Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards, 19282-19317 [E8-7070]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 9, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19282-19317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7070]



[[Page 19281]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Transportation





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



49 CFR Parts 383, 384, and 385



Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit 
Standards; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73 , No. 69 / Wednesday, April 9, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 19282]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383, 384, and 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659]
RIN 2126-AB02


Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's 
Permit Standards

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
proposes to revise the commercial driver's license (CDL) knowledge and 
skills testing standards, and to require new Federal minimum standards 
for States to issue commercial learner's permits (CLPs). FMCSA also 
proposes that a CLP holder meet virtually the same requirements as 
those for a CDL holder. This means that a driver holding a CLP would be 
subject to the same driver disqualification offenses as apply to a CDL 
holder. This NPRM responds to section 4019 of the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), section 4122 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and section 703 of the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act). The purpose 
of this proposal is to enhance safety by ensuring that only qualified 
drivers are allowed to operate commercial motor vehicles on our 
nation's highways.

DATES: Please submit comments regarding this NPRM by June 9, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Please submit comments by only one of the following 
methods--Internet, facsimile, regular mail, or hand-deliver. Please do 
not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. 
The Federal eRulemaking portal is the preferred method for submitting 
comments, and we urge you to use it.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Search the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov. In the 
Comment or Submission section, type Docket ID Number ``FMCSA-2007-
27659'', select ``Go'', and then click on ``Send a Comment or 
Submission.'' You will receive a tracking number when you submit a 
comment.
     Mail, Courier, or Hand-Deliver: U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Office 
hours are between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.
     Telefax: (202) 493-2251.
     Docket: To read all comments and background material in 
the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and type ``FMCSA-2007-
27659''.
    Privacy Act: Regardless of the method used for submitting comments, 
all comments will be posted without change to the Federal Docket 
Management System (FDMS) at https://www.regulations.gov. Anyone can 
search the electronic form of all our dockets in FDMS, by the name of 
the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
The DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement was published in the Federal 
Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476), and can be viewed at the URL 
https://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Redmond, Office of Safety 
Programs, Commercial Driver's License Division, telephone (202) 366-
5014 or e-mail robert.redmond@dot.gov. Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This NPRM is organized as follows:

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Background
    A. Summary of This NPRM
    B. History
III. General Discussion of the Issues and Proposals
    1. Strengthen Legal Presence Requirement
    2. Social Security Number Verification Before Issuing CLP or CDL
    3. Surrender of CLP, CDL, and Non-CDL Documents
    4. CDL Testing Requirements for Out-of-State Driver Training 
School Students
    5. State Reciprocity for CLPs
    6. Minimum Uniform Standards for Issuing a CLP
    a. Passing the General Knowledge Test To Obtain a CLP
    b. Requiring the CLP To Be a Separate Document From the CDL or 
Non-CDL
    c. CLP Document Should Be Tamperproof
    d. Recording the CLP in CDLIS
    7. Maximum Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP and CDL
    a. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP
    b. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CDL
    8. Establish a Minimum Age for CLP
    9. Preconditions To Taking the CDL Skills Test
    10. Limit Endorsements on CLP to Passenger (P) Only
    11. Methods of Administering CDL Tests
    12. Update Federal Knowledge and Skills Test Standards
    13. New Standardized Endorsements and Restriction Codes
    14. Previous Driving Offenses by CLP Holders and CLP Applicants
    a. Holders of a CLP
    b. Applicants for a CLP
    15. Motor Carrier Prohibitions
    16. Incorporate CLP-Related Regulatory Guidance Into Regulatory 
Text
    17. Incorporate SAFE Port Act Provisions
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of the Proposals
    A. Proposed Changes to Part 383
    1. Section 383.5, Definitions
    2. Section 383.9, Matter Incorporated by Reference
    3. Section 383.23, Commercial Driver's License
    4. Section 383.25, Commercial Learner's Permit
    5. Section 383.37, Employer's Responsibilities
    6. Section 383.51, Disqualification of Drivers
    7. Section 383.71, Driver Application Procedures
    8. Section 383.72, Implied Consent to Alcohol Testing
    9. Section 383.73, State Procedures
    10. Section 383.75, Third Party Testing
    11. Section 383.77, Substitute for Driving Skills Test
    12. Section 383.79, Skills Testing of Out-of-State Students
    13. Section 383.93, Endorsements
    14. Section 383.95, Air Brake Restrictions
    15. Section 383.110, General Requirement
    16. Section 383.111, Required Knowledge
    17. Section 383.113, Required Skills
    18. Sections 383.115, Requirements for Double/Triple Trailers 
Endorsement, 383.117, Requirements for Passenger Endorsement, 
383.119, Requirements for Tank Vehicle Endorsement, 383.121, 
Requirements for Hazardous Materials Endorsement, and 383.123, 
Requirements for a School Bus Endorsement
    19. Appendix to Subpart G
    20. Section 383.131, Test Manuals
    21. Section 383.133, Test Methods
    22. Section 383.135, Passing knowledge and Skills Tests
    23. Subpart J, Commercial Driver's License Document
    24. Section 383.155, Tamperproofing Requirements
    B. Proposed Changes to Part 384
    1. Sections 384.105, Definitions; 384.204, CDL Issuance and 
Information; 384.205, CDLIS Information; 384.207, Notification of 
Licensing; 384.208, Notification of Disqualification; 384.209, 
Notification of Traffic Violations; 384.210, Limitations on 
Licensing; 384.212, Domicile Requirement; Section 384.214, 
Reciprocity; 384.220, Problem Driver Pointer System Information; 
384.225, Record of Violation; 384.226, Prohibition on Masking 
Convictions; 384.231, Satisfaction of State Disqualification 
Requirement; and 384.405, Decertification of State CDL Program
    2. Section 384.206, State Record Checks
    3. Section 384.211, Surrender of Old Licenses

