Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13825

8 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12).

is in violation of Phlx by-laws. Mr.

Davidoff’s letter also expressed concerns

over the implementation of the program.

A letter from Edward Frank of Gateway

Partners LLC requested an amendment

to the program to allow for rebates in

certain situations. A letter from the

Independent Traders Association, Inc.,

stated concerns about the payment for

order flow program and how the Phlx is

implementing the program. A handout

that the Independent Traders

Association, Inc., distributed to the

Board of Governors at its regular board

meeting on January 24, 2001,

summarized its concerns and proposed

changes to the program. Although a

number of the letters have disagreed

with the payment for order flow

program, the Phlx believes that it was

necessary to adopt the program to

remain competitive. None of the letters

addressed the terms of the rebate

program that is the subject of this filing.

All of the letters are available for

inspection at the principal offices of the

Phlx and at the Commission.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the

Proposed Rule Change and Timing for

Commission Action

The Phlx has designated the foregoing

proposed rule change as a fee change

pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the

Act and Rule 19b–4(f)(2) thereunder.

Accordingly, the proposal has become

immediately effective upon filing with

the Commission. At any time within 60

days of the filing of the proposed rule

change, the Commission may summarily

abrogate the rule change if it appears to

the Commission that such action is

necessary or appropriate in the public

interest, for the protection of investors,

or otherwise in furtherance of the

purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

The Commission invites interested

persons to submit written data, views,

and arguments concerning the

foregoing, including whether the

proposed rule change is consistent with

the Act. Persons making written

submissions should file six copies

thereof with the Secretary, Securities

and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549–

0609. Copies of the submissions, all

subsequent amendments, all written

statements with respect to the proposed

rule change that are filed with the

Commission, and all written

communications relating to the

proposed rule changes between the

commission and any person, other than

those that may be withheld from the

public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for inspection and copying in

the Commission’s Public Reference

Room. Copies of such filings will also be

available for inspection and copying at

the principal offices of the Phlx. All

submissions should refer to File Nos.

SR–Phlx–01–14 and should be

submitted by March 28, 2001.

For the Commission, by the Division

of Market Regulation, pursuant to

delegated authority.8

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–5542 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3595]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘A

Breeze from the Gardens of Persia:

New Art from Iran’’

AGENCY: United States Department of

State.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the

following determinations: Pursuant to

the authority vested in me by the Act of

October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and

Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat.

2681 et seq.], Delegation of Authority

No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR

56014], and Delegation of Authority No.

236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920],

as amended, I hereby determine that the

objects to be included in the exhibit, ‘‘A

Breeze from the Gardens of Persia: New

Art from Iran,’’ imported from abroad

for the temporary exhibition without

profit within the United States, are of

cultural significance. These objects will

be imported pursuant to loan

agreements with foreign lenders. I also

determine that the temporary exhibition

or display of the exhibit objects at the

Meridian International Center,

Washington, DC, from on or about April

26, 2001, to on or about July 14, 2001;

Queens Library Gallery, Jamaica, NY,

from on or about September 7, 2001, to

on or about November 9, 2001;

ArtCentre of Plano, Plano, TX, from on

or about November 19, 2001, to on or

about January 11, 2002, and at other

U.S. venues yet to be determined, is in

the national interest. The exhibition is

expected to end by August 31, 2003.

Public Notice of these determinations is

ordered to be published in the Federal

Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information, including a list of

exhibit objects, contact Julianne

Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of

the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of

State (telephone: 202/619–6529). The

address is U.S. Department of State, SA–

44, 301 4th Street, SW, Room 700,

Washington, DC 20547–0001.

Dated: March 1, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational

and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of

State.

[FR Doc. 01–5554 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA–2000–7918]

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 55 individuals from

the vision requirement in 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10).

DATES: Effective March 7, 2001.

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, Ms. Elaine Walls,

Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366–

1394; 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

Sixty-five individuals petitioned the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA) for an

exemption from 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 Ammons Jr., Wayne A.

