[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51568-51572]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
[FHWA Docket No. FHWA-99-5578]
Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA announces its decision to exempt 32 individuals from
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
DATES: September 23, 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
Thirty-two individuals petitioned the FHWA for a waiver of the
vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. They are Grady
Lee Black, Jr., Marvin E. Brock, Roosevelt Bryant, Jr., John Alex
Chizmar, Billy M. Coker, Cliff Dovel, George T. Ellis, Jr., Weldon R.
Evans, Richard L. Gagnebin, James P. Guth, James J. Hewitt, Paul M.
Hoerner, Carroll Joseph Ledet, Charles L. Lovern, Craig M. Mahaffey,
Michael S. Maki, Gerald Wayne McGuire, Eldon Miles, Craig W. Miller,
Walter F. Moniowczak, Howard R. Payne, Kenneth Adam Reddick, Leonard
Rice, Jr., Willard L. Riggle, John A. Sortman, James Archie Strickland,
James Terry Sullivan, Edward A. Vanderhei, Buford C. Varnadore, Kevin
P. Weinhold, Thomas A. Wise, and Rayford R. Harper. Under 49 U.S.C.
31315 and 31136(e), 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 FHWA evaluated the
petitions on their merits and made a preliminary determination that the
waivers should be granted. On May 18, 1999, the agency
[[Page 51569]]
published notice of its preliminary determination and requested
comments from the public (64 FR 27027). The comment period closed on
June 17, 1999. Two comments were received, and their contents were
carefully considered by the FHWA 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 FHWA's view that the present standard
is reasonable and necessary as a general standard to ensure highway
safety. The FHWA 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 32 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including
amblyopia, retinal and corneal scars, and loss of an eye due to trauma.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed. All
but nine applicants were either born with their vision impairments or
have had them since childhood. The nine individuals who sustained their
vision conditions as adults have had them for periods ranging from 6 to
43 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 32 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 4 to 42 years.
In the past 3 years, the 32 drivers had a total of four moving
violations among them. Three drivers were involved in minor accidents
in their CMVs, but there were no injuries and none of the CMV drivers
received a citation.
The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in 64 FR 27027, May 18,
1999. Since the docket comments did not focus on the qualifications of
a specific 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 in 64 FR 27027.
Basis for Exemption Determination
Under revised 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the FHWA 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 FHWA
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 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). That experienced monocular drivers with good
driving records in the waiver study 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
study 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 32 applicants, we note that cumulatively the applicants have had
only three minor accidents and four traffic violations in the last 3
years. None of the violations represented a serious traffic violation
as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, and neither of the accidents involved
bodily injury or resulted in a
[[Page 51570]]
citation. 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' driving histories with their vision deficiencies are
predictors of future performance, the FHWA 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 pedestrians and
vehicle 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 a CMV safely under
those conditions for at least 4 years, most for much longer. Their
experience and driving records lead us to believe the applicants are
capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as they have in
intrastate commerce. Consequently, the FHWA 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 FHWA will impose
requirements on the 32 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 FHWA received two comments in this proceeding. Each comment was
considered and is discussed below.
Ms. Felicia Harrison of Pahokee, Florida, supported the FHWA's
determination to grant the exemptions. She believes, like the FHWA,
that past driving records are good indicators of future performance and
that the 32 applicants for vision exemptions have demonstrated their
ability to operate CMVs safely.
In the other comment, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS)
expresses continued opposition to the FHWA's policy to grant exemptions
from the FMCSRs including the driver qualification standards.
Specifically, the AHAS questions the agency's reliance on conclusions
drawn from the vision waiver program, suggests that the criteria used
by the FHWA for considering exemptions is flawed, raises procedural
objections to this proceeding and finally, claims the agency has
misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)).