[[Page 19283]]

    4. Section 384.217, Drug Offenses
    5. Section 384.227, Record of Digital Image or Photograph
    6. Section 384.228, Examiner Training and Record Checks
    7. Section 384.229, Skills Test Examiner Auditing and Monitoring
    8. Section 384.301, Substantial Compliance--General Requirements
    C. Proposed Changes to Part 385
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the broad authority of the Commercial 
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 
100 Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); the Motor Carrier Safety 
Act of 1984 (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 49 U.S.C. 
31136); and the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (MCA) (Chapter 498, 49 Stat. 
543, 49 U.S.C. 31502). It is also based on section 4122 of the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy 
for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, at 1734, 49 
U.S.C. 31302, 31308, and 31309); and section 703 of the Security and 
Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act) (Pub. L. 109-
347, 120 Stat. 1884, at 1944).
    The CMVSA required the Secretary of Transportation, after 
consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations on minimum 
uniform standards for the issuance of commercial driver's licenses 
(CDLs) by the States and for information to be contained on each such 
license (49 U.S.C. 31305, 31308). The CMVSA also authorized the 
Secretary to adopt regulations for a learner's permit (49 U.S.C. 
31305(b)(2)). Paragraph (c) of 49 CFR 383.23 addresses the learner's 
permit by ratifying the States' regulations on this subject, provided 
they comply with certain Federal requirements. This NPRM is proposing a 
Federal requirement for a commercial learner's permit (CLP) as a pre-
condition for issuing a CDL and proposing various other changes to 
enhance the CDL program. A summary of the proposed changes organized by 
section number appears below in the Section-by-Section Discussion of 
the Proposals.
    The MCSA conferred authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, 
and commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). It required the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle 
safety. The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for 
commercial motor vehicles. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure 
that: (1) Commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped, loaded, 
and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of 
commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the 
vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of commercial 
motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles 
safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles does not 
have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
    This NPRM, like the CDL regulations, is based in part on the 
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1) and (2) that CMVs be ``operated 
safely'' and that ``the responsibilities imposed on [CMV drivers] do 
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.'' The changes 
to part 383 proposed in this rule would help to ensure that drivers who 
operate CMVs are legally licensed to do so and that they do not operate 
CMVs without having passed the requisite tests.
    The MCA authorized the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe 
requirements for the ``qualifications * * * of employees'' of for-hire 
and private motor carriers (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). This NPRM, like the 
CDL regulations, is based in part on that authority and is intended to 
enhance the qualifications of CMV drivers by ensuring that they obtain 
a CLP before applying for a CDL.
    Section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU required the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to prescribe regulations on minimum uniform 
standards for the issuance of CLPs, as it has already done for CDLs (49 
U.S.C. 31308(2)). More specifically, section 4122 provided that an 
applicant for a CLP must first pass a knowledge test which complies 
with minimum standards prescribed by the Secretary and may have only 
one CLP at a time; that the CLP document must have the same information 
and security features as the CDL; and that the data on each CLP holder 
must be added to the driver's record in the Commercial Driver's License 
Information System (CDLIS).\1\ This NPRM includes each of those 
requirements, as explained later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CDLIS is an information system to exchange commercial driver 
licensing information among all the States. CDLIS includes the 
databases of fifty-one licensing jurisdictions and the CDLIS Central 
Site, all connected by a telecommunications network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 703(a) of the SAFE Port Act required the Secretary of 
Transportation to issue regulations implementing the recommendations in 
a memorandum issued by the DOT's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 
on June 4, 2004, concerning verification of the legal status of 
commercial drivers. Section 703(b) required the Secretary, in 
cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, to issue a 
regulation to implement the recommendations in a report issued by the 
OIG on February 7, 2006 [``Oversight of the Commercial Driver's License 
Program''] dealing with steps needed to improve anti-fraud measures in 
the CDL program. In a 2002 CDL audit report, the OIG recommended that 
FMCSA require testing protocols and performance oriented requirements 
for English language proficiency. This regulatory proposal incorporates 
all of the OIG's recommendations which are discussed in more detail 
later in the preamble. Many of the operational procedures suggested by 
the OIG for carrying out the recommendations have also been adopted.
    In addition to the specific legal authorities discussed above, 
FMCSA is required, before prescribing regulations, to consider the 
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 
31502(d)). The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis prepared for this 
proposed rule discusses those issues later in the preamble and more 
comprehensively in a separate document filed in the docket.

