[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66962-66966]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31062]



[[Page 66962]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of Motor Carrier Safety
[OMCS Docket No. 99-5748 (formerly FHWA Docket No. 99-5748)]


Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The OMCS announces its decision to exempt 33 individuals from 
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

DATES: November 30, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about the vision 
exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Motor 
Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-2987; for information about 
legal issues related to this notice, Ms. Judith Rutledge, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0834, Federal Highway Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20590. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    Internet users may access all comments received by the U.S. DOT 
Dockets, Room PL-401, by using the universal resource locator (URL): 
http://dms.dot.gov. It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each 
year. Please follow the instructions online for more information and 
help.
    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem 
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing 
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet 
users may reach the Federal Register's home page at: http://
www.nara.gov/fedreg and the Government Printing Office's web page at: 
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.

Background

    The Secretary has rescinded the authority previously delegated to 
the Federal Highway Administration to perform motor carrier functions 
and operations. This authority has been redelegated to the Director, 
Office of Motor Carrier Safety (OMCS), a new office within the 
Department of Transportation (64 FR 56270, October 19, 1999). This 
explains the docket transfer. The new OMCS assumes the motor carrier 
functions previously performed by the FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier 
and Highway Safety (OMCHS). Ongoing rulemaking, enforcement, and other 
activities of the OMCHS, initiated while part of the FHWA, will be 
continued by the OMCS. The redelegation will cause no changes in the 
motor carrier functions and operations of the offices or resource 
centers.
    Thirty-three individuals petitioned the FHWA for an exemption of 
the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to 
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. The 
OMCS is now responsible for processing the vision exemption 
applications of the 33 drivers. They are Terry James Aldridge, Jerry D. 
Bridges, Michael L. Brown, Duane D. Burger, Charlie Frank Cook, Greg L. 
Dinsmore, Donald D. Dunphy, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre, Russell W. 
Foster, Arnold D. Gosser, Eddie Gowens, Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J. 
Hanna, Jack L. Henson, Richard K. Jensrud, David R. Jesmain, Albert E. 
Malley, Clifford E. Masink, Tyrone O. Mayson, Rodney M. Mimbs, Charles 
E. O'Dell, Richard W. O'Neill, Jerry L. Reese, Frances C. Ruble, Johnny 
L. Stiff, Robert J. Townsley, Thomas R. Trumpeter, Steven M. Veloz, 
Thomas E. Walsh, James T. White, Harry Ray Littlejohn, and Mark K. 
Cheely. Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the OMCS (and previously 
the FHWA) may grant an exemption for a renewable 2-year period if it 
finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is 
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent 
such exemption.'' Accordingly, the OMCS evaluated the petitions on 
their merits and made a preliminary determination that the waivers 
should be granted. On July 26, 1999, the agency published notice of its 
preliminary determination and requested comments from the public (64 FR 
40404). The comment period closed on August 25, 1999. Three comments 
were received, and their contents were carefully considered by the OMCS 
in reaching the final decision to grant the petitions.

Vision And Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) provides:

    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor 
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity 
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective 
lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in both 
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 
70 deg. in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to 
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard 
red, green, and amber.

    Since 1992, the FHWA has undertaken studies to determine if this 
vision standard should be amended. The final report from our medical 
panel recommends changing the field of vision standard from 70 deg. to 
120 deg., while leaving the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See 
Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello, 
M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, M.D., ``Visual Requirements and 
Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, filed in the docket). The 
panel's conclusion supports the OMCS' (and previously the FHWA's) view 
that the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a general 
standard to ensure highway safety. The OMCS also recognizes that some 
drivers do not meet the vision standard but have adapted their driving 
to accommodate their vision limitation and demonstrated their ability 
to drive safely.
    The 33 applicants fall into this category. They are unable to meet 
the vision standard in one eye for various reasons, including 
amblyopia, retinal detachment, macular defect, and loss of an eye due 
to trauma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently 
developed. All but seven applicants were either born with their vision 
impairments or have had them since childhood. The seven individuals who 
sustained their vision conditions as adults have had them for periods 
ranging from 5 to 34 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision 
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected 
vision in the other eye and, in a doctor's opinion, can perform all the 
tasks necessary to operate a CMV. The doctors' opinions are supported 
by the applicants' possession of a valid commercial driver's license 
(CDL). Before issuing a CDL, States subject drivers to knowledge and 
performance tests designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate 
the CMV. All these applicants satisfied the testing standards for their 
State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the 
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a commercial vehicle, 
with their limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State. The 
Federal interstate qualification standards, however, require more.
    While possessing a valid CDL, these 33 drivers have been authorized 
to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce even though their vision 
disqualifies them from driving in interstate commerce. They have driven 
CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from

