Qualification of Drivers; Vision Deficiencies; Waivers

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 391

[FHWA Docket No. MC-91-1]

Qualification of Drivers; Vision Deficiencies; Waivers

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Final Determination and change in research plan.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA announces its Final Determination which validates

waivers issued to certain drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMV)

from the date of this notice until March 31, 1996. This action is

directed solely at those drivers who had been granted temporary waivers

to participate in the previously authorized vision waiver study, who

numbered 2,399 as of November 5, 1994. This action follows, and is

consistent with, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit in the case captioned Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v.

Federal Highway Administration, 28 F.3d 1288, D.C. Cir. 1994, which

vacated the rule authorizing the temporary waivers and remanded the

matter to the agency for further action not inconsistent with the

Court's ruling. This notice also announces a basic change in the

purpose for which data on the waived drivers are being collected and

the intention of the FHWA to develop criteria for the imposition of

additional conditions for maintaining the waivers and to improve

monitoring of the performance of the waived drivers to identify and

exclude those drivers who do not meet these conditions.

DATES: This final determination is effective on November 8, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The FHWA has established a special

telephone number to receive inquiries regarding this notice. The number

is 1-800-832-5660. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except legal Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 206(f) of the Motor Carrier Safety

Act of 1984, (MCSA) Pub. L. No. 98-554, 98 Stat. 2832 (codified at 49

U.S.C. 31136(e), formerly 49 U.S.C. app. 2505(f)), allows the Secretary

of Transportation to grant waivers from the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Regulations only after a determination that such waivers are not

contrary to the public interest and are consistent with the safe

operation of CMVs. Historically, except for a limb-handicap waiver

program established in 1979 (49 CFR 391.49), the agency granted no

individual waivers to drivers who did not meet the physical

qualification requirements set forth at 49 CFR 391.41.

Vision Waiver Study

The FHWA announced its vision waiver study in a Notice of Intent to

accept applications for waivers on March 25, 1992, (57 FR 10295). This

vision waiver study was initiated as part of an overall regulatory

review of the medical qualification standards applicable to interstate

CMV drivers. For a complete description of the waiver program, see the

FHWA's October 6, 1994, Notice of Determination; request for comments,

at 59 FR 50887.

Court Decision

The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (hereinafter Advocates or

AHAS) filed suit in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Circuit, requesting a review of the FHWA's notice of final disposition

granting waivers to individuals who otherwise did not meet the Federal

vision standard required for the qualification of CMV drivers in

interstate commerce. The Court found that the FHWA's notices of the

program did provide for meaningful opportunity for comment and that the

comments received were given due consideration. The Court also held

that the FHWA's approach, given the conflicting policy demands, was

reasonable, and therefore not arbitrary and capricious. The Court

observed, however, that the FHWA ``initiated a program to issue

temporary waivers to visually impaired drivers in order to procure the

hard evidence needed to determine the effect of visual deficiencies on

safety. Yet, before it may grant a waiver, the Safety Act required the

agency to determine that such waiver * * * is consistent with the safe

operation of commercial motor vehicles.'' 28 F.3d at 1294. The Court

found that the agency's ``determination that the waiver program will

not adversely affect the safe operation of CMVs is devoid of empirical

support in the record,'' 28 F.3d at 1294, and that ``the FHWA has

failed to meet the exacting requirements of section 2505(f) [now 49

U.S.C. 31136(e)].'' 28 F.3d at 1294. Consequently, the Court concluded

that the FHWA's adoption of the waiver program was contrary to law, and

vacated and remanded the rule to the agency.

Proceedings after the Court Decision

On October 6, 1994, the FHWA published a Notice of Determination,

request for comments in the Federal Register (59 FR 50887), extending

the validity of the vision waivers for a thirty-day period. The Notice

also provided for a 15-day comment period to consider whether the

agency had sufficient empirical evidence to allow the waiver program to

continue until March 31, 1996. On the same day, the Advocates filed an

emergency motion requesting that the Court issue and enforce a mandate

in this case that would, in effect, halt the waiver program. The Court

issued a mandate on October 21, 1994. That mandate simply restated that

the rule authorizing the vision waivers is vacated and remanded the

case to the agency. On October 24, 1994, the Court denied the

Advocates' emergency motion.