II. Background

A. Summary of This NPRM

    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes the following 
revisions to the CDL knowledge and skills testing standards in response 
to the statutory mandates and OIG recommendations:
(1) Knowledge and Skills Testing Requirements
    Successful completion of the knowledge test, currently a 
prerequisite for the CDL, would be required before issuance of the CLP. 
The NPRM would incorporate by reference the latest American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators' (AAMVA) Model Test package for 
knowledge and skill standards. It would include a prohibition on use of 
foreign language interpreters in the administration of the knowledge 
and skills tests, to reduce the potential for fraud.
(2) Issuance of and Standards for CLPs and CDLs
    The NPRM would specifically require that each applicant obtain a 
CLP and hold it for a minimum of 30 days before applying for a CDL. It 
would establish a minimum age of 18 for issuance of a CLP. The CLP 
would have to be a separate document from the CDL or non-commercial 
driver's license (non-

[[Page 19284]]

CDL \2\ ), would have to be tamperproof to the extent possible, and 
would have to include the same information as the CDL. The only 
endorsement allowed on the CLP would be a restricted passenger (P) 
endorsement. Each State would be required to create a CDLIS record for 
each CLP it issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``non-CDL'' is any other type of motor vehicle license, 
such as an automobile driver's license, a chauffeur's license, or a 
motorcycle license.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Before issuing a CLP to a driver, the issuing State would be 
required to perform a check of the driver's previous driving record 
using both CDLIS and the Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS) to ensure 
the driver is not subject to the sanctions of Sec.  383.51, based on 
previous motor vehicle violations. Discovery of such sanctions would 
result in the State's refusal to issue a CLP to the driver.
    The NPRM would strengthen the legal presence requirements and 
increase documentation required for CLP and CDL applicants to 
demonstrate their legal presence in the United States, as discussed 
under section III.1, below. For example, State driver's license 
agencies would be required to verify the applicant's Social Security 
Number with the Social Security Administration (SSA). The NPRM would 
also address applicants who wish to attend a driver training school in 
a State other than the applicant's State of domicile. States would be 
required to recognize CLPs issued by other States for training 
purposes. The NPRM would limit the initial and renewal periods for both 
CLPs and CDLs. It would clarify under what circumstances an applicant 
must surrender the CLP, CDL, or non-CDL. It would also require all 
States to use standardized endorsement and restriction codes on CDLs.
    Many of the program areas and issues dealt with in this NPRM are 
also addressed in the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) final 
rule implementing the REAL ID Act (``Minimum Standards for Driver's 
Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for 
Official Purposes,'' 73 FR 5272, January 29, 2008, codified in 6 CFR 
part 37). Although FMCSA and DHS have coordinated efforts to write 
regulations that neither overlap nor conflict, the statutes underlying 
these two rules serve different purposes and apply to distinct kinds of 
licenses and driver populations. FMCSA welcomes suggestions for 
clarifying both the commonalities between this rule and the REAL ID 
rule and the differences between them. For example, we recognize that 
certain REAL ID requirements exceed those proposed in this rule and 
that a State in compliance with the former would automatically comply 
with the latter. In this situation, one alternative would be to adopt 
the REAL ID requirements, either verbatim or by reference, into the 
FMCSRs.
    FMCSA recognizes that further harmonization with the REAL ID rule 
may be needed before adopting a final rule. We welcome all suggestions 
consistent with the requirements of the CDL program which would help us 
achieve that goal. We are especially interested in comments from the 