[[Page 66963]]

4 to 45 years. In the past 3 years, the 33 drivers had only one 
conviction for a traffic violation among them and that was a non-moving 
offense. Five drivers were involved in accidents in their CMVs, but 
there were no injuries and only one of the CMV drivers received a 
citation which was later dismissed under local authority.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each 
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in a July 26, 1999, 
notice (64 FR 40404). Since the docket comments did not focus on the 
specific merits or qualifications of any applicant, we have not 
repeated the individual profiles here. Our summary analysis of the 
applicants as a group, however, is supported by the information 
published at 64 FR 40404.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), the OMCS may grant an exemption 
from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is 
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would 
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants 
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the 
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our 
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is 
likely to be achieved by permitting these drivers to drive in 
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting them to driving in 
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, the OMCS 
considered not only the medical reports about the applicants' vision 
but also their driving records and experience with the vision 
deficiency. Recent driving performance is especially important in 
evaluating future safety according to several research studies designed 
to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these 
studies support the principle that the best predictor of future 
performance by a driver is his/her past record of accidents and traffic 
violations. Copies of the studies have been added to the docket.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular drivers 
because data from the vision waiver program clearly demonstrate the 
driving performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is 
better than that of all CMV drivers collectively. (See 61 FR 13338, 
13345, March 26, 1996). That experienced monocular drivers with good 
driving records in the waiver program demonstrated their ability to 
drive safely supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, 
meeting the same qualifying conditions to those required by the waiver 
program, are also likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and 
will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance 
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies, 
building on that model, concluded that accident rates for the same 
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary 
only slightly. (See Bates and Neyman, University of California 
Publications in Statistics, April 1952.) Other studies demonstrated 
theories of predicting accident proneness from accident history coupled 
with other factors. These factors, such as age, sex, geographic 
location, mileage driven and conviction history, are used every day by 
insurance companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the 
probability of an individual experiencing future accidents. (See Weber, 
Donald C., ``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple 
Regression Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American 
Statistical Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record 
Study prepared by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded 
that the best overall accident predictor for both concurrent and 
nonconcurrent events is the number of single convictions. This study 
used 3 consecutive years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers 
in the first 2 years with their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of 
the 33 applicants, we note that cumulatively the applicants have had 
only six accidents and one non-moving traffic violation in the last 3 
years. None of the violations involved a serious traffic violation as 
defined in 49 CFR 383.5, and neither of the accidents resulted in 
bodily injury. In one of the accidents, a citation was issued, but was 
later dismissed under local authority. The applicants achieved this 
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment, 
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving 
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving 
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future 
performance, the OMCS concludes their ability to drive safely can be 
projected into the future.
    We believe applicants' intrastate driving experience provides an 
adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely in 
interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations, 
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and 
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in 
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and 
vehicular traffic than exist on interstate highways. Faster reaction to 
traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances are 
more compact than on highways. These conditions tax visual capacity and 
driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions. The 
veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs safely under 
those conditions for at least 4 years, most for much longer. Their 
experience and driving records lead us to believe that each applicant 
is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely as he or she 
has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently, the OMCS 
finds that exempting applicants from the vision standard in 49 CFR 
391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that 
existing without the exemption. For this reason, the agency will grant 
the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 
31136(e).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect 
his/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle as safely as in the 
past. As a condition of the exemption, therefore, the OMCS will impose 
requirements on the 33 individuals consistent with the grandfathering 
provisions applied to drivers who participated in the agency's vision 
waiver program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the 
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year 
(a) By an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in 
the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), 
and (b) By a medical examiner who attests that the individual is 
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) That each 
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's 
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical 
examination; and (3) That each individual provide a copy of the annual 
medical certification to the employer for retention in its driver 
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver qualification file 
if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of the 
certification when driving so it may be presented to a duly authorized 
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    The OMCS received three comments in this proceeding. Each comment 
was considered and is discussed below.

