77066 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

coordination among the states and

FHWA, and to facilitate project

management, acceleration, and

decisionmaking. He will provide

leadership in working with a Steering

Committee of transportation officials

who will coordinate the I–69 initiative.

The Steering Committee, chaired by Mr.

Dan Flowers of the Arkansas State

Highway and Transportation

Department (AHTD), is comprised of

eight member states. The AHTD serves

as the administrative agency acting on

behalf of the Steering Committee and as

a central repository for documentation

related to the corridor as a whole.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research

and Construction. The regulation

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation of

Federal programs and activities apply to the

program)

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48.

Issued on: December 1, 2000.

Eugene W. Cleckley,

Director, Field Services—South.

[FR Doc. 00–31145 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7363]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

SUMMARY: The FMCSA announces its

decision to exempt 70 individuals from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10).

DATES: December 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the vision

exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra

Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck

Standards and Operations, (202) 366–

2987; for information about legal issues

related to this notice, Mr. Joseph

Solomey, Office of the Chief Counsel,

(202) 366–1374, FMCSA, 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

You may see all the comments online

through the Document Management

System (DMS) at: http://dmses.dot.gov.

Background

Seventy-two individuals petitioned

the FMCSA 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. They are, Henry

Wayne Adams, Willie F. Adams,

Fernando Aquilera, Louis Edward

Aldrige, Larry Neal Arrington, David

Ball, Delbert Ronnie Bays, Rosa C.

Beaumont, Jerry A. Bechtold, Robert F.

Berry, James A. Bright, Robert R. Buis,

David Dominick Bungori, Ronzie L.

Carroll, Richard S. Carter, Lynn A.

Childress, Kevin L. Cole, David R. Cox,

Gerald Wade Cox, Dempsey Leroy

Crawhorn Jr., Thomas P. Cummings,

Cedric E. Foster, Rosalie A. Gifford,

Eugene Anthony Gitzen, Donald Grogan,

Elmer Harper, Peter L. Haubruck, Joe

Marvin Hill, Brian L. Houle, Christopher

L. Humphries, Craig C. Irish, Donald R.

Jackson, Nelson V. Jaramillo, Daryl A.

Jester, Joseph Vernon Johns, Jimmie W.

Judkins, Kurth A. Kapke, Johnny M.

Kruprzak, Charles R Kuderer, Thomas

D. Laws, Demetrio Lozano, Wayne

Mantela, Kenneth D. May, Jimmy R.

Millage, Harold J. Mitchell, Gordon L.

Nathan, Jerry L. New, Bernice Ray

Parnell, Aaron Pennington, Clifford C.

Priesmeyer, George S Rayson, Kevin D.

Reece, Franklin Reed, Arthur A.

Sappington, James L. Schneider, Patrick

W. Shea, Carl B. Simonye, Ernie Sims,

William H Smith, Paul D. Spalding,

Richard Allen Strange, Steven Carter

Thomas, George Walter Thornhill, Rick

N. Ulrich, Roy F. Varnado, Henry Lee

Walker, Larry D. Wedekind, Daniel

Wilson, Emmett E. Windhorst, Wonda

Lue Wooten, Thomas Long and Gary

Bryan.

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),

the FMCSA 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 FMCSA evaluated the

petitions on their merits and made a

preliminary determination that the

exemptions should be granted. On July

25, 2000, the agency published a notice

of its preliminary determination and

requested comments from the public (65

FR 45817). The comment period closed

on August 24, 2000. Two comments

were received, and their contents were

carefully considered by the FMCSA in

reaching the final decision to grant the

petitions.

In the case of applicant Kevin Cole,

the FMCSA has denied Mr. Cole’s

request for an exemption from the

vision requirements of 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10). Mr. Cole was notified

previous to this announcement by letter

of his denial. The purpose of publishing

his denial here is simply to comply with

49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4)(c), by periodically

publishing in the Federal Register the

names of persons denied exemptions

and the reasons for such denials.

After the agency published its

preliminary determination to grant Mr.