States, which have the primary responsibility for complying with the 
FMCSA and DHS requirements and the greatest expertise in managing 
licensing programs. Their views on the possibility of adopting the 
language of the REAL ID rule for various requirements in this 
regulation would be valuable.
(3) Measures for Prevention of Fraud
    The NPRM would include proposed requirements intended to improve 
the ability of States to detect and prevent fraudulent testing and 
licensing activity in the CDL program. These measures would include the 
following:
    [cir] Requiring verification of social security numbers.
    [cir] Requiring CLP and CDL applicants to prove legal presence in 
the United States.
    [cir] Requiring that a digitized photo of the driver be preserved 
by the State driver licensing agency.
    [cir] Requiring computer system controls to allow overrides by 
supervisory personnel only.
    [cir] Requiring background checks and formal training for all test 
driving examiners.
    [cir] Requiring the establishment of oversight systems for all 
examiners and testers (including third-party).
    [cir] Disallowing the use of language interpreters for the 
knowledge and skills tests.
    In addition proposed amendments to part 384 would require these 
items to be reviewed whenever FMCSA conducts a CDL compliance review of 
the State program. States found in substantial non-compliance with 
these fraud control measures, as well as the other requirements of part 
384, would be subject to the loss of Federal-aid highway funds.
(4) Other Regulatory Changes
    The proposed rule would specifically prohibit a motor carrier from 
using a driver to operate a CMV who does not hold a current and 
appropriate CLP or CDL or to operate a vehicle in violation of the 
restrictions on the CLP or CDL. Also, it would incorporate into the 
regulations current FMCSA guidance (available on the Agency's Web site, 
under ``Guidance for Regulations,'' at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-
regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrguide.htm, related to issues 
addressed by this rulemaking. Finally, there would be numerous minor 
editorial corrections and updates.

B. History

    The CDL program was established by the Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1986. Parts 383 and 384 of Title 49, Code of Federal 
Regulations, implement the CMVSA requirements. The CMVSA prohibits any 
person who does not hold a valid CDL or learner's permit issued by his 
or her State of domicile from operating a CMV that requires a driver 
with a CDL. The prohibition further affects driver training activities 
by limiting trainees to their State of domicile to (1) receive training 
and behind-the-wheel experience, and (2) take the knowledge and skills 
tests necessary to be issued a CDL. This outcome creates problems 
because commercial driver training facilities and the type of training 
needed are not equally available in all States.
    To address this and other issues, such as a lack of uniformity in 
the duration of learner's permits, associated driver history 
recordkeeping, and test reciprocity among States, the Federal Highway 
Administration (FHWA) published an NPRM on August 22, 1990 (55 FR 
34478). (Note: In the discussion below, the responsible agency is 
referred to as the FMCSA, regardless of whether the action described 
occurred before or after the transfer of responsibility from FHWA to 
FMCSA in January 2000.)
    Since the 1990 NPRM, major changes have occurred in the CDL program 
through other rulemakings, regulatory guidance, legislation, and policy 
decisions. For example, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks 
prompted Congress and FMCSA to expand the scope of the CDL program to 
include issues related to fraud and security. The issuance of CDLs to 
unqualified persons and persons with false identities significantly 
complicated detection and prevention of fraud. All of these major 
changes made the 1990 proposal obsolete. Thus, FMCSA withdrew the 1990 
NPRM on February 23, 2006 (71 FR 42741). The current rulemaking effort 
revisits these issues and proposes regulatory changes to implement 
section 4019 of TEA-21, section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU, and section 703 of 
the SAFE Port Act.