Comments

The FHWA received 19 comments to the docket in response to the

October 6 Notice of Determination. Fourteen commenters favored

continuing the vision waiver program, while five commenters asserted

that the program should be discontinued. Commenters in favor of

continuing the program include the National Private Truck Council, the

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Association for

the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, the Tennessee Public Service

Commission, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA),

John Murphy (a driver participating in the waiver program), Thomas

Breth and James Strickland (drivers not participating in the waiver

program), Altim, Inc., Mixson Oil Company, the State of Indiana

Department of Motor Vehicles, Daily Express, Inc., and the American

Optometric Association.

Commenters urging the agency to discontinue the vision waivers are

the Advocates (two separate comments), the Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS), the American Movers Conference, the American

Trucking Association (ATA), and Dr. Arthur M. Keeney, Dean Emeritus,

University of Louisville. Their comments addressed the study design,

the lack of a control group, the use of interim data, and other factors

which, they contend, require the study's termination, or at a minimum,

a restructuring of the method for conducting research.

These comments are more fully discussed below.

Discussion of the Comments

A. In favor:

The State of Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles emphasizes the

importance of the vision waiver as a tool to accurately assess the

vision standards for commercial drivers, specifically addressing the

condition known as amblyopia, or ``lazy eye.'' The State acknowledges

that persons with less than perfect vision often develop scanning

techniques to compensate for their disability, and that such techniques

may actually increase their awareness of traffic and other conditions.

The Tennessee Public Service Commission commented that it has

grandfathered vision impaired CMV drivers and found no increase in

incidents or accidents as a result.

OOIDA, a national trade association representing the interests of a

large number of independent owner-operators at both the Federal and

State level, urged the FHWA to revalidate the waivers of the affected

drivers because delay and uncertainty cause them significant harm.

OOIDA believes that the FHWA's proposal ``strikes a careful balance

between safety * * * and the federal policies underlying the Americans

with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.''

The American Optometric Association (AOA) supports the FHWA effort

to study the performance of visually impaired drivers. The AOA believes

``it is virtually impossible to unequivocally delineate a visual

standard,'' and therefore, contends that a waiver system is needed.

Daily Express, Inc., Mixson Oil Company, Inc. and Altim, Inc. offer

the performance of their employees with waivers as examples of the

ability of drivers to compensate for their disability and remain safe

operators of CMVs. These companies express concern over replacing

waived drivers with known safety records with other drivers whose

safety record is not of the same high caliber.

The National Private Truck Council (NPTC) also expressed support

for the continuation of the vision waivers. The NPTC stresses the need

for the type of data being collected from the waived drivers, as no

such information currently exists. The NPTC believes that the FHWA's

qualifying conditions for drivers, as well as the post-waiver

conditions, ensure that those drivers holding waivers are safe

operators of CMVs. The Association for the Advancement of Automotive

Medicine also expresses the need for the data being gathered, although

it has some reservations regarding the agency's study methodology.

Individual drivers Thomas Breth, James Strickland and John M.

Murphy also commented favorably to the October 6 notice. The latter

commented on his own behalf and on behalf of a freightline company he

owns and operates with his brothers. Mr. Breth, who petitioned the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit because he was excluded from

the vision waiver study because he did not timely file, submitted

extensive records relating to that litigation. Although he supports the

waivers, he opposes limiting them to those drivers originally granted

the waivers under the determination that was invalidated by the D.C.

Circuit in AHAS, supra.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers supports the

30-day extension of the waivers, but does not comment on the extension

of the waivers through March 31, 1996.

B. In opposition:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety accurately portrays the

FHWA's premise for its ``consistent with safety'' determination as

being that drivers with relatively clean driving records are at a lower

risk for future accidents and that this is borne out in the crash

experience of drivers in the waiver group as compared with the general

commercial driver population. It concedes that the studies cited by the

FHWA and other studies1 referred to in the IIHS comments

``(r)epeatedly * * * have shown that prior citations and crashes can be

used as predictors of future crash risk (citations omitted),'' and

acknowledges that such research ``amply justifies driver control

policies based on driver records, such as point systems, suspensions,

and revocations.''

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

\1\Gebers and Peck, 1994, An Inventory of California Driver

Accident Risk Factors. Sacramento, CA: California Dept. of Motor

Vehicles, ``the California study''; Gebers and Peck, 1987, Basic

California Traffic Conviction and Accident Record Facts. Sacramento,

CA, California Dept. of Motor Vehicles; Lund, 1984, Driver Records

and Crash Prediction, Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway

Safety; California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1981, California

Driver Fact Book, Sacramento, CA: Dept. of Motor Vehicles; IIHS,

1988, Drivers' Crash, Violations Records Predict Future Crash

Involvement, Advisory No. 6, Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety.

