|
|---|
|
Commercial Driver's License Out-of-State Knowledge Test; Withdrawal Publication: Federal Register Agency: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Byline: Robin Hutcheson Date: 9 March 2022 Subjects: American Government  , Driver Licensing
|
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13249-13250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04966]
[[Page 13249]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 383
[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0332]
RIN 2126-AC23
Commercial Driver's License Out-of-State Knowledge Test;
Withdrawal
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
allow driver applicants to take the commercial driver's license (CDL)
general and specialized knowledge tests in a State (the testing State)
other than the applicant's State of domicile. The NPRM also proposed
that the applicant's State of domicile would be required to accept
knowledge test results from the testing State. As explained further
below, FMCSA is taking this action after considering the comments
received following the publication of the NPRM.
DATES: The proposed rule published July 29, 2019, at 84 FR 36552 is
withdrawn as of March 9, 2022.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nikki McDavid, Chief, Commercial
Driver's License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590 0001, (202) 366-0831,
nikki.mcdavid@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In August 2017, FMCSA issued regulatory guidance titled,
``Commercial Driver's License Standards: Regulatory Guidance Concerning
the Issuance of Commercial Learner's Permits'' (August 2017 Guidance)
(82 FR 36101 (Aug. 3, 2017)), which clarified the circumstances under
which a CDL applicant's State of domicile may accept the results of
knowledge testing administered to the applicant in another State. The
August 2017 Guidance permits the testing State and the State of
domicile to enter into a voluntary agreement prior to the general
knowledge test being administered by the testing State. The guidance
emphasizes that, because only the State of domicile is authorized to
issue a Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP) or CDL, the responsibility
for compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR 383.71 (driver
application and certification) and 383.73 (CLP/CDL issuance) remains
with the State of domicile. To the Agency's knowledge, no States have
entered into an agreement pursuant to the August 2017 Guidance.
On July 29, 2019, FMCSA published in the Federal Register (Docket
No. FMCSA-2018-0332, 84 FR 36552) an NPRM \1\ to amend 49 CFR
383.79(a)(1) and (2) by permitting a State also to administer knowledge
test(s) to an out-of-State applicant, and by requiring the State of
domicile also to accept those knowledge testing results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the NPRM and the comments we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2018-0332-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA received comments on the NPRM from the following parties: The
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA); American
Trucking Associations (ATA); California Department of Motor Vehicles
(California); C. R. England, Inc.; Illinois Secretary of State
(Illinois); Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa); Minnesota
Department of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle Services Division
(Minnesota); Minnesota State Patrol (MSP); Montana Department of
Justice (Montana); National School Transportation Association (NSTA);
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (Pennsylvania); Truckload
Carriers Association (TCA); Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
(Virginia); and six private citizens.
To improve the Agency's understanding of the impact of the NPRM on
States and CDL applicants, FMCSA posed several specific questions. The
questions and a summary of the responsive comments are set forth below.
Question 1. To what extent will State Driver Licensing Agencies
(SDLAs) need to adapt existing procedures and processes to receive out-
of-State knowledge testing results and remotely deliver the physical
CLP or upgraded CDL? What are the costs associated with making these
changes?
Responses: All SDLAs responding to this question stated that
changes to existing CLP application and issuance procedures and
software would be necessary; some also questioned how remote delivery
of the CLP credential would be accomplished.
Only Pennsylvania responded to the cost question specifically,
estimating a cost of approximately $525,000 for the system changes
needed to accept knowledge test results from other States and a cost of
approximately $1.6 million to begin offering knowledge testing to out-
of-State driver applicants. Other States noted there would be costs
associated with changing existing systems and processes to accept test
results from other States but did not quantify the amounts.
All State commenters said the NPRM would require changes in current
procedures for processing knowledge test results and issuing CLPs.
Minnesota and Virginia noted, for example, they would need to revise
current processes to allow an applicant's record to remain ``open'' in
pending status while waiting to receive the applicant's out-of-State
knowledge test results. California questioned how it would receive the
completion of knowledge testing notification from the testing State.
Question 2. What additional State implementation concerns are
raised by [the NPRM]?
Responses: Pennsylvania noted that there is currently ``no way to
verify the person taking the knowledge test in another jurisdiction is
in fact the same person taking the skills test later in the process,''
adding that ``[the Commercial Skills Test Information Management
System] does not provide a mechanism for verification with other
jurisdictions.'' Virginia also noted security concerns, stating that
``the requirement to issue a CLP remotely undermines the current
processes Virginia has in place to ensure that a credential is securely
issued to the applicant.'' California also expressed concern over the
proposed remote delivery requirement, questioning how secure delivery
could be assured if the CLP credential was sent to an address outside
their State. Montana noted ``grave concerns about the real and
substantial threat of fraudulent activity'' if Montana is required to
issue a CLP to an applicant who does not personally appear at a Montana
driver license location. Minnesota and Virginia cited ongoing
difficulties in the processing of out-of-State skills testing results,
which could carry over to the processing of knowledge testing results.
