the effective

date of any final rule to comply with the

rule. During that transition year,

grandfathered individuals could elect to

seek physical qualification through the

final rule or § 391.64. This transition

year would provide time to learn the

new process for individuals whose

MEC, Form MCSA–5876, expires near

the time any final rule becomes

effective. However, 1 year after the

effective date of the final rule all MECs,

Form MCSA–5876, issued under

§ 391.64(b) would become void.

Similarly, the 2,566 vision exemption

holders would have 1 year after the

effective date of any final rule to comply

with the rule, at which time all

exemptions issued under 49 U.S.C.

31315(b) would become void. Drivers

who hold a vision exemption would be

notified by letter with details of the

transition to the new standard.

C. Benefits and Costs

FMCSA estimates that the proposed

rule would reduce barriers to entry for

current and future CMV drivers. The

2,566 drivers holding vision exemptions

would no longer have to apply for an

exemption, and potential driver

applicants who do not have 3 years of

intrastate driving experience may meet

the alternative vision standard and be

able to operate a CMV in interstate

commerce. A one-time road test would

be less burdensome on drivers than

obtaining 3 years of intrastate driving

experience and addresses the

consideration that some drivers live in

States that do not issue vision waivers.

The proposed rule would result in

incremental cost savings of

approximately $1.6 million annually by

eliminating the need for the Federal

vision exemption program. This

estimate includes the additional annual

impact of approximately $47,000 for the

road test. The Agency does not

anticipate any negative impacts on

safety.

The proposed rulemaking, if finalized,

would result in reduced costs and,

therefore, would be a deregulatory

action under Executive Order (E.O.)

13771, Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs. The

present value of the cost savings,

measured on an infinite time horizon at

a 7 percent discount rate, expressed in

2016 dollars, would be $14.9 million.

On an annualized basis, these cost

savings would be $1 million.

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C.

31136(a) and 31502(b)—delegated to the

Agency by 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i),

respectively—to establish minimum

qualifications, including physical

qualifications, for individuals operating

CMVs in interstate commerce. Section

31136(a)(3) requires specifically that the

Agency’s safety regulations ensure that

the physical condition of CMV drivers

is adequate to enable them to operate

their vehicles safely and that certified

MEs trained in physical and medical

examination standards perform the

physical examinations required of such

drivers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2348

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

5

Section 206(f) of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of

1984 provides that any Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulation (FMCSR) can be waived if ‘‘such waiver

is not contrary to the public interest and is

consistent with the safe operation of [CMVs].’’

Public Law 98–554, 98 Stat. 2832, 2835, (October

30, 1984), originally codified at 49 U.S.C. App. 2505

and then at former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).

In addition to the statutory

requirements specific to the physical

qualifications of CMV drivers, section

31136(a) requires the Secretary of

Transportation (Secretary) to issue

regulations on CMV safety, including

regulations to ensure that CMVs ‘‘are

maintained, equipped, loaded, and

operated safely’’ (section 31136(a)(1)).

The remaining statutory factors and

requirements in section 31136(a), to the

extent they are relevant, are also

satisfied here. The proposed rule would

not impose any ‘‘responsibilities . . . on

operators of [CMVs that would] impair

their ability to operate the vehicles

safely’’ (section 31136(a)(2)), or ‘‘have a

deleterious effect on the physical

condition’’ of CMV drivers (section

31136(a)(4)). FMCSA also does not

anticipate that drivers would be coerced

to operate a vehicle because of this

rulemaking (section 31136(a)(5)).

Additionally, in 2005, Congress

authorized the creation of the MRB,

composed of experts in a variety of

medical specialties relevant to the

driver fitness requirements, to provide

medical advice and recommendations

on physical qualification standards (49

U.S.C. 31149(a)). The position of Chief

Medical Examiner was authorized at the

same time (49 U.S.C. 31149(b)). Under

section 31149(c)(1), the Agency, with

the advice of the MRB and Chief

Medical Examiner, is directed to

establish, review, and revise medical

standards for CMV drivers that will

ensure their physical condition is

adequate to enable them to operate the

vehicles safely (see also 49 U.S.C.

31149(d)).

Finally, prior to prescribing any

regulations, FMCSA must consider their

‘‘costs and benefits’’ (49 U.S.C.

31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those

factors are discussed in the Regulatory

Analyses section of this NPRM.

V. Background

A. Current Vision Standard

FMCSA’s mission is to reduce

crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving

large trucks and buses. As discussed

above, FMCSA is authorized by statute

to establish minimum physical

qualification standards for drivers of

CMVs operating in interstate commerce.

To ensure the physical qualification of

CMV drivers, the Agency has

established several standards. As vision

plays an important role in the driving

task, one of the standards provides

vision requirements (see 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10)).

FHWA adopted the current vision

standard in 1970 (35 FR 6458, 6463,

April 22, 1970). Under this standard, an

individual is physically qualified to

drive a CMV if the individual 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 degrees 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)). This standard has not

changed since it became effective on

January 1, 1971.

FMCSA’s physical qualification

standards cover 13 areas that relate

directly to the driving function. With

respect to most of the standards, an

individual’s qualification to drive is

determined by an ME who is

knowledgeable about the on-the-job

functions performed by a commercial

driver and whether the driver has a

condition that would interfere with the

operation of a CMV. In the case of three

standards, including vision, the

standard is absolute and provides no

discretion to the ME. Thus, any

individual who does not meet the vision

standard in its entirety cannot be

physically qualified to drive a CMV in

interstate commerce.

B. Vision Waiver Study Program and

Grandfathered Drivers

On March 25, 1992, FHWA published

notice of its intent to accept

applications from CMV drivers for

temporary waivers of certain

requirements contained in the vision

standard, pursuant to the waiver

provision of former 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)

(57 FR 10295). To avoid any adverse

impact on highway safety, FHWA

outlined specific criteria that applicants

had to meet to receive the vision waiver.

The waiver program’s goal was to

provide objective data to be considered

in a future rulemaking that would

explore the feasibility of relaxing the

absolute vision standard in favor of a

more individualized standard. To do so,

FHWA invited CMV drivers who met

the vision standard to participate in a

study comparing a group of experienced

drivers who did not meet the vision

standard with a control group of drivers

who did meet the standard.

Subsequently, on June 3, 1992, FHWA

modified some of the program’s

conditions, clarified some of its details,

and requested comments on the

proposed vision waiver study program

(57 FR 23370, June 3, 1992).

In July 1992, FHWA announced its

decision to issue waivers of the vision

requirements and published the final

criteria for the vision waiver study

program (57 FR 31458, July 16, 1992).

FHWA concluded that the program met

the statutory requirements for granting

waivers because the program was in the

public interest and included conditions

that allowed FHWA to find that such

waivers were consistent with the safe

operation of CMVs.

5

FHWA reiterated

that the vision waiver study program

would provide the empirical data

necessary to evaluate the relationships

between specific vision deficiencies and

the operation of CMVs.

Under the vision waiver study

program, FHWA issued waivers to

drivers following an individual

determination of each driver’s capability

to operate a CMV safely. The

determination included a review of each

individual’s vital statistics, experience

operating CMVs, anticipated post-

waiver operations, and status of driving

privilege as recorded on the licensing

State’s motor vehicle record for the past

3 years. The determination also

included a review of an opinion by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist attesting

to the visual acuity of each driver, that

the visual acuity had not worsened

since the last vision examination, and

that the driver was able to perform the

driving tasks required to operate a CMV.

The waiver study program required

visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen),

corrected or uncorrected, in the better

eye, as well as satisfaction of the other

applicable vision standard requirements

(i.e., field of vision of at least 70 degrees

in the horizontal meridian in the better

eye and the ability to recognize red,

green, and amber colors).

Drivers eligible for vision waivers had

to have driving records that surpassed

those of their peers who met the vision

requirements. FHWA aimed to eliminate

unsafe drivers by requiring applicants to

have 3 years of intrastate CMV driving

experience with the vision deficiency

and a record that showed:

(1) No suspensions or revocations of his or

her driver’s license for operating violations in

any motor vehicle;

(2) No involvement in a reportable accident

in a CMV in which the applicant was cited

for a moving traffic violation;

(3) No convictions for a disqualifying

offense, as described in 49 CFR 383.51 (e.g.,

driving a CMV while under the influence of

alcohol or a controlled substance, leaving the

scene of an accident involving a CMV, or the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2349

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

6

Section 383.5 was amended to remove the

definition of a ‘‘serious traffic violation’’ effective

July 8, 2011 (76 FR 26854, 26878, May 9, 2011).

Section 383.51(c) contains a list of serious traffic

violations and the periods for which an individual

is disqualified from operating a CMV.

7

Sheridan J, and DuLaney A., Qualification of

Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy.

Final Report, McLean, VA: Conwal, Inc.; May 30,

1997, p. 7, which is available at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/

NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/

PB98142649.xhtml (last accessed August 23, 2019)

and in the docket. Note that this report is cited as

Conwal, Inc. in this rulemaking.

8

FHWA stated that during the same period there

were 6 fatal accidents in which waived drivers were

involved, and one more occurred after June 30,

1994. A review of the police accident reports,

however, revealed that none of the waived drivers

was found to be at fault by the reporting police

officer (59 FR 59389).

9

Public Law 105–178, 112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9,

1998.

10

Copies of these documents are in the docket for

this rulemaking and available on FMCSA’s website

at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-

Continued

commission of a felony involving the use of

a CMV), or more than one serious traffic

violation, as that term was defined in § 383.5

at the applicable time

6

(e.g., excessive

speeding, reckless driving, improper or

erratic lane changes, following the vehicle

ahead too closely, or a violation arising in

connection with a fatality, all while driving

a CMV); and

(4) No more than two convictions for any

other moving traffic violations while driving

a CMV.

FHWA accepted 2,686 drivers into the

vision waiver study program.

7

Once

granted a waiver, a driver had to report

or submit certain information to FHWA

during the term of the waiver. Each

driver was required to:

(1) Report any citation for a moving

violation involving the operation of a CMV;

(2) Report the disposition of such citation;

(3) Report any accident involvement while

operating a CMV;

(4) Submit documentation of an annual

evaluation by an ophthalmologist or

optometrist; and

(5) Submit monthly driving reports that

included the number of miles driving a CMV

during the preceding month (with daylight

and nighttime hours reported separately) and

the number of days a CMV was not operated

during the preceding month.

FHWA periodically verified the waived

drivers’ reported accidents and citations

through State motor vehicle records and

the waived drivers’ medical reports.

On August 2, 1994, the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit found that FHWA’s

determination that the vision waiver

study program would not adversely

affect the safe operation of CMVs lacked

empirical support in the record

(Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety v. FHWA, 28 F.3d 1288, 1294

(D.C. Cir. 1994)). Accordingly, the court

found that FHWA failed to meet the

exacting statutory requirements to grant

a waiver. Consequently, the court

concluded that FHWA’s adoption of the

waiver program was contrary to law and

vacated and remanded the decision to

FHWA.

On November 17, 1994, FHWA

published notice of its final

determination to continue the vision

waiver study program through March

31, 1996, and announced a change in

the research plan (59 FR 59386). FHWA

determined that issuing waivers to the

drivers through the conclusion of the

program was consistent with the public

interest and the safe operation of CMVs.

FHWA based its decision, in part, on

data collected on the group of waived

drivers indicating that they had

performed and continued to perform

more safely than drivers in the general

population of commercial drivers. As

discussed above, drivers were required

to have a 3-year safe driving history in

intrastate commerce to participate in the

program. A statistical analysis of the

driving performance of individuals

participating in the program from July

1992 to July 1994 revealed the total

accident rate of drivers in the waived

group was 1.636 per million vehicle

miles traveled compared to the higher

national accident rate of 2.531 per

million vehicle miles traveled (59 FR

59389).

8

On March 26, 1996, FHWA issued a

rule to allow those drivers participating

in the vision waiver study program and

holding valid waivers from the vision

standard to continue to operate in

interstate commerce after March 31,

1996 (61 FR 13338). FHWA amended 49

CFR part 391 by adding a new provision

at § 391.64 to grant grandfather rights to

these drivers, subject to certain

conditions. FHWA required a physical

qualification examination for the

grandfathered drivers every year, rather

than every 2 years as required of most

other drivers, as an extra precaution to

ensure the continued safe operation of

these drivers. Under § 391.64(b), the

grandfathered drivers, like all other

interstate drivers, must be otherwise

physically qualified under § 391.41(b)

(including a field of vision of at least 70

degrees in the horizontal meridian in

the better eye and the ability to

recognize red, green, and amber colors).

In addition, the grandfathered vision

drivers must obtain an annual vision

examination by an ophthalmologist or

optometrist indicating that they have

been examined and that the distant

visual acuity in the better eye continues

to measure at least 20/40 (Snellen). This

information must be submitted to the

certifying ME at the time of the

individual’s annual physical

qualification examination. Currently,

FMCSA checks the driving records of

grandfathered drivers to determine if

they continue to operate CMVs safely.

C. Federal Vision Exemption Program—

1998 to the Present

FHWA established the current Federal

vision exemption program on December

8, 1998 (63 FR 67600) following the

enactment of amendments to the

statutes governing exemptions made by

section 4007 of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–

21).

9

With the enactment of TEA–21,

FHWA was authorized to grant an

exemption to relieve an individual from

compliance in whole or in part with

certain regulations if FHWA determined

that the exemption would likely achieve

a level of safety equivalent to, or greater

than, the level that would be achieved

by complying with the regulation to

which the exemption would apply (49

U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)).

FMCSA processes exemption letters

of application in accordance with 49

CFR part 381, subpart C. Qualifying

individuals may apply for an exemption

from specified provisions of the

FMCSRs, including physical

qualification standards specified under

§ 391.41(b) (see 49 CFR 381.300(c)(3)).

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b),

FMCSA may grant an exemption for up

to a 5-year period and may renew an

exemption at the end of the 5-year

period. However, FMCSA grants vision

exemptions for up to a 2-year period to

align with the maximum duration of a

driver’s physical qualification

certification. The Agency considers

vision exemptions on a case-by-case

basis upon application by CMV drivers

who do not meet either the distant

visual acuity or field of vision standard,

or both, of § 391.41(b)(10) in one eye.

The Agency does not grant exemptions

for color blindness.

The criteria currently considered

when reviewing an application for a

Federal vision exemption have been in

place since the program began in 1998.

The vision criteria are consistent with

criteria used in the preceding Federal

vision waiver study program that began

in July 1992.

As part of the current vision

exemption program, there is a template

that CMV drivers can use to prepare a

letter of application for a Federal vision

exemption. In addition to the template,

there are two instructional letters for

applicants residing in Florida or Indiana

that provide the unique State processes

for requesting a copy of a motor vehicle

record.

10

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2350

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

medical-requirements/driver-exemption-programs

(last accessed October 1, 2019).

The template outlines the information

and documents drivers should include

to be considered for an exemption. In

general, drivers should submit

information relating to vital statistics,

experience driving a CMV (number of

years driving, types of vehicles driven,

miles driven per year), and present

employment (contact information, types

of vehicles, items transported, driving

hours). Drivers also should submit

documentation to support the

application, such as a copy of the

driver’s license to operate a CMV; an

official copy of the driving record issued

by a State; copies of any citations, crash

reports, or court records; a signed

statement on letterhead from present or

past employers (or a notarized statement

if letterhead is not available); and a

signed statement on letterhead by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist.

Applicants are not permitted to

operate a CMV in interstate commerce

during the time in which an application

for a new exemption is pending. The

Agency encourages drivers to begin the

renewal process well in advance of an

exemption’s expiration. In addition, the

Agency provides such drivers with a

deadline by which their renewal

package must be complete. Drivers who

miss the deadline risk having their

exemptions expire, resulting in a lapse

of their permission to operate a CMV in

interstate commerce.

Under the current program, FMCSA

considers exemptions from either the

distant visual acuity or field of vision

standard, or both, in one eye only for

those individuals who:

(1) Hold a valid license (an intrastate

commercial driver’s license (CDL) or a non-

CDL license to operate a CMV);

(2) Are at least 21 years old;

(3) Have 3 years of legal CMV driving

experience, driving at least 10 hours per

week in intrastate commerce with the vision

deficiency, immediately preceding the date

of the application;

(4) Have had a driving record for the 3-year

period immediately preceding the date of

application that contains:

(a) No suspensions or revocations of a

driver’s license for the operation of any

motor vehicle (including a personal vehicle);

(b) No involvement in a crash for which

the driver contributed or received a citation

for a moving traffic violation;

(c) No convictions for a disqualifying

offense, as defined in § 383.51(b);

(d) No more than one serious traffic

violation, as defined in § 383.51(c), driving a

CMV that disqualified or should have

disqualified the driver in accordance with

the driver disqualification provisions of

§ 383.51; and

(e) No more than two convictions for any

other moving traffic violations in a CMV.

(5) Provide a signed statement that reads,

‘‘I acknowledge that I must be otherwise

qualified under 49 CFR 391.41(b)(1)–(13)

before I can legally operate a commercial

motor vehicle in interstate commerce’’;

(6) Have visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen), corrected or uncorrected, in the

better eye;

(7) Have field of vision, including central

and peripheral fields, of at least 70 degrees

in the horizontal meridian in the better eye

utilizing a testing modality that tests to at

least 120 degrees in the horizontal (Formal

perimetry is required. The doctor must

submit the formal perimetry for each eye and

interpret the results in degrees of field

vision.);

(8) Can recognize the colors of traffic

control signals and devices showing red,

green, and amber; and

(9) Have been examined in the last 3

months by an ophthalmologist or optometrist

who:

(a) Identifies the vision deficiency;

(b) Defines the nature of the vision

deficiency, including how long the driver has

had the deficiency;

(c) States the date of the examination;

(d) Certifies that the vision deficiency is

stable; and

(e) Provides an opinion that the driver has

sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks

required to operate a CMV.

FMCSA is required to publish a notice

in the Federal Register explaining that

a medical exemption request has been

submitted to the Agency for

consideration. The notice provides the

driver’s name, age, and class of license

with issuing State, as well as the

specific cause and duration of the

driver’s vision deficiency and current

distant visual acuity in at least the better

eye. The notice identifies the provisions

from which the individual seeks

exemption and the effective period, and

provides an opportunity for public

comment. After the 30-day comment

period, FMCSA must publish a notice in

the Federal Register of its decision to

approve or deny the request and all the

terms and conditions of any exemption

granted.