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

The IIHS, however, goes on to contend that these justifications are

specious. It cites several studies which show that many drivers with

clean driving records are involved in accidents, and that many drivers

with poor driving records over a three-year period experience accident-

free periods of equal length. A 1994 California report is cited which

``did find that crash risk increases as a function of the number of

crashes and citations on a drivers prior record. Of the two, prior

citations is a slightly better indicator of subsequent crash risk, but

subsequent crash risk can be more accurately predicted from a

combination of prior crash and prior citation information than from

either alone.'' Significantly, it is this combination that the FHWA

relied upon to reach its ``consistent with safety'' determination. The

IIHS contends that none of the findings in the California report

support the proposition that ``the absence of citations or crashes can

be used to predict a crash-free future.''

It is apparent from its comments that the IIHS believes that the

FHWA, in order to reach a ``consistent with safety'' determination, was

bound to predict with some certainty that the waived drivers would be

accident-free. The FHWA rejects this contention. The FHWA's

determination is based on a reasonable expectation, supported by the

studies cited both in the October 6 notice and in the IIHS comments,

that the waived drivers with relatively clean driving records, as a

group, would present less of a risk to public safety than a

representative group of drivers, meeting existing standards, to be used

in place of the waived drivers.

The IIHS also faults the FHWA for ignoring the data gathered to

date on fatal crash involvement of the waived group. Because of

reporting errors by the drivers, which were detected and corrected

through the FHWA back-up monitoring systems, much of the information on

fatal accident involvement was not available by the time ``The Third

Interim Monitoring Report on the Drivers of Commercial Motor Vehicles

Who Receive Vision Waivers'' was completed on June 27, 1994. That

report analyzes data collected from July, 1992, through February, 1994.

The Fourth Interim Monitoring Report, which has been placed in the

docket, includes both the fatal and non-fatal accident rates resulting

from all data accumulated through June 30, 1994. The fatal accident

rate for the waived group of drivers is indeed slightly higher than the

general truck driving population. However, in none of the fatal

accidents was the waived driver issued a citation or found by the

reporting police officer to have been at fault.

Finally, the IIHS is critical of the study methodology and faults

the FHWA for its failure to use a control group as originally planned.

The FHWA will more fully address this in the methodology to be

developed to establish parameters for a performance-based vision

standard.

The American Trucking Associations, Inc., a national trade

association of the trucking industry, also commented in opposition to

the FHWA proposal. The ATA had participated in the D.C. Circuit case,

AHAS v. FHWA, supra., by filing an amicus curiae brief in support of

the petitioner's challenge to the waiver study. The ATA contends that

the decision of the Court of Appeals in AHAS was broad enough to

preclude the FHWA's present proposal. The FHWA disagrees for the

reasons stated herein and in its filings with the D.C. Circuit in

opposition to the AHAS motion for issuance and enforcement of a

mandate, which the court dismissed. The filings in that matter are

recorded in the docket.

The ATA suggests that pooling of the waived drivers may mask poor

performance by individual members of the pool, and that comparisons

with general populations are faulty because the waived group contains

only experienced drivers. The ATA then significantly concedes that

``(a) pool of experienced drivers will also appear to be safer than the

national pool which includes new drivers and drivers with various

driving experience.'' That is precisely the point. The FHWA's

``consistent with safety'' determination is based on the premise. The

waived drivers had all been operating commercial motor vehicles on the

highways when the waivers were issued to them. If they were required to

stop driving they would have to be replaced by drivers drawn from the

general population of truck drivers or new drivers. This is

particularly true in this era of driver shortages which the ATA has

publicly and repeatedly proclaimed. (See, e.g., Transport Topics, No.

3050, January 17, 1994, p. 12; and No. 3083, September 5, 1994, p. 42

and p. 49.)

The ATA also faults the study design because it will never be

probative of ``the ability of visually impaired drivers, in general, to

operate CMVs safely.'' The ATA states that this is because ``the study

is limited to the experiences of these apparently better-than-average

drivers.'' Once again, the ATA makes the FHWA's point. The ``consistent

with safety'' determination relates to the issuance of the waivers, and

not to the design or conclusions to be drawn from the study. The FHWA

recognizes that the study as presently fashioned has some problems,

which the FHWA is taking steps to correct. The FHWA also recognizes

that its group of waived drivers may include some subpar performers who

individually may present an unacceptable risk to safety. The FHWA is

taking steps to identify and exclude such drivers, while at the same

time maintaining the integrity of the overall waiver program.