Question 3. Would 2 years, or 3 years, allow SDLAs sufficient time
to achieve compliance with the proposed requirement to accept any out-
of-state knowledge test results? Please explain the basis of your
preferred compliance date.
Responses: Three States responded to this question. Pennsylvania
said it would need 2.5 years to accommodate necessary changes in State
laws and processes. California and Virginia said they would need 3
years to achieve compliance.
Question 4. If [the NPRM] is finalized, would your SDLA offer
knowledge testing to out-of-state CLP applicants or
[[Page 13250]]
CDL holders wishing to add an endorsement to their license? Why or why
not?
Responses: Of the States that responded directly to this question,
Minnesota and California said they would not offer out-of-State
testing; Virginia said it would likely offer out-of-State testing if
authorized by the State legislature. Iowa also implied that it would
offer knowledge testing to out-of-state CLP applicants by noting that
Iowa-based driver training programs, which attract many out-of-State
students, bring ``tremendous economic value'' to the State.
Pennsylvania said that, without ``process improvements and additional
funding,'' it would be difficult to provide testing out-of-State
applicants.
Question 5. Would the proposed changes allow applicants who take
driver training outside their State of domicile to obtain a CLP or
upgraded CDL more efficiently? If so, please provide specific examples
of time or cost savings that may accrue if the proposed changes were
adopted.
Responses: Pennsylvania responded that, if its concerns were
addressed, allowing out-of-State knowledge testing ``could be a
significant achievement in enhancing access for our future commercial
drivers and their employers.'' Iowa predicted the proposed rule would
enhance efficiency and that associated cost savings would accrue to
employers, trainers, and drivers. ATA, TCA, and other commenters also
believed the rule would enable applicants to receive their CLPs more
efficiently. Minnesota, which does not intend to provide knowledge
testing to out-of-State applicants, stated that ``[t]he only efficiency
with this proposal is to truck driving students who take training in
another state that is not a border state.''
Commenters provided additional input beyond answering these five
questions, as summarized below.
Some commenters, including ATA, TCA, and NSTA, believed the
proposed rule would have no detrimental impact on safety because all
CLP applicants must be tested and licensed in accordance with the
standards established by the May 9, 2011, final rule titled,
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit
Standards'' (76 FR 26854). Some States expressed concern that, if
adopted, the proposed rule would undermine the State of domicile's
ability to maintain control over the testing process and ensure that
only qualified drivers obtain a CLP. Several commenters commended the
proposed rule for relieving the time and travel cost burden on CLP
applicants who must return to their State of domicile to take the
knowledge test after receiving training in another State. On the other
hand, one commenter stated there is no undue burden imposed by
requiring a CLP applicant to take the knowledge test in their State of
domicile, noting that ``[l]earning needed to pass the written knowledge
test can be done by reading the written materials available from any
SDLA.''
Several commenters noted that the proposed rule would benefit
driver training schools and motor carriers by enhancing efficiency of
the training process, thereby helping to alleviate driver shortages. As
one commenter explained, a more efficient testing process will
encourage more drivers to apply for a CDL, which means ``more
opportunities to fill the gap between the supply and demand of
commercially-licensed drivers.''
Two commenters asserted that FMCSA is exceeding its legal authority
over the States' commercial licensing processes by requiring the State
of domicile to accept knowledge test results from another State.
Virginia stated that the rule is an unfunded mandate and FMCSA has not
indicated it will provide funding to help States comply. Some States
noted the potential loss of testing fees if applicants domiciled in
their State elect to take the knowledge test in another State.
The Agency carefully considered all comments. The NPRM was intended
to promote further flexibility in the CDL issuance process without
negatively impacting safety. All State commenters noted, however, that
due to process complexities associated with the proposed change, SDLAs
would need to implement significant changes to accommodate the receipt
of out-of-State knowledge test results. Given States' security and
operational concerns surrounding out-of-State knowledge testing,
including remote delivery of the CLP credential, FMCSA concludes the
proposed change is not advisable at this time. The Agency hereby
withdraws the July 29, 2019, NPRM, based on the same legal authorities
on which it issued the NPRM, set forth at 84 FR 36552, 36553. The
Agency notes, however, that States may enter into voluntary agreements
for out-of-State knowledge testing in accordance with the August 2017
Guidance discussed above.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04966 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P