[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66962-66966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31062]
[[Page 66962]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of Motor Carrier Safety
[OMCS Docket No. 99-5748 (formerly FHWA Docket No. 99-5748)]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The OMCS announces its decision to exempt 33 individuals from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: November 30, 1999.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the vision
exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Motor
Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-2987; for information about
legal issues related to this notice, Ms. Judith Rutledge, Office of the
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0834, Federal Highway Administration,
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL):
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and
help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web page at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
The Secretary has rescinded the authority previously delegated to
the Federal Highway Administration to perform motor carrier functions
and operations. This authority has been redelegated to the Director,
Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS), a new office within the
Department of Transportation (64 FR 56270, October 19, 1999). This
explains the docket transfer. The new OMCS assumes the motor carrier
functions previously performed by the FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier
and Highway Safety (OMCHS). Ongoing rulemaking, enforcement, and other
activities of the OMCHS, initiated while part of the FHWA, will be
continued by the OMCS. The redelegation will cause no changes in the
motor carrier functions and operations of the offices or resource
centers.
Thirty-three individuals petitioned the FHWA for an exemption of
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The
OMCS is now responsible for processing the vision exemption
applications of the 33 drivers. They are Terry James Aldridge, Jerry D.
Bridges, Michael L. Brown, Duane D. Burger, Charlie Frank Cook, Greg L.
Dinsmore, Donald D. Dunphy, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre, Russell W.
Foster, Arnold D. Gosser, Eddie Gowens, Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J.
Hanna, Jack L. Henson, Richard K. Jensrud, David R. Jesmain, Albert E.
Malley, Clifford E. Masink, Tyrone O. Mayson, Rodney M. Mimbs, Charles
E. O'Dell, Richard W. O'Neill, Jerry L. Reese, Frances C. Ruble, Johnny
L. Stiff, Robert J. Townsley, Thomas R. Trumpeter, Steven M. Veloz,
Thomas E. Walsh, James T. White, Harry Ray Littlejohn, and Mark K.
Cheely. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the OMCS (and previously
the FHWA) may grant an exemption for a renewable 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.'' Accordingly, the OMCS evaluated the petitions on
their merits and made a preliminary determination that the waivers
should be granted. On July 26, 1999, the agency published notice of its
preliminary determination and requested comments from the public (64 FR
40404). The comment period closed on August 25, 1999. Three comments
were received, and their contents were carefully considered by the OMCS
in reaching the final decision to grant the petitions.
Vision And Driving Experience of the Applicants
The vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) provides:
A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70 deg. in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
Since 1992, the FHWA has undertaken studies to determine if this
vision standard should be amended. The final report from our medical
panel recommends changing the field of vision standard from 70 deg. to
120 deg., while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See
Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello,
M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, M.D., ``Visual Requirements and
Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, filed in the docket). The
panel's conclusion supports the OMCS' (and previously the FHWA's) view
that the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a general
standard to ensure highway safety. The OMCS also recognizes that some
drivers do not meet the vision standard but have adapted their driving
to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability
to drive safely.
The 33 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, retinal detachment, macular defect, and loss of an eye due
to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. All but seven applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood. The seven individuals who
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods
ranging from 5 to 34 years.
Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye and, in a doctor's opinion, can perform all the
tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The doctors' opinions are supported
by the applicants' possession of a valid commercial driver's license
(CDL). Before issuing a CDL, States subject drivers to knowledge and
performance tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate
the CMV. All these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle,
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. The
Federal interstate qualification standards, however, require more.
While possessing a valid CDL, these 33 drivers have been authorized
to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce even though their vision
disqualifies them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven
CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from
[[Page 66963]]
4 to 45 years. In the past 3 years, the 33 drivers had only one
conviction for a traffic violation among them and that was a non-moving
offense. Five drivers were involved in accidents in their CMVs, but
there were no injuries and only one of the CMV drivers received a
citation which was later dismissed under local authority.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in a July 26, 1999,
notice (64 FR 40404). Since the docket comments did not focus on the
specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not
repeated the individual profiles here. Our summary analysis of the
applicants as a group, however, is supported by the information
published at 64 FR 40404.
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the OMCS may grant an exemption
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting them to driving in
intrastate commerce.