The Agency imposes the following

requirements on drivers who are granted

an exemption from the vision standards

in § 391.41(b)(10):

(1) The exempted driver must be examined

every year by:

(a) An ophthalmologist or optometrist who

attests that the driver’s vision continues to

meet the standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)

in the better eye (i.e., that the individual has

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen), field of vision of at least 70 degrees

in the horizontal meridian, and can recognize

red, green, and amber colors); and

(b) An ME who determines that the driver

is otherwise qualified under § 391.41 and

provides an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, that

includes a statement that the driver is

medically qualified when accompanied by a

Federal vision exemption.

(2) The driver must provide a copy of the

ophthalmologist or optometrist report to the

ME at the time of the driver’s annual physical

qualification examination.

(3) The driver must keep a copy of the

annual MEC, Form MCSA–5876, in his or her

qualification file if the driver is self-

employed or provide a copy to the driver’s

employer for retention in the driver’s

qualification file.

(4) The driver must possess a copy of the

exemption and MEC, Form MCSA–5876,

when driving, for presentation to any legally

authorized Federal, State, or local

enforcement official.

(5) The driver must obtain and display the

appropriate driver’s license from his or her

State of domicile and comply with any

restrictions placed thereon regarding use of

eyeglasses, mirrors, or other visual aids.

(6) The driver must report any changes in

personal information (i.e., address, telephone

number, employment status) to FMCSA

immediately, as well as changes in the type

of vehicle driven.

At any time during the authorized

exemption period, the Agency may

require the exempted CMV driver to

provide information regarding driving

experience and performance as it relates

to citations, crashes, license

suspensions or revocations, and medical

status (78 FR 76590, 76591, December

18, 2013).

FMCSA monitors each driver’s

performance operating a CMV on a

quarterly basis. FMCSA may revoke an

exemption immediately if (1) the driver

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 the

exemption was granted; or (3)

continuation of the exemption is

determined by FMCSA to be

inconsistent with the goals and

objectives of the FMCSRs (49 CFR

381.330(b)).

On December 18, 2013, FMCSA

proposed changes to the eligibility

requirements for the exemption

program, including changes to the

driving experience, convictions and

violations, and driver statement criteria

(78 FR 76590). After receiving

comments that both supported and

opposed the proposed changes, the

Agency elected not to revise the

exemption program criteria at that time.

As suggested by some comments, the

development of a fuller record in a

rulemaking proceeding will assist the

Agency in making an appropriate

determination about modifying the

vision standard instead of modifying the

exemption criteria.

FMCSA’s October 2017 annual report

to Congress on waivers, exemptions,

and pilot programs noted that the vision

exemption program received 1,147

applications and granted 479

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2351

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

11

FMCSA. Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot

Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year

2016, October 2017, p. 3, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/reports-congress

(last accessed July 15, 2019) and in the docket.

12

FMCSA: Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot

Programs Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year

2017, September 2018, p. 3, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/policy/reports-congress

(last accessed July 15, 2019) and in the docket.

13

Decina L, Breton M, and Staphlin L., Visual

Disorders and Commercial Drivers (Report No.

DTFH61–90–C–00093), Malvern, PA: Ketron

Division of the Bionetics Corp., Washington, DC:

FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers (FHWA–MC–92–

003), November 1991, available at https://

ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/

titleDetail/PB92143015.xhtml (last accessed August

20, 2019). Note that this report is cited as ‘‘Ketron’’

in this rulemaking.

14

Id. at Technical Report Documentation Page

(Abstract); see also p. 15.

15

Id. at iv.

16

Id. at 15.

17

Id. at 34.

18

Id. at iv; see also p. 13.

19

Sheridan J, and DuLaney A., Qualifications of

Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy,

Final Report, McLean, VA: Conwal, Inc., May 30,

1997, available at https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/

dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/

PB98142649.xhtml (last accessed August 23, 2019).

20

28 F.3d 1288, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (see section

V.B. above for additional information relating to

this lawsuit).

21

FHWA originally conceived a study that would

determine the associated level of risk of allowing

CMV drivers who did not meet the physical

qualification standards relating to vision, diabetes,

epilepsy, and hearing to operate interstate. These

conditions were chosen because the related

standards were absolute at the time, providing no

discretion to the ME. Because of the lawsuit, FHWA

did not initiate the hearing and epilepsy waiver

study programs.

22

The GES is a national survey of police accident

reports in the United States conducted by the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

23

The seven monitoring reports are included in

Appendix 12 of the May 1997 final report titled

‘‘Qualification of Drivers—Vision, Diabetes, Hearing

and Epilepsy’’ by Conwal, Inc.

exemptions in Federal fiscal year

2016.

11

The September 2018 annual

report to Congress noted that the vision

exemption program received 793

applications and granted 286

exemptions in Federal fiscal year

2017.

12

As of July 2, 2019, there were 2,566

drivers with active exemptions issued

pursuant to the Federal vision

exemption program. From January 2016

through July 2019, the most prevalent

reasons for denial of exemption requests

were insufficient intrastate driving

experience (i.e., less than 3 years of

experience) and not meeting the vision

standard in the better eye.

VI. Assessments of the Vision

Standards, Waivers, and Exemptions

FHWA and FMCSA have a long

history of examining the relationship

between the vision standards in

§ 391.41(b)(10) and the performance of

CMV drivers. Since the early 1990s,

FHWA and FMCSA have continuously

monitored the impact of the vision

waiver study and vision exemption

programs to ensure they cause no

adverse impact on safety. The basis for

this rulemaking is the safety

performance of the drivers in these

programs, which is at least as good as

that of the general population of CMV

drivers.

Consistent with statutory

requirements, the Agency consults with

the MRB and Chief Medical Examiner to

establish, review, and revise physical

qualification standards for CMV drivers.

FMCSA also engages these medical

professionals to assist with medical and

scientific reports and analyses prepared

for the Agency. The reports and

analyses undertaken since 1990 to

gather information and evaluate the

vision standards, the waiver study

program, and exemption program, as

well as MRB recommendations

pertaining to vision, are summarized

below and are available in the docket for

this rulemaking.

In November 1991, FHWA received a

report titled ‘‘Visual Disorders and

Commercial Drivers’’ prepared by the

Ketron Division of the Bionetics

Corporation.

13

The primary objective of

this project was to reassess the adequacy

of the Federal vision standards for CMV

drivers. In that regard, the report

concluded that a review of the most

recent scientific research that

investigated the vision performance of

passenger and commercial drivers

‘‘revealed no conclusive evidence to

support definitive changes to the

current standard.’’

14

The report found

the studies ‘‘were able to demonstrate

only weak relationships between

measures of vision and correlates of

driver safety.’’

15

Only a few studies

examined the relationship between the

driving performance record of CMV

drivers and their vision performance.

16

The project considered the need to

exclude drivers with substantial vision

loss only in one eye. Ketron convened

a focused workshop discussion

consisting of a panel of doctors,

ophthalmologists, optometrists,

professors in academic ophthalmology

departments, and traffic and safety

professionals in private industry. ‘‘Most

panelists agreed that the available

research results linking driver safety to

lowered acuity in one eye were

sufficient to change the current standard

to allow monocular drivers or drivers

with vision that is substantially worse

in one eye.’’

17

However, the panelists

did not reach a consensus.

The Ketron report noted the

difficulties associated with determining

minimum vision criteria. It stated that

‘‘[n]umerous studies have shown that

visual deficits are rarely the primary

cause of major accidents. Typically,

many factors are found to contribute.’’

18

It continued that individuals involved

in accidents have already been screened

for visual deficits, which reduces the

number of visually poor drivers on the

road. Accordingly, tests of primary

visual capability cannot reasonably be

expected to correlate highly with

measures of driver safety or to provide

unambiguous cutoff points for screening

out unsafe drivers.

In June 1992, FHWA stated that the

Ketron project illuminated the lack of

empirical data on the link between

vision disorders and CMV safety (57 FR

23370, June 3, 1992). FHWA proposed

the vision waiver study program to

obtain the empirical data that the Ketron

project did not provide. Accordingly,

FHWA began the vision waiver study

program in July 1992 that concluded in

March 1996.

In May 1997, Conwal, Inc. presented

FHWA with the final report titled

‘‘Qualification of Drivers—Vision,

Diabetes, Hearing and Epilepsy’’

19

that

described the findings of the vision

waiver study program. The program’s

goal was to determine the associated

risk, based on accident involvement, of

allowing CMV drivers who did not meet

the vision standard to drive under a

granted waiver in interstate commerce.

FHWA determined that the findings

showed the waiver group did not

represent a threat to public safety.

The original design of the vision

waiver study program was an

observational, nonrandomized study

with a prospective cohort structure.

However, the Advocates for Highway

and Auto Safety v. FHWA

20

lawsuit

prevented the implementation of the

study, and the study was converted to

a monitoring program to ensure that the

public was not exposed to excessive

risk.

21

Monitoring focused on comparing the

accident rates of the waivered drivers to

rates of a reference group that

represented the prevailing safety level

for drivers of large trucks (10,000

pounds or larger) in the United States.

FHWA selected the General Estimates

System (GES) as the best measure of the

prevailing national norm relative to

large truck accidents.

22

A series of seven

monitoring reports was completed

during the vision waiver study program

to report periodically on the number of

accidents occurring in the group of

drivers who were issued waivers.

23

The seventh monitoring report in the

series was completed in February 1996

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2352

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

24

FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers. The Seventh

Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial

Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision Waivers,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, February 29, 1996, p. 1.

25

Id. at 2.

26

Id. at 2–3.

27

Id. at 3, note.

28

FHWA, Office of Motor Carrier Research and

Standards, Qualifications of Drivers—Vison and

Diabetes, Tech Brief (FHWA–MCRT–99–017),

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, September 1999, available at

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14291 (last

accessed July 15, 2019).

29

Berson F, Kuperwaser M, Aiello L, and

Rosenberg J., Visual Requirements and Commercial

Drivers, Final Report, Boston, MA: Beth Israel

Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical

School, October 16, 1998, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/

visionfinalreport10-16-98.pdf (last accessed July 15,

2019).

30

Id. at 12 (original bolding deleted).

31

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Medical

Exemption Program Study: Preliminary Report of

Findings, Final Report, Chevy Chase, MD:

Cambridge Systematics, Inc., October 13, 2006,

available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16459

(last accessed July 16, 2019).

32

Id. at 7–1.

and reported driving behavior for the

drivers who were still in the program as

of November 1995. From August 1992 to

November 1995, 510 total accidents (i.e.,

not limited to accidents where fault was

assigned to the waivered driver) were

reported in this group.

24

To effectively monitor the waiver

program, FHWA established a

framework to notify FHWA if the waiver

group proved to be unsafe. The

framework involved the use of a

decision strategy that identified when

the waiver group’s accident rate was

sufficiently larger than the national

accident rate that there could be a threat

to public safety. More specifically, the

90 percent confidence interval

associated with the waiver group’s

accident rate was compared to the

national rate. The national rate was

treated as a constant because it was

given frequently as an official rate

without a confidence interval. The

decision was made to notify FHWA

when the lower 90 percent confidence

bound associated with the accident rate

of the waiver group was larger than the

national rate. That strategy was seen as

conservative in that it limited the

waiver group’s accident exposure.

25

Based on analysis of the data

collected from August 1992 to

November 1995, Table 1 provides a

comparison of the accident rate in the

waiver group to the national rate.

Relative to the 90 percent confidence

interval calculated for the waiver

group’s rate, the data show the lower

bound was not larger than the national

rate. In fact, the waiver group’s overall

accident rate was lower than the

national rate. Thus, FHWA determined

that the waiver group did not represent

a threat to public safety.

26

Table 1 also presents comparisons

between the waiver group and national

accident rates relative to accident

severity. FHWA routinely investigated

serious accidents and violations

involving members of the waiver group.

‘‘In the case of these accidents, the

drivers were not found to be at fault nor

were any of the accidents related to a

vision deficiency.’’

27

In none of the

severity categories did the lower 90

percent confidence bounds of the

relevant waiver group rates exceed the

respective national rates.

T

ABLE

1—C

OMPARISON OF

A

CCIDENT

R

ATES

E

XPERIENCED BY

C

OMMERCIAL

M

OTOR

V

EHICLE

O

PERATORS

W

ITH

V

ISION

W

AIVERS TO

N

ATIONAL

A

CCIDENT

R

ATES IN

R

ELATION TO

T

OTAL

A

CCIDENTS AND

A

CCIDENT

S

EVERITY

Waiver group

accident rate

1

(number of

accidents)

90% Confidence interval

(lower and upper) National

accident rate

2

(number of

accidents)

Total Accidents

3

........................................................................................ 1.706 (510) 1.582 1.830 2.605 (444,000)

Accident Severity

Property Damage Only .............................................................................. 1.284 (384) 1.177 1.392 2.048 (349,000)

Injury Involved ............................................................................................ .408 (122) .347 .469 .534 (95,000)

Fatality Involved ......................................................................................... .013 (4) .002 .024 .026 (4,615)

1

Rate is calculated based on 299 million vehicle miles traveled by the waiver group between July 1992 and November 1995.

2

National accident estimates are for large trucks given by the GES 1994, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Rate calculated

based on 170,415 million vehicle miles traveled in 1994.

3

Total accidents experienced by the waiver group between July 1992 and November 1995.

Source: FHWA. Office of Motor Carriers. The Seventh Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision

Waivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; February 29, 1996, Table 1.

A September 1999 FHWA Tech Brief

titled ‘‘Qualifications of Drivers —

Vision and Diabetes’’

28

summarizes the

May 1997 report discussed above. The

Tech Brief notes that the report’s risk

analysis was performed to support the

grandfathering of drivers to permanent

waiver status after the vision waiver

study program was closed; therefore, the

generalizability of the results was

limited.

In October 1998, FHWA received a

report titled ‘‘Visual Requirements and

Commercial Drivers’’ prepared by a

panel of medical experts associated with

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center

and Harvard Medical School.

29

The

report stated that the data obtained from

the vision waiver study program was

‘‘extremely compelling. The waiver

group accident rate was consistently

below the national accident rate

(cumulative comparison) and for drivers

still in the program in August 1995, the

waiver group accident rate consistently

decreased to well below the national

accident rate, exceeding the latter only

during the first 6 months of the

program.’’

30

The report continued that

the program resulted in a useful

database that clearly supported a new

ongoing waiver program, and provided

sufficient rationale for a follow-up study

that might modify the current vision

requirements for commercial drivers.

In October 2006, FMCSA received a

report titled ‘‘Medical Exemption

Program Study’’ prepared by Cambridge

Systematics, Inc.

31

This project

provided process and outcome

information regarding the vision

exemption program. The main

conclusion of this project was that the

vision exemption program did not

appear to impact safety negatively on

the nation’s highways.

32

Additionally,

the project found the overall vision

exemption program to be effective.

Drivers in the vision exemption

program had 20 percent fewer reported

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2353

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

33

Id. at 7–1.

34

Id. at 6–14.

35

Id. 7–2.

36

Id. at 4–22.

37

Id. at 4–22.

38

Id. at 4–22.

39

Id. at 4–12.

40

Tregear S, Reed M, Tiller M, and Reston J.,

Vision and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver

Safety, Volume 1: Evidence Report, McLean, VA:

Manila Consulting Group, Inc. and Plymouth

Meeting, PA: The ECRI Institute, June 6, 2008,

available at https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/16502

(last accessed July 16, 2019).

41

Id. at 2–3.

42

Id. at 3.

43

Id. at 3.

44

Berson F, Owsley C, and Peli E., Vision and

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety, Expert

Panel Recommendations, March 14, 2008, available

at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/

files/docs/MEP-Recommendations-Vision-v2-

prot.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2019). The expert

panel reviewed a draft of the ‘‘Vision and

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Safety’’ evidence

report. While the expert panel agreed with the

findings of the draft evidence report, the panel

disagreed with the reasoning for including and

excluding several studies. The research team

considered the panel’s criticism and agreed to

amend the report before it was finalized. The

revised executive summary for the 2008 evidence

report is Appendix A of the expert panel

recommendations report and is included in the

final June 2008 evidence report discussed above.

45

Id. at 4.

46

FMCSA Medical Review Board, Meeting

Summary, April 7, 2008, p. 15, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/

April_7_MRB_Meeting_Minutes_71708_Final_

Updated10108.pdf (last accessed July 16, 2019).

47

FMCSA Medical Review Board, MRB Task 15–

02 Report, September 1, 2015, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/final-mrb-task-15-02-report

(last accessed July 16, 2019).

collisions than a control set of drivers.

Participation in the exemption program

was shown to have a 94.4 percent

confidence interval of reducing the

number of reported collisions

attributable to the driver.

33

While most

of the analysis compared the exemption

program drivers to the entire set of

control drivers, one analysis compared

a subset of the control drivers who had

no reported collisions during the 3 years

ending on the ‘‘control date’’ of

December 31, 2003, to the exemption

program drivers. The analysis showed

‘‘little difference in reported collision

rate between the program and control

sets.’’

34

Thus, when controlling for

previous collision rates over a 3-year

period, the collision rates for visually

impaired ‘‘safe’’ drivers were not found

to be higher than the non-impaired

‘‘safe’’ drivers.

35

Cambridge Systematics summarized

the findings from the various studies in

the scientific literature into a set of key

points, and stated that ‘‘[a]lmost all of

the studies examined in the area of

vision deficiencies illustrate similar

challenges in the design,

implementation, and patterns of their

findings.’’

36

The challenges were

summarized as confounding factors,

outcome definitions, and impairment

definitions. Confounding effect is

observed when a factor that is not

controlled statistically or by the study

design obscures the effect of treatment.

Examples of such factors impacting the

field of vision and driving were age,

driving exposure, and compensating

behavior. With respect to compensating

behavior, Cambridge Systematics stated

that ‘‘[i]t is well recognized that visually

impaired drivers develop effective

compensatory strategies to

accommodate their impairments.

Therefore, relying on medical test scores

and ignoring actual driving performance

can easily obscure the treatment effect

under study.’’

37

Traffic safety outcomes

may be defined in terms of crashes,

violations, crash or violation rates per

miles driven, performance in on-road

tests and driving simulations, and self-

reported incidence involvement rates

and other habits. However, because ‘‘the

relationship between these outcomes is

not clearly established, making

comparisons across different studies

becomes tenuous.’’

38

Inconsistencies in

impairment definitions and measuring

can result from incorrect reports of the

presence or absence of an eye condition

and the different thresholds used to

designate subjects as impaired or

unimpaired. With respect to monocular

drivers being granted commercial

licenses, Cambridge Systematics

pointed out ‘‘[t]he term ‘monocular’ is

typically used quite broadly in the

research literature on this topic and

denotes drivers who have a total

absence of function in one eye and

additionally those who have visual

function in one eye below the minimum

level for commercial licensing.’’

39

In June 2008, FMCSA received the

final evidence report titled ‘‘Vision and

Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver

Safety’’ prepared by the Manila

Consulting Group, Inc. and the ECRI

Institute.