Cole an exemption, he indicated in a

conversation with a member of our staff

on August 2, 2000, that he had not

driven a CMV during the required 3-

year period. Therefore, the FMCSA is

unable to conclude that granting him an

exemption is likely to achieve a level of

safety equal to that existing without the

exemption as required by 49 U.S.C.

31315 and 31136(e). In the case of

applicant Joe Marvin Hill, Mr. Hill

passed away.

Vision and Driving Experience of the

Applicants

The vision requirement 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° 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. 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).

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° to 120°, 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, FHWA–98–4334.)

The panel’s conclusion supports the

FMCSA’s (and previously the FHWA’s)

view that the present standard is

reasonable and necessary as a general

standard to ensure highway safety. The

FMCSA 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 77067

The 70 applicants fall into this

category. They are unable to meet the

vision standard in one eye for various

reasons, including amblyopia, corneal

and macular scars, and loss of an eye

due to trauma. In most cases, their eye

conditions were not recently developed.

All but 26 of the applicants were either

born with their vision impairments or

have had them since childhood. The 26

individuals who sustained their vision

condition as adults have had them for

periods ranging from 8 to 36 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) or non-CDL to

operate a CMV. 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 or nonCDL, these 70 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 3 to 42 years. In the

past 3 years, the 70 drivers had 13

convictions for traffic violations among

them. Eight of these convictions were

for speeding. The other convictions

consisted of: ‘‘Failure to obey traffic

signal’’; ‘‘Unauthorized towing’’;

‘‘Expiration/no drivers license’’;

‘‘Failure to yield the right of way to an

emergency vehicle’’ and; ‘‘Load

dropping/shifting/escaping.’’ Four

drivers were involved in accidents in

their CMVs, but did not receive a

citation.

Except for two applicants (Thomas J.

Long and Gary Bryan), the

qualifications, experience, and medical

condition of each applicant were stated

and discussed in detail in a July 25,

2000, notice (65 FR 45817). The

qualifications of Mr. Long were stated in

an April 14, 2000, notice (65 FR 20245)

and Mr. Bryan’s were stated in a May

23, 2000, notice (65 FR 33406). Since

docket comments did not focus on the

specific merits or qualifications of any

applicant, we have not repeated the

individual profiles here. With three

exceptions, our summary analysis of the

applicants as a group is supported by

the information published at 65 FR

45817, 65 FR 20245 and 65 FR 33406.

Mr. Long’s speeding conviction in a

CMV was not reported in the April 14,

2000, notice. The ticket showed he was

driving 75 mph in a 45 mph zone. Mr.

Long has no accidents or other

convictions in a CMV on his driving

record for the 3-year period.

A final decision regarding Mr. Bryan’s

application for a vision exemption was

delayed pending receipt of a copy of his

Utah motor vehicle record (MVR). He

had held a Utah license during the 3-

year review period, before moving to

Montana. Mr. Bryan faxed us a copy of

his Utah MVR on August 28, 2000. His

official driving record from Utah and

Montana show no accidents and no

convictions for moving violations in a

CMV for the last 3 years.

In Mr. May’s case, his August 29

speeding conviction in a CMV was not

reported in the July 25, 2000 notice. The

citation showed he was driving 67 mph

in a 55 mph zone. Mr. May has no

accidents or other convictions in a CMV

on his driving record for the 3-year

period.

Basis for Exemption Determination

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e),

the FMCSA 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 FMCSA

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 (FHWA–98–3637).

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 as 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

70 applicants, we note that

cumulatively the applicants have had

only four accidents and 13 traffic

violations in the last 3 years. None of

the accidents resulted in the issuance of

a citation against the applicant. 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 FMCSA

77068 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices

concludes their ability to drive safely

can be projected into the future.

We believe the 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 3

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 FMCSA 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 FMCSA

will impose requirements on the 70

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 the driver’s qualification

file, retains a copy in his/her driver

qualification file if he/she is selfemployed. The driver must also have a

copy of the certification on his/her

person while driving for presentation to

a duly authorized Federal, State, or local

enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

The FMCSA received two comments

in this proceeding. The comments were

considered and are discussed below.