To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, the OMCS
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision
but also their driving records and experience with the vision
deficiency. 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 accidents and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies have been added to the docket.
We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers
because data from the vision waiver 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). That experienced monocular drivers with good
driving records in the waiver program demonstrated their ability to
drive safely supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers,
meeting the same qualifying conditions to 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 accident 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 accident proneness from accident 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 accidents. (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 accident 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 33 applicants, we note that cumulatively the applicants have had
only six accidents and one non-moving traffic violation in the last 3
years. None of the violations involved a serious traffic violation as
defined in 49 CFR 383.5, and neither of the accidents resulted in
bodily injury. In one of the accidents, a citation was issued, but was
later dismissed under local authority. The applicants achieved this
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, the OMCS concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
We believe applicants' intrastate driving experience provides 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 exist on interstate highways. Faster reaction to
traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances are
more compact than on highways. 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 4 years, most for much longer. Their
experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant
is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he or she
has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, the OMCS
finds that exempting applicants from the vision standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption. For this reason, the agency will grant
the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and
31136(e).
We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the
past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the OMCS will impose
requirements on the 33 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 standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) By a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) That each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's 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 its driver
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver qualification file
if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the
certification when driving so it may be presented to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
Discussion of Comments
The OMCS received three comments in this proceeding. Each comment
was considered and is discussed below.
[[Page 66964]]
The wife of a Florida truck driver supports a change to the Federal
vision requirements for operating CMVs in interstate commerce citing
the economic hardship imposed on her family because her husband is
restricted to driving only in Florida. In support of her position, she
cites her husband's good driving record and suggests that his vision
problem has made him a more vigilant driver. As stated above, the OMCS
believes that the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a
general standard to ensure highway safety. The OMCS recognizes,
however, that some drivers who do not meet the vision standard have
adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and
demonstrated their ability to drive safely and therefore, supports the
granting of individual exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) on a case-
by-case evaluation.
In another comment, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)
expresses continued opposition to the FHWA's policy to grant exemptions
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) including
the driver qualification standards. Specifically, the AHAS: (1) Asks
the agency to clarify the consistency of the exemption application
information provided at 64 FR 40404, (2) Objects to the agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program, (3)
Suggests that the criteria used by the FHWA for considering exemptions
is flawed, (4) Raises procedural objections to this proceeding, (5)
Claims the agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)), and finally, (6) Suggests
that a recent Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of
vision exemptions.
On the first issue regarding clarification of exemption application
information, the AHAS points to what it sees as ``inconsistencies and
differences in the types of information'' provided in individual
applications. The AHAS questions why the FHWA omitted information on
mileage driven for 11 of the 33 applicants, total years of experience
for applicant 32 (Harry Ray Littlejohn), and the vision in the better
eye for applicant 3 (Michael L. Brown). In the case of applicant 3, the
agency inadvertently left out the information on the vision in the
better eye which was 20/30 with correction. Otherwise, this difference
in the presentation of information simply reflects the OMCS' case-by-
case assessments of individual applications. Total mileage driven was
provided as an indicator of overall CMV experience. The omission of
total mileage information for 11 of the 33 applicants is not
significant since all 33 applicants have 3 years of experience
operating a CMV with their vision deficiency in a period recent enough
for the OMCS to verify their safety records. Applicant 32, whose
application information on total years of experience was left out, has
27 years experience operating a CMV.
Other apparent inconsistencies identified by the AHAS, such as, the
use of different terminology describing the driving records of
applicants, reflects the agency's case-by-case assessments of
individual applications as to whether there were any accidents or
traffic violations in CMV in the past 3 years. Regardless of how the
agency states this information--that is, in a CMV, in any vehicle or no
accidents or violations, it indicates that the applicant has not had an
accident or traffic violation in a CMV in the last 3 years. The use of
different terminology is not, as the AHAS suggests, an attempt by the
OMCS to manipulate information in such a way as to ``put the best
possible appearance on each petition for exemption.''
Specific information provided on the 6 accidents and one non-moving
violation of the 33 applicants is a presentation of the facts as we
know them and not any attempt to downplay or explain away accidents and
citations as the AHAS suggests. Regarding applicant 16 (Richard K.