[[Page 19285]]

III. General Discussion of the Issues and Proposals

    FMCSA identified 17 issues to be addressed in the NPRM. This 
section includes a description of each issue, alternatives considered 
to address the issue, and FMCSA's proposed solution. This section also 
identifies the sections in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384 that would be 
amended. A summary of the regulatory changes organized by section 
number appears below in the Section-By-Section Discussion of the 
Proposals.

1. Strengthen Legal Presence Requirement

    Virtually all States currently issue CLPs and CDLs to U.S. citizens 
and persons with permanent legal presence in the country who may not be 
domiciled (i.e., permanent home and principal residence) in their 
State. CLPs and CDLs are also being issued to persons who have 
temporary legal presence in the country and are, therefore, domiciled 
in a foreign country.
    On June 4, 2004, the DOT OIG issued a Management Advisory on the 
need for FMCSA to establish a legal presence requirement for obtaining 
a CDL. The OIG recommended, at a minimum, requiring proof of 
citizenship, or permanent residency or legal presence in the United 
States before a State issues a CDL. The OIG recommended that this 
requirement be made part of the licensing regulations, and FMCSA 
proposes in the NPRM to require an applicant for a CLP to make a 
similar demonstration.
    Although ``domicile'' is not defined in parts 383 or 384, ``State 
of domicile'' is defined in Sec.  383.5 to mean that State ``where a 
person has his/her true, fixed, and permanent home and principal 
residence and to which he/she has the intention of returning whenever 
he/she is absent.'' If a State requires proof of domicile as a 
prerequisite for a learner's permit, then those applicants who can 
demonstrate that they permanently live in the State, i.e., U.S. 
citizens and lawful permanent residents, would be successful.
    A related issue is the documentation that would be acceptable as 
proof of domicile. Presumably, the States recognize their own non-CDLs 
or other evidence of a home or residence in the State, for example, a 
utility bill. While many States take precautions to check an 
applicant's record, such as conducting Social Security Number (SSN) 
verification, this demonstration of domicile can be made by an 
applicant who does not qualify. In some cases, both U.S. and non-U.S. 
citizens might be able to meet residency requirements using a driver's 
license or showing of residence that masks lack of domicile and/or 
citizenship or legal status. Currently, levels of documentation for 
residency are not uniform or stringent enough to meet the OIG's 
standards of legal presence.
    The list of acceptable documents to show proof of citizenship or 
immigration status for obtaining a hazardous materials endorsement 
(Table 1 to Sec.  383.71) could be adopted for all issuances of a CLP 
and CDL. An additional method for proving identity and reducing fraud 
is verifying applicants' SSNs with the Social Security Administration 
(SSA), which is discussed under Issue 2.
    The NPRM proposes to reinforce ``State of domicile,'' as currently 
defined in the regulations, as the basis for the States' actions to 
issue CLPs and CDLs. The NPRM revises the regulations to specify that a 
State may only issue a CLP or CDL to an applicant who is a U.S. citizen 
or a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Applicants 
domiciled in a foreign country, other than Canada and Mexico, who have 
temporary or indefinite legal presence in the country may be issued a 
Nonresident CLP or Nonresident CDL (regulations preclude issuing 
Nonresident licenses to Canada and Mexico). The NPRM also requires an 
applicant to demonstrate legal domicile (not just prove legal 
presence), and to present certain documentation to obtain a Nonresident 
CLP and CDL. To accomplish this goal, FMCSA adopts OIG recommendations 
for document verification for all CLP and CDL drivers, that is, the 
same document verification process as is required for hazardous 
materials (hazmat) endorsements under Sec.  383.71(a)(9).
    These requirements for verification, along with other OIG 
recommendation for verifying Social Security Numbers, would help to 
reduce the incidence of fraud in the CDL program. FMCSA proposes to 
revise Sec. Sec.  383.71 and 383.73 to address this issue.