Anderson, Glenn A. Babcock Jr., Bobby

J. Beall, Robert D. Bonner, James F.

13826 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

Bower, Ben T. Brown, Terry L. Burgess,

William A. Burgoyne, David S. Carman,

Dennis J. Christensen, David L. Davis,

Darrell B. Dean, Don W. Dotson,

Terrance D. Faust, Edgar E. French, Glen

T. Garrabrant, Doyle G. Gibson, Elias

Gomez Jr., Jose E. Gonzalez, Anthony

Grant, Joseph M. Graveline, Johnny C.

Hall, William N. Hicks, Robert K.

Hodge, William G. Holland, John R.

Hughes, Frank Inigarida, Alan L.

Johnston, David O. Kaiser Sr., Milena

Kekerovic, Mark J. Koscinski, John N.

Lanning, Robert C. Leathers, Richard L.

Leonard, Calvin E. Lloyd, Roy E.

Mathews, Jason B. Mazyck, William F.

McCandless Jr., James T. McGraw Jr.,

Luther A. McKinney, Jose L. Melendez,

Carl A. Michel Sr., Clarence M. Miles

Jr., Robert A. Moss, Robert A. Murphy,

Dennis I. Nelson, Martin D. Ortiz, John

J. Partenio, Henry C. Patton, Rance A.

Powell, John W. Purcell, Shannon E.

Rasmussen, Merlyn L. Rawson, Thomas

G. Raymond, James R. Rieck, Daniel J.

Schaap, Dennis J. Smith, Garfield A.

Smith, Gary L. Spelce, Frederick E. St.

John, Daniel R. Viscaya, Michael P.

Walsh, Jerry L. Whitefield, and Robert E.

Wientjes.

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 has evaluated

the 65 petitions on their merits and

made a determination to grant the

exemption requests in 55 of them. On

November 3, 2000, the agency published

notice of its receipt of applications from

these 65 individuals, and requested

comments from the public (65 FR

66286). After the agency published its

notice of receipt of application, Mr.

Mazyck indicated in a conversation

with a member of our staff on November

30, 2000, that he had driven a CMV only

part of the required 3-year period. The

comment period closed on December 4,

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 Jason B.

Mazyck, the FMCSA has denied Mr.

Mazyck’s request for an exemption from

the vision requirements of 49 CFR

391.41(b)(10) because he operated a

CMV for only 281⁄2 months of the 3-year

review period preceding the date of his

application. Thus, we are 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). By letter dated

December 11, 2000, Mr. Mazyck was

notified of his denial.

In the case of applicant Wayne A.

Anderson, the FMCSA has denied Mr.

Anderson’s request for an exemption

from the vision requirements because

the medical reciprocity agreement

between the United States and Canada

does not permit drivers who do not

meet the medical provisions in the

National Safety Code of Canada to drive

CMVs in the United States, even if they

have a waiver issued by one of the

Canadian provinces or territories. For

additional information on the medical

reciprocity agreement between the

United States and Canada, see docket,

FMCSA–2000–7918. The purpose of

publishing their denials 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.

The FMCSA has not made a decision

on eight applicants (William A.

Burgoyne, Don W. Dotson, Terrance D.

Faust, Anthony Grant, William F.

McCandless, Jr., Jose L. Melendez, John

J. Partenio, and Thomas G. Raymond).

Subsequent to the publication of the

notice of application, the agency

received additional information from its

ongoing checks of these applicants’

motor vehicle records, and we are

evaluating that information. A decision

on these eight petitions will be made in

the future.

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 Federal Highway

Administration (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.