[[Page 66964]]

    The wife of a Florida truck driver supports a change to the Federal 
vision requirements for operating CMVs in interstate commerce citing 
the economic hardship imposed on her family because her husband is 
restricted to driving only in Florida. In support of her position, she 
cites her husband's good driving record and suggests that his vision 
problem has made him a more vigilant driver. As stated above, the OMCS 
believes that the present standard is reasonable and necessary as a 
general standard to ensure highway safety. The OMCS recognizes, 
however, that some drivers who do not meet the vision standard have 
adapted their driving to accommodate their vision limitation and 
demonstrated their ability to drive safely and therefore, supports the 
granting of individual exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) on a case-
by-case evaluation.
    In another comment, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) 
expresses continued opposition to the FHWA's policy to grant exemptions 
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) including 
the driver qualification standards. Specifically, the AHAS: (1) Asks 
the agency to clarify the consistency of the exemption application 
information provided at 64 FR 40404, (2) Objects to the agency's 
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program, (3) 
Suggests that the criteria used by the FHWA for considering exemptions 
is flawed, (4) Raises procedural objections to this proceeding, (5) 
Claims the agency has misinterpreted statutory language on the granting 
of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)), and finally, (6) Suggests 
that a recent Supreme Court decision affects the legal validity of 
vision exemptions.
    On the first issue regarding clarification of exemption application 
information, the AHAS points to what it sees as ``inconsistencies and 
differences in the types of information'' provided in individual 
applications. The AHAS questions why the FHWA omitted information on 
mileage driven for 11 of the 33 applicants, total years of experience 
for applicant 32 (Harry Ray Littlejohn), and the vision in the better 
eye for applicant 3 (Michael L. Brown). In the case of applicant 3, the 
agency inadvertently left out the information on the vision in the 
better eye which was 20/30 with correction. Otherwise, this difference 
in the presentation of information simply reflects the OMCS' case-by-
case assessments of individual applications. Total mileage driven was 
provided as an indicator of overall CMV experience. The omission of 
total mileage information for 11 of the 33 applicants is not 
significant since all 33 applicants have 3 years of experience 
operating a CMV with their vision deficiency in a period recent enough 
for the OMCS to verify their safety records. Applicant 32, whose 
application information on total years of experience was left out, has 
27 years experience operating a CMV.
    Other apparent inconsistencies identified by the AHAS, such as, the 
use of different terminology describing the driving records of 
applicants, reflects the agency's case-by-case assessments of 
individual applications as to whether there were any accidents or 
traffic violations in CMV in the past 3 years. Regardless of how the 
agency states this information--that is, in a CMV, in any vehicle or no 
accidents or violations, it indicates that the applicant has not had an 
accident or traffic violation in a CMV in the last 3 years. The use of 
different terminology is not, as the AHAS suggests, an attempt by the 
OMCS to manipulate information in such a way as to ``put the best 
possible appearance on each petition for exemption.''
    Specific information provided on the 6 accidents and one non-moving 
violation of the 33 applicants is a presentation of the facts as we 
know them and not any attempt to downplay or explain away accidents and 
citations as the AHAS suggests. Regarding applicant 16 (Richard K. 
Jensrud) who was initially cited for an accident which was later 
dismissed under local authority, the FHWA is not questioning the 
judgment of the police officer at the scene of the accident or the 
validity of the citation, as AHAS suggests, but merely reporting the 
facts of the case. Furthermore, information presented indicating that 
applicant 16 drove 1.8 million miles in 6 years is an error. The 
information at 64 FR 40404 should have indicated that this applicant 
drove 50,000 per year for a total of 300,000 miles.
    The second issue raised by the AHAS, which questions the agency's 
reliance on conclusions drawn from the vision waiver program, was 
addressed at length in the agency's final decision to exempt 32 
individuals from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). (64 FR 
51568, September 23, 1999) In that notice, the FHWA's position, based 
on various assessments of external and internal validity, was that the 
results generated by the waiver program have a high degree of validity 
and therefore, support inferences drawn from the results of the waiver 
program. The notice also clarifies that the target of inference in the 
waiver program was the process of granting waivers, and that if the 
inferences drawn from these results focus on the process tested, the 
conclusions are valid. Thus, the application of the waiver program to 
future screening is also justified.
    In its third point, the AHAS contends that the criteria used by us 
for considering exemptions is flawed because the exemption criteria 
includes consideration of an applicant's driving history for a three-
year period and disregards FMCSRs which would require reliance upon a 
ten-year driving history. The AHAS believes that drivers exempted from 
the Federal vision standard are ``also exempted from reporting 
convictions for disqualifying offenses that took place more than 3 
years prior to the application.'' As the agency has already discussed 
at 64 FR 51568, there is no basis for that belief. The exemption 
granted to these applicants applies only to the qualification standard 
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The exempted drivers are subject to all other 
regulations including all the CDL and other qualification standards.
    In its fourth point, the AHAS raises procedural objections to this 
proceeding, claiming that there is no statutory basis for making a 
preliminary determination which tends to pre-judge the outcome. We 
believe, as previously stated at 64 FR 51568, that its preliminary 
determination is analogous to a notice of proposed rulemaking, where 
the agency evaluates the basis for new or amended regulation and then 
proposes that new rule. Under the agency's vision exemption process, 
completed applications are evaluated and only when the agency proposes 
to grant a petition is the proposal and the analysis in support of the 
application published for public comment. More that 170 applications 
have been denied outright. Denials will be summarized periodically and 
published in the Federal Register, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 
31136(e).
    In its fifth point, the AHAS argues that the agency has 
misinterpreted statutory language on the granting of exemptions (49 
U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e)) by considering them slightly more lenient 
than the previous law. As previously stated in 64 FR 51568, this was 
unquestionably the intention of Congress in drafting section 4007 of 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 
105-178, 112 Stat.107, (See 63 FR 67601, quoting from H.R. Conf. Rep. 
No. 105-550, at 489-490).
    The AHAS' final point suggesting that the recent Supreme Court 
decision, Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (June 22, 
1999) affects the legal validity of vision exemptions is without