40

The evidence report

addressed several key questions

developed by FMCSA pertaining to

vision and CMV driver safety by

summarizing the best evidence that was

available in the literature. The key

question relevant to this proposal was

an inquiry to determine whether

monocular vision is associated with an

increased crash risk. Due to

methodological limitations and

inconsistency among the findings of

different studies, the authors concluded

that the evidence was insufficient to

determine whether individuals with

monocular vision were at increased risk

of a crash.

41

The authors identified three studies

that provided crash data for drivers with

monocular vision in general driver

populations. ‘‘Because of a number of

methodological flaws, [the authors’]

confidence in the findings of all three of

the studies [was] low. While two studies

found no evidence to support the

contention that individuals with

monocular vision are at an increased

risk for a motor vehicle crash, the third

study did find an association between

monocular vision and increased crash

risk. Given the low quality of the

included studies and the fact that the

findings of these studies were

inconsistent, [the authors did] not draw

an evidence-based conclusion.’’

42

The

authors stated, however, that ‘‘the

possibility that individuals with

monocular vision have an increased

crash risk cannot be ruled out.’’

43

In March 2008, a medical expert panel

made recommendations, titled ‘‘Vision

and Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver

Safety,’’ associated with the evidence

report for the MRB to consider.

44

With

respect to monocular vision, the panel

agreed that the current evidence was

insufficient to justify a change in the

vision standard. The panel noted that

the evidence report did not rule out the

possibility of increased crash risk for

monocular drivers. Nonetheless, the

panel stated ‘‘that the Exemption

Program should be continued and a

protocol established to obtain the data

necessary for a future

recommendation.’’

45

During an April 2008 meeting, the

MRB made recommendations to the

Agency pertaining to driver vision

requirements based on presentations

and discussions of the 2008 draft

evidence report, the related medical

expert panel recommendations, and

public comment. With respect to

monocular vision, the MRB

recommended that ‘‘[t]he current

standard which precludes individuals

with monocular vision from driving a

CMV for the purposes of interstate

commerce should not be changed at this

time.’’

46

In September 2015, the MRB provided

recommendations to the Agency in

response to MRB Task 15–2, which

requested that the MRB recommend

criteria and identify factors the Agency

should consider in deciding about a

future rulemaking regarding vision

criteria. The MRB provided the

following recommendations:

47

I. If FMCSA considers removing the

current Visual Exemption program, the MRB

recommends the following changes to the

vision standard regulations:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2354

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

48

FMCSA, Safety Performance of Drivers with

Medical Exemptions: How safe are drivers in a

medical exemption program compared to those who

are not?, Analysis Brief (FMCSA RRA–16–019b),

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, November 2016, available at

https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31521 (last

accessed July 16, 2019).

49

Id. at 5, Table 5.

50

See id. at 5–6, Tables 6–8.

51

Id. at 5.

A. Provide a form/questionnaire to the eye

specialist (ophthalmologist or optometrist)

that includes all information required by the

current Visual Exemption program. Form

should be given to the Certified Medical

Examiner (CME).

B. Length of certification with vision

exemption: MRB recommends 1 year but

FMCSA should seek comment from eye

specialist (ophthalmologist or optometrist)

associations on recommended frequency of

examination.

II. FMCSA should seek comment from the

eye specialist (ophthalmologist or

optometrist) associations regarding:

A. Whether there is additional information

that would be useful to collect.

B. What is the minimum amount of time

they would feel comfortable allowing

someone to drive who has sudden change

from binocular vision? (Current Visual

Exemption Program requires a safe driving

record with such an eye condition for 3

years.)

C. Co-condition/disease process.

D. Recommendations on field of vision

criteria (e.g., not supposed to be 70° as stated

in the current vision standard).

The proposed alternative vision

standard incorporates the MRB’s 2015

recommendations.

In November 2016, FMCSA published

an Analysis Brief

48

that reviewed the

safety performance of drivers in the

vision exemption program. The study’s

purpose was to compare the crash rates

of CMV drivers enrolled in the vision

exemption program with drivers not

enrolled in the program. The Agency

assessed drivers in terms of their crash

rates and inspection violation rates.

FMCSA assessed the safety performance

of drivers in the program for 5 years

from 2011 through 2015.

Table 2 compares the crash rate for

drivers in the vision exemption program

to the national crash rate. The data show

that the crash rate for drivers in the

vision exemption program is lower than

the national crash rate.

49

T

ABLE

2—C

RASH

R

ATES FOR

V

ISION

E

XEMPTION

P

ROGRAM

D

RIVERS

C

OMPARED TO

N

ATIONAL

C

RASH

R

ATES

, C

RASHES

PER

D

RIVER PER

Y

EAR

, 2011–2015

Number of

exemption drivers

Number of

exemption driver

crashes

Vision

exemption crash rate

(crashes per driver

per year)

National

average annual

number of drivers

National

average annual

number of crashes

National crash rate

(crashes per driver

per year)

1,117 144 0.02578 4,599,623 143,289 0.03115

The Agency also compared drivers

enrolled in the exemption program to a

control group that was established using

the Driver Information Resource, which

captures drivers’ driving histories.

Drivers were chosen at random and

added to the control group in proportion

to the age and carrier size of the

corresponding exemption program

group until the control group contained

three times as many drivers as the

respective exemption program group. To

determine whether any differences in

crash rates were statistically significant,

FMCSA conducted statistical testing at

the 95 percent confidence level. Table 3

shows the results.

50

T

ABLE

3—C

OMPARISON OF

V

ISION

E

XEMPTION

P

ROGRAM

G

ROUP AND

C

ONTROL

G

ROUP

C

RASH AND

V

IOLATION

R

ATES

Crash or violation rates

Number of

exemption

program group

drivers

Exemption

program group

crash or

violation rate

Control group

crash or

violation rate

Statistically significant

difference

Crash Rates ................................................................................... 680 0.03853 0.02819 Yes.

Violation Rates ............................................................................... 680 1.9721 2.4911 Yes.

Out-of-Service Violation Rates ....................................................... 680 0.22353 0.29870 Yes.

The crash rate for the vision

exemption program group was

statistically different from its control

group, being slightly higher at 0.03853

crashes per driver per year than the

control group rate of 0.02819. ‘‘This

equates to about one more crash per

year for every 100 drivers in the vision

exemption program than for similar

drivers not in the vision exemption

program.’’

51

The driver violation rate

and driver out-of-service violation rate

were lower than the control group, with

the difference being statistically

significant. FMCSA concluded in 2016

that further studies should be done

using larger sample sizes to confirm or

challenge the results from this study.

There are several limitations

regarding the Analysis Brief’s findings.

For example, the crash information did

not consider whether the CMV driver

was at fault in any given crash. It is not

possible to know whether visual

function caused or contributed to the

crash. It also is not possible to

determine whether including only those

drivers who were in the vision

exemption program for the full 5-year

period impacted the results, if at all.

The control group was selected based on

age of the driver and the size of the

employing motor carrier, rather than

individual visual function criteria.

The Agency finds that the increased

crash rate for the vision exemption

program group as compared to its

control group demonstrated in the

Analysis Brief is not cause for concern.

The findings of the Analysis Brief

represent a limited period and are

subject to the additional limitations

discussed previously. FMCSA monitors

the performance of individual drivers in

the vision exemption program

continuously. FMCSA does not have

evidence to suggest drivers in the

exemption program are less safe than

the general population of CMV drivers.

Every year the Agency reports to

Congress regarding the vision

exemptions granted and any impact on

safety. The Agency has consistently

informed Congress that FMCSA has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2355

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

52

FMCSA, Waivers, Exemptions, and Pilot

Programs Annual Reports to Congress Fiscal Years

1999–2013, February 2016, p. 25; Fiscal Year 2014,

April 2017, p. 9; Fiscal Year 2015, May 2017, p. 15;

Fiscal Year 2016, October 2017, p. 11; and Fiscal

Year 2017, September 2018, p. 10. These reports are

available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/mission/

policy/reports-congress (last accessed July 15,

2019).

53

FMCSA Medical Review Board, Meeting

Minutes, July 15–16, 2019, p. 3, available at https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2020-

08/MRB-meeting-minutes-july-2019-508c.pdf (last

accessed September 2, 2020).

54

Ball K, Heaton K, McGwin G, Owsley C, and

Stavrinos D., Examining the FMCSA Vision

Standard for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers

(Report No. FMCSA–RRR–19–011).), Washington,

DC: FMCSA, 2019, available at https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42735 (last accessed

December 09, 2019).

55

The study uses the term ‘‘field of view,’’ which

is synonymous with the FMCSR term ‘‘field of

vision.’’ To avoid confusion, the term is replaced

in this discussion of the study with ‘‘field of

vision.’’

56

FMCSA notes that the study found no evidence

that CMV drivers with monocular vision were at

increased risk of collision. The Agency is not

relying on that finding to support this rulemaking

due to limitations set forth in the study relating to

the study’s design and dataset.

57

Id. at 5.

58

McKnight AJ, Shinar D, and Hilburn B., ‘‘The

visual and driving performance of monocular and

binocular heavy-duty truck drivers,’’ Accident

Analysis & Prevention 23(4), pp. 225–237 (1991).

This study was performed under contract to FHWA.

59

Dionne G, Desjardins D, Laberge-Nadeau C, and

Maag U., ‘‘Medical conditions, risk exposure, and

truck drivers’ accidents: an analysis with count data

regression models,’’ Accident Analysis & Prevention

27(3), pp. 295–305 (1995).

60

Laberge-Nadeau C, Dionne G, Maag U,

Desjardins D, Vanasse C, and E

´koe

´J–M., ‘‘Medical

conditions and the severity of commercial motor

vehicle drivers’ road accidents,’’ Accident Analysis

& Prevention 28(1), pp. 43–51 (1996).

61

Maag U, Vanasse C, Dionne G, and Laberge-

Nadeau C., ‘‘Taxi drivers’ accidents: how binocular

vision problems are related to their rate and severity

in terms of the number of victims,’’ Accident

Analysis & Prevention 29(2), pp. 217–224 (1997).

62

FHWA, Office of Motor Carriers, The Seventh

Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial

Motor Vehicles Who Receive Vision Waivers,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Transportation, February 29, 1996.

63

Ball K, Heaton K, McGwin G, Owsley C, and

Stavrinos D., Examining the FMCSA Vision

Standard for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers

(Report No. FMCSA–RRR–19–011), Washington,

DC: FMCSA 2019, p. 5, available at https://

rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42735 (last accessed

December 09, 2019).

observed no adverse impacts on CMV

safety due to the vision exemption

program.

52

During its June 2018 meeting, the

MRB discussed the MRB Task 15–2

report and was presented draft findings

of a study performed by the University

of Alabama at Birmingham examining

the FMCSA vision standard for CMV

drivers. The MRB made no changes to

its previous recommendations in MRB

Task 15–2.

During its July 2019 meeting, FMCSA

updated the MRB on the University of

Alabama study. The MRB discussed the

draft findings of the study and the

vision exemption program. The MRB

did not change its MRB Task 15–2

recommendations. The MRB continued

the status quo by recommending that

FMCSA maintain the current vision

standard and continue the vision

exemption program. In addition, the

MRB recommended that FMCSA

investigate shortening the 3-year

intrastate driving experience criterion.

The MRB also voted to review the vision

exemption program at a future meeting

when more information is available.

53

In November 2019, FMCSA published

the University of Alabama at

Birmingham report titled ‘‘Examining

the FMCSA Vision Standard for

Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers’’

(Ball et al., 2019).

54

One of the study’s

overall objectives was to determine the

safety efficacy of FMCSA’s current

vision standards. The research team

procured a dataset from a third-party

provider that included all vision-related

data obtained during an FMCSA

physical qualification examination on

nearly 190,000 CMV drivers. The

research team merged the data with

crash records obtained from the Motor

Carrier Management Information System

(MCMIS). From the examination dataset,

the results of vision function testing,

including visual acuity, horizontal field

of vision,

55

color recognition, and

monocular vision, were compared for

drivers who met the vision standard

versus drivers who did not meet the

vision standard. Evidence from the

literature review, consultation with

experts, and analysis of CMV driver

vision and crash data supported the

measurement of visual acuity and

horizontal field of vision using the

current cut-points.

56

As relevant to this proposal, Ball, et

al. (2019) found that the literature

regarding how monocularity impacts

driving performance is mixed.

57

Some

studies suggest that monocularity is not

related to CMV performance decrements

in specific skills such as visual search,

lane placement, clearance judgment, gap

judgment, hazard detection, and

information recognition.

58

The literature

also is mixed with respect to how

monocularity impacts motor vehicle

collision rates, with several studies

finding elevated collision rates or more

severe collisions for monocular

drivers,

59 60 61

and another study

showing that commercial monocular

drivers did not have a higher collision

rate than drivers with normal vision in

both eyes. In that study (discussed

above), FHWA evaluated commercial

vehicle drivers who received waivers of

the CMV driver vision requirements.

62

Results indicated that the waiver

group’s crash rates were not higher than

the national reference group, nor were

their crashes more severe. Ball, et al.

(2019) noted, however, that ‘‘one

limitation of this analysis is that it is

unknown whether the reference group

was similar to the waiver group on other

factors (e.g., age, other visual function

measures) that may be related to crash

risk.’’

63

The report continues that findings

across studies in the literature are

inconsistent with respect to the safety of

monocular drivers, which is not

surprising given that the definition of

monocularity across the studies is not

consistent. The definition of

‘‘monocular’’ is variable and can range

from the total absence of vision in one

eye, to vision in one eye that involves

a lack of binocular visual function, such

as depth perception, or is below some

standard.

FMCSA Conclusions

The foregoing reports and analyses do

not call into question the existence of

the vision exemption program. As early

as 1991, most of the panelists convened

by Ketron agreed there was sufficient

evidence relating to lowered acuity to

change the vision standard to allow

monocular drivers or drivers with vision

substantially worse in one eye. The

1997 Conwal report showed the vision

waiver study program group’s overall

accident rate was lower than the

national rate and FHWA determined the

waiver group did not represent an

increased risk to public safety. In 1998,

a panel of medical experts stated the

data from the vision waiver study

program was ‘‘extremely compelling’’

and clearly supported a new waiver

program.

In 2006, Cambridge Systematics’

review of the vision exemption program

concluded the program did not appear

to impact safety negatively. The 2008

evidence report found the three studies

that provided crash data for drivers with

monocular vision in general driver

populations were insufficient to

determine whether individuals with

monocular vision were at increased risk

of a crash. Because the report did not

provide any conclusions, neither the

medical expert panel nor the MRB

recommended changing the vision

standard. The 2008 medical expert

panel recommended that the exemption

program continue. The MRB has never

recommended that the exemption

program end and has continued its 2015

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2356

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

recommendations for FMCSA to

consider if it changes the vision

standard.

The reports and analyses discussed

above do not establish strong

relationships between specific measures

of vision and correlates of driver safety.

They do, however, point out the

numerous difficulties associated with

obtaining empirical data to determine

minimum vision criteria and the

methodological flaws associated with

many studies evaluating vision criteria

and crash risk. Most of the available

data come from drivers in general and

not CMV drivers specifically. Usually,

crash information does not indicate

whether the driver was at fault in any

given crash. In addition, it is rarely

possible to determine whether visual

function was the cause of a crash.

Data on the relationship between

monocular vision and crash

involvement is sparse, conflicting with

respect to crash risk, and not definitive.

Moreover, the Agency must exercise

caution when interpreting the data

because of the different definitions of

‘‘monocular vision’’ in the literature.

After full consideration of the

foregoing reports and analyses, FMCSA

finds the experience with the vision

waiver study and exemption programs

is most relevant in establishing an

alternative vision standard. These

programs have allowed FMCSA to

evaluate the vision criteria used in the

programs since 1992 in the context of

actual CMV driving experience.

Considering the long period over which

the programs have operated, FMCSA

has sufficient information to reach

generalized conclusions.

FHWA and FMCSA monitored the

safety performance of drivers in the

vision waiver study and the current

exemption programs continuously.

Based on the experience with the vision

waiver study and exemption programs,

FMCSA has determined that the safety

performance of individuals in these

programs is at least as good as that of

the general population of CMV drivers.

Indeed, the Agency has continued to

grant vision exemptions because

experience has shown that individuals

with vision loss in one eye are not

limited by their lack of binocularity

with respect to driving once they have

adapted to and compensated for the

change in vision.

The Agency’s ability to draw on its

experience from the vision waiver study

and exemption programs to develop

modifications of the existing standard is

consistent with one of the purposes of

the authority provided by the enactment

of TEA–21 that established a new

process for granting regulatory

exemptions in 49 U.S.C. 31315. TEA–21

gave the Agency ‘‘broader discretion to

grant waivers and exemptions from

motor carrier and driver safety

regulations which are necessary to

develop performance based regulations

and evaluate the effectiveness of

existing regulations.’’ H. Report 105–550

at 489 (1998).

Accordingly, the Agency proposes to

adopt most of the existing vision

exemption program criteria and modify

other of the criteria as a vision standard

to be applied in lieu of the vision

exemption program. Therefore, the

alternative vision standard would

require individuals, to be physically

qualified, to have in the better eye

distant visual acuity of at least 20/40

(Snellen) (with or without corrective

lenses) and field of vision of at least 70

degrees in the horizontal meridian; the

ability to recognize the colors of traffic

signals and devices showing standard

red, green, and amber; stability of the

vision deficiency; and sufficient time to

adapt to and compensate for the change

in vision. Instead of requiring 3 years of

intrastate driving experience with the

vision deficiency, with limited

exceptions, individuals physically

qualified under the proposed alternative

vision standard for the first time would

complete a road test before operating in

interstate commerce. FMCSA expects

that individuals who satisfy these

criteria would not create an increased

risk of injury to themselves or others

due to their vision.

VII. Rationale for Proposed

Qualification Standard

The Agency proposes to adopt most of

the existing vision exemption program

criteria and to modify other program

criteria as an alternative vision

standard. The proposed standard takes a

performance-based approach. The

standard emphasizes that the individual

has developed the skills to adapt to and

compensate for the vision loss once it

has been deemed stable by a medical

professional, and that the individual has

demonstrated the skills to operate a

CMV safely. The ME would ensure the

individual is physically qualified to

operate a CMV in accordance with the

physical qualification standards. Motor

carriers would maintain the

responsibility for reviewing the

individual’s safety performance and,

with limited exceptions, would conduct

a road test for individuals.