Fifty-five of the 65 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 15 of the 55

applicants were either born with their

vision impairments or have had them

since childhood. The 15 individuals

who sustained their vision conditions as

adults have had them for periods

ranging from 6 to 30 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, has

sufficient vision to perform all the tasks

necessary to operate a CMV. The

doctors’ opinions are supported by the

applicants’ possession of valid

commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) or

non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before

issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to

knowledge and performance tests

designed to evaluate their qualifications

to operate a 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 55 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 46 years. In the

past 3 years, the 55 drivers had 9

convictions for traffic violations among

them. Six of these convictions were for

speeding. The other convictions

consisted of: ‘‘Failure to obey

directional signal,’’ ‘‘Failure to yield

right-of-way,’’ and ‘‘Failure to obey a

sign/traffic control device.’’ Five drivers

were involved in accidents in their

CMVs, but did not receive a citation.

One driver was suspended for failure to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13827

maintain required liability insurance,

but the State set aside (canceled) the

action after his insurance company sent

proof that he had maintained his

insurance.

The qualifications, experience, and

medical condition of each applicant

were stated and discussed in detail in a

November 3, 2000, notice (65 FR 66286).

Except for one applicant (Jason B.

Mazyck), the docket comments did not

focus on the specific merits or

qualifications of any applicant;

therefore, we have not repeated the

individual profiles here. The

qualifications of Mr. Mazyck are further

examined below in the discussion of

comments. Our summary analysis of the

applicants as a group, excluding Mr.

Mazyck, is supported by the information

published at 65 FR 66286.

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. To be

considered for an exemption from the

vision standard, the FMCSA requires a

person to present verifiable evidence

that he or she has driven a commercial

vehicle safely with the vision deficiency

for 3 years. 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.) The

fact 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

55 applicants receiving an exemption,

we note that cumulatively the

applicants have had only 6 accidents

and 9 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

concludes their ability to drive safely

can be projected into the future.

We believe 55 of the 65 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 exists 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 55 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

for the exemption, therefore, the

FMCSA will impose requirements on

the 55 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, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s

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

copy of the certification when driving,

for presentation to a duly authorized

Federal, State, or local enforcement

official.

13828 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices

Discussion of Comments

The FMCSA received two comments

in this proceeding. The comments were

considered and are discussed below.

Mr. Eugene Scalia, Esq., of Gibson,

Dunn & Crutcher LLP, submitted a

comment on behalf of United Parcel

Service, Inc. (UPS), regarding the

application of Mr. Jason B. Mazyck. Mr.

Scalia stated that: (1) Mr. Mazyck does

not meet the three-year requirement

required to qualify for a vision

exemption, since he drove only two

years and four months during the threeyear period preceding his date of

application; (2) Mr. Mazyck had not

driven for a three-week period during

the two years and four months he was

driving for the company, and he often

worked substantially fewer than 40

hours a week; and (3) Mr. Mazyck’s

representation that he had been driving

a straight truck for approximately four

years was derived from his occasional

driving as a substitute driver prior to the

date he became a package car driver.

The comment from UPS provided no

new information bearing on the decision

to deny Mr. Mazyck’s application. Mr.

Mazyck himself had previously reported

to the FMCSA, on November 30, 2000,

that he had not driven the full threeyear period; and the FMCSA has

decided to deny his application because

he does not have sufficient driving

experience over the past three years

under normal highway operating

conditions that would serve as an

adequate predictor of future safe

performance. The number of hours he

drove per week was not an issue, but to

set the record straight, Mr. Mazyck had

submitted a letter from UPS with his

application, stating, ‘‘Our records

indicate that you averaged 44.40 hours

per week operating commercial vehicles

with a gross vehicle weight rating

(GVWR) over 10,001 pounds, on public

roads.’’

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) Objects to the manner of

presentation of exemption application

information and safety analyses, (2)

objects to the agency’s reliance on

conclusions drawn from the vision

waiver program, (3) raises procedural

objections to past proceedings, (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 here, but refer interested

parties to those earlier discussions.

However, the AHAS has raised some

new issues, and these are addressed in

the following discussion.

