[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13825-13829]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5480]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 13826]]

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 28\1/2\ 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 deg. in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to 
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard 
red, green, and amber. 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 deg. to 120 deg., while leaving 
the visual acuity standard unchanged. (See Frank C. Berson, M.D., Mark 
C. Kuperwaser, M.D., Lloyd Paul Aiello, M.D., and James W. Rosenberg, 
M.D., ``Visual Requirements and Commercial Drivers,'' October 16, 1998, 
filed in the docket, 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 non-CDL, 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

[[Page 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 self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of 
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized 
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

[[Page 13828]]

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 three-year 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 three-year 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 three-year 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

[[Page 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 self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when 
driving, so it may be presented to a duly authorized Federal, State, or 
local enforcement official.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), each exemption 
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by the 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