A. Individuals Adapt to and

Compensate for Vision Loss

As stated above, it is well recognized

that individuals with vision loss in one

eye can and do develop compensatory

viewing behavior to mitigate the vision

loss. Therefore, if an individual meets

the proposed vision standard, the

Agency expects there will be no adverse

impact on safety due to the individual’s

vision. That is, once an individual’s

vision is stable and the individual has

adapted to and compensated for the

change in vision, the loss in vision is

not likely to play a significant role in

whether the individual can drive a CMV

safely.

Instead of requiring 3 years of

intrastate driving experience with the

vision deficiency as in the current

exemption program, FMCSA proposes

that individuals physically qualified

under the proposed alternative vision

standard for the first time satisfactorily

complete a road test before operating in

interstate commerce. Individuals would

be excepted from the road test

requirement if they have 3 years of

intrastate or excepted interstate CMV

driving experience with the vision

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision

exemption, or are medically certified

under § 391.64(b). These individuals

have already demonstrated they can

operate a CMV safely with the vision

deficiency.

The requirement for 3 years of

intrastate driving experience with the

vision deficiency has been equated to

sufficient time for the driver to adapt to

and compensate for the change in

vision. FHWA stated the 3-year safe

driving history with the vision

deficiency requirement was based on

studies ‘‘indicating that past experience

can be used to predict future

performance, especially when combined

with other predictive factors such as

geographic location, mileage driven, and

conviction history’’ (59 FR 50887,

50888, October 6, 1994). FHWA

continued that it relied on opinions

from the medical community that

individuals with a vision deficiency are

often able to compensate for their

impairment over time. ‘‘Because of the

discrepancy as to how much time is

necessary to allow an individual to

compensate for an impairment (which

generally ranged from several months to

a full year), [FHWA’s] choice of three

years provided added assurance that

drivers would have had sufficient time

to develop compensatory behavior. It

was also the longest period for which

driver histories were uniformly

available from State motor vehicle

departments’’ (59 FR 50888–89).

Although it was considered

appropriate for FHWA to proceed

conservatively and to ensure adequate

time for individuals to adapt to and

compensate for vision changes when

beginning the waiver study program, it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2357

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

64

Coday MP, Warner MA, Jahrlin KV, and Rubin

PA, ‘‘Acquired Monocular Vision: Functional

Consequences from the Patient’s Perspective,’’

Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,

18(1), pp. 56–63 (2002), available at https://

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11910326 (last

accessed March 24, 2020).

65

On December 18, 2013, FMCSA proposed

changes to the eligibility requirements for the

exemption program. As relevant here, FMCSA

proposed to reduce the length of driving experience

to 1 year of intrastate driving experience with the

stable visual deficiency or to remove the driving

experience criterion altogether (78 FR 76590,

76592). The American Optometric Association

supported removing the requirement for a specific

amount of driving experience, in part, because an

examination by an ophthalmologist or optometrist

within the prior 3 months from the date of

application would help to assess whether the driver

had experienced recent vision deterioration. This

comment is available in docket number FMCSA–

2013–0097 at https://www.regulations.gov/

document?D=FMCSA-2013-0097-0004 (last

accessed March 13, 2020).

appears that the primary factor in

selecting the 3 years of intrastate driving

experience criterion was that it

coincided with the typical period of

motor vehicle driving histories. Three

years of experience driving with the

vision deficiency exceeded by several

months to a full year, according to

opinions of the medical community, the

period necessary to compensate for the

vision loss. Eliminating the driving

experience criterion would not allow

potentially hazardous drivers to

participate in interstate commerce

because medical professionals would

ensure drivers have had the time to

adapt to and compensate for the vision

change. The driving experience criterion

has the limitation that many drivers are

not able to obtain intrastate driving

experience because not all States issue

vision waivers. For these reasons,

FMCSA is not proposing to continue the

exemption program’s requirement for 3

years of intrastate driving experience

with the vision deficiency in the

alternative vision standard.

Nonetheless, it is reasonable to ensure

an individual possesses the skills

needed to operate a CMV safely with the

vision deficiency.

As an alternative to the 3 years of

intrastate driving experience criterion,

FMCSA proposes, with limited

exceptions, that individuals physically

qualified under the alternative vision

standard for the first time satisfactorily

complete a road test before operating in

interstate commerce. The road test

would be conducted in accordance with

the road test already required by

§ 391.31. When FHWA adopted the road

test in § 391.31, it stated that the

interests of CMV safety would be

promoted by ensuring drivers have

demonstrated their skill by completing

the road test (35 FR 6458, 6450 (April

22, 1970)). FMCSA finds that a road test

would be an appropriate indicator of an

individual’s ability to operate a CMV

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus,

the Agency expects there will be no

adverse impact on safety from

eliminating the intrastate driving

experience criterion.

The proposed alternative vision

standard also would not continue the 3-

year safe driving history criterion.

Selecting only drivers with a history of

safe driving to participate in the vision

waiver study program allowed FHWA to

focus on the impact of vision on driving.

After nearly 30 years with the vision

waiver study and exemption programs,

experience has shown that individuals

with vision loss in one eye are not

limited by their lack of binocularity

with respect to driving once they have

adapted to and compensated for the

change in vision. Accordingly, the 3-

year safe driving history criterion has

served its purpose and is no longer

necessary.

FMCSA declines to propose specific

periods for which an individual’s vision

deficiency must be stable and for what

constitutes sufficient time to adapt to

and compensate for the change in

vision. The causes of vision loss are

many and varied. Vision loss may be

present at birth, the result of trauma,

due to medical treatment intervention,

or the result of a progressive eye

condition or disease. The cause of the

vision loss is a primary factor in how

long it takes for an individual to adapt

to and compensate for the change in

vision. In general, those who experience

sudden loss of vision in one eye require

more time to adapt to and compensate

for the change than those who lose their

vision gradually. For example, Coday, et

al. (2002) found the time for patients to

adapt to sudden vision loss was 8.8

months and to adapt to gradual vision

loss was 3.6 months.

64

Therefore, the Agency proposes that

medical decisions regarding whether an

individual’s vision deficiency is stable

and whether the individual has adapted

to and compensated for the change in

vision be made by medical

professionals. These medical decisions

should be based on an individualized

assessment by a medical professional

rather than a regulation.

65

B. MEs Would Make the Qualification

Determination

The proposed alternative vision

standard would place the case-by-case

physical qualification determination

with the ME who examines the

individual, which is consistent with

FMCSA’s rule to adopt an alternative

physical qualification standard for

individuals with insulin-treated

diabetes mellitus (see 83 FR 47486,

September 19, 2018). Thus, licensed

healthcare professionals listed on the

Agency’s National Registry of Certified

Medical Examiners (National Registry)

would consider the information in the

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–

5871, and determine whether an

individual meets the proposed vision

standard. This approach of MEs making

the physical qualification

determination, instead of FMCSA, is

consistent with Congress’s directive in

49 U.S.C. 31149(d) to have trained and

certified MEs assess the individual’s

health status. In addition, the proposed

process would create a clear and

consistent framework to assist MEs with

making a physical qualification

determination that is equally as effective

as a program based entirely on granting

exemptions under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b).

C. Review of an Individual’s Safety

Performance Would Continue

FMCSA is not proposing to change

the current regulations that require

motor carriers to review an individual’s

safety performance. FMCSA has

regulatory requirements in place to

ensure that motor carriers review the

safety performance of all their drivers.

For example, motor carriers are required

to review both the motor vehicle records

and the safety performance history,

which must include accident

information, from previous employers

for the prior 3 years when hiring a

driver (49 CFR 391.23(a) and (d)). Also,

motor carriers are required to review the

motor vehicle records for all drivers

annually (49 CFR 391.25). In addition,

the road test would demonstrate

whether individuals are able to operate

a CMV safely with the vision deficiency.

As previously stated, the 3-year safe

driving history criterion has served its

purpose and is no longer necessary.

Accordingly, the safety performance of

individuals who can satisfy the

proposed alternative vision standard

should be evaluated in the same manner

as other drivers.

VIII. Discussion of Proposed Rule

FMCSA elects to respond to the

MRB’s request to investigate shortening

the 3-year intrastate driving experience

criterion and to provide more

information about the vision exemption

program by publishing this NPRM and

proposing a rule that includes the

MRB’s 2015 recommendations. This

approach provides the MRB with

background on the exemption program,

summaries of prior reports and analyses,

a specific proposal and its rationale to

consider, and public comment on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2358

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

66

FMCSA notes that proceeding with an NPRM

is also responsive to stakeholder comment. For

example, in the rulemaking to change the physical

qualification standard relating to insulin-treated

diabetes mellitus, the American Trucking

Associations, Inc. (‘‘ATA’’) commented that it was

pleased that FMCSA was using the rulemaking

process to adjust that standard. Additionally, ATA

‘‘implore[d] FMCSA to also conduct rulemaking on

its other ‘absolute’ medical standards for which it

is currently issuing exemptions en masse including

the vision and hearing standards.’’ ATA continued

that ‘‘[e]xemptions from these medical standards

only create confusion in the industry as to what

constitutes a medically safe driver and what does

not. It also creates an unnecessary, but easily

solvable, predicament for motor carriers.’’ This

comment is available in docket number FMCSA–

2005–23151 at https://www.regulations.gov/

document?D=FMCSA-2005-23151-0960 (last access

March 13, 2020).

proposal.

66

As noted above, the Agency

will follow a rulemaking process like

the one used when FMCSA adopted the

alternative physical qualification

standard for insulin-treated diabetes

mellitus. After the public comment

period closes, FMCSA will ask the MRB

to review all comments to the NPRM

from medical professionals and

associations. If after that review the

MRB makes material changes to its prior

recommendations in MRB Task 15–2,

FMCSA will publish a Federal Register

notice announcing the availability of the

new MRB recommendations and request

public comment specific to those

recommendations.

FMCSA proposes to establish an

alternative physical qualification

standard for individuals who cannot

satisfy either the distant visual acuity or

field of vision standard, or both, in

§ 391.41(b)(10) in one eye. If adopted,

the alternative vision standard would

replace the current vision exemption

program as a basis for determining the

physical qualification of these

individuals to operate a CMV. It also

would eliminate the need for the

grandfather provisions under

§ 391.64(b). The proposed alternative

vision standard would enhance

employment opportunities and reduce

the paperwork burden for drivers, while

remaining consistent with FMCSA’s

safety mission.

Specifically, the Agency proposes to

adopt most of the existing vision

exemption program criteria and modify

other of the criteria as a vision standard

to be applied in lieu of the vision

exemption program. The alternative

vision standard would require

individuals, to be physically qualified,

to have in the better eye distant visual

acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) (with

or without corrective lenses) and field of

vision of at least 70 degrees in the

horizontal meridian; the ability to

recognize the colors of traffic signals

and devices showing standard red,

green, and amber; stability of the vision

deficiency; and sufficient time to adapt

to and compensate for the change in

vision. With limited exceptions, FMCSA

also would require individuals

physically qualified under the proposed

alternative vision standard for the first

time to complete a road test

administered by the motor carrier

satisfactorily before operating in

interstate commerce.

A. Proposed Physical Qualification

Process

FMCSA proposes a two-step process

for physical qualification. The process

would be analogous to what the Agency

adopted in § 391.46 for individuals with

insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (see 83

FR 47486, September 19, 2018). First, an

individual seeking physical

qualification would obtain a vision

evaluation from an ophthalmologist or

optometrist who would record the

findings and provide specific medical

opinions on the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

which incorporates the

recommendations of the MRB. Next, at

a physical qualification examination, an

ME would consider the information

provided on the vision report and

exercise independent medical judgment

to determine whether the individual

meets the proposed vision standard, as

well as FMCSA’s other physical

qualification standards. If the ME

determines that the individual meets the

physical qualification standards to

operate a CMV safely, the ME could

issue an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, for a

maximum of 12 months.

FMCSA is not proposing changes to

the current vision standard found in

§ 391.41(b)(10). The current standard

would be redesignated as paragraph

(b)(10)(i). An alternative vision standard

would be added in paragraph (b)(10)(ii)

to allow an individual who cannot

satisfy either the distant visual acuity or

field of vision standard, or both, in one

eye to be physically qualified if the

individual satisfies the requirements of

proposed § 391.44.

Proposed § 391.44 would set forth the

provisions of the alternative vision

standard. It would provide that an

individual who cannot satisfy either the

current distant visual acuity or field of

vision standard, or both, in one eye is

physically qualified to operate a CMV in

interstate commerce if the individual (1)

meets FMCSA’s other physical

qualification standards in § 391.41 (or

has an exemption or skill performance

evaluation certificate, if required), and

(2) has the vision evaluation and

medical examination required by

§ 391.44.

Individuals would be evaluated by a

licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist

no more than 45 days before each

annual or more frequent examination by

an ME. Even individuals who have a

non-functional eye or have lost an eye

would be required to undergo vision

evaluations at least annually. Because of

the potential for vision changes in the

remaining eye, it is important to

monitor that eye’s compliance with the

vision standard.

During the vision evaluation, the

ophthalmologist or optometrist would

complete the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871.

The report’s instructions to the

ophthalmologist or optometrist state

that completion of the report does not

imply that the ophthalmologist or

optometrist is making a decision to

qualify the individual to drive a CMV.

The instructions state further that any

determination as to whether the

individual is physically qualified to

drive a CMV will be made by an ME.

The Agency is aware that the

definition of ‘‘monocular vision’’ varies;

therefore, the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

includes FMCSA’s definition of the

term. The report defines monocular

vision as (1) in the better eye, distant

visual acuity of at least 20/40 (with or

without corrective lenses) and field of

vision of at least 70 degrees in the

horizontal meridian, and (2) in the

worse eye, either a distant visual acuity

of less than 20/40 (with or without

corrective lenses) or field of vision of

less than 70 degrees in the horizontal

meridian, or both. FMCSA’s monocular

vision definition has been applied

consistently for nearly 30 years.

The proposed Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871, includes

instructions to the individual regarding

the timeframe for providing the report to

the ME. The individual would be

required to begin the physical

qualification examination no later than

45 calendar days after the

ophthalmologist or optometrist signs

and dates the report, after which time

the Vision Evaluation Report is no

longer valid. This timeframe would

ensure the ME is receiving the results of

a recent vision evaluation.

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form

MCSA–5871, collects the individual’s

name, date of birth, driver’s license

number, and State of issuance. In

addition, the report collects the

following information:

(1) Whether the individual completing the

report is an ophthalmologist or an

optometrist;

(2) The date of the vision evaluation;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2359

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

(3) The distant visual acuity in each eye

(corrected and uncorrected), and, if

corrected, the type of correction;

(4) The field of vision, including central

and peripheral fields in each eye, utilizing a

testing modality that tests to at least 120

degrees in the horizontal. A formal perimetry

test interpreted in degrees is required and

must be attached to the report;

(5) Whether the individual can recognize

red, green, and amber colors;

(6) The date of the last comprehensive eye

examination;

(7) Whether the individual has monocular

vision as defined by FMCSA;

(8) The cause of the monocular vision;

(9) When the monocular vision began;

(10) The current treatment for the

monocular vision;

(11) A medical opinion regarding whether

the vision deficiency is stable;

(12) A medical opinion regarding whether

sufficient time has passed to allow the

individual to adapt to and compensate for the

change in vision; and

(13) Information regarding progressive eye

conditions and diseases, including the date

of diagnosis, severity, current treatment,

whether the condition is stable, and a

medical opinion regarding whether a vision

evaluation is required more often than

annually, and if so, how often.

The report requires the individual

completing the report to attest that the

individual is an ophthalmologist or

optometrist and that the information

provided is true and correct to the best

of the individual’s knowledge. The

report includes the date, printed name

and medical credential of the

ophthalmologist or optometrist,

signature, professional license number

and issuing State, phone number, and

email and street addresses. The report

would be available on FMCSA’s

website.

The draft Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871, is available in the

docket for this rulemaking. The Agency

seeks public comment on the substance

and form of the report, as well as the

four questions posed in section XI.G.

below, relating to the information

collection titled ‘‘Medical Qualification

Requirements,’’ regarding FMCSA’s

request for OMB approval of the report

and related information collection

under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Under the proposed regulation, the

individual examined, ophthalmologist,

or optometrist could provide the signed

report to an ME. An ME would have to

receive a completed report for each

examination of an individual needing

evaluation under § 391.44. A report

would be considered complete when a

response is provided to all data fields

and the ophthalmologist or optometrist

signs, dates, and provides his or her full

name, office address, and telephone

number on the report. The report would

be treated as part of the Medical

Examination Report Form, MCSA–5875,

and would be retained by the ME for at

least 3 years from the date of the

examination as required by 49 CFR

391.43(i).

Under the alternative vision standard,

an individual would be medically

examined and certified by an ME at

least annually as physically qualified to

operate a CMV. The ME would

determine whether the individual meets

the physical qualification standards in

§ 391.41. In making that determination,

the ME would consider the information

in the Vision Evaluation Report, Form

MCSA–5871, and utilize independent

medical judgment to apply the

following four standards proposed in

§ 391.44:

(1) The individual would not be physically

qualified to operate a CMV if in the better eye

the distant visual acuity is not at least 20/40

(Snellen), with or without corrective lenses,

and the field of vision is not at least 70

degrees in the horizontal meridian.

(2) The individual would not be physically

qualified to operate a CMV if the individual

is not able to recognize the colors of traffic

signals and devices showing standard red,

green, and amber.

(3) The individual would not be physically

qualified to operate a CMV if the individual’s

vision deficiency is not stable.

(4) The individual would not be physically

qualified to operate a CMV if there has not

been sufficient time to allow the individual

to adapt to and compensate for the change in

vision.

The ME would consider the data and

medical opinions provided by the

ophthalmologist or optometrist to assist

in making a qualification determination.

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form

MCSA–5871, should include sufficient

information for the ME to determine

whether the opinions expressed by the

ophthalmologist or optometrist appear

informed and appropriate.

Consistent with current practice for

any medical condition, if the ME

determines that additional information

is necessary to make the qualification

determination, the ME could confer

with the ophthalmologist or optometrist

for additional information concerning

the individual’s related vision medical

history and status, make requests for

other appropriate referrals, or request

medical records from the individual’s

treating provider, all with appropriate

consent. Because the ME is

knowledgeable about the physical

requirements to operate a CMV and the

physical qualification regulations, the

ME would continue to determine

whether an individual meets FMCSA’s

physical qualification standards.

In addition to adding the alternative

vision standard in § 391.44, the

proposed rule would add a paragraph in

§ 391.45 that would require individuals

physically qualified under proposed

§ 391.44 to be medically examined and

certified at least annually. As with any

individual, an ME would have

discretion to certify an individual for

less than the maximum year if medical

conditions warrant.