The AHAS stated that the FMCSA

should consider imposing a sliding

scale standard for drivers with little

driving experience, holding applicants

with relatively low accumulations of

mileage and years of experience to a

higher safety standard during the threeyear review period. The AHAS based

this view on two factors: (1) Exposure is

frequently used as a means of

determining safety, as when the FMCSA

uses the fatality rate as a measure of

safety progress in truck-related crashes;

and (2) greater driving experience

would mean the drivers have had more

time to adjust to driving with their

vision deficiencies.

The AHAS uses this same line of

reasoning to argue that there should be

a minimum mileage requirement. This

issue was addressed in a previous notice

(65 FR 57233, September 21, 2000),

where the FMCSA stated, ‘‘Defining a

required minimum mileage for

application would enact a spurious

screening standard.’’ This statement is

based on data taken from the Vision

Waiver Program which was shown to

have an acceptable level of safety.

There, the annual mileage ranged from

as little as 1,000 miles to a maximum of

160,000, with 25 percent of the waiver

holders driving less than 17,000 miles

per year.

The agency also indicated that the

accident rate (the number of accidents

per some convenient unit of miles

driven; for example, per one million

miles) of an exempted group is the basis

for determining the safety level of a

program. Miles driven are an integral

part of the safety determination, but not

the only part. Miles driven are included

with the number of accidents in a

statistical model (Poisson regression) to

develop an accident rate. Such a

framework does not require a minimum

amount of mileage for the determination

of safety, nor does it suggest that there

should be a minimum number of miles

that could arbitrarily be used for

screening purposes. Rather, the agency’s

screening criteria require that there is a

consistent and ongoing exposure to

public roads during the 3-year period as

an aspect of employment.

In the earlier notice (65 FR 57233), the

FMCSA pointed out that a 3-year

screening period for driving records was

sufficient to insure an acceptable level

of safety. In John C. Anderson v. Federal

Highway Administration, No. 98–3739

(8th Cir. May 1, 2000), the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

recently affirmed the agency’s 3-year

requirement of driving with a vision

impairment before being eligible for an

exemption. This screening period was

used in the Vision Waiver Program

which was shown to have a level of

safety that was better than the national

norm. Moreover, as the AHAS has

pointed out, not all States maintain

records for more than 3 years. Thus,

requiring some drivers to submit 3-year

records and others to submit one for

longer periods would impose

requirements that are clearly arbitrary

and capricious.

The AHAS objects to the FMCSA’s

past practice of making preliminary

determinations to grant vision

exemptions prior to the issuance of

notice and receipt of comments, while

expressing hopefulness that the agency’s

current notice announcing the receipt of

applications for a vision exemption,

signals a change in agency procedure

indicative of ‘‘a new spirit of objective

evaluation.’’

We believe, as previously stated at 64

FR 51568 and 64 FR 66962, that the

agency’s preliminary determinations to

grant vision exemptions are analogous

to a notice of proposed rulemaking,

where the agency evaluates the basis for

new or amended regulation and then

proposes the new rule. Whether the

FMCSA issues a preliminary

determination or notice of application, a

final determination to grant an

exemption is made following careful

consideration of all available

information, and only after notice and

comment. Our preliminary

determinations are not ‘‘based entirely

on self-reported information,’’ as

asserted by the AHAS. As previously

stated at 65 FR 57234, the information

used to determine an applicant’s

acceptability for an exemption is

verified by sources other than the

applicant. The 3 years of recent

experience prior to application and type

of vehicle driven are verified by the

applicant’s employer(s). The visual

capacity of applicants is verified by his/

her ophthalmologist or optometrist. The

applicant’s most recent 3-year driving

record is verified through the

Commercial Driver License Information

System (CDLIS). The CDLIS is checked

at the time of initial application and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2001 / Notices 13829

then periodically throughout the

application process. When the agency

receives additional information from its

ongoing checks of applicants’ motor

vehicle records, this information is

thoroughly considered and the

determination to grant, or not grant, an

exemption is based on all information

received.