Jensrud) who was initially cited for an accident which was later
dismissed under local authority, the FHWA is not questioning the
judgment of the police officer at the scene of the accident or the
validity of the citation, as AHAS suggests, but merely reporting the
facts of the case. Furthermore, information presented indicating that
applicant 16 drove 1.8 million miles in 6 years is an error. The
information at 64 FR 40404 should have indicated that this applicant
drove 50,000 per year for a total of 300,000 miles.
The second issue raised by the AHAS, which questions the agency's
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program, was
addressed at length in the agency's final decision to exempt 32
individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). (64 FR
51568, September 23, 1999) In that notice, the FHWA's position, based
on various assessments of external and internal validity, was that the
results generated by the waiver program have a high degree of validity
and therefore, support inferences drawn from the results of the waiver
program. The notice also clarifies that the target of inference in the
waiver program was the process of granting waivers, and that if the
inferences drawn from these results focus on the process tested, the
conclusions are valid. Thus, the application of the waiver program to
future screening is also justified.
In its third point, the AHAS contends that the criteria used by us
for considering exemptions is flawed because the exemption criteria
includes consideration of an applicant's driving history for a three-
year period and disregards FMCSRs which would require reliance upon a
ten-year driving history. The AHAS believes that drivers exempted from
the Federal vision standard are ``also exempted from reporting
convictions for disqualifying offenses that took place more than 3
years prior to the application.'' As the agency has already discussed
at 64 FR 51568, there is no basis for that belief. The exemption
granted to these applicants applies only to the qualification standard
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The exempted drivers are subject to all other
regulations including all the CDL and other qualification standards.
In its fourth point, the AHAS raises procedural objections to this
proceeding, claiming that there is no statutory basis for making a
preliminary determination which tends to pre-judge the outcome. We
believe, as previously stated at 64 FR 51568, that its preliminary
determination is analogous to a notice of proposed rulemaking, where
the agency evaluates the basis for new or amended regulation and then
proposes that new rule. Under the agency's vision exemption process,
completed applications are evaluated and only when the agency proposes
to grant a petition is the proposal and the analysis in support of the
application published for public comment. More that 170 applications
have been denied outright. Denials will be summarized periodically and
published in the Federal Register, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and
31136(e).
In its fifth point, the AHAS argues that the agency has
misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)) by considering them slightly more lenient
than the previous law. As previously stated in 64 FR 51568, this was
unquestionably the intention of Congress in drafting section 4007 of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law
105-178, 112 Stat.107, (See 63 FR 67601, quoting from H.R. Conf. Rep.
No. 105-550, at 489-490).
The AHAS' final point suggesting that the recent Supreme Court
decision, Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (June 22,
1999) affects the legal validity of vision exemptions is without
[[Page 66965]]
support. This case is significant because of the Court's treatment of
various provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and the fact that this decision
significantly narrows application of the ADA. In this case, Mr.
Kirkingburg was fired by his employer, Albertsons, after a re-
examination in 1992 determined that he did not meet the Federal vision
requirements. Mr. Kirkingburg obtained a waiver of the vision standard
from the FHWA in 1993, which allowed him to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. However, Albertsons would not rehire him because it did not
view the vision waiver as a substitute for the vision standard. Mr.
Kirkingburg sued Albertsons claiming his firing violated the ADA. Since
the ADA does not apply to the Federal regulations, the decision did not
directly affect the agency's motor carrier safety program. Under the
court's ruling, a motor carrier may require that its drivers meet all
physical qualification requirements in 49 CFR 391 as a condition of
employment. The employer is not required to accept an OMCS exemption as
a substitute for compliance with a physical qualification standard.
This finding is consistent with 49 CFR 390.3(d) of the FMCSRs which
allows carriers to establish more stringent safety requirements. As a
result, the OMCS will continue to issue exemptions from the vision
standard to drivers who demonstrate an ability to drive safely with
their vision condition. However, after making that safety
determination, the OMCS has no power to require motor carriers to hire
drivers with vision exemptions.
In its comments, the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA)
opposes the agency's preliminary determination to grant these 33
exemptions. The ATA states that its opposition has been continuous and
cites written comments to the docket in support of its position.