B. Road Test in Accordance With 49

CFR 391.31

With limited exceptions, FMCSA

proposes that individuals physically

qualified under the alternative vision

standard for the first time must

successfully complete a road test before

operating a CMV in interstate

commerce. The road test would

demonstrate individuals are able to

operate a CMV safely with the vision

deficiency. Once an individual is

physically qualified under § 391.44 for

the first time and receives an MEC,

Form MCSA–5876, the individual

would consult § 391.44(d) to determine

whether a road test may be required.

The ME issuing the MEC, Form MCSA–

5876, would have no role with respect

to the road test.

Paragraph (d)(1) would provide the

general rule that, subject to limited

exceptions, an individual physically

qualified under § 391.44 for the first

time could not drive a CMV until the

individual has successfully completed a

subsequent road test and has been

issued a certificate of driver’s road test

in accordance with § 391.31. Such an

individual would be required to inform

the motor carrier responsible for

completing the road test under

§ 391.31(b) when the individual is

required by § 391.44(d) to have a road

test. Motor carriers would conduct the

road test and issue a certificate of

driver’s road test in accordance with

§ 391.31(b) thorough (g). Motor carriers

are currently required to conduct a road

test under § 391.31 when they hire a

new driver, subject primarily to

exceptions in § 391.33. Therefore, many

motor carriers and drivers are already

familiar with the road test and related

documentation requirements.

Section 391.31(b) provides the road

test must be given by the motor carrier

employing the individual or a person

designated by the motor carrier. If the

individual is also a motor carrier (e.g.,

an owner-operator), the road test must

be given by a person other than the

individual. The road test must be given

by a person competent to evaluate and

determine whether the individual taking

the test demonstrated that the

individual is capable of operating the

CMV, and associated equipment, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2360

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

motor carrier intends to assign to the

individual for operation.

The road test also must be of

sufficient duration to enable the person

giving it to evaluate the skill of the

individual taking it at handling the

CMV, and associated equipment, the

motor carrier intends to assign to the

individual (49 CFR 391.31(c)). At a

minimum, the road test must include:

(1) The pre-trip inspection required by

§ 392.7;

(2) Coupling and uncoupling of

combination units (if the equipment the

individual may drive includes combination

units);

(3) Placing the CMV in operation;

(4) Use of the CMV’s controls and

emergency equipment;

(5) Operating the CMV in traffic and while

passing other motor vehicles;

(6) Turning the CMV;

(7) Braking and slowing the CMV by means

other than braking; and

(8) Backing and parking the CMV.

The motor carrier provides a road test

form on which the person giving the

road test rates the individual taking it at

each operation that is a part of the test.

The person giving the test signs the form

once it is complete (49 CFR 391.31(d)).

If the road test is successfully

completed, the person giving it

completes a certificate of driver’s road

test in substantially the form prescribed

in § 391.31(f) (49 CFR 391.31(e)). A copy

of the certificate of driver’s road test is

given to the individual tested (49 CFR

391.31(g)). The motor carrier retains in

the individual’s driver qualification file

the original of the signed road test form

and the original, or a copy, of the

certificate of driver’s road test (49 CFR

391.31(g)(1) and (2)).

The Agency seeks public comment on

the information collection associated

with the § 391.31 road test, particularly

as required by proposed § 391.44 and

the exception to the road test for

intrastate and excepted interstate

drivers discussed below. The

information collection titled ‘‘391.31

Road Test Requirement’’ is described in

section XI.G. below regarding FMCSA’s

request for OMB approval of the

information collection under the

Paperwork Reduction Act. Also, the

draft supporting statement for the

information collection is available in the

docket for this rulemaking.

Paragraph (d)(2) would provide that

the alternatives to a § 391.31 road test in

§ 391.33 do not apply to individuals

required to have a road test by

§ 391.44(d). Accordingly, a motor carrier

could not accept certain CDLs or a copy

of a certificate of driver’s road test

issued within the preceding 3 years as

an alternative to the required road test.

However, after an individual required to

have a road test by § 391.44(d)

successfully completes a road test and is

issued a certificate of driver’s road test

in accordance with § 391.31 once, the

provisions of § 391.33 would apply to

the individual as they would normally

operate. FMCSA notes that motor

carriers always have the option to

require any individual to take a road test

as a condition of employment (see 49

CFR 391.33(c)).

Paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of

§ 391.44(d) would provide exceptions to

the general requirement for a road test.

These individuals would be excepted

because they have already demonstrated

they can operate a CMV safely with the

vision deficiency. Accordingly, a road

test would not be necessary.

Paragraph (3) would except an

individual from the road test

requirement if the motor carrier

determines the individual possessed a

valid CDL or non-CDL to operate, and

did operate, a CMV in either intrastate

commerce or in interstate commerce

excepted by § 390.3T(f) or §391.2 from

the requirements of 49 CFR part 391,

subpart E, with the vision deficiency for

the 3-year period immediately

preceding the date of physical

qualification under § 391.44 for the first

time. To qualify for the exception, the

individual would certify in writing to

the motor carrier the date the vision

deficiency began. The motor carrier

would review employment information

to determine whether the individual

operated a CMV for the required 3 years

with the vision deficiency. Many motor

carriers would use employment

information obtained when

investigating the individual’s safety

performance history from previous

employers for the prior 3 years when

hiring a driver, as required by

§ 391.23(a)(2) and (d).

If the motor carrier determines the

individual operated a CMV in intrastate

or excepted interstate commerce with

the vision deficiency for the required 3

years, the motor carrier would prepare

a written statement to that effect with

the finding that the individual is not

required by § 391.44(d) to complete a

road test. A copy of the written

statement would be provided to the

individual. The motor carrier would

retain the original of the written

statement and the original, or a copy, of

the individual’s certification regarding

the date the vision deficiency began in

the driver qualification file. Section

391.51, which provides what documents

must be included in a driver

qualification file, would be amended to

include the written statement and

certification.

Paragraphs (4) and (5) of § 391.44(d),

respectively, would except individuals

holding a valid Federal vision

exemption or medically certified under

§ 391.64(b) on the effective date of any

final rule from the requirement to have

a road test. Such individuals would not

be required to inform the motor carrier

that they are excepted from the

requirement in § 391.44(d)(1) to have a

road test.

The development of this proposed

rule provided FMCSA with the

opportunity to review § 391.31 in the

context of current privacy

considerations. Section 391.31(e)

provides that, if the road test is

successfully completed, the motor

carrier must complete a certificate of

driver’s road test ‘‘substantially’’ in the

form prescribed in paragraph (f).

Paragraph (f) provides a Certification of

Road Test that lists, in part, the driver’s

social security number, the driver’s

license number, and the State of

issuance of the driver’s license. Because

the road test is completed when hiring

a driver, the motor carrier already

would have collected this information

on other employment documents. The

motor carrier also would have verified

the identity of the driver and that the

driver has a driver’s license.

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to

remove this information from the list in

paragraph (f) because it is unnecessary

and duplicative.

C. Elimination of Vision Exemption

Program and Grandfather Provisions

The proposed rule would eliminate

the need for the current vision

exemption program and the grandfather

provisions of § 391.64(b). As discussed

above in the background section of this

NPRM, drivers who participated in the

Agency’s vision waiver study program

and were holding valid waivers from the

vision standard on March 31, 1996

could continue to operate in interstate

commerce under the grandfather

provisions of § 391.64(b). If the

proposed rule is adopted, the Agency

believes the grandfathering provisions

would be redundant. Therefore, FMCSA

proposes that the approximately 1,900

individuals physically qualified under

§ 391.64(b) would have 1 year after the

effective date of any final rule to comply

with the rule. During that transition

year, grandfathered individuals could

elect to seek physical qualification

through the final rule or § 391.64. This

transition year would provide time to

learn the new process for individuals

whose MEC, Form MCSA–5876, expires

near the time any final rule becomes

effective. However, 1 year after the

effective date of the final rule all MECs,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2361

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

67

As discussed below in the Paperwork

Reduction Act section XI.G. regarding the Medical

Qualification Requirements information collection,

FMCSA attributes 2,236 annual burden hours at a

cost of $69,136 for drivers to obtain and maintain

a vision exemption. The proposed rule would

eliminate this entire burden.

68

The fact that some States have vision waiver

programs for intrastate CMV drivers provides

additional evidence that individuals who cannot

meet either FMCSA’s distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye are driving

safely in intrastate commerce. When FMCSA

proposed changes to the eligibility requirements for

the exemption program in December 2013, an

individual commented that he did not understand

why FMCSA requires driving experience when his

State issues a waiver without driving experience.

The comment is available in docket number

FMCSA–2013–0097 at https://www.regulations.gov/

document?D=FMCSA-2013-0097-0003.

Form MCSA–5876, issued under

§ 391.64(b) would become void.

FMCSA anticipates that individuals

physically qualified under § 391.64(b)

would not be adversely affected by the

proposed action. Grandfathered drivers

are already required to obtain annual

vision evaluations performed by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist before

their physical qualification

examinations and the proposed rule

includes similar qualification criteria.

However, FMCSA seeks public

comment regarding whether the

proposed alternative vision standard

would adversely affect any driver who

is operating currently under § 391.64(b).

Similarly, the 2,566 vision exemption

holders would have 1 year after the

effective date of any final rule to comply

with the rule, at which time all

exemptions issued under 49 U.S.C.

31315(b) would become void. Drivers

who hold a vision exemption would be

notified by letter with details of the

transition to the new standard.

D. Change to the Medical Examination

Process in 49 CFR 391.43(b)(1)

The Agency proposes to amend

§ 391.43(b)(1) by adding an

ophthalmologist as a category of eye

care professional who may perform the

part of the physical qualification

examination that involves visual acuity,

field of vision, and the ability to

recognize colors. Currently, the

provision is limited to licensed

optometrists. When § 391.43(a) was

adopted in 1970, it provided that the

medical examination must be performed

by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy,

which allowed an ophthalmologist to

perform any part of the examination (35

FR 6458, 6463, April 22, 1970). An

exception was provided in paragraph (b)

to allow optometrists to perform the part

of the medical examination that

involves visual acuity, field of vision,

and the ability to recognize colors.

Section 391.43 has been amended

several times since 1970 and now

provides that the medical examination

must be performed by an ME listed on

the National Registry. The Agency did

not amend § 391.43 at the time of the

prior amendments to continue to allow

ophthalmologists to perform the vision

portion of the medical examination.

Accordingly, the proposed rule would

correct that oversight.

E. Benefits of the Proposal to Drivers

The physical qualification process

proposed in § 391.44 would eliminate

the need for individuals to obtain and

renew an exemption. Drivers would no

longer be required to create and

assemble the substantial amount of

information and documentation

necessary to apply for or renew an

exemption, or to respond to subsequent

requests for information.

67

Publishing

personal and medical information in the

Federal Register and seeking public

comment about drivers would be

discontinued. Also, individuals would

no longer be required to carry a copy of

the vision exemption when on duty as

required by § 391.41(a)(1)(ii) and (2)(iii)

or provide a copy to their employers.

Eliminating the prohibition on

certifying individuals who cannot meet

either the current visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye

(without an exemption) would enable

more qualified individuals to operate as

interstate CMV drivers without

compromising safety. The criterion that

an individual should have 3 years of

experience driving a CMV with the

vision deficiency precludes many

individuals from being eligible to obtain

a Federal exemption. The only way for

an individual to get the CMV driving

experience is to obtain intrastate driving

experience. To do that, the individual

must obtain a State vision waiver to

operate in intrastate commerce, but not

all States issue vision waivers.

68

The

road test alternative addresses this

limitation and is much less burdensome

than obtaining 3 years of intrastate

driving experience. Thus, the proposed

rule would provide an opportunity to

operate as an interstate CMV driver

regardless of the driver’s State of

domicile. Individuals who live in a

State that issues vision waivers also

would be able to begin a career as an

interstate CMV driver more quickly and

may have more employment

opportunities.

Previously qualified interstate CMV

drivers who are no longer able to meet

either the distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye

would be able to return to operating

interstate sooner. Currently, such

individuals would have to obtain 3

years of intrastate CMV driving

experience, assuming they lived in a

State that offers vision waivers, once

their vision is stable and they have had

time to adapt to and accommodated for

the change in their vision before they

would be eligible to obtain a Federal

exemption and return to interstate

driving.

IX. Section-by-Section Analysis

This section includes a summary of

the proposed changes to 49 CFR part

391. The regulatory changes proposed

will be discussed first in numerical

order, followed by a discussion of

proposed changes to Agency guidance.

A. Regulatory Provisions

Section 391.31 Road Test

In § 391.31, paragraph (f) would be

amended by removing the entries for the

driver’s social security number, the

driver’s license number, and the State of

issuance of the driver’s license from the

Certification of Road Test. A new

paragraph (h) would be added that

provides OMB reviewed the information

collection requirements in § 391.31 and

assigned an OMB control number.

Section 391.41 Physical Qualifications

for Drivers

In § 391.41(b)(10), the current vision

standard would be renumbered as

paragraph (b)(10)(i) without any textual

changes. An alternative standard would

be added in paragraph (b)(10)(ii) that

would allow an individual who cannot

satisfy either the current distant visual

acuity or field of vision standard, or

both, in one eye to be physically

qualified under proposed § 391.44.

Section 391.43 Medical Examination;

Certificate of Physical Examination

In § 391.43(b)(1), an ophthalmologist

would be added as a category of eye care

professional who may perform the part

of the physical qualification

examination that involves visual acuity,

field of vision, and the ability to

recognize colors. Textual changes also

would be made to improve readability.

Section 391.44 Physical Qualification

Standards for an Individual Who Cannot

Satisfy Either the Distant Visual Acuity

or Field of Vision Standard, or Both, in

One Eye

A new § 391.44 would be added.

Paragraph (a) would apply so an

individual who cannot satisfy either the

current distant visual acuity or field of

vision standard, or both, in one eye can

be physically qualified to operate a

CMV in interstate commerce. Such an

individual would be physically

qualified if the individual meets the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2362

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

69

See https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-

medical-requirements/what-are-physical-

qualification-requirements-operating-cmv (last

accessed August 20, 2020).

other physical qualification standards in

§ 391.41(b) (or has an exemption or skill

performance evaluation certificate, if

required), and has the vision evaluation

and medical examination required by

paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively.

Paragraph (b) would require the

individual to have a vision evaluation

completed by a licensed

ophthalmologist or optometrist before

each physical qualification examination.

The ophthalmologist or optometrist

would complete the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

during the individual’s evaluation,

including signing and dating the report

and providing business contact

information.

Paragraph (c) would set forth the

requirements for the ME’s examination,

including that the examination must

begin no later than 45 days after the

ophthalmologist or optometrist signs

and dates the Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871. The ME would have

to receive a completed report for each

examination of an individual needing

evaluation under § 391.44. The report

would be treated and retained as part of

the Medical Examination Report Form,

MCSA–5875. The ME would make a

physical qualification determination by

considering the information in the

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–

5871, and using independent medical

judgment in applying four standards.

The standards would provide that the

individual must (1) have in the better

eye distant visual acuity of at least 20/

40 (Snellen), with or without corrective

lenses, and field of vision of at least 70

degrees in the horizontal meridian; (2)

be able to recognize the colors of traffic

signals and devices showing standard

red, green, and amber; (3) have a stable

vision deficiency; and (4) have had

sufficient time to adapt to and

compensate for changes in vision.

Paragraph (d) would provide an

individual physically qualified under

§ 391.44(d) for the first time could not

drive a CMV until the individual has

successfully completed a road test

subsequent to physical qualification and

has been issued a certificate of driver’s

road test in accordance with § 391.31. A

motor carrier could not accept in place

of a road test required by § 391.44(d) the

alternatives provided in § 391.33.

Individuals would be excepted from the

road test requirement if they had a valid

license and operated in intrastate or

excepted interstate commerce with the

vision deficiency for the 3-year period

immediately preceding the date of

physical qualification under § 391.44 for

the first time, or held a valid Federal

vision exemption or were medically

certified under § 391.64(b) on the

effective date of any final rule.

Section 391.45 Persons Who Must Be

Medically Examined and Certified

Section 391.45 would be amended by

renumbering existing paragraphs (f) and

(g) as paragraphs (g) and (h),

respectively. A new paragraph (f) would

be added to require any driver certified

under proposed § 391.44 to be

recertified at least every 12 months.

Conforming changes would be made in

paragraph (b) to reflect the addition of

a new paragraph to this section.

Section 391.51 General Requirements

for Driver Qualification Files

Conforming changes would be made

to § 391.51. Paragraph (b)(3) would be

amended to include in the driver

qualification file the original of the

written statement from the motor carrier

required by § 391.44(d)(3)(ii)(A), as well

as the original, or a copy, of the

certification from the driver required by

§ 391.44(d)(3)(i).

Section 391.64 Grandfathering for

Certain Drivers Who Participated in the

Vision Waiver Study Program

FMCSA would revise the title of

§ 391.64 to reflect that the regulation is

now applicable only to drivers who

participated in the vision waiver study

program. Language would be inserted at

the beginning of existing paragraph (b)

to provide that any final rule resulting

from this NPRM would not apply to

individuals certified pursuant to

§ 391.64(b) until 1 year after the

effective date of the rule. During that

year, individuals certified under the

grandfather provisions could choose to

be certified under § 391.64(b) or the

final rule. A new paragraph (b)(4) would

be added to remove and void all of

paragraph (b) 1 year after the effective

date of the final rule; thus, eliminating

certification under § 391.64(b).

Paragraph (b)(4) would provide that any

MEC, Form MCSA–5876, issued under

the provisions of § 391.64(b) would

become void 1 year after the effective

date of the final rule. In addition,

instructions would be provided to

remove and reserve § 391.64 1 year after

the effective date of the final rule. Cross

references to § 391.64 in existing

regulations would be eliminated in

future rulemakings.

B. Guidance Statements and

Interpretations

This rulemaking proposes to amend a

regulation that has associated guidance

statements or interpretations. Such

guidance statements do not have the

force and effect of law and are not

meant to bind the public in any way.

They are intended only to provide

clarity to the public regarding existing

requirements under the law or FMCSA

policies. Guidance statements will not

be relied on by FMCSA as a separate

basis for affirmative enforcement action

or other administrative penalty.

Conformity with guidance statements is

voluntary, and nonconformity will not

affect rights and obligations under

existing statutes or regulations. Rather,

guidance is strictly advisory and

intended to provide information that

helps to support the application of the

standards in the regulations or to serve

as a reference. A guidance statement

does not alter the meaning of a

regulation.

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical

Advisory Criteria

Appendix A to Part 391 is published

at the end of part 391 in the CFR. The

appendix contains guidelines in the

form of Medical Advisory Criteria to

help MEs assess a driver’s physical

qualification to operate a CMV under

the standards set forth in § 391.41(b).

FMCSA proposes to remove section II.