2. Social Security Number Verification Before Issuing CLP or CDL

    When a CLP or CDL is issued to an applicant, it is important to 
verify that the information provided on the application form is 
accurate, and that the person submitting the application is who he or 
she claims to be. FMCSA has provided CDL grant funds to encourage 
States to verify social security numbers (SSNs) when issuing CDLs. 
Currently, 45 States perform at least limited verification of SSN, 
name, and date of birth with the Social Security Administration (SSA).
    FMCSA considered two alternatives for SSN verification. First, take 
no action.
    Second, the CLP and CDL issuance procedures should require States 
to verify certain identifying information (e.g., name, date of birth, 
and SSN) submitted on the license application with the information on 
file with the SSA. The States would be prohibited from issuing, 
renewing, upgrading, or transferring a CLP or CDL if the SSA database 
does not match the data provided by the applicant. This should provide 
an effective safeguard against issuing CLPs or CDLs to applicants who 
apply for a CLP or CDL based on fraud.
    FMCSA proposes the second alternative because approximately 45 
States currently conduct SSN verification for CDL applicants. Thus, 
requiring SSN verification for both CLPs and CDLs would appear to 
impose no additional burden on the majority of States; nor would it 
appear to be an unreasonable burden on those States that do not 
currently subject CLP or CDL applicants to SSN verification.
    Verification of SSN can be accomplished electronically through both 
individual and batch methods with minimum administrative cost or burden 
to States. The SSN verification would only have to be performed once on 
a CLP or CDL applicant if a notation is placed on the driver record 
that the verification had been done and the results matched information 
provided by the applicant.
    The OIG mentioned fingerprinting as an alternative to a more 
thorough verification of SSNs, rather than as a program that should be 
undertaken in parallel with SSN verification. FMCSA is not proposing to 
require States to perform fingerprinting of CLP or CDL applicants at 
this time because the cost of fingerprinting is significantly higher 
than the cost of electronic verification of SSNs. Furthermore, the 
incremental benefits in terms of security do not appear to justify the 
cost in terms of equipment, training, and staffing, necessary to 
develop a fingerprinting program for each State. Thus, FMCSA proposes 
to add a provision to Sec.  383.73. FMCSA believes that its proposed 
revision adequately addresses OIG concerns.

3. Surrender of CLP, CDL, and Non-CDL Documents

    Currently, Sec. Sec.  383.71 and 383.73 require the surrender of an 
existing license only when a CDL is being issued and the license it is 
replacing is either a non-CDL or a CDL from out of State.

[[Page 19286]]

There is no requirement in the current regulations that requires a 
driver to surrender (1) his or her license when being issued a CDL, if 
the license is from the same State that is issuing the CDL, (2) his or 
her CLP when it is being renewed or upgraded or a CDL is issued, or (3) 
an old CDL when the CDL is renewed or upgraded to add a new endorsement 
or class of license to the new CDL. Although some States do require the 
surrender of the old CDL when it is renewed or upgraded, sometimes the 
old CDL is returned to the driver with a corner cut off or a hole 
punched in it as indication of invalidating the old document. In some 
cases, the hole is punched on the expiration date making it impossible 
for law enforcement to determine whether it is a valid license. Better 
stewardship requirements are needed for the surrender of all non-CDLs, 
CLPs, and previously issued CDLs when a new CDL is issued.
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  383.71, 383.73, and 384.211, and 
to add proposed Sec.  383.25, to expand the current surrender 
requirements to include any transaction where a CLP is being upgraded 
or a CDL is being initially issued, upgraded, or transferred. FMCSA 
also proposes to incorporate into its regulations, the regulatory 
guidance posted on the Agency's Web site for Sec.  383.73 question 11 
and Sec.  384.211 question 1 on stewardship requirements for 
surrendered CDLs and to apply it to all of the above-mentioned 
transactions. This guidance allows licensing jurisdictions to meet the 
stewardship requirements for surrendered licenses by physically marking 
the license in some way as not valid and returning it to a driver. The 
document must be perforated with the word ``VOID'' or with holes large 
enough to make it easily identifiable to a casual observer as an 
invalid document. Punching a hole through the expiration date is not 
sufficient. Thus, in the case of renewed CDLs, if a State requires the 
surrender of the old CDL, the stewardship requirements must be 
followed.