On the first issue regarding what inferences can be drawn from the
results of the waiver study program, the AHAS suggests that the FHWA
cannot base the present proceedings on the results generated by the
waiver study program because a valid research model was not used. In
response to this concern, we note that the validity of research designs
is a quality with many dimensions which cannot be accepted or dismissed
in a blanket, simplistic statement. The approach used by the FHWA for
the assessment of risk is a valid design that has been used in
epidemiology for studies of occupational health. These observational
studies compare a treated or exposed group of finite size to a control
group that is large and represents outcomes for the nation as a whole
(e.g., national mortality rates or truck accident rates). This design
has been used to investigate risk relative to the hazards of asbestos
and benzene with regulatory decisions based on the outcomes.
The strength of the design is that it provides a high level of
external validity. Being able to compare outcomes to a national norm
places the focus in proper perspective for regulatory matters. This, of
course, is the strength relative to the waiver program where the
General Estimates System (GES) accident rates represent a national
safety norm. While the design has been successfully used in critical
risk areas, its application has not been without challenges. Most of
the criticism has focused on the data used in the models. It has been
correctly argued that exposure to hazards has not always been clearly
measured because recordkeeping is not accurate or complete. Criticism
has also focused on the poor measurement of health outcomes. Vagueness
in the assessment of outcomes was due to poor recordkeeping or exposed
individuals not being examined. Threats to the validity of measurement
do not appear to be as large an issue in the waiver program's risk
assessment. Exposure, for example, in the assessment is manifested by
participation in the waiver program (as exposure to a treatment) and
through vehicle miles traveled (as exposure to risk). The measurement
of participation in the program had no vagueness by virtue of the
required recordkeeping. Exposure to risk by vehicle miles traveled was
measured by self-report and could, of course, contain errors. However,
since reports were made on a monthly basis, it was not expected that
the reporting for these short periods would contain significant
systematic error over the life of the program. Risk outcomes in this
assessment were determined through accident occurrence. Accident
occurrence was verified in multiple ways through self-report (a program
requirement), the Commercial Driver License Information System, State
driving records, and police accident reports. As a result it is
believed that the research approach used in the waiver program did not
suffer serious flaws relative to the validity of measurement.
Criticism of the approach taken by the waiver program relative to
internal validity could have some merit. Even the original design
proposed for the waiver study received concern for its internal
validity. That design proposed to use a sample of commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) operators without vision deficiencies as a comparison
group. While the design was appealing, it had potential for flaws
relative to internal validity. Due to the nature of the vision
deficiencies examined, the drivers could not be randomly assigned to
the waiver and comparison groups as is done in clinical trials. As the
desirable paradigm
[[Page 51571]]
for science, clinical trials go to great length to guarantee internal
validity. But, as is being increasingly pointed out in medical research
where randomized trials are seen as the basis of good science, even
these studies can have flaws which undermine their external validity
(U.S. General Accounting Office, ``Cross Design Synthesis; A New
Strategy for Medical Effectiveness Research,'' March 1992, GAO/PEMD-92-
18).
In the GAO report cited above, it was suggested that the results
obtained through randomized clinical trials be adjusted to apply to a
patient population which was not represented in the trial, and,
thereby, enhanced external validity. Moreover, it was also suggested
that the results from other observational (i.e. non-random) studies be
used to support the evidence provided by clinical trials. Of course,
these studies would have to be assessed to determine the degree of bias
present relative to internal validity. If it existed, adjustments would
be required. As is more often being recognized, all aspects of
scientific endeavor contain flaws; design, measurement, and even the
research questions asked (Cook, J.D. ``Postpositivist Critical
Multiplism'' in L. Shortland and H.M. Mark (eds.) Social Science and
Social Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1985). The necessary approach to
obtaining valid results is to thoroughly examine a study for bias and
make adjustments where possible. If the original waiver study
comparative design had been implemented, it probably would have
required adjustments related to both internal and external validity.