J., Vision: § 391.41(b)(10), of Appendix

A to Part 391 in its entirety.

Interpretations for § 391.41

Interpretations for specific regulations

are available through the Guidance

Portal on FMCSA’s website. FMCSA

proposes to revise the guidance to

Question 3 of the interpretations for

§ 391.41.

69

FMCSA would conform the

language to the number of medical

conditions that would not be subject to

an ME’s judgment (i.e., two), and

remove ‘‘vision’’ from the list of

conditions for which an ME has no

discretion. The interpretative guidance

for Question 3 would thus read as

follows:

Question 3: What are the physical

qualification requirements for operating

a CMV in interstate commerce?

Guidance: The physical qualification

regulations for drivers in interstate

commerce are found at § 391.41.

Instructions to medical examiners

performing physical examinations of

these drivers are found at § 391.43.

The qualification standards cover 13

areas, which directly relate to the

driving function. All but two of the

standards require a judgment by the

medical examiner. A person’s

qualification to drive is determined by

a medical examiner who is

knowledgeable about the driver’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2363

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

70

A copy of the application template is available

in the docket and at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/

sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/medical/

driver-medical-requirements/10451/vision-

exemption-package-0918.pdf (last accessed July 16,

2019).

71

Applicants should have 3 years of intrastate

driving experience in a CMV; no suspensions or

revocations of the applicant’s license for operating

violations in any motor vehicle; no involvement in

a crash in which the applicant contributed or was

cited for a moving traffic violation; no convictions

for a disqualifying offense, as described in 49 CFR

383.51(b) (e.g., driving while under the influence of

alcohol or a controlled substance, leaving the scene

of an accident, or the commission of a felony

involving the use of a vehicle); more than one

serious traffic violation, as described in §383.51(c)

(e.g., excessive speeding, reckless driving, improper

or erratic lane changes, following the vehicle ahead

too closely, or a violation arising in connection with

a fatality) while driving a CMV; and no more than

two convictions for any other moving traffic

violations while driving a CMV.

72

FMCSA data as of July 2, 2019.

73

FMCSA 2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and

Bus Statistics, available at https://www.fmcsa.

dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-

and-statistics/413361/fmcsa-pocket-guide-2018-

final-508-compliant-1.pdf (last accessed July 16,

2019).

74

Compared to all (interstate and intrastate) CMV

drivers, 6.1 million, or CDL drivers, 4.2 million, the

percentage is even lower.

75

The provisions of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) do not

apply to drivers who were in good standing on

March 31, 1996, in a vision waiver study program;

provided, they meet certain conditions (49 CFR

391.64(b)). This figure may not represent active

drivers.

functions and whether a particular

condition would interfere with the

driver’s ability to operate a CMV safely.

In the case of hearing and epilepsy, the

current standards are absolute,

providing no discretion to the medical

examiner. However, drivers who do not

meet the current requirements may

apply for an exemption as provided by

49 CFR part 381.

X. International Impacts

The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to

the FMCSRs, apply only within the

United States (and, in some cases,

United States territories). Motor carriers

and drivers are subject to the laws and

regulations of the countries in which

they operate, unless an international

agreement states otherwise. Drivers and

carriers should be aware of the

regulatory differences among nations.

Pursuant to the terms of the 1998

medical reciprocity agreement with

Canada, the United States would notify

Canada if an alternative vision standard

is adopted and propose the countries

review their applicable vision standards

to determine whether they remain

equivalent.

XI. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and

DOT Regulations

FMCSA performed an analysis of the

impacts of the proposed rule and

determined it is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,

1993), Regulatory Planning and Review,

as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR

3821, January 21, 2011), Improving

Regulation and Regulatory Review.

Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it

under that Order. It is also not

significant within the meaning of DOT

regulations (49 CFR 5.13(a)). The

Agency has determined that the

proposed rule would result in cost

savings.

A preliminary Regulatory Impact

Assessment follows:

Baseline for the Analysis

The current physical qualification

standard to drive a CMV requires 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 degrees in the

horizontal meridian of 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)). This standard has been

in effect since 1971.

Drivers who do not meet either the

distant visual acuity or field of vision

standard, or both, in one eye may apply

to FMCSA for an exemption from the

standard to operate CMVs in interstate

commerce (49 CFR part 381, subpart C).

To do so, the driver must submit a letter

of application and supporting

documents to enable FMCSA to evaluate

the safety impact of the exemption.

70

Among the documentation is a signed

statement by an ophthalmologist or

optometrist showing evaluation of the

driver within the last 3 months and

which:

•Identifies and defines the nature of

the vision deficiency, including how

long the individual has had the

deficiency;

•States the date of examination;

•Certifies that the vision deficiency

is stable;

•Identifies the visual acuity of each

eye, corrected and uncorrected;

•Identifies the field of vision of each

eye, including central and peripheral

fields, utilizing a testing modality that

tests to at least 120 degrees in the

horizontal;

•Identifies whether the individual

can recognize the colors of traffic

control signals and devices showing red,

green, and amber; and

•Certifies that in his or her medical

opinion, the individual has sufficient

vision to perform the driving tasks

required to operate a commercial

vehicle.

FMCSA must publish notice of the

request for an exemption and provide

the public opportunity to comment. The

notice granting the exemption must

identify the individual who will receive

the exemption, the provisions from

which the individual will be exempt,

the effective period, and all terms and

conditions of the exemption. The

Agency’s terms and conditions must

ensure that the exemption will likely

achieve a level of safety that is

equivalent to or greater than the level

that would be achieved by complying

with the regulations.

Currently, FMCSA grants exemptions

to applicants who meet specific criteria,

including stable vision and experience

safely operating a CMV with the vision

deficiency.

71

If granted, the driver must

meet certain conditions to maintain the

exemption. The driver must receive an

annual vision evaluation by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist and an

annual physical qualification

examination by an ME. In addition, the

Agency must monitor the

implementation of each exemption and

immediately revoke an exemption if the

driver fails to comply with the terms

and conditions; the exemption has

resulted in a lower level of safety than

was maintained before the exemption;

or continuation of the exemption would

not be consistent with the goals and

objectives of the FMCSRs (49 CFR

381.330).

FMCSA monitors vision-exempted

drivers on a quarterly basis. If any

potentially disqualifying information is

identified, FMCSA will request a copy

of the violation or crash report from the

driver. Should the violation be

disqualifying, FMCSA will revoke the

exemption immediately.

Currently, 2,566 drivers hold a vision

exemption.

72

Compared to all interstate

CMV drivers operating in the United

States in 2017 (3.7 million, including

3.2 million who hold CDLs),

73

these

drivers represent less than 0.1 percent of

the population.

74

There are approximately 1,900 active

grandfathered drivers.

75

FMCSA checks

the driving records of grandfathered

drivers to determine if they continue to

operate CMVs safely.

Since the inception of the vision

exemption program, the predominant

reason for denial of an exemption is less

than 3 years of experience operating

with the vision deficiency.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2364

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

Impact of the Proposed Rule: Physical

Qualification and Road Test

Physical Qualification

Should this proposal become a final

rule, an individual who cannot meet

either the distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye

could be physically qualified without

applying for or receiving an exemption.

The individual would still have to

receive a vision evaluation by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist. The

ophthalmologist or optometrist would

complete the Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871, which in part:

•States the date of the vision

evaluation;

•Identifies the distant visual acuity

in both eyes, uncorrected and corrected;

•Identifies the field of vision,

including central and peripheral fields,

utilizing a testing modality that tests to

at least 120 degrees in the horizontal;

•Identifies whether the individual

can recognize the standard red, green,

and amber traffic control signal colors;

•Identifies whether the individual

has monocular vision as it is defined by

FMCSA and if so, the cause and when

it began;

•Identifies current treatment;

•Provides a medical opinion

regarding whether the vision deficiency

is stable;

•Provides a medical opinion

regarding whether sufficient time has

passed to allow the individual to adapt

to and compensate for monocular

vision;

•Identifies whether the individual

has any progressive eye condition or

disease and if so, the date of diagnosis,

severity (mild, moderate, or severe),

current treatment, and whether the

condition is stable; and

•Provides a medical opinion

regarding whether a vision evaluation is

required more often than annually and

if so, how often.

The individual examined,

ophthalmologist, or optometrist would

provide the signed report to an ME who

would determine whether the

individual is physically qualified to

operate a CMV. Upon receipt of a

completed and signed MEC, Form

MCSA–5876, the individual would not

incur any further delay in qualification.

Under the vision exemption program,

the Agency determines whether to

provide the exemption that enables the

driver to obtain physical qualification.

Under the proposed rule, the ME would

make the physical qualification

determination. The Agency lacks data to

determine how the proposed change

might affect qualification

determinations. However, the outcomes

of the ME qualification determinations

may differ from those that would be

made under the exemption program.

For those who obtain an MEC, Form

MCSA–5876, the proposed action may

represent a streamlined process

compared to the requirements of the

vision exemption program in that the

driver would not need to compile and

submit the letter of application and

supporting documentation to FMCSA,

or respond to any subsequent requests

for information. However, it is possible

that the ME could issue a certificate that

is valid for a shorter time to monitor the

condition. In such circumstances, under

the vision exemption program, the

applicant would likely not receive an

exemption. For those who do not obtain

an MEC, Form MCSA–5876, the result

may or may not have been the same

under the vision exemption program.

If the proposed rule becomes a final

rule, it would result in the

discontinuation of the Federal vision

exemption program. Instead, the

physical qualification determination of

these individuals would be made by the

ME, who is trained and qualified to

make such determinations, considering

the information received in the vision

report from the ophthalmologist or

optometrist.

Road Test

Instead of requiring 3 years of

intrastate driving experience with the

vision deficiency as in the current

exemption program, FMCSA proposes

that individuals physically qualified

under the proposed alternative vision

standard for the first time must

complete a road test before operating in

interstate commerce. As described in

Section VII. Rationale for Proposed

Qualification Standard, individuals

would be excepted from the road test

requirement if they have 3 years of

intrastate or excepted interstate CMV

driving experience with the vision

deficiency, hold a valid Federal vision

exemption, or are medically certified

under § 391.64(b). These individuals

have already demonstrated they can

operate a CMV safely with the vision

deficiency. The road test would be

conducted by motor carriers in

accordance with the road test already

required by § 391.31.

FMCSA finds that a road test would

be an appropriate indicator of an

individual’s ability to operate a CMV

safely with the vision deficiency. Thus,

the Agency expects there will be no

adverse impact on safety from

eliminating the intrastate driving

experience criterion. When FHWA

adopted the road test in § 391.31, it

stated that the interests of CMV safety

would be promoted by ensuring drivers

have demonstrated their skill by

completing the road test (35 FR 6458,

6450 (April 22, 1970)).

The intrastate driving experience

criterion has the limitation that some

States do not have waiver programs

through which drivers can obtain the

driving experience necessary to comply

with the criteria of the Federal vision

exemption program. The removal of the

3-year experience criterion under the

proposed rule could more readily allow

these individuals to operate in interstate

commerce. However, the current

number of exemption holders,

grandfathered drivers, and applicants

denied exemptions represents less than

1 percent of all interstate CMV drivers.

The Agency anticipates the proposed

action would be safety neutral. FMCSA

notes that, although it would no longer

directly monitor the safety performance

of drivers, motor carriers would

continue to monitor individuals’ safety

performance when hiring drivers and

during the annual inquiry and review of

the driving record required by §§ 391.23

and 391.25, respectively.

Costs

FMCSA estimates that the proposed

rule would result in incremental cost

savings of approximately $1.6 million

annually from the elimination of the

Federal vision exemption program and

contract expenditures (Table 4). As

described in detail below, FMCSA also

accounts for the annual cost of a road

test at approximately $47,000.

T

ABLE

4—C

OST

S

AVINGS

: F

EDERAL

V

ISION

E

XEMPTION

P

ROGRAM

C

ONTRACT AND

R

OAD

T

EST

Fiscal year Contract cost Road test Total

2020–2021 ................................................................................................................................... ($1,531,633) $47,137 ($1,484,496)

2021–2022 ................................................................................................................................... (1,577,268) 47,137 (1,530,131)

2022–2023 ................................................................................................................................... (1,624,586) 47,137 (1,577,449)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2365

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

76

FMCSA recognizes that using 1,085 as the

driver population is a high estimation and

overstates the burden associated with the proposed

requirement in §391.44 for a road test. Some of the

individuals would already be required to obtain a

road test under §391.31, in the absence of the

requirement in §391.44(d). However, FMCSA lacks

internal data to estimate how many individuals

would already be required to obtain a §391.31 road

test. Therefore, FMCSA opted for a conservative

approach of assuming all 1,085 individuals would

require a road test.

77

In 2017 there were 1,151 applicants, in 2018

there were 1,073, and in 2019 there were 1,030

((1,151 + 1,073 + 1,030)/3 = 1,085).

78

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020).

‘‘Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2019,

13–1041 Compliance Officers,’’ available at https://

www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes131041.htm (last

accessed August 16, 2020).

79

($51.13 × 0.55) + ($27.88 × 0.55) = $43.46.

T

ABLE

4—C

OST

S

AVINGS

: F

EDERAL

V

ISION

E

XEMPTION

P

ROGRAM

C

ONTRACT AND

R

OAD

T

EST

—Continued

Fiscal year Contract cost Road test Total

2023–2024 ................................................................................................................................... (1,673,324) 47,137 (1,626,187)

Note: For years 2022–2023 and 2023–2024, FMCSA estimated an average contract cost increase of 3 percent and extrapolated based on the

percent increase of previous years.

The 2,566 current vision exemption

holders would no longer have to apply

for an exemption, and potential

applicants who do not have 3 years of

intrastate driving experience may meet

the alternative vision standard and be

able to operate a CMV in interstate

commerce. As described in Section VIII.

Discussion of Proposed Rule, this may

lead to a reduction in burden, as drivers

would no longer be required to create

and assemble the substantial amount of

information and documentation

necessary to apply for or renew an

exemption, or to respond to subsequent

requests for information. However, the

affected population is small (less than 1

percent of CMV drivers), and the

relative advantages for these individuals

are unlikely to affect market conditions

in the truck and bus industries.

FMCSA estimates that the road test

would result in a total annual cost

impact of $47,000 (Table 5). There

would be approximately 1,085 drivers

76

requiring a road test under § 391.44 each

year. This number is the average of new

applications for the vision exemption

program FMCSA received over years

2017 through 2019.

77

As described

above, motor carriers would be

responsible for administering the test to

the drivers, which is estimated to take

0.55 hours (33 minutes). For the hourly

wage rates, FMCSA used $28 for the

drivers (Table 6) and $51 for the motor

carrier’s compliance officer.

78

T

ABLE

5—R

OAD

T

EST

C

OST

C

ALCULATIONS

[2019$]

Drivers/Motor Carriers .......... 1,085

Test Hours ............................ 0.55

Driver Wage .......................... $27.88

Subtotal ......................... $16,634

Compliance Officer Wage .... $51.13

Subtotal ......................... $30,502

Sum ........................ $47,137

T

ABLE

6—W

AGE

R

ATES FOR

CMV T

RUCK

D

RIVERS

Occupational title BLS SOC

code

North American Industry

Classification System

(NAICS) occupational

designation

Total

employees

Median

hourly base

wage

Fringe

benefits

rate

(%)

Median hourly

base wage +

fringe benefits

Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers 53–3032 All Industry ...................... 1,856,130 $21.76 45 $31.55

Light Truck or Delivery Service Driver ... 53–3033 All Industry ...................... 923,050 16.70 45 24.22

Weighted Driver Wage ........................... .................... ......................................... .................... .................... .................... 27.88

Source: BLS. May 2019 OES Database, National, All Industries, available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/ (last accessed September 10, 2020).

Although the Agency acknowledges

there may be motor carriers employing

multiple drivers, FMCSA lacks data to

estimate the exact number of motor

carriers. Therefore, to ensure the

inclusion of all affected motor carriers,

FMCSA opted for a conservative

approach of assuming a 1:1 ratio of

drivers per motor carrier, making

$47,000 a likely overestimate.

Additionally, there may be some drivers

who are motor carriers, in which case

the test must be given by a person other

than themselves (49 CFR 391.31(b)).

FMCSA treats the impacts on these

drivers as equivalent to those of all

affected drivers, and the Agency invites

public comment from owner-operators

to further inform this assumption. Using

this approach, the Agency estimates a

per entity impact of $43.46.

79

Benefits

As described in Section VIII.

Discussion of Proposed Rule,

eliminating the prohibition on certifying

individuals who cannot meet either the

current visual acuity or field of vision

standard, or both, in one eye (without

an exemption) would enable more

qualified individuals to operate as an

interstate CMV driver without

compromising safety. The proposed

alternative vision standard would allow

previously qualified interstate CMV

drivers who are no longer able to meet

either the distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye

to return to operating interstate sooner.

Additional employment opportunities

may also result from the removal of the

3-years of intrastate driving experience

requirement, which is a criterion of the

current exemption program. Drivers

who do not have 3 years of intrastate

driving experience may meet the

alternative vision standard and be able

to operate a CMV interstate. A one-time

road test would also be less burdensome

on drivers than obtaining 3 years of

intrastate driving experience. It also

addresses the consideration that many

drivers live in States that do not issue

vision waivers. The road test would

provide more drivers the opportunity to

operate a CMV.

Regarding risk, the Agency anticipates

no changes in risk resulting from the

very small number of additional

individuals affected by this proposed

rule relative to those of the baseline.

Therefore, FMCSA considers the

proposed rule to be safety neutral.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2366

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

80

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29,

1996.

81

‘‘North American Industry Classification

System’’ (2017), available at https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_

NAICS_Manual.pdf (last accessed January 15,

2020).

82

SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘A Guide for

Government Agencies. How to Comply with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ (2017), available at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/

How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf (last

accessed January 16, 2020).

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and

Controlling Regulatory Costs)

The Agency expects this proposed

rule to have total costs less than zero,

and, if finalized, to qualify as an E.O.

13771 deregulatory action. The present

value of the cost savings of this

proposed rule, measured on an infinite

time horizon at a 7 percent discount

rate, expressed in 2016 dollars, and

discounted to 2021 (the year the

proposed rule would go into effect and

cost savings would first be realized),

would be $20.9 million. On an

annualized basis, these cost savings

would be $1.5 million.

For E.O. 13771 accounting, the April

5, 2017, OMB guidance requires that

agencies also calculate the costs and

cost savings discounted to year 2016. In

accordance with this requirement, the

present value of the cost savings of this

rule, measured on an infinite time

horizon at a 7 percent discount rate,

expressed in 2016 dollars, and

discounted to 2016, would be $14.9

million. On an annualized basis, the

cost savings would be $1 million.

C. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule is not a major rule

as defined under the Congressional

Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801–808).

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small

Entities)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

(5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as amended by

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

80

requires Federal agencies to consider

the impact of their regulatory actions on

small entities, analyze effective

alternatives that minimize small entity

impacts, and make their analyses

available for public comment. The term

‘‘small entities’’ means small businesses

and not-for-profit organizations that are

independently owned and operated and

are not dominant in their fields, and

governmental jurisdictions with

populations under 50,000 (5 U.S.C.

601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy

requires an analysis of the impact of all

regulations on small entities, and

mandates that agencies strive to lessen

any adverse effects on these entities.

Section 605 of the RFA allows an

Agency to certify a rule, in lieu of

preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking

is not expected to have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

This rule would affect drivers and

motor carriers. Drivers are not

considered small entities because they

do not meet the definition of a small

entity in section 601 of the RFA.

Specifically, drivers are considered

neither a small business under section

601(3) of the RFA, nor are they

considered a small organization under

section 601(4) of the RFA.

The Small Business Administration

(SBA) defines the size standards used to

classify entities as small. SBA

establishes separate standards for each

industry, as defined by the North

American Industry Classification

System (NAICS).

81

This rule could affect

many different industry sectors in

addition to the Transportation and

Warehousing sector (NAICS sectors 48

and 49); for example, the Construction

sector (NAICS sector 23), the

Manufacturing sector (NAICS sectors 31,

32, and 33), and the Retail Trade sector

(NAICS sectors 44 and 45). Industry

groups within these sectors have size

standards for qualifying as small based

on the number of employees (e.g., 500

employees), or on the amount of annual

revenue (e.g., $27.5 million in revenue).

To determine the NAICS industries

potentially affected by this rule, FMCSA

cross-referenced occupational

employment statistics from the Bureau

of Labor Statistics with NAICS industry

codes.

The RFA does not define a threshold

for determining whether a specific

regulation results in a significant

impact. However, the SBA, in guidance

to government agencies, provides some

objective measures of significance that

the agencies can consider using.

82

One

measure that could be used to illustrate

a significant impact is labor costs,

specifically, if the cost of the regulation

exceeds 1 percent of the average annual

revenues of small entities in the sector.

Given the proposed rule’s average

annual per-entity impact of $43.46, a

small entity would need to have average

annual revenues of less than $4,346 to

experience an impact greater than 1

percent of average annual revenue,

which is an average annual revenue that

is smaller than would be required for a

firm to support one employee.

Therefore, I certify this rule would not

have a significant impact on the entities

affected.

E. Assistance for Small Entities

In accordance with section 213(a) of

the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in

understanding this proposed rule so that

they can better evaluate its effects on

themselves and participate in the

rulemaking initiative. If the proposed

rule would affect your small business,

organization, or governmental

jurisdiction and you have questions

concerning its provisions or options for

compliance; please consult the FMCSA

point of contact, Ms. Christine Hydock,

listed in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

section of this proposed rule.

Small businesses may send comments

on the actions of Federal employees

who enforce or otherwise determine

compliance with Federal regulations to

the Small Business Administration’s

Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman

and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The

Ombudsman evaluates these actions

annually and rates each agency’s

responsiveness to small business. To

comment on actions by employees of

FMCSA, call 1–888–REG–FAIR (1–888–

734–3247). DOT has a policy regarding

the rights of small entities to regulatory

enforcement fairness and an explicit

policy against retaliation for exercising

these rights.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In

particular, the Act addresses actions

that may result in the expenditure by a

State, local, or tribal government, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector of

$168 million (which is the value

equivalent of $100 million in 1995,

adjusted for inflation to 2019 levels) or

more in any 1 year. Though this

proposed rule would not result in such

an expenditure, the Agency discusses

the effects of this rule elsewhere in this

preamble.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act (Collection

of Information)

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) requires that an

agency consider the impact of

paperwork and other information

collection burdens imposed on the

public. An agency is prohibited from

collecting or sponsoring an information

collection, as well as imposing an

information collection requirement,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2367

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

83

The OMB control number will be determined

and assigned by OMB upon approval of the ICR.

unless it displays a valid OMB control

number (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(3)(vi)).

The proposed rule would impact an

existing information collection request

(ICR) titled ‘‘Medical Qualification

Requirements,’’ OMB control number

2126–0006, and a new ICR titled

‘‘391.31 Road Test Requirement,’’ OMB

control number 2126–TBD.

83

The ICRs

will be discussed separately below,

followed by a discussion of the net

information collection and reporting

burdens of the proposed rule.

1. Related Information Collection

Requests

a. Medical Qualification Requirements

ICR

This proposed rule would amend the

existing approved Medical Qualification

Requirements ICR, OMB control number

2126–0006, which expires on November

30, 2021. Specifically, FMCSA seeks

approval for the revision of the ICR due

to the Agency’s development of this

proposed rule, which includes the use

of the proposed Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871. In

accordance with 44 U.S.C. 3507(d),

FMCSA will submit the proposed

information collection amendments to

OIRA at OMB for its approval.

Title: Medical Qualification

Requirements.

OMB Control Number: 2126–0006.

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently-approved information

collection.

Summary: FMCSA proposes to

establish an alternative vision standard

for individuals who cannot satisfy either

the current distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in one eye.

FMCSA proposes a two-step process for

physical qualification of these

individuals that, if adopted, would

replace the current vision exemption

program as a basis for determining the

physical qualification of these

individuals to operate a CMV. First, an

individual seeking physical

qualification would obtain a vision

evaluation from an ophthalmologist or

optometrist who would record the

findings and provide specific medical

opinions on the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871.

Next, at a physical qualification

examination, an ME would consider the

information provided on the Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

and determine whether the individual

meets the proposed alternative vision

standard and FMCSA’s other physical

qualification standards. If so, the ME

could issue an MEC, Form MCSA–5876,

for up to a maximum of 12 months. The

proposed Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871, supports safety by

ensuring that CMV drivers are

physically qualified to operate trucks

and buses on our nation’s highways.

Because of the proposed action, a new

information collection, IC–8

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision

Standard, would be added to the

existing ICR. FMCSA estimates that

ophthalmologists and optometrists

would complete 3,614 Vision

Evaluation Reports, Form MCSA–5871,

annually and that it would take them 8

minutes to complete a report. Thus, the

estimated annual burden hours

associated with the proposed

information collection is 482 hours

(3,614 forms × 8 minutes per form ÷ 60

minutes = 482 hours, rounded to the

nearest whole hour). At an average

hourly labor cost of $82.40 for

optometrists, the estimated salary cost

associated with this information

collection is $39,717 ($82.40 hourly

labor costs × 482 hours = $39,717,

rounded to the nearest dollar).

Additional information is provided in

the draft supporting statement for the

Medical Qualification Requirements

ICR, which is available in the docket.

Estimated number of respondents:

3,614 ophthalmologists and

optometrists.

Estimated responses: 3,614.

Frequency: At least annually.

Estimated burden hours: 482.

Estimated cost: $39,717.

The proposed alternative vision

standard would eliminate the need for

the Federal vision exemption program

and the related information collection

(IC–3a). The current vision exemption

program requires individuals to submit

personal, health, and driving

information during the application

process. In addition, motor carriers must

copy and file the vision exemption in

the driver qualification file. FMCSA

attributes 2,236 annual burden hours to

obtain and maintain a vision exemption,

and this proposed rule would eliminate

this entire burden. However, it would

add 482 burden hours for the

information collection associated with

completion of the Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871. Thus, the

net effect of the proposed rule would be

a reduction in burden hours of 1,754

(482 hours related to the vision

report¥2,236 hours related to the

current vision exemption program =

¥1,754). The net effect of the proposed

rule with respect to cost would be a

reduction of $29,419 ($39,717 related to

the vision report ¥$69,136 related to

the current vision exemption program =

¥$29,419).

The revised total annual estimated

burden associated with the Medical

Qualification Requirements ICR that

reflects the addition of this proposed

information collection and the

completion of the Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871; the

elimination of the Federal vision

exemption program; updated driver

population, program statistics, National

Registry statistics, and wage data; and

regulatory changes is as follows.

Total estimated number of

respondents: 5,586,232 CMV drivers,

motor carriers, MEs, treating clinicians,

ophthalmologists, and optometrists.

Total estimated responses:

27,202,863.

Total estimated burden hours:

2,251,571.

Total estimated cost: $171,044,474.

b. Section 391.31 Road Test

Requirement ICR

FMCSA proposes a new § 391.31 Road

Test Requirement ICR. The ICR

estimates the paperwork burden motor

carriers incur to comply with the

reporting and recordkeeping tasks

required for the road test associated

with 49 CFR 391.31. FMCSA has not

previously accounted for the burden

associated with § 391.31 road tests;

accordingly, the ICR accounts for the

burden. The ICR also would include the

incremental burden for motor carriers

associated with § 391.31 road tests due

to FMCSA’s development of this

proposed rule. In accordance with 44

U.S.C. 3507(d), FMCSA will submit the

new ICR to OIRA at OMB for its

approval.

Title: 391.31 Road Test Requirement.

OMB Control Number: 2126–TBD.

Type of Review: Approval of a new

information collection.

Summary: The road test provision in

§ 391.31 provides an individual must

not drive a CMV until the individual

has successfully completed a road test

and has been issued a certificate of

driver’s road test. It was adopted by

FHWA in 1970 (35 FR 6458, 6462, April

22, 1970). At that time, FHWA stated

that the interests of CMV safety would

be promoted by ensuring drivers have

demonstrated their skill by completing

a road test (35 FR 6459). The related

requirement in § 391.51 that the motor

carrier include information relating to

the road test in the driver qualification

file was also adopted in 1970 (35 FR

6465). The information documents the

driver’s ability to operate a CMV safely.

Sections 391.31 and 391.51 are based

on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2368

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

84

Public Law 74–255, 49 Stat. 543, August 9,

1935.

85

Public Law 98–554, 98 Stat. 2829, 2832,

October 30, 1984.

of 1935

84

(1935 Act) and the Motor

Carrier Safety Act of 1984

85

(1984 Act),

both as amended. The 1935 Act, as

codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b),

authorizes the Secretary to prescribe

requirements for the qualifications of

employees of a motor carrier and the

safety of operation and equipment of a

motor carrier. The 1984 Act, as codified

at 49 U.S.C. 31136, provides concurrent

authority to regulate drivers, motor

carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section

31136(a) requires the Secretary to issue

regulations on CMV safety, including

regulations to ensure that CMVs are

operated safely. The Secretary has

discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C.

31133(a)(8) to prescribe recordkeeping

and reporting requirements. The

Administrator of FMCSA is delegated

authority under 49 CFR 1.87 to carry out

the functions vested in the Secretary by

49 U.S.C. Chapters 311 and 315 as they

relate to CMV operators, programs, and

safety.

Motor carriers must ensure each

driver has the skill to operate a CMV

safely. The information collected and

maintained by motor carriers in each

driver qualification file related to the

road test substantiates the driver can

operate a CMV safely and the motor

carrier has fulfilled its regulatory

requirements. It also aids Federal and

State safety investigators in assessing

the qualifications of drivers.

Public interest in highway safety

dictates that employers hire drivers who

can safely operate CMVs amidst the

various physical and mental demands of

truck driving. Section 391.31 requires a

motor carrier to conduct a road test

when the motor carrier hires a new

driver. The motor carrier is required to

rate the performance of the driver

during the test on a road test form. If the

road test is successfully completed, the

motor carrier completes a certificate of

driver’s road test and provides a copy to

the driver. Motor carriers may maintain

the required road test form and

certificate electronically or via paper

copy. The motor carrier must retain the

signed road test form and the signed

certificate in the driver qualification

file. Generally, driver qualification files

must be maintained at the motor

carrier’s principal place of business.

Neither the road test form nor the

certificate is routinely submitted to

FMCSA. A motor carrier would only

make the information available when

requested by an FMCSA or State safety

investigator for an investigation or

audit.

There are three reporting and

recordkeeping tasks motor carriers

perform regarding the road test required

by § 391.31 when they hire a new

driver. The three tasks are:

1. The motor carrier completes and signs

the road test form while the driver performs

a pre-trip inspection and the driving portion

of the road test (49 CFR 391.31(d)).

2. If the driver successfully passes the road

test, the motor carrier completes a certificate

of driver’s road test in substantially the form

prescribed in § 391.31(f) (49 CFR 391.31(e))

and gives the driver a copy (49 CFR

391.31(g)).

3. The motor carrier retains in the driver

qualification file the original signed road test

form and the original, or a copy, of the signed

certificate of driver’s road test (49 CFR

391.31(g)(1) and (2)).

To estimate the total burden hours,

FMCSA multiplies the number of

respondents by the hourly burden per

response. FMCSA estimates a burden of

30 minutes for the motor carrier to

complete the road test form while

conducting the road test. Should the

driver successfully pass the road test,

FMCSA assumes it will take the motor

carrier 2 minutes to complete the

certification of driver’s road test and an

additional 1 minute to store documents

in the driver qualification file.

To estimate burden costs, FMCSA

assumes a compliance officer will be the

person who will complete the road test

form and associated certificate, and a

file clerk will be the person who will

store the documents. The median salary

for a compliance officer is $51.13 per

hour. The median salary for a file clerk

is $25.63 per hour.

The ICR estimates the information-

collection burden incurred by motor

carriers associated with the § 391.31

road test in two circumstances. The first

is when the road test is required by

§ 391.31 (IC–1); the second is when the

road test is required as part of the

alternative vision standard in proposed

§ 391.44 (IC–2).

IC–1 consists of the three reporting

and recordkeeping tasks motor carriers

perform regarding the road test required

by § 391.31 when they hire a new

driver. The respondent universe is the

number of motor carriers required to

complete a road test for drivers hired.

To determine the number of drivers who

will be hired and require a road test,

FMCSA first determines the driver

population subject to the road test

requirement. Because § 391.33 allows

motors carriers to accept a valid CDL

instead of the § 391.31 road test, the

driver population is non-CDL interstate

and intrastate drivers. To find the driver

populations in 2022, 2023, and 2024

(the 3 years projected to be reflected in

the ICR), FMCSA adjusts the driver

population by multiplying it by the

growth rate for driver occupations

typical in the light vehicle industry (i.e.,

5 percent). Next, FMCSA estimates the

total number of job openings per year by

multiplying the adjusted total driver

population by the industry turnover rate

(i.e., 79.2 percent). Because drivers may

present a certificate of driver’s road test

for up 3 years from when it is completed

under § 391.33, FMCSA estimates one-

third of drivers will be required to have

a road test each year of the ICR. The

resulting number is the respondent

universe, i.e., the number of motor

carriers required to complete a road test

for drivers hired.

For each of the three § 391.31 road

test reporting and recordkeeping tasks

motor carriers perform when they hire

a new driver, FMSCA estimates the

motor carrier burden hours by

multiplying the number of respondents

by the hourly burden for each task.

Then FMCSA estimates the motor

carrier cost by multiplying the burden

hours by the median salary for the

person performing the task. The total

motor carrier burden hours and cost for

the three tasks is reflected below in the

total burden and cost amounts for the

ICR.

IC–2 consists of the incremental

burden associated with the requirement

in this proposed rule that individuals

physically qualified under the

alternative vision standard in § 391.44

for the first time would be required to

complete a road test in accordance with

§ 391.31. FMCSA uses the same three

reporting and recordkeeping tasks, time

estimates, labor costs, and overall

methodology discussed above to

calculate the annual burden hours and

cost associated with the proposed rule.

However, FMCSA estimates the

respondent universe of 1,085 motor

carriers by averaging the number of new

requests for a Federal vision exemption

in 2017, 2018, and 2019 ((1,151 + 1,073

+ 1,030)/3 = 1,085).

FMCSA recognizes that using 1,085 as

the driver population is a high

estimation and overstates the burden

associated with the proposed

requirement in § 391.44 for a road test.

Some of the individuals would already

be required to obtain a road test under

§ 391.31, in the absence of the

requirement in § 391.44(d). However,

FMCSA lacks internal data to estimate

how many individuals would already be

required to obtain a § 391.31 road test.

Therefore, FMCSA opted for a

conservative approach of assuming all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2369

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

86

Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268,

December 8, 2004 (5 U.S.C. 552a note).

1,085 individuals would require a road

test.

In addition, § 391.44(d)(3) would

provide an exception to the road test

requirement for some individuals. If the

motor carrier determines an individual

possessed a valid CDL or non-CDL

license to operate, and did operate, a

CMV in either intrastate commerce or in

exempt interstate commerce with the

vision deficiency for the 3-year period

immediately preceding the date of

physical qualification under § 391.44 for

the first time, the individual would not

be required to complete a § 391.31 road

test. FMCSA lacks internal data to

estimate how many individuals would

be excepted from a road test by this

provision, but expects only a small

number of individuals would qualify for

the exception. In addition, the

paperwork burden to except an

individual from the road test

requirement would be less than the

burden for the individual to take the

road test. Therefore, FMCSA opted for a

conservative approach of assuming all

1,085 individuals would require a road

test.

The estimated incremental annual

burden associated with the requirement

in the proposed rule that individuals

physically qualified under § 391.44 for

the first time would be required to

complete a road test in accordance with

§ 391.31 (IC–2), is as follows.

Estimated number of respondents:

1,085 motor carriers.

Estimated responses: 3,255.

Estimated burden hours: 609.

Estimated cost: $30,578.

The total estimated annual burden

associated with the 391.31 Road Test

Requirement ICR for IC–1 and IC–2 is as

follows:

Total estimated number of

respondents: 560,809 motor carriers.

Total estimated responses: 2,306,709.

Total estimated burden hours:

430,588.

Total estimated cost: $21,623,811.

Additional information for the

assumptions, calculations, and

methodology summarized above is

provided in the draft supporting

statement for the 391.31 Road Test

Requirement ICR. The supporting

statement is available in the docket for

this rulemaking.

2. Net Information Collection Reporting

Burdens

As shown above, the net effect of the

proposed rule on the Medical

Qualification Requirements ICR would

be a reduction in burden hours of 1,754

and in cost of $29,419. The effect of the

proposed rule on the 391.31 Road Test

Requirement ICR would be an addition

in burden hours of 609 and in cost of

$30,578. Thus, the net effect of the

proposed rule would be a reduction in

burden hours of 1145 (¥1,754 hours

related to the Medical Qualification

Requirements ICR + 609 hours related to

the 391.31 Road Test Requirement ICR

= ¥1,145). The net effect of the

proposed rule with respect to cost

would be an addition of $1,159

(¥$29,419 related to the Medical

Qualification Requirements ICR +

$30,578 related to the 391.31 Road Test

Requirement ICR = $1,159).

