Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2019-04-18 · Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Notice of denials

1,190 words·~5 min read·/register/2019/04/18/2019-07789·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT
Action: Notice of denials
Citation: FR Doc. 2019-07789 · Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0007

Summary

FMCSA announces its decision to deny applications from 103 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.

Supplementary Information

I. Public Participation A. Viewing Documents and Comments To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to . Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0007, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility 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., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. B. 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 , as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at . II. Background FMCSA received applications from 103 individuals who requested an exemption from the vision standard in the FMCSRs. FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and concluded that granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). III. Basis for Exemption Determination Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption if it finds such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such an exemption. The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is based on the eligibility criteria, the terms and conditions for Federal exemptions, and an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical information provided by the applicant. IV. Conclusion The Agency has determined that these applicants do not satisfy the eligibility criteria or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal exemption and granting these exemptions would not provide a level of safety that would be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be obtained by complying with the regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Therefore, the 103 applicants in this notice have been denied exemptions from the physical qualification standards in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a letter of final disposition regarding his/her exemption request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final action by the Agency. This notice summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial. The following three applicants did not have sufficient driving experience over the past three years under normal highway operating conditions: David A. Farmer (SC); Thomas J. Johnston (TX); and Robert F. LaMark (PA) The following 42 applicants had no experience operating a CMV: Danny L. Abraham (GA) Kentrell L. Alexander (LA) Marc A. Alt (NC) Henry G. Boles (TX) Justin D. Buetow (MN) Carlos Candelario (CA) Zachary D. Coots (KY) James J. Corr (NE) David L. Cousin (TN) Alan C. Cox (IL) Brian Downton (NY) Stephen S. Evans (KS) Lasheika E. Felton (FL) Jacob P. Lennington (MN) Angela M. Levin (IL) Abdilatif D. Malishe (NY) Chad J. Michels (IA) Patricia A. Minnich (WA) Edward E. Morris (TX) Julio C. Orellana (TX) Nelson D. Perry (VT) Brian M. Porter (IL) Larry D. Porter (IA) William B. Postel (IN) De'Warren J. Reaves (MD) David L. Reid (CO) Charles D. Reynolds (NC) Robert L. Rider (VA) Herbert D. Ryan (AL) Jesus A. Sanchez-Galvan (GA) Justin D. Savio (NJ) Joshua G. Seabolt (GA) Judson Sejour (FL) Ahmad Shirin (NC) Larry W. Stephenson (WA) Jason Thomas (AL) Giovany M. Torres Aleman (TX) Patrick J. Walkey (OH) Alex L. Wanechek (WA) Ernest J. Ward (FL) Daniel L. White (WA) Justin D. White (KS) The following 17 applicants did not have three years of experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies: Robert M. Adams (KY) Charles V. Adcock (WA) Yordan Belaunzaran (FL) Mack A. Franks (IL) Danny C. Henrichs (MT) Terry W. Kelly (OR) Andrew E. Kroll (IL) Earl D. Lilley (TX) Michael D. Marshall (ME) James E. McLaughlin (IN) Ted E. Parker (IL) Michael R. Patrick (CO) Candelario M. Peraza (WA) Iurii V. Perkov (OR) Joe S. Price (NC) Steven L. Voigt (IL) Randell N. Wallis (CO) The following eight applicants did not have three years of recent experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies: Donald Carrillo (NM) Thomas H. Harnack (IA) Elvin J. Horst (OH) Clarence R. Keller (AL) Brian D. Marlow (TN) Dennis A. Mercer (IN) Patrick Seaux (LA) Lawrence A. Swatfager (ND) The following three applicants did not have sufficient driving experience over the past three years under normal highway operating conditions (gaps in driving record): Paul C. Bowen (WY); James D. Taylor (TN); and Michael J. Wells (NC) The following applicant, Gary Nappier (VA), was charged with moving violations in conjunction with CMV accidents. The following applicant, Steven A. Schaumberg (NJ), contributed to accident(s) in which the applicant was operating a CMV, which is a disqualifying offense. The following two applicants did not hold a license that allowed operation of vehicles over 26,000 lbs. for all or part of the three-year review period: Kevin R. Martin (IN); and Bryan J. Teaster (NC) The following applicant, Carlos A. Melendez (MD), did not have an optometrist or ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they are able to operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint. The following 15 applicants were denied for multiple reasons: Larry D. Bowman (CA) Arturo Garcia (IN) John F. Janicki (MI) Christopher R. Marden (NH) Christian R. McHenry (IN) John W. McNeel (AL) Jerrell Mitchell (CA) Dean E. Prindle (MI) Saul Quintero (IN) Richard R. Roggeman (IN) Robert L. Schwartz (ND) Tanveer Siddiq (NJ) Christopher T. Sides (ME) Robert Tichauer (PA) Ronnie D. Van Zant (VA) The following eight applicants have not had stable vision for the preceding three-year period: William M. Batten (TX) Dale O. Hoover (PA) Shawn R. Leasy (ID) George W. Luster (AL) Lonnie A. Neimeister (OH) Donald E. Ratliff (KY) Patricia D. Wallace (MI) Barry Young (PA) The following two applicants drove interstate while restricted to intrastate driving: Michael D. Cameron (GA); and Terrence H. Flick (IL). Issued on: April 11, 2019. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy. [FR Doc. 2019-07789 Filed 4-17-19; 8:45 am]

Connectionstraces to 3
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Notice of denials
Cite49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
Cites 4Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.