[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48493-48495]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0347]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 28 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted February 12, 2016. The exemptions
expire on February 12, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On January 12, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (81 FR 1474). That notice listed 28 applicants' case
histories. The 28 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 28 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 28
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including age-related macular degeneration, amblyopia,
complete loss of vision, corneal scar, embryonic cataract, macular
scar, optic atrophy, optic nerve damage, prosthetic eye, reduced
vision, refractive amblyopia, retinal detachment, and strabismic
amblyopia. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Nineteen of the applicants were either

born with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 9 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 6 to 44 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 28 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 59
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes,
and 3 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the January 12, 2016
notice (81 FR 1474).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 28 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and 3 drivers
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 28 applicants listed in the notice of January
12, 2016 (81 FR 1474).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 28 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be

physically examined every year (a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist
who attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who
attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) that each individual provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) that each
individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must have a copy of the certification when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 28 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

David W. Anderson (OR)
Charles H. Baim (PA)
Troy C. Blackburn (OH)
Johnnie E. Byler (PA)
Raymond E. Catanio (NJ)
Dana L. Colberg (OR)
Peter D. Costas (NY)
Darrin G. Davis (WI)
Rene Hernandez Gonzalez (FL)
Johnnie W. Hines, Jr. (FL)
Dean L. Knutson (SD)
Melvin L. Lester (MS)
Gerald R. Metzler (PA)
Kory M. Nelson (MD)
Douglas L. Peterson (WI)
Ramon S. Puente (IA)
Dennis W. Rhoades (VT)
Jose H. Rivas (NM)
Joseph T. Saba (MN)
LeRoy W. Scharkey (MN)
Roger H. Schwisow (NE)
Walton W. Smith, Jr. (VA)
Dustin W. Tharp (IA)
Aaron D. Tillman (DE)
Larry J. Weber (WI)
Richard N. Wescott (ME)
Oscar M. Wilkins (ME)
Rodney W. Wright (PA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: July 19, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-17458 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 25, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47837-47839]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15652]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0132]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing the advance notice of proposed
rulemaking titled ``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to
Kingston, NY'' published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2016. After
a review of comments, the Coast Guard suspended rulemaking action in
2017 to allow for further study and analysis of the need, impact, and
appropriateness of the requested anchorage grounds. Among other
reasons, while examining whether there was a need for a proposed rule,
section 8437 of the Elijah E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of
2020 suspended the establishment of new anchorage grounds on the Hudson
River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY. Consequently, the Coast
Guard currently lacks authority to establish new anchorages in this
region. Accordingly, we have determined withdrawal of this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking titled ``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River;
Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' published in the Federal Register on June
9, 2016, is appropriate at this time. The Coast Guard will continue to
enforce current regulations and may undertake future rulemaking actions
as required and authorized to protect the waterway, the users of the
waterway, and the marine transportation system.

DATES: The advance notice of proposed rulemaking published on June 9,
2016 (81 FR 37168) and the comment period extended on September 7,
2016, (81 FR 61639) are withdrawn as of July 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The docket for the withdrawn advance notice of proposed
rulemaking is available at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Please search for docket number USCG-2016-0132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Craig Lapiejko, First Coast Guard District
(dpw), U.S. Coast Guard: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MSIB Marine Safety Information Bulletin
NY New York
PANYNJ Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
PAWSA Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background