The Advocates for Highway and Auto

Safety (AHAS) expresses continued

opposition to the FMCSA’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, (2) objects to

the agency’s reliance on conclusions

drawn from the vision waiver program,

(3) raises procedural objections to this

proceeding, (4) claims the agency has

misinterpreted statutory language on the

granting of exemptions (49 U.S.C. 31315

and 31136(e)), and finally, (5) suggests

that a recent Supreme Court decision

affects the legal validity of vision

exemptions.

The issues raised by the AHAS were

addressed at length in 64 FR 51568

(September 23, 1999), 64 FR 66962

(November 30, 1999), 64 FR 69586

(December 13, 1999), 65 FR 159 (January

3, 2000) and 65 FR 57230 (September

21, 2000). We will not address these

points again herein but refer interested

parties to those earlier discussions.

The Licensing Operations of the

California Department of Motor Vehicles

(DMV) submitted the following

comments: ‘‘California is opposed to the

granting of exemptions due to Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations

(FMCSRs) Section 381.600 which states

that once a waiver, exemption, or pilot

program is authorized it preempts any

State law or regulation that conflicts

with or is inconsistent with the waiver,

exemption or pilot program with respect

to a person operating under the waiver

or exemption or participating in the

pilot program. For traffic safety,

California restricts all CDL drivers who

do not meet the medical requirements

from operating buses, transporting any

material that requires placards or

markings, and interstate commerce.’’

Although ambiguous, this appears to

mean that the CDLs issued to drivers

who do not comply with the physical

qualification standards in 49 CFR Part

391 include special prohibitions on

operating (1) buses or vehicles

transporting placardable quantities of

hazardous materials in intrastate

commerce, and (2) all vehicles in

interstate commerce. California CDL

holders who fail to meet the standards

in 391.41 are thus limited to intrastate

commerce, but even they are not

allowed to drive buses or hazmat

vehicles.

The California DMV has not opposed

the granting of exemptions in the past,

but its Legal Branch has now concluded

that once an exemption is granted, the

State would not be able to continue

prohibiting Federally exempted drivers

holding California CDLs from operating

in interstate commerce, even if they

were transporting passengers or

hazardous materials.

Under the Commercial Motor Vehicle

Safety Act of 1986, the FMCSA sets

minimum testing and licensing

standards for drivers of commercial

motor vehicles (CDL–CMVs), and the

States issue CDLs in accordance with

those standards. In most cases, a State

may therefore establish more stringent

CDL testing and licensing standards, as

California appears to have done.

However, Sec. 4007(a) of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA–21), now codified at 49

U.S.C. 31315, preempts ‘‘any State law

or regulation that conflicts with or is

inconsistent with the * * * exemption

* * *’’ 49 U.S.C. 31315(d). Under the

normal canons of statutory

interpretation, the Federal preemption

statute supersedes State authority to set

more stringent CDL standards because

section 31315(d) is both subsequent to

and more specific than the CMVSA.

A driver who intended to operate in

interstate commerce and held an

FMCSA vision exemption could

lawfully certify to California under 49

CFR 383.71(a)(1) that he or she met the

physical qualification standards of

section 391.41. The preemption

required by section 31315(d) and 49

CFR 381.600 means that the driver

could not be denied an unrestricted CDL

by California because of deficient vision

or prohibited from driving any kind of

vehicle in interstate commerce (though

it could issue a CDL valid for no more

than the period of the FMCSA

exemption). California would of course

be required to ensure that the applicant

passed the general CDL examination

and the skills/knowledge tests required

for any endorsement the driver is

seeking.

On the other hand, an applicant for a

CDL who intended to operate in

intrastate commerce could not obtain an

FMCSA exemption, since the agency

has jurisdiction, for purposes of the

physical qualification standards, only

over drivers in interstate commerce. The

Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program

(MCSAP) regulations allow participating

States (including California) to set lower

physical qualification standards for

drivers operating exclusively in

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 237 / Friday, December 8, 2000 / Notices 77069

intrastate commerce 49 CFR 350.341 (h),

see 65 FR 15092, at 15109, March 21,

2000. They are not required to do so,

however. California could therefore

issue a driver who did not meet the

standards of section 391.41 an intrastate

CDL (i.e., one valid only within the

State) which prohibited the driving of

buses or hazmat vehicles.