4. CDL Testing Requirements for Out-of-State Driver Training School 
Students

    Current regulations (Sec. Sec.  383.23(a)(2) and 384.212) allow a 
jurisdiction to license a driver only if the driver is ``domiciled'' in 
that jurisdiction. Drivers who temporarily go to another jurisdiction 
to receive driver training cannot legally obtain either a CLP or a CDL 
from the jurisdiction in which the training occurs because they are not 
``domiciled'' in that jurisdiction. Further, some States do not 
recognize an out-of-State CLP for on-the-road training.
    Motor carriers and driver training schools advertise that they will 
assist drivers in obtaining CDLs upon completion of their training 
programs. Many training entities provide their students with a 
representative CMV for use in taking the skills test, and a driver with 
a CDL to accompany the student to the skills test location. Generally, 
these organizations can provide such a representative vehicle only 
within the jurisdiction in which the carrier's training facility or the 
school is located, i.e., the jurisdiction where the training is given. 
The driver holding a CLP who has left his/her State of domicile and 
licensure to obtain training then must return to his or her State of 
domicile and licensure to complete the skills testing. This presents 
the challenge of finding a vehicle that represents the type a driver 
expects to operate and finding a driver with a currently valid CDL to 
accompany the driver to the skills test location. Further, the costs 
associated with obtaining the vehicle and accompanying driver can be 
considerable, estimated at $150 to $200 per day. Finally, the applicant 
for a CLP or CDL must also meet the insurance requirements for using 
the representative vehicle when that cost is not borne by the employing 
motor carrier or a training school.
    Another problem with the existing system is the perceived 
inconsistency of State approaches to issuing CLPs or accepting 
knowledge or skills testing from other jurisdictions.
    FMCSA considered two alternatives based on issuance of a CLP after 
a demonstration of the applicant's State of domicile. First, after 
successful completion of a knowledge test, a person who holds a non-CDL 
in his or her State of domicile (or who holds a CDL that he/she wishes 
to upgrade) could obtain a CLP from that State of domicile and receive 
skills training in any State. The CLP would be recognized in all States 
in the same manner as CDLs. Upon successful completion of a skills test 
out of State, the driver could surrender both the CLP and the 
underlying CDL \3\ or non-CDL to the State of training and receive a 
temporary, non-renewable, Nonresident CDL which would expire in 60 or 
90 days. During this 60- to 90-day period the driver would return to 
his or her State of domicile to obtain a permanent CDL. The temporary 
Nonresident CDL would be recognized by the State of domicile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Assuming the driver already has a CDL, but is training to 
upgrade his/her CDL to a higher class (i.e. Group C to B) or to add 
an endorsement that requires skills testing (i.e. passenger 
endorsement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this alternative is dependent upon whether the State in 
which the training is provided has the desire and authority to issue a 
Nonresident CDL. Other new CLP requirements in the NPRM would decrease 
the vulnerability to fraudulent licensing practices under this 
alternative. FMCSA would maintain the ``one-driver, one-license, one-
record concept'' by proposing to link an underlying non-CDL to the 
issuance of a CLP and require both from the driver's State of domicile. 
Also, when the CLP and non-CDL are surrendered, the State of training 
temporarily becomes the State of licensure because the driver's records 
are transferred to that State.
    Under the second alternative, a person who holds a CDL or non-CDL 
in his or her State of domicile could obtain a CLP from that State and 
obtain training in any State. A person would take the skills test in 
the State where the training was conducted. The State of training would 
send the skills test results to the State of domicile. The State of 
domicile would accept the results of the skills test and issue a CDL 
when the student returns to his or her State of domicile. This 
alternative is based upon a driver's State of domicile accepting the 
results of a CDL skills test taken out-of-State. The problem with this 
alternative results from the States' perceived lack of standardization 
of skills testing and potential for fraudulent testing. Consequently, 
some States might be reluctant to accept the liability of issuing a CDL 
based on the results of an out-of-State CDL skills test. This 
alternative involves reciprocity of skills testing results. FMCSA is 
confident that the new proposed skills test standards would provide the 
States with a basis for accepting another State's test results.
    FMCSA proposes to revise Sec.  383.23(c) to reflect the second 
alternative. Current paragraph (c) and other issues that are exclusive 
to the CLP would be redesignated as new Sec.  383.25. FMCSA believes 
that the proposed revisions to the minimum standards for knowledge 
testing in subparts G and H of Part 383 would provide a basis for a 
State to accept another State's knowledge testing and CLP for the 
purpose of allowing the driver to participate in skills training out-
of-State.