Finally, the ATA contends that the FHWA proposal is an attempt to

give retroactive effect to its previous waiver rule, and that this is

violative of the Administrative Procedure Act, citing Georgetown

University Hosp. v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750 (D.C. Cir. 1987), aff'd., 488

U.S. 204 (1988). The Georgetown case involved a rule issued by the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that affected the formula

under which hospitals were to be reimbursed for the provision of

certain health services. After the rule was invalidated because it was

issued without opportunity for public comment, the HHS issued a new

rule retroactive to an earlier date. On the basis of this new rule, the

HHS then sought reimbursement from the hospitals for payments made

before the date of the new rule which were greater than would be

allowable under the new formula.

The FHWA's decision allowing waived drivers to operate in

interstate commerce until March 31, 1996, has no retroactive effect

whatsoever. It speaks only prospectively. On September 30, the FHWA

validated the waivers for a 30-day period and requested comments.

Moreover, the rule in this instance was not vacated for procedural

error, as it was in the Georgetown case. In this instance, the rule was

vacated after the court determined that the agency did not have the

necessary empirical evidence in the record to support its assertion

that the waivers were consistent with the safe operation of CMVs. The

Notice published on October 6 provided the necessary empirical evidence

for the future effect of the waivers, including data on the driving

performance of the waived group of drivers as a whole, which clearly

indicates that allowing this group to continue operating in interstate

commerce is consistent with the safe operation of CMVs. (See 59 FR

50887 at 50889, 50890, October 6, 1994). In providing the necessary

empirical evidence, the agency cured the defect and now validates the

waivers through March 31, 1996. Consequently, this action is entirely

consistent with the APA.

The comments of the American Movers Conference merely voice its

support for the position taken by the ATA.

Arthur H. Keeney, M.D., D.Sc., a Distinguished Professor of

Ophthalmology and Dean Emeritus of the University of Louisville

Department of Ophthalmology urged the FHWA to hold to its previously

established physiologic standards without further reduction. Dr. Keeney

suggested that the FHWA might grandfather the remaining waived drivers

into the system as a means of proceeding away from the agency's current

course, but recommended against enrolling any more ``monocular blind or

``visually deficient drivers' who may be interpreted as otherwise

qualified to meet occupational requirements.'' Dr. Keeney also

submitted a recently prepared but thus far unpublished paper entitled

``The Monocular Quandary'' which includes an extensive bibliography.

The paper supports the current standard and explores operational

problems, particularly associated with individuals with no vision in

one eye. The FHWA believes the comments and the research paper of Dr.

Keeney will be useful in its pursuit of performance-based vision

standards.

Strong opposition to the FHWA proposal was also received from the

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS), the petitioner in the

D.C. Circuit case referred to throughout this notice. The AHAS reargues

its position in the court proceeding both before and after judgment and

urges a broader interpretation of the court's decision.

The Advocates also believe that the waived drivers could have been

``grandfathered'' into a qualified status, and, indeed, that such an

alternative is still available to the FHWA. It is unclear how the

effect of this approach would differ in any significant degree from

that of the route chosen by the FHWA. The Advocates contend that the

FHWA misused the data from the vision waiver study, ignoring the advice

of its own experts in the process. We believe the AHAS is confusing the

basis for a ``consistent with safety'' determination to justify the

issuance of the waivers in order to conduct the study with prejudging

the outcome of the study. As mentioned above, the FHWA concedes that

the study, as currently designed, will not produce, by itself,

sufficient evidence upon which to develop a new vision standard, and

the FHWA has never claimed that the study was intended to create a

standard, per se, for issuing waivers.

Finally, the AHAS criticized the FHWA for not being candid with the

data it has obtained during the course of the vision waiver study. It

claims that the FHWA has underreported fatalities. The FHWA has made

every attempt to be forthcoming regarding the data and accident

information compiled. In fact, the State police and accident reports

referred to in comments by the Advocates were provided promptly and

directly to the AHAS by the agency. This issue, however, has convinced

the agency to take steps to improve its monitoring systems.