The waiver program and its research design were reviewed on several
occasions. Most of the critical discussion concerned analytic
methodology given the nature of the GES comparison group. The risk
monitoring aspect of the design was largely endorsed. However, one
researcher correctly criticized the comparison with the national GES
data because it would not be possible to assess the potential for
comparison bias as a threat to internal validity. This criticism was
correct because such potential confounding factors as age and driving
patterns are not available in the GES data to determine if a lack of
balance exists between the waiver group and the comparison data. If the
factors were not balanced, adjustments could not be made. The bias, if
it existed, would therefore be hidden. This has been a concern to the
FHWA. To address this, a sensitivity analysis was performed to assess
the impact of possible hidden bias (Rosenbaum, P.R. Observational
Studies, New York, Springer-Verlag 1995). The analysis examined
outcomes under various levels of hidden bias and the results showed
that the comparison with GES accident rates is largely insensitive to
hidden bias. The results of this sensitivity analysis, filed in this
docket, provide evidence to support the internal validity of the
comparison to GES data.
Based on the various assessments, it would appear that the results
of the waiver program risk analysis are basically valid. The
measurement of exposure and risk outcomes was conducted with virtually
no error. The external validity is ensured because a national norm is
the focus of comparison and, based on the sensitivity analysis, the
degree of internal validity is strengthened. To obtain valid results
that point to a clear causal connection between an action and an
outcome basically rests on ruling out other influences on the outcome.
While these appear to be largely accomplished based on an examination
of the various types of validity, there remains an additional threat to
the validity of the results. Relative to this, it has been argued that
the drivers in the various waiver programs have lower accident rates
because they are aware of being monitored, and monitoring is a strong
motivation to exercise care. Given the possible threat, the FHWA
conducted a follow up assessment after the waived drivers were given
grandfather rights in March 1996. Conducted in June 1998, an assessment
of the drivers' accident experience was made for the period to December
1996. The results, on file in this docket, showed that the drivers who
had been in the program continued to have an accident rate that was
lower than the national norm.
Based on the arguments given above, it is reasonable to conclude
that the results generated by the waiver program have a high degree of
validity. It then remains to determine how these results can be used,
i.e., what inferences can be drawn from results and what are the
boundaries on these inferences? The AHAS states categorically that
``the agency cannot extrapolate from the experience of the drivers in
the vision waiver program to other vision impaired drivers who did not
participate in the program.'' To some degree this statement is correct.
Based on the design, data collection and analysis associated with the
waiver program, the FHWA does not wish to generalize the results of the
study to other drivers with vision deficiencies. That is, drivers are
not the focus of inference. They are associated with the inference but
are not necessarily the subject of inference. Nor are the vision
standards the focus of inference from the results. As the AHAS pointed
out, ``the FHWA recognizes that there were weaknesses in the waiver
study design and believes that the waiver study has not produced, by
itself, sufficient evidence upon which to develop new vision and
diabetes standards.'' This statement by the FHWA merely recognizes that
the study design did not ask questions concerning whether there are
vision characteristics other than those in standards that could permit
safe operating of a CMV. The FHWA conducted a feasibility assessment to
determine if such a study could be designed and implemented. It was
concluded that resources were not available to do this.
The target of inference in the waiver study is suggested in another
quotation offered by the AHAS. The AHAS points out that the FHWA has
stated ``that monocular drivers in the waiver program demonstrated
their ability to drive safely supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, with qualifications similar to those required by the
waiver program, can also adapt to their vision deficiency and operate
safely.'' This statement captures the focus of inference while being
somewhat restrictive relative to the type of vision deficiency
involved. The target of the test in the research design was the process
of granting waivers. That is, it can be inferred that drivers with
vision deficiencies who are approved by the screening process in the
waiver program will be able to operate CMVs in a manner that is as safe
or safer than the prevailing national safety norm. The inference is not
being made to screening processes in general. It is only being inferred
for the single process in the waiver program and that this process is
viable for the purpose intended. That the AHAS has stated such a
conclusion is not tenable because a valid research design was not used
is, in itself, a proposition that does not enjoy support. The
discussion of the validity of the approach clarifies the value of
results. If the inferences drawn from these results focus on the
process tested, the conclusions are valid. It follows that the
application of the waiver process to future screening should also
produce valid results.
