[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 1994)] [Unknown Section] [Page 0] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 94-28380] [[Page Unknown]] [Federal Register: November 17, 1994] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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