Although the ATA expressed opposition to the broad issuance of vision
waivers in its comments to the FHWA docket MC-96-2 (61 FR 13338, March
26, 1996), the ATA stated, ``it would support a case-by-case evaluation
that considered the merits of individual waived drivers.'' That is
precisely what the agency has done in the case of these 33 applicants
for exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The previous discussion
explains that the agency's preliminary determination that these
individuals have demonstrated an ability to drive safely with their
vision deficiency is based on a case-by-case evaluation of the merits
of each applicant. Current medical reports about each applicant's
vision, driving records and experience have been evaluated for each
applicant.
Notwithstanding its opposition to the granting of vision
exemptions, the ATA recommends that if the agency decides to exempt
drivers from the vision requirements that it require exempted drivers
to have ``annual medical examinations and annual vision checks by an
optometrist or ophthalmologist.'' The previous discussion states
specifically that, as a condition of the exemption, a driver must be
examined every year by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41.
The ATA further recommends, in the case of recordable accident
involvement, that exempted drivers report such involvement directly to
the agency and undergo a medical examination prior to returning to
driving a CMV. Although the OMCS does not require the reporting of
accidents by exempted drivers, it does monitor the performance of these
drivers through periodic checks of their motor vehicle records and, if
necessary, can take action relative to a particular accident. Regarding
a post-accident medical examination, current regulations, specifically
49 CFR 391.45(c), already require drivers operating in interstate
commerce, including these exempted drivers, to be medically examined
and certified as qualified to operate a CMV any time their ability to
perform their duties is impaired by a physical or mental condition.
In its final comment, the ATA recommends that the agency ``clarify
its predominance over the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies
to safety-sensitive jobs and tasks by: (1) Issuing a notice in (the)
Federal Register summarizing the aforementioned Supreme Court case
(Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (June 22, 1999)), as
it applies to FHWA's vision waiver/exemption program; and (2) amending
49 CFR 391.64 to clarify that a employer still retains the right to
consider a driver who fails FHWA's vision requirements, as medically
unqualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.''
As previously discussed, the decision in Albertsons, Inc. v.
Kirkingburg significantly narrows the application of the ADA. Since the
ADA does not apply to the FMCSRs, this decision does not affect the
OMCS' motor carrier safety programs, including its process for granting
vision exemptions. Moreover, the agency does not require employers to
incorporate the exemptions in their employment practices. In fact,
current regulations allow employers to establish more stringent safety
requirements than those of the agency (49 CFR 390.3(d)), making an
amendment to 49 CFR 391.64, as ATA suggests, unnecessary.
Notwithstanding the OMCS' ongoing review of the vision standard, as
evidenced by the medical panel's report dated October 16, 1998, and
filed in this docket, the OMCS must comply with Rauenhorst v. United
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 95
F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual exemptions under
standards that are consistent with public safety. Meeting those
standards, the 33 veteran drivers in this case have demonstrated to our
satisfaction that they can continue to operate a CMV with their current
vision safely in interstate commerce because they have demonstrated
their ability in intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they qualify for an
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).
Conclusion
After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its
evaluation of the 33 waiver applications in accordance with Rauenhorst
v. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, supra, the OMCS exempts Terry James Aldridge, Jerry D.
Bridges, Michael L. Brown, Duane D. Burger, Charlie Frank Cook, Greg L.
Dinsmore, Donald D. Dunphy, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre, Russell W.
Foster, Arnold D. Gosser, Eddie Gowens, Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J.
Hanna, Jack L. Henson, Richard K. Jensrud, David R. Jesmain, Albert E.
Malley, Clifford E. Masink, Tyrone O. Mayson, Rodney M. Mimbs, Charles
E. O'Dell, Richard W. O'Neill, Jerry L. Reese, Frances C. Ruble, Johnny
L. Stiff, Robert J. Townsley, Thomas R. Trumpeter, Steven M. Veloz,
Thomas E. Walsh, James T. White, Harry Ray Littlejohn, and Mark K.
Cheely from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to
the following conditions: (1) That each individual be physically
examined every year (a) By an ophthalmologist or optometrist who
attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) By a medical examiner who
attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) That each individual provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at
the time of the annual
[[Page 66966]]
medical examination; and (3) That each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in its
driver qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also
have a copy of the certification when driving so it may be presented to
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the OMCS. The
exemption will be revoked if (1) the person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to the OMCS for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136; 49 CFR 1.73.
Julie Anna Cirillo,
Acting Director, Office of Motor Carrier Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-31062 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