The California DMV further

commented that it would continue to

oppose all requests for waivers or

exemptions that did not prohibit the

driver from transporting passengers and

hazardous materials. The FMCSA stands

by its previous response to California on

this issue (see 65 FR 161, January 3,

2000). We believe it is unnecessary to

impose any further restrictions on these

drivers, since a waiver of or exemption

from 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) expresses the

agency’s conclusion that the driver will

likely perform just as safely as a driver

who met the standard.

Notwithstanding the FMCSA’s

ongoing review of the vision standard,

as evidenced by the medical panel’s

report dated October 16, 1998, and filed

in the docket (FHWA–98–4334), the

FMCSA 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 70 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 70 exemption applications in

accordance with the Rauenhorst

decision, the FMCSA exempts Henry

Wayne Adams, Willie F. Adams,

Fernando Aquilera, Louis Edward

Aldrige, Larry Neal Arrington, David

Ball, Delbert Ronnie Bays, Rosa C.

Beaumont, Jerry A. Bechtold, Robert F.

Berry, James A. Bright, Robert R. Buis,

David Dominick Bungori, Ronzie L.

Carroll, Richard S. Carter, Lynn A.

Childress, David R. Cox, Gerald Wade

Cox, Dempsey Leroy Crawhorn Jr.,

Thomas P. Cummings, Cedric E. Foster,

Rosalie A. Gifford, Eugene Anthony

Gitzen, Donald Grogan, Elmer Harper,

Peter L. Haubruck, Brain L. Houle,

Christopher L. Humphries, Craig C.

Irish, Donald R. Jackson, Nelson V.

Jaramillo, Daryl A. Jester, Joseph Vernon

Johns, Jimmie W. Judkins, Kurth A.

Kapke, Johnny M. Kruprzak, Charles R

Kuderer, Thomas D. Laws, Demetrio

Lozano, Wayne Mantela, Kenneth D.

May, Jimmy R. Millage, Harold J.

Mitchell, Gordon L. Nathan, Jerry L.

New, Bernice Ray Parnell, Aaron

Pennington, Clifford C. Priesmeyer,

George S Rayson, Kevin D. Reece,

Franklin Reed, Arthur A. Sappington,

James L. Schneider, Patrick W. Shea,

Carl B. Simonye, Ernie Sims, William

Smith, Paul D. Spalding, Richard Allen

Strange, Steven Carter Thomas, George

Walter Thornhill, Rick N. Ulrich, Roy F.

Varnado, Henry Lee Walker, Larry D.

Wedekind, Daniel Wilson, Emmett E.

Windhorst, Wonda Lue Wooten,

Thomas Long, and Gary Bryan 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 selfemployed. 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 FMCSA. 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 FMCSA for a renewal under

procedures in effect at that time.

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 31315 and 31136;

49 CFR 1.73.

Issued on: December 4, 2000.

Brian M. McLaughlin,

Director, Office of Policy Plans and

Regulations.

[FR Doc. 00–31347 Filed 12–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA–2000–8203]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption

Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption;

request for comments.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

FMCSA’s decision to renew the

exemptions from the vision requirement

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for two

individuals.

DATES: This decision is effective

December 8, 2000. We must receive

your comments on or before January 8,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Please mail or deliver

comments to the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Dockets Management

Facility, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, or

submit electronically at http://

dmses.dot.gov/submit. You can look at

and copy all the comments at the same

address from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,

Monday through Friday, except Federal

holidays. If you want to know that we

received your comments, please include

a self-addressed, stamped postcard or

print the acknowledgment page that

appears after submitting comments

electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

information about the vision

exemptions in this notice, Ms. Sandra

Zywokarte, Office of Bus and Truck

Standards and Operations, (202) 366–

2987; for information about legal issues

related to this notice, Mr. Joe Solomey,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–

1374, FMCSA, 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 and Filing

You may submit or retrieve comments

online through the Document

Management System (DMS) at: http://

dmses.dot.gov/submit.