In its second point, that there is an important flaw in the
criteria used by the agency, the AHAS contends the agency ``ignores''
regulatory provisions that would require reliance upon a ten-year
driving history. This is based on CDL disqualifications that apply upon
the repeat convictions for certain violations committed in a ten-year
[[Page 51572]]
period. Because the exemption criteria includes consideration of an
applicant's driving record for a three-year period, the AHAS concludes:
``Thus, while drivers who are not granted exemptions are subject to the
10-year requirement for second and third disqualifying offenses,
drivers who are granted exemptions from the federal vision standard are
also exempt from reporting convictions for disqualifying offenses that
took place more than 3 years prior to the application for exemption.''
There is absolutely no basis for this conclusion. The previous
discussion explains why a 3-year driving history was chosen as a
criterion for determining whether the applicant has successfully
adjusted to the vision deficiency. The exemption granted to these
petitioners applies only to the qualification standard in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) (vision). The drivers receiving the exemptions are
subject to all other regulations, including all of the CDL and other
qualification standards. In fact, as noted above, all these applicants
possess a valid CDL.
In its third point, the AHAS objects to the procedure employed in
processing these petitions for exemptions, contending that there is no
statutory basis for making a ``preliminary'' determination, which tends
to pre-judge the outcome. The AHAS makes an analogy to an interim final
rule where an agency ``has already made its decision * * * (and)
predetermined its view of the merits prior to soliciting and evaluating
public comments on the petition.'' This analogy is misplaced. The
agency's ``preliminary determination'' is much more akin to a notice of
proposed rulemaking, where the agency analyzes the basis upon which a
new or amended regulation has been considered, and then proposes that
the new rule take effect. The agency then considers the information
obtained in response to the NPRM and issues a final rule. This is no
different. The agency analyzes the information provided in the
completed application. Some applications are denied outright. It is
only when the agency proposes to grant a petition that it publishes
that proposal, together with its analysis of the information submitted
in support of the petition, for public comment. After consideration of
public comment, a final decision is published. The denials will be
summarized periodically, consistent with the statute, and published in
the Federal Register. Quoting from 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4)(A), the AHAS
ignores that part of the quotation that is entirely consistent with the
FHWA's approach: ``* * * (the (FHWA) shall publish in the Federal
Register a notice explaining the request that has been filed and shall
give the public an opportunity to inspect the safety analysis and any
other relevant information known to the (FHWA) and to comment on the
request.'' Obviously, the public is entitled to know how the agency
treated the information it received, including whether it intended to
grant the application. The AHAS could not seriously argue that the
statute requires the agency to conduct a plebiscite on every
application it receives.
The AHAS' final point, as it readily admits, is not even relevant
to this action, and merely reargues its position that the agency
misinterpreted the current law on exemptions by considering them
slightly more lenient than the previous law. 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), and the FHWA sees no benefit in addressing
this point again in this document.
Notwithstanding the FHWA's ongoing review of the vision standard,
as evidenced by the medical panel's report dated October 16, 1998, and
filed in this docket, however, the FHWA must comply with Rauenhorst
versus 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 32 veteran drivers in this case have
demonstrated to our satisfaction that they can operate a CMV with their
current vision as safely in interstate commerce as they have 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 32 waiver applications in accordance with Rauenhorst
versus United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, supra, the FHWA exempts Grady Lee Black, Jr., Marvin E.
Brock, Roosevelt Bryant, Jr., John Alex Chizmar, Billy M. Coker, Cliff
Dovel, George T. Ellis, Jr., Weldon R. Evans, Richard L. Gagnebin,
James P. Guth, James J. Hewitt, Paul M. Hoerner, Carroll Joseph Ledet,
Charles L. Lovern, Craig M. Mahaffey, Michael S. Maki, Gerald Wayne
McGuire, Eldon Miles, Craig W. Miller, Walter F. Moniowczak, Howard R.
Payne, Kenneth Adam Reddick, Leonard Rice, Jr., Willard L. Riggle, John
A. Sortman, James Archie Strickland, James Terry Sullivan, Edward A.
Vanderhei, Buford C. Varnadore, Kevin P. Weinhold, Thomas A. Wise, and
Rayford R. Harper 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 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 FHWA. 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 FHWA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136; 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR
1.48.
Issued on: September 16, 1999.
Kenneth R Wykle,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-24718 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