3. Request for Comments

FMCSA asks for comment on the

information collection requirements of

this proposed rule, as well as the

revised total estimated burden

associated with the Medical

Qualification Requirements ICR and the

total estimated burden associated with

the new 391.31 Road Test Requirement

ICR. Specifically, the Agency asks for

comment on: (1) Whether the proposed

information collections are necessary for

FMCSA to perform its functions; (2)

how the Agency can improve the

quality, usefulness, and clarity of the

information to be collected; (3) the

accuracy of FMCSA’s estimate of the

burden of this information collection;

and (4) how the Agency can minimize

the burden of the information

collection.

If you have comments on the

collection of information, you must

submit those comments as outlined

under section I.E. at the beginning of

this NPRM.

H. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

A rule has implications for federalism

under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.’’ FMCSA

determined that this proposal would not

have substantial direct costs on or for

States, nor would it limit the

policymaking discretion of States.

Nothing in this document preempts any

State law or regulation. Therefore, this

rule does not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Impact Statement.

I. Privacy

Section 522 of title I of division H of

the Consolidated Appropriations Act,

2005,

86

requires the Agency to conduct

a privacy impact assessment of a

regulation that will affect the privacy of

individuals. In accordance with this

Act, a privacy impact assessment is

warranted to address any privacy

implications contemplated in the

proposed rulemaking.

With respect to the proposed Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

the DOT Chief Privacy Officer has

evaluated the risks and effects that this

rulemaking might have on collecting,

storing, and sharing personally

identifiable information and has

examined protections and alternative

information handling processes in

developing the proposal to mitigate

potential privacy risks. The privacy

risks and effects associated with this

proposed rule are not unique and have

been addressed previously by the DOT/

FMCSA 009—National Registry of

Certified Medical Examiners system of

records notice published on October 4,

2019 (84 FR 53211), available at https://

www.transportation.gov/privacy. The

DOT Chief Privacy Officer has

determined that a new system of records

notice for this rulemaking is not

required.

In this rulemaking, FMCSA proposes

a two-step process for the physical

qualification of individuals who cannot

satisfy either the current distant visual

acuity or field of vision standard, or

both, in one eye. First, an individual

seeking physical qualification would

obtain a vision evaluation from an

ophthalmologist or optometrist who

would record the requested information

on the proposed Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871. Next, at a

physical qualification examination, an

ME would consider the information

provided on the Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871, and

determine whether the individual is

physically qualified to operate a CMV

safely. The Vision Evaluation Report,

Form MCSA–5871, would be used

exclusively as part of the physical

qualification process and would collect

only information that is necessary to

assist the ME in making a physical

qualification determination.

The information collected on the

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–

5871, would provide a means for

healthcare professionals to exchange

information about an individual who

cannot satisfy either the current distant

visual acuity or field of vision standard,

or both, in one eye. This is the same

type of communication that occurs

when the ME needs to follow up with

an individual’s primary care provider

regarding the individual’s health and

exchanges information. Therefore, no

new category of medical or privacy

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2370

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

information would be generated because

of this proposed rule.

The Agency expects that this

information would be safeguarded along

with all the other medical information

that these healthcare providers

maintain. In other words, the

ophthalmologist or optometrist would

maintain certain medical records about

the individual based on his or her vision

evaluation, and the ME would maintain

certain medical records to support the

physical qualification determination.

The Vision Evaluation Report, Form

MCSA–5871, would be attached to the

Medical Examination Report Form,

MCSA–5875, that must be maintained

by the ME for at least 3 years from the

date of the examination. The Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

would be provided only to FMCSA

upon request if there were an

investigation or audit. Therefore, this

proposed rule would provide a privacy-

positive outcome because it results in

less sensitive data being held by the

Agency. There is privacy risk not

controlled by the Agency because the

Vision Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–

5871, would be maintained by the ME

at his or her office. However, as

healthcare providers, MEs are required

to maintain and disclose medical

information and personally identifiable

information in accordance with

applicable Federal and State privacy

laws.

With respect to the proposed

requirement for a road test as part of the

alternative vision standard, the Agency

has completed a Privacy Threshold

Assessment to evaluate the risks and

effects the proposed requirement might

have on collecting, storing, and sharing

personally identifiable information. The

Privacy Threshold Assessment has been

submitted to FMCSA’s Privacy Officer

for review and preliminary adjudication

and will be submitted to DOT’s Privacy

Officer for review and final

adjudication.

J. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal

Governments)

This rule does not have tribal

implications under E.O. 13175,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, because it

does not have a substantial direct effect

on one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes.

K. National Environmental Policy Act of

1969

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule

for purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and determined

this action is categorically excluded

from further analysis and

documentation in an environmental

assessment or environmental impact

statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1

(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix

2, paragraph 6.z. The content in this

rule is covered by the Categorical

Exclusions in paragraph 6.z.(1)

regarding the minimum qualifications

for individuals who drive CMVs, and in

paragraph 6.z.(2) regarding the

minimum duties of motor carriers with

respect to the qualifications of their

drivers.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 391

Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug

testing, Highway safety, Motor carriers,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Safety, Transportation.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, FMCSA proposes to amend

49 CFR part 391 as follows:

PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF

DRIVERS AND LONGER

COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV)

DRIVER INSTRUCTORS

■1. The authority citation for part 391

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133,

31136, 31149, 31502; sec. 4007(b), Pub. L.

102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114, Pub.

L. 103–311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215,

Pub. L. 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec.

32934, Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 405, 830;

secs. 5403 and 5524, Pub. L. 114–94, 129

Stat. 1312, 1548, 1560; sec. 2, Pub. L. 115–

105, 131 Stat. 2263; and 49 CFR 1.87.

■2. Amend § 391.31 by:

■a. Revising paragraph (f) by deleting

the entry lines for ‘‘Social Security No’’,

‘‘Operator’s or Chauffeur’s License No’’,

and ‘‘State’’ in the Certification of Road

Test form; and

■b. Adding paragraph (h).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 391.31 Road test.

* * * * *

(h) The information collection

requirements of this section have been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget pursuant to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,

et seq.) and have been assigned OMB

control number 2126–TBD.

■3. Revise § 391.41 paragraph (b)(10) to

read as follows:

§ 391.41 Physical qualifications for

drivers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(10)(i) 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° 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; or

(ii) Meets the requirements in

§ 391.44;

* * * * *

■4. Revise § 391.43 paragraph (b)(1) to

read as follows:

§ 391.43 Medical examination; certificate

of physical examination.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) A licensed ophthalmologist or

optometrist may perform the part of the

medical examination that involves

visual acuity, field of vision, and the

ability to recognize colors as specified

in § 391.41(b)(10).

* * * * *

■5. Add § 391.44 to read as follows:

§ 391.44 Physical qualification standards

for an individual who cannot satisfy either

the distant visual acuity or field of vision

standard, or both, in one eye.

(a) General. An individual who

cannot satisfy either the distant visual

acuity or field of vision standard, or

both, in § 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye is

physically qualified to operate a

commercial motor vehicle in interstate

commerce provided:

(1) The individual meets the other

physical qualification standards in

§ 391.41 or has an exemption or skill

performance evaluation certificate, if

required; and

(2) The individual has the vision

evaluation required by paragraph (b) of

this section and the medical

examination required by paragraph (c)

of this section.

(b) Evaluation by an ophthalmologist

or optometrist. Prior to the examination

required by § 391.45 or the expiration of

a medical examiner’s certificate, the

individual must be evaluated by a

licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist.

(1) During the evaluation of the

individual, the ophthalmologist or

optometrist must complete the Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871.

(2) Upon completion of the Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2371

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

the ophthalmologist or optometrist must

sign and date the Report and provide his

or her full name, office address, and

telephone number on the Report.

(c) Examination by a medical

examiner. At least annually, but no later

than 45 days after an ophthalmologist or

optometrist signs and dates the Vision

Evaluation Report, Form MCSA–5871,

an individual who cannot satisfy either

the distant visual acuity or field of

vision standard, or both, in

§ 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye must be

medically examined and certified by a

medical examiner as physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle in accordance with § 391.43.

(1) The medical examiner must

receive a completed Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871, signed and

dated by an ophthalmologist or

optometrist for each required

examination. This Report shall be

treated and retained as part of the

Medical Examination Report Form,

MCSA–5875.

(2) The medical examiner must

determine whether the individual meets

the physical qualification standards in

§ 391.41 to operate a commercial motor

vehicle. In making that determination,

the medical examiner must consider the

information in the Vision Evaluation

Report, Form MCSA–5871, signed by an

ophthalmologist or optometrist and,

utilizing independent medical

judgment, apply the following standards

in determining whether the individual

may be certified as physically qualified

to operate a commercial motor vehicle.

(i) The individual is not physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle if in the better eye the distant

visual acuity is not at least 20/40

(Snellen), with or without corrective

lenses, and the field of vision is not at

least 70° in the horizontal meridian.

(ii) The individual is not physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle if the individual is not able to

recognize the colors of traffic signals

and devices showing standard red,

green, and amber.

(iii) The individual is not physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle if the individual’s vision

deficiency is not stable.

(iv) The individual is not physically

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle if there has not been sufficient

time to allow the individual to adapt to

and compensate for the change in

vision.

(d) Road test. (1) Except as provided

in paragraphs (d)(3), (4), and (5) of this

section, an individual physically

qualified under this section for the first

time shall not drive a commercial motor

vehicle until the individual has

successfully completed a road test

subsequent to physical qualification and

has been issued a certificate of driver’s

road test in accordance with § 391.31 of

this part. An individual physically

qualified under this section for the first

time must inform the motor carrier

responsible for completing the road test

under § 391.31(b) that the individual is

required by § 391.44(d) to have a road

test. The motor carrier must conduct the

road test in accordance with § 391.31(b)

thorough (g).

(2) For road tests required by

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the

provisions of § 391.33 of this part for the

equivalent of a road test do not apply.

If an individual required to have a road

test by paragraph (d)(1) of this section

successfully completes the road test and

is issued a certificate of driver’s road

test in accordance with § 391.31, then

any otherwise applicable provisions of

§ 391.33 will apply thereafter to such

individual.

(3) An individual physically qualified

under this section for the first time is

not required to complete a road test in

accordance with § 391.31 if the motor

carrier responsible for completing the

road test under § 391.31(b) determines

the individual possessed a valid

commercial driver’s license or non-

commercial driver’s license to operate,

and did operate, a commercial motor

vehicle in either intrastate commerce or

in interstate commerce excepted by

§ 390.3T(f) of this subchapter or §391.2

of this part from the requirements of

subpart E of this part with the vision

deficiency for the 3-year period

immediately preceding the date of

physical qualification under this section

for the first time.

(i) The individual must certify in

writing to the motor carrier the date the

vision deficiency began.

(ii) If the motor carrier determines the

individual possessed a valid

commercial driver’s license or non-

commercial driver’s license to operate,

and did operate, a commercial motor

vehicle in either intrastate commerce or

in interstate commerce excepted by

either § 390.3T(f) or §391.2 from the

requirements of subpart E of this part

with the vision deficiency for the 3-year

period immediately preceding the date

of physical qualification in accordance

with § 391.44 for the first time, the

motor carrier must—

(A) Prepare a written statement to the

effect that the motor carrier determined

the individual possessed a valid license

and operated a commercial motor

vehicle in intrastate or excepted

interstate commerce (as applicable) with

the vision deficiency for the 3-year

period immediately preceding the date

of physical qualification in accordance

with § 391.44 for the first time and,

therefore, is not required by § 391.44(d)

to complete a road test;

(B) Give the individual a copy of the

written statement; and

(C) Retain in the individual’s driver

qualification file the original of the

written statement and the original, or a

copy, of the individual’s certification

regarding the date the vision deficiency

began.

(4) An individual physically qualified

under this section for the first time is

not required to complete a road test in

accordance with § 391.31 if the

individual holds on [DATE 60 DAYS

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register] a valid exemption from the

vision standard in § 391.41(b)(10) issued

by FMCSA under 49 CFR part 381. Such

an individual is not required to inform

the motor carrier that the individual is

excepted from the requirement in

§ 391.44(d)(1) to have a road test.

(5) An individual physically qualified

under this section for the first time is

not required to complete a road test in

accordance with § 391.31 if the

individual is medically certified on

[DATE 60 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE

IN THE Federal Register] under the

provisions of § 391.64(b) for drivers who

participated in a previous vision waiver

study program. Such an individual is

not required to inform the motor carrier

that the individual is excepted from the

requirement in § 391.44(d)(1) to have a

road test.

■6. Amend § 391.45 by:

■a. Redesignating existing paragraphs

(f) and (g) as paragraphs (g) and (h),

respectively;

■b. Adding a new paragraph (f); and

■c. Revising paragraph (b).

The addition and revision read as

follows:

§ 391.45 Persons who must be medically

examined and certified.

* * * * *

(b) Any driver who has not been

medically examined and certified as

qualified to operate a commercial motor

vehicle during the preceding 24 months,

unless the driver is required to be

examined and certified in accordance

with paragraph (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), or (h)

of this section;

* * * * *

(f) Any driver who cannot satisfy

either the distant visual acuity or field

of vision standard, or both, in

§ 391.41(b)(10)(i) in one eye and who

has obtained a medical examiner’s

certificate under the standards in

§ 391.44, if such driver’s most recent

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

2372

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules

medical examination and certification

as qualified to drive did not occur

during the preceding 12 months;

* * * * *

■7. Amend § 391.51 by revising

paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

§ 391.51 General requirements for driver

qualification files.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) The certificate of driver’s road test

issued to the driver pursuant to

§ 391.31(e), a copy of the license or

certificate which the motor carrier

accepted as equivalent to the driver’s

road test pursuant to § 391.33, or the

original of the written statement

providing that the motor carrier

determined the driver is not required by

§ 391.44(d) to complete a road test

pursuant to § 391.44(d)(3)(ii)(A) and the

original, or a copy, of the driver’s

certification required by

§ 391.44(d)(3)(i);

* * * * *

■8. Amend § 391.64 by revising the

section title and paragraph (b)

introductory text, and adding paragraph

(b)(4) to read as follows.

§ 391.64 Grandfathering for certain drivers

who participated in the vision waiver study

program.

* * * * *

(b) Until [DATE 60 DAYS AND 1

YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF

PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE

IN THE Federal Register], the

provisions of § 391.41(b)(10) do not

apply to a driver who was a participant

in good standing on March 31, 1996, in

a waiver study program concerning the

operation of commercial motor vehicles

by drivers with visual impairment in

one eye; provided:

* * * * *

(4) On [DATE 60 DAYS AND 1 YEAR

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register], the provisions of paragraph

(b) of this section are removed, and any

medical examiner’s certificate issued

under § 391.43 of this part on the basis

that the driver is qualified by operation

of the provisions of 49 CFR 391.64(b),

related to drivers with visual

impairment in one eye, is void.

Appendix A to Part 391—Medical

Advisory Criteria [Amended]

■9. Remove and reserve paragraph II. J.,

Vision: § 391.41(b)(10), of Appendix A

to Part 391.

Issued under the authority of delegation in

49 CFR 1.87.

James W. Deck,

Deputy Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2020–28848 Filed 1–11–21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Parts 223

[Docket No. 201125–0320]

RIN 0648–BK00

Endangered and Threatened Species:

Designation of Nonessential

Experimental Population of Central

Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon in

the Upper Yuba River Upstream of

Englebright Dam, CA; Extension of

Public Comment Period

AGENCY

: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION

: Proposed rule; extension of

public comment period.

SUMMARY

: We, NMFS, announce the

extension of the public comment period

on our December 11, 2020, 30-day

proposal of a rule to designate and

authorize the release of a nonessential

experimental population (NEP) of

Central Valley (CV) spring-run Chinook

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)

under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) in the upper Yuba River and its

tributaries upstream of Englebright Dam,

California, and establish take exceptions

for the NEP for particular activities. A

draft environmental assessment (EA)

has been prepared on this proposed

action and is available for comment. As

part of that proposed action, we

solicited comment on the proposed rule

and EA over a 30-day period to end on

January 11, 2021. Today, we update

contact information, website addresses

and extend the public comment period

by 60 days to March 12, 2021.

Comments previously submitted need

not be resubmitted, as they will be fully

considered in the agency’s proposed

action.

DATES

: The deadline for receipt of

comments is extended from January 11,

2021 until March 12, 2021.

ADDRESSES

: You may submit comments

on this proposed rule, identified by

‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2020–0139’’ by any one

of the following methods:

•Electronic Submissions: Submit all

electronic public comments via the

Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to

https://beta.regulations.gov/docket/

NOAA-NMFS-2020-0139/document

click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,

complete the required fields, and enter

or attach your comments.

•Phone: (916) 930–3717; Fax: (916)

930–3629.

Instructions: Comments sent by any

other method, to any other address or

individual, or received after the end of

the comment period, may not be

considered by NMFS. All comments

received are part of the public record

and will generally be posted to http://

www.regulations.gov without change.

All personal identifying information

(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential

business information, or otherwise

sensitive information submitted

voluntarily by the sender will be

publicly accessible. NMFS will accept

anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in

the required fields if you wish to remain

anonymous). Attachments to electronic

comments will be accepted in Microsoft

Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats

only.

You may access a copy of the draft EA

and other supporting documents by

visiting the NMFS website at: https://

www.fisheries.noaa.gov/action/

proposed-rule-authorize-reintroduction-

central-valley-spring-run-chinook-

salmon-upper-yuba.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

:

Jonathan Ambrose, by phone at (916)

930–3717, or by mail at National Marine

Fisheries Service, 650 Capitol Mall,

Suite 5–100, Sacramento, CA 95814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

:

Background

On December 11, 2020, we published

a proposed rule to designate and

authorize the release of a NEP of CV

spring-run Chinook salmon under the

ESA in the upper Yuba River and its

tributaries upstream of Englebright Dam,

California, and establish take exceptions

for the NEP for particular activities. In

that notice we also announced a 30-day

public comment period and the

availability of a draft EA.

We received a request to extend the

public comment period by 90 days in

order to provide the public with

additional time to adequately comment

on the proposed rule. We considered the

request and concluded that a 60-day

extension should allow sufficient time

for responders to submit comments

without significantly delaying

finalization of the proposed rule. We are

therefore extending the close of the

public comment period from January 11,

2021, to March 12, 2021. In addition to

extending the public comment period,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jan 11, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JAP1.SGM 12JAP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS

Citation	86 FR 2344
Published date	12 January 2021
Record Number	2020-28848
Court	Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Qualifications of Drivers; Vision Standard

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

You can sign up for a trial and make the most of our service including these benefits.

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

Why Sign-up to vLex?

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users

Over 100 Countries

Thousands of Data Sources

Find What You Need, Quickly

Over 2 million registered users