In a supplemental comment to the

docket, the AHAS states additional

concerns regarding agency reliance on

self-reported information. We will not

address these concerns again, but refer

interested parties to the above

discussions regarding Mr. Mazyck’s

application for an exemption and the

agency’s process for verification of

information used to determine an

applicant’s acceptability for an

exemption.

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 this docket, 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 55 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 55 exemption applications in

accordance with the Rauenhorst

decision, the FMCSA exempts Henry

Ammons Jr., Glenn A. Babcock Jr.,

Bobby J. Beall, Robert D. Bonner, James

F. Bower, Ben T. Brown, Terry L.

Burgess, David S. Carman, Dennis J.

Christensen, David L. Davis, Darrell B.

Dean, Edgar E. French, Glen T.

Garrabrant, Doyle G. Gibson, Elias

Gomez Jr., Jose E. Gonzalez, Joseph M.

Graveline, Johnny C. Hall, William N.

Hicks, Robert K. Hodge, William G.

Holland, John R. Hughes, Frank

Inigarida, Alan L. Johnston, David O.

Kaiser Sr., Milena Kekerovic, Mark J.

Koscinski, John N. Lanning, Robert C.

Leathers, Richard L. Leonard, Calvin E.

Lloyd, Roy E. Mathews, James T.

McGraw Jr., Luther A. McKinney, Carl

A. Michel Sr., Clarence M. Miles Jr.,

Robert A. Moss, Robert A. Murphy,

Dennis I. Nelson, Martin D. Ortiz, Henry

C. Patton, Rance A. Powell, John W.

Purcell, Shannon E. Rasmussen, Merlyn

L. Rawson, James R. Rieck, Daniel J.

Schaap, Dennis J. Smith, Garfield A.

Smith, Gary L. Spelce, Frederick E. St.

John, Daniel R. Viscaya, Michael P.

Walsh, Jerry L. Whitefield, and Robert E.

Wientjes 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 the driver’s qualification

file, or keep a copy in his/her driver’s

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: February 28, 2001.

Stephen E. Barber,

Acting Assistant Administrator and Chief

Safety Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–5480 Filed 3–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Guidance to Federal Financial

Assistance Recipients on the Title VI

Prohibition Against National Origin

Discrimination Affecting Limited

English Proficient Persons

AGENCY: Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The United States Department

of the Treasury is publishing policy

guidance on Title VI’s prohibition

against national origin discrimination as

it affects limited English proficient

persons.

DATES: This guidance is effective

immediately. Comments must be

submitted on or before May 7, 3001.

Treasury will review all comments and

will determine what modifications to

the policy guidance, if any, are

necessary.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons should

submit written comments to Ms. Marcia

H. Coates, Director, Office of Equal

Opportunity Program, Department of the

Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Room 6071 Metropolitan Square,

Washington, D.C. 20220; Comments

may also be submitted by e-mail to:

OEOPWEB@do.treas.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Hanberry at the Office of Equal

Opportunity Program, Department of the

Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue,

NW, Room 6071 Metropolitan Square,

Washington, D.C. 20220; (202) 622–1170

voice, (202) 622–0321 TTY, (202) 622–

0367 fax. Arrangements to receive the

policy in an alternative format may be

made by contacting Mr. Hanberry.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title VI of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

2000d, et seq. and its implementing

regulations provide that no person shall

be subjected to discrimination on the

basis of race, color, or national origin

under any program or activity that

receives federal financial assistance.

The purpose of this policy guidance is

to clarify the responsibilities of

recipients of federal financial assistance

from the U.S. Department of the

Treasury (‘‘recipients’’), and assist them

in fulfilling their responsibilities to

limited English proficient (LEP)

persons, pursuant to Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and implementing

regulations. The policy guidance

reiterates the Federal government’s

longstanding position that in order to

avoid discrimination against LEP

persons on the grounds of national

origin, recipients must take reasonable

steps to ensure that such persons have

meaningful access to the programs,

services, and information those

recipients provide, free of charge.

The text of the complete guidance

document appears below.