[[Page 66965]]

support. This case is significant because of the Court's treatment of 
various provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) 
(42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.), and the fact that this decision 
significantly narrows application of the ADA. In this case, Mr. 
Kirkingburg was fired by his employer, Albertsons, after a re-
examination in 1992 determined that he did not meet the Federal vision 
requirements. Mr. Kirkingburg obtained a waiver of the vision standard 
from the FHWA in 1993, which allowed him to operate a CMV in interstate 
commerce. However, Albertsons would not rehire him because it did not 
view the vision waiver as a substitute for the vision standard. Mr. 
Kirkingburg sued Albertsons claiming his firing violated the ADA. Since 
the ADA does not apply to the Federal regulations, the decision did not 
directly affect the agency's motor carrier safety program. Under the 
court's ruling, a motor carrier may require that its drivers meet all 
physical qualification requirements in 49 CFR 391 as a condition of 
employment. The employer is not required to accept an OMCS exemption as 
a substitute for compliance with a physical qualification standard. 
This finding is consistent with 49 CFR 390.3(d) of the FMCSRs which 
allows carriers to establish more stringent safety requirements. As a 
result, the OMCS will continue to issue exemptions from the vision 
standard to drivers who demonstrate an ability to drive safely with 
their vision condition. However, after making that safety 
determination, the OMCS has no power to require motor carriers to hire 
drivers with vision exemptions.
    In its comments, the American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) 
opposes the agency's preliminary determination to grant these 33 
exemptions. The ATA states that its opposition has been continuous and 
cites written comments to the docket in support of its position. 
Although the ATA expressed opposition to the broad issuance of vision 
waivers in its comments to the FHWA docket MC-96-2 (61 FR 13338, March 
26, 1996), the ATA stated, ``it would support a case-by-case evaluation 
that considered the merits of individual waived drivers.'' That is 
precisely what the agency has done in the case of these 33 applicants 
for exemptions from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The previous discussion 
explains that the agency's preliminary determination that these 
individuals have demonstrated an ability to drive safely with their 
vision deficiency is based on a case-by-case evaluation of the merits 
of each applicant. Current medical reports about each applicant's 
vision, driving records and experience have been evaluated for each 
applicant.
    Notwithstanding its opposition to the granting of vision 
exemptions, the ATA recommends that if the agency decides to exempt 
drivers from the vision requirements that it require exempted drivers 
to have ``annual medical examinations and annual vision checks by an 
optometrist or ophthalmologist.'' The previous discussion states 
specifically that, as a condition of the exemption, a driver must be 
examined every year by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests 
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the standard in 49 
CFR 391.41(b)(10), and by a medical examiner who attests that the 
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41.
    The ATA further recommends, in the case of recordable accident 
involvement, that exempted drivers report such involvement directly to 
the agency and undergo a medical examination prior to returning to 
driving a CMV. Although the OMCS does not require the reporting of 
accidents by exempted drivers, it does monitor the performance of these 
drivers through periodic checks of their motor vehicle records and, if 
necessary, can take action relative to a particular accident. Regarding 
a post-accident medical examination, current regulations, specifically 
49 CFR 391.45(c), already require drivers operating in interstate 
commerce, including these exempted drivers, to be medically examined 
and certified as qualified to operate a CMV any time their ability to 
perform their duties is impaired by a physical or mental condition.
    In its final comment, the ATA recommends that the agency ``clarify 
its predominance over the Americans with Disabilities Act as it applies 
to safety-sensitive jobs and tasks by: (1) Issuing a notice in (the) 
Federal Register summarizing the aforementioned Supreme Court case 
(Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (June 22, 1999)), as 
it applies to FHWA's vision waiver/exemption program; and (2) amending 
49 CFR 391.64 to clarify that a employer still retains the right to 
consider a driver who fails FHWA's vision requirements, as medically 
unqualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.''
    As previously discussed, the decision in Albertsons, Inc. v. 
Kirkingburg significantly narrows the application of the ADA. Since the 
ADA does not apply to the FMCSRs, this decision does not affect the 
OMCS' motor carrier safety programs, including its process for granting 
vision exemptions. Moreover, the agency does not require employers to 
incorporate the exemptions in their employment practices. In fact, 
current regulations allow employers to establish more stringent safety 
requirements than those of the agency (49 CFR 390.3(d)), making an 
amendment to 49 CFR 391.64, as ATA suggests, unnecessary.
    Notwithstanding the OMCS' ongoing review of the vision standard, as 
evidenced by the medical panel's report dated October 16, 1998, and 
filed in this docket, the OMCS must comply with Rauenhorst v. United 
States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 95 
F.3d 715 (8th Cir. 1996), and grant individual exemptions under 
standards that are consistent with public safety. Meeting those 
standards, the 33 veteran drivers in this case have demonstrated to our 
satisfaction that they can continue to operate a CMV with their current 
vision safely in interstate commerce because they have demonstrated 
their ability in intrastate commerce. Accordingly, they qualify for an 
exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e).