The Fourth Interim Report has been completed by the contractor and

covers cumulative activities and mileage through June 30, 1994. Since

the June 30 date, another waived driver has been involved in a fatal

accident. As of June 30, the fatal accident rate for waived drivers is

0.034 per million vehicle miles travelled (VMT) as compared to the

national rate computed from GES data of 0.026. The total accident rate

for drivers in the waived group is 1.636 per million VMT compared with

the rate of 2.531 per million VMT computed from GES data. Given the

small number of fatal accidents that have occurred, these rates can

represent only approximate estimates of what may actually be expected

to occur on the highways. Therefore, conclusions drawn solely from them

must be cautiously interpreted.

Additionally, the fatal accidents that have occurred were not

necessarily related to the drivers' vision impairments. The most recent

fatality, which was promptly reported by the waived driver involved,

occurred when an automobile collided with the rear end of the truck

operated by the waived driver. The police accident report indicated

there was no fault on the part of the truck driver. A review of the

police accident reports of the previous 6 fatal accidents in which

waived drivers were involved also reveals that none of the waived

drivers was found to be at fault by the reporting police officer.

Status of the Waived Drivers

The FHWA has reviewed all the comments carefully, conferred with

its contractor administering the agency's vision waiver program and

conducted peer reviews regarding the studies and other evidence

submitted by the commenters. The FHWA believes that continuing to allow

those drivers operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate

commerce while holding Federal vision waivers is consistent with the

two-pronged test set forth in the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49

U.S.C. 31136(e) (1994)).

As discussed above, even the comments opposing the vision waivers

did not refute the premise upon which the ``consistent with safety''

determination articulated in the October 6 notice was based. The

studies referred to by the FHWA to support the proposition that a group

of experienced drivers with clean driving records over a 3-year period

will present less of a risk than a group of drivers selected from the

general truck driving population to replace them over a similar 3-year

period were not contradicted. In fact, studies referred to by some of

the commenters opposing the vision waivers bolstered this position. The

opposing commenters did, however, point out some weaknesses in

monitoring the performance of the waived drivers which can be corrected

to assure the continued safety of these drivers.

To correct these and assure the continued safety of the drivers,

the FHWA will, within the next 60 days, undertake a close review of the

data gathered thus far and develop additional criteria which the waived

drivers will be required to meet as conditions of retaining the waiver.

These conditions will be communicated directly to the waived drivers.

In those 60 days, the FHWA will also improve its monitoring systems to

enable the agency to more promptly identify subpar performers among the

waived group to ensure that safety is maintained.

Determination

The FHWA has determined that the issuance of waivers to the 2,399

drivers remaining in the study group is consistent with the public

interest and the safe operation of commercial motor vehicles. This

determination is based on studies referred to herein and data gathered

during the course of the last two years which support the proposition

that a group of experienced drivers of commercial motor vehicles with

clean driving records, including both accident and citation records

over the previous three years, will present a lower risk to safety over

the following 3 years than a group of the same size comprised of

drivers representing the general truck driving population, including

new drivers, over the same 3-year period. The statistics that have been

gathered from the waived drivers to date indicate that this class of

drivers has performed and continues to perform more safely than those

drivers in the general population of commercial drivers.

The waivers were issued to these drivers following an individual

determination of each driver's capability to operate a commercial motor

vehicle (CMV) safely. This individual determination consisted of a

review of each individual's vital statistics, employment history,

status of driving privilege as recorded on the licensing State's MVR

and the license status for the past three years, and expert medical

opinion by an ophthalmologist or optometrist attesting to the visual

acuity of each driver and its effect on his or her ability to perform

the driving task safely. Once a driver was granted a waiver, he or she

was, and is, required to submit monthly driving reports and be examined

annually by an ophthalmologist or optometrist and submit the results of

that examination to the FHWA. Failure to report timely as required will

result in the initiation of a process to revoke the waiver. Moreover,

the FHWA's contractor periodically verifies the waived drivers reported

accidents and citations through each driver's State motor vehicle

record (MVR). Medical reports are also verified. The drivers holding

waivers from the Federal vision standards, as is true of all drivers in

the general population, are not immune from State or Federal

enforcement or licensing sanctions by virtue of their participation in

the waiver study, and are subject to the penalty provisions of the

commercial drivers' license regulations (49 CFR Part 383), State and

local licensing sanctions, as well as the penalty provisions set forth

as conditions of the waiver.

In addition, the FHWA believes that the continued employment of

individuals with proven safe driving records is in the public interest.