    The Hudson River historically has been and will remain a vital
corridor for maritime commerce. The river also serves as a source of
drinking water, recreation, tourism, and economic prosperity. The Coast
Guard's role includes promoting navigational safety and protecting the
environment. These are complementary objectives, as safer navigation
inherently improves environmental protection. It is for these
stewardship reasons that we published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in June 2016 to better understand the need for and
potential locations of anchorages that could help improve navigation
safety and environmental protection. In examining whether there is a
need for a proposed rule, we selected the ANPRM from many possible
tools because it provided public participation at the earliest possible
opportunity.
    The Coast Guard published two documents related to the 2016 ANPRM.
On June 9, 2016, the Coast Guard published the ANPRM itself, titled
``Anchorage Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' in the
Federal Register and then extended the comment period on September 7,
2016 (81 FR 61639). Again, the intent of the ANPRM was to initiate the
early stage of a methodical and public rulemaking process to learn all
possible navigational, environmental, terrestrial, and other effects of
adding anchorages on the Hudson River. Establishing new anchorage
grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY, were
being contemplated after we received a request suggesting that
anchorage grounds may improve navigational safety along an extended
portion of the Hudson River.
    When the ANPRM comment period closed on December 6, 2016, the Coast
Guard had received 10,212 public submissions with comments on the
subject from many diverse stakeholders. A memorandum summarizing the
comments is included in this docket.
    After a review of the comments, the Coast Guard suspended future
rulemaking decisions and directed a formal risk identification and
evaluation of the Hudson River, known as a Ports and Waterways Safety
Assessment (PAWSA). The results of this assessment process identifying
major waterway safety hazards, estimated risk levels, existing risk
mitigations, additional risk intervention strategies, and participant
comments and observations are outlined in the report. The 2017 Hudson
River PAWSA report is included in this docket.
    As recommended by the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, and responding to
other requests, to provide clarity on the term ``Port of New York'' we
studied its usage within federal anchorage regulations, as well as its
current and historic usage by the agencies charged with administering
those regulations. At the time Coast Guard Sector New York released
Marine Safety Information Bulletin (MSIB)--(2015-014), which can be
found in this docket, the ``Port of New York'' was viewed as synonymous
with ``Sector New York Captain of the Port Zone,'' so the anchoring
prohibition within the ``Port of New York'' was seen as applicable on
the Hudson River to Albany, NY. We have now determined, based on
historical research, that the term ``Port of New York'' encompasses the
navigable waters within approximately a 25-mile radius from the Statue
of the Liberty. Which is to say, the ``Port of New York'' only extends
up the Hudson River to just south of the Governor Mario M. Cuomo Bridge
and not the entire Hudson River to Albany, NY. The specific boundary
points for the ``Port of New York'' are the same as the ``Port of New
York District'' created by a 1921 inter-state compact between New York
and New Jersey and now referred to as the ``Port of New York and New
Jersey''. Consequently, mariners operating outside the Port of New York
are not subject to the anchoring prohibition cited in 33 CFR
110.155(l)(2), and must comply with the Inland Navigation Rules, which
are codified in 33 CFR part 83, when anchoring in the Hudson River. The
complete ``Port of New York'' report detailing the Coast Guards
historical research supporting this determination is included in this
docket.
    A provision related to the Hudson River was included in the Elijah
E. Cummings Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2020, which is included in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.\1\ In
section 8437, Congress suspended the establishment of new anchorage
grounds on the Hudson River between Yonkers, NY and Kingston, NY.
Consequently, the Coast Guard has no legal authority to establish any
new anchorages in this region without a change to current legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 116-283; JAN. 1, 2021; 134 STAT. 3388, 4633. Sec.
8437 may be found at 134 Stat. 4736.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, section 8437(d), directed the Coast Guard, in
consultation with the Hudson River Safety, Navigation, and Operations
Committee (HRSNOC), to conduct a study of the Hudson River north of
Tarrytown, New York. This study was to examine--(1) the nature of
vessel traffic including vessel types, sizes, cargoes, and frequency of
transits; (2) the risks and benefits of historic practices for
commercial vessels anchoring; and (3) the risks and benefits of
establishing anchorage grounds on the Hudson River. The Coast Guard's
report submitted to Congress on February 28, 2023, containing the
findings, conclusions, and recommendations titled ``Establishing
Anchorage Grounds on the Hudson River'' is available in this docket.

III. Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing the ANPRM published on June 9, 2016.
As discussed in the background section above, after reviewing the
10,212 comments provided during the 2016 ANPRM, after considering the
results of the 2017 Hudson River PAWSA, after our research of the
regulatory history of the Port of New York, after Congress suspended
our legal authority to establish any new anchorage grounds in this
region, and after conducting a study and providing a report to
Congress, we no longer are considering creating 10 new anchorage
grounds on the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY, to Kingston, NY.
    The Coast Guard's role on the river will continue to include
promoting navigational safety and protecting the environment. These are
complementary objectives, as safer navigation inherently improves
environmental protection. We will also continue to monitor the river
and identify any regulatory gaps that allow unacceptable risk to the
environment, the marine transportation system, or the users of the
waterway. If regulatory gaps are identified, the Coast Guard is
committed to engaging in an open, public process that allows all
stakeholders to educate the agency and assist in developing the best
regulatory solution possible.

    As of publication of this notice, the ANPRM entitled ``Anchorage
Grounds, Hudson River; Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY'' published in the
Federal Register on June 9, 2016, will be withdrawn.
    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
J.W. Mauger,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2023-15652 Filed 7-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P