Conclusion

    After considering the comments to the docket and based upon its 
evaluation of the 33 waiver applications in accordance with Rauenhorst 
v. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 
Administration, supra, the OMCS exempts Terry James Aldridge, Jerry D. 
Bridges, Michael L. Brown, Duane D. Burger, Charlie Frank Cook, Greg L. 
Dinsmore, Donald D. Dunphy, Ralph E. Eckels, Jerald C. Eyre, Russell W. 
Foster, Arnold D. Gosser, Eddie Gowens, Gary R. Gutschow, Richard J. 
Hanna, Jack L. Henson, Richard K. Jensrud, David R. Jesmain, Albert E. 
Malley, Clifford E. Masink, Tyrone O. Mayson, Rodney M. Mimbs, Charles 
E. O'Dell, Richard W. O'Neill, Jerry L. Reese, Frances C. Ruble, Johnny 
L. Stiff, Robert J. Townsley, Thomas R. Trumpeter, Steven M. Veloz, 
Thomas E. Walsh, James T. White, Harry Ray Littlejohn, and Mark K. 
Cheely from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to 
the following conditions: (1) That each individual be physically 
examined every year (a) By an ophthalmologist or optometrist who 
attests that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the 
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) By a medical examiner who 
attests that the individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 
CFR 391.41; (2) That each individual provide a copy of the 
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical examiner at 
the time of the annual

[[Page 66966]]

medical examination; and (3) That each individual provide a copy of the 
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in its 
driver qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver 
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also 
have a copy of the certification when driving so it may be presented to 
a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption 
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the OMCS. The 
exemption will be revoked if (1) the person fails to comply with the 
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted 
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; 
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the 
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136. If the exemption is 
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply 
to the OMCS for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136; 49 CFR 1.73.
Julie Anna Cirillo,
Acting Director, Office of Motor Carrier Safety.
[FR Doc. 99-31062 Filed 11-29-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P