The comments to the docket reflect several instances where companies

employing waived drivers rely heavily upon their waived drivers because

these drivers are consistently safe operators of CMVs. Permitting

waived drivers to continue operating in interstate commerce is also

consistent with the public interest policy of employing persons with

disabilities, which is evidenced in both the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Status of the Study

The agency believes that the observations made by the Advocates,

the ATA, the IIHS and others regarding flaws in the current research

method have merit. In addition, several experts reviewed the studies

and data upon which the FHWA based its ``consistent with safety''

determination and were unanimous in finding (1) the waived drivers as a

group would be expected to perform as well as or better than a group of

equal size drawn at random from the general truck driving population

because of the preselection criteria and conditions; and (2) the data

developed by the study will never answer the question as to what the

standards should be. Consequently, the FHWA has decided to develop and

implement, with the input of these commenters and others, a new

research method that will address the concerns of these commenters.

The FHWA will undertake comprehensive research to develop

parameters for performance-based visual standards for all commercial

drivers. The agency anticipates that any new vision standards will

consider at least three critical aspects of visual performance: static

acuity, dynamic acuity, and useful field of view. The vision standard

found at 49 CFR Sec. 391.41(b)(10) will remain in effect until the

completion of this research and the implementation of any new standard.

The agency's ultimate goal is to adopt driver physical qualification

standards that are performance-based; that is, they will reflect the

actual physical requirements that fosters safe operation of commercial

vehicles.

Development of standards will begin with an analysis of the

existing body of knowledge, including knowledge gained from this

project when completed, and from analogous applications of visual

standards in other environments (e.g., Department of Defense, Federal

Aviation Administration, and National Aeronautical and Space

Administration). The final standards will be developed in careful

consideration of the practical constraints of driver vision testing,

cost, examiner training, testing time, and requirements for development

of new testing equipment, all of which will be balanced against

projected safety improvements.

The FHWA will proceed within the following framework:

FHWA will develop a sound methodology, based on accepted

experimental and statistical practices, for developing visual

standards.

The development process will include consideration of the

collected accident experience of commercial vehicle operators,

including the drivers holding vision waivers.

Before a final method and design for developing standards

is determined, FHWA will announce its proposed method and design for

discussion at a public meeting to be held in the Spring of 1995. The

proposed method will be open to public scrutiny. The final methodology

will be published in the Federal Register.

The FHWA will announce the results of the study, the

proposed standards and a proposed plan for implementing the standards

at the completion of this study.

Public Hearing on Vision Standard and Waiver Program

As mentioned earlier, the FHWA intends to announce its proposed

revisions to the research method at a public hearing to be held in

Spring 1995. The FHWA is eager to gain a broader perspective of the

public's viewpoint concerning other studies, data and experiences which

will enhance the agency's knowledge on the subject of a performance-

based vision standard. The FHWA is also interested in sharing its data

with other researchers and agencies which may undertake useful analyses

and initiate studies leading to new approaches in establishing future

physical qualification standards, standards that are both necessary and

valid to increasing opportunities in the truck-driving profession while

ensuring that society's high expectations of CMV safety are realized.

Notice of the hearing will be published in the Federal Register and

will contain further questions to which the agency seeks responses, as

well as directions on how to obtain information about the data

collected during the vision waiver study.

Conclusion

Based upon the comments to the docket and the empirical evidence

gathered to date, the FHWA will allow those drivers currently holding

waivers from the Federal vision standard to continue to operate in

interstate commerce until March 31, 1996. This permission is

conditioned upon each driver's continued compliance with the reporting

requirements outlined in the Federal Register on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31458) and again on October 6, 1994 (59 FR 50887) and such further

conditions and monitoring as may be imposed by the FHWA in the interest

of safety. Waived drivers also remain subject to State or Federal

enforcement or licensing sanctions. Additionally, the FHWA will

concurrently undertake research to develop comprehensive, performance-

based visual standards for all commercial drivers. This proposed

analysis and research method will be presented at a public hearing to

be held in Spring 1995, and the public will be invited to comment on

the research method. And finally, the FHWA, within the next 60 days,

will complete a review of the performance data on the waived drivers to

develop criteria which will form the basis for further conditions which

will be imposed directly on the waiver holders and will further reduce

the safety risks to these drivers and highway users.

Issued on: November 9, 1994.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-28380 Filed 11-14-94; 12:40 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-22-P