Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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