5. State Reciprocity for CLPs

    Currently, Federal CDL regulations are silent on whether a CLP must 
be recognized by other States. This situation has caused some States to 
recognize an out-of-State CLP when the

[[Page 19287]]

holder is taking commercial driver training in their State, while other 
States have said the student can only take commercial driver training 
if the CLP is also from that State. Some States, even though they do 
not recognize a CLP from another State for training purposes, will 
issue an out-of-State student a CLP and establish a driver record, but 
allow the student to maintain his or her base license and driving 
record from his/her State of domicile.
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  383.73(h), which would be 
redesignated as Sec.  383.73(l), by adding a new requirement for CLP 
reciprocity. In order to maintain the ``one driver, one license, one 
driving record concept'' of the CDL program and to establish uniformity 
in the issuance of CLPs, the CLPs would only be issued by the State of 
domicile; but the CLP must be recognized for training purposes by all 
other States in the same manner as CDLs are recognized under Sec.  
383.73(h).

6. Minimum Uniform Standards for Issuing a CLP

a. Passing the General Knowledge Test To Obtain a CLP
    Currently, some States do not require a knowledge test as a 
prerequisite to issuing a CLP. In its May 2002 audit report ``Improving 
Testing and Licensing of Commercial Drivers,'' the OIG recommended that 
FMCSA require applicants to pass a knowledge test to obtain a CLP. 
Section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU mandates CLP applicants pass a written test 
before the CLP is issued.
    FMCSA proposes that every commercial driver-trainee be required to 
successfully complete the CDL knowledge tests before being issued a 
CLP. A driver who holds a valid non-CDL in his or her State of domicile 
would obtain a CLP from the State of domicile upon successful 
completion of a general CDL knowledge test. The proposal to require 
knowledge testing for all persons applying for a CLP is addressed in 
Sec.  383.25 and proposed amendments to Sec. Sec.  383.71 and 383.73. 
This requirement would provide for a safer driving environment by 
ensuring that a student demonstrates basic knowledge of operating a CMV 
before he or she gets behind the wheel.
b. Requiring the CLP To Be a Separate Document From the CDL or Non-CDL
    States vary in the type of document that serves as a commercial 
learner's permit and the relationship of the commercial learner's 
permit to a CDL or non-CDL. In extreme cases, a non-CDL serves as the 
CLP and, once the driver passes the skills test, as a temporary CDL. 
Standardizing the CLP is a key component of this NPRM.
    FMCSA proposes to establish the central requirement that the CLP be 
a separate document from the CDL or non-CDL. The CLP document would 
have to meet much the same requirements as a CDL document, but with the 
words ``Commercial Learner's Permit'' or ``CLP'' displayed prominently 
at the top. FMCSA also proposes that the restriction codes, vehicle 
group, and endorsement for which the driver has passed knowledge tests 
should be printed on the CLP document, as well as the license number of 
the underlying CDL or non-CDL. FMCSA also proposes that the CLP 
document include the statement that the permit is not valid for driving 
a CMV unless the driver also has on his/her possession the underlying 
CDL or non-CDL and only drives when accompanied by a valid CDL holder. 
More information about the proposal that the CLP be a separate 
document, but tied to the underlying CDL or non-CDL, is addressed in 
proposed Sec.  383.25 and amendments to Sec. Sec.  383.151 and 383.153.
c. CLP Document Should Be Tamperproof
    The States permit a variety of documents to serve as CLPs. Some 
States issue paper documents that would be easy targets for tampering. 
To narrow the range of documents that serve this purpose and to improve 
security, section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU requires that the CLP be 
tamperproof and the content of the CLP document be the same as the 
content of the CDL document. The CLP would state that without the 
underlying State CDL or non-CDL the CLP is invalid. The license number 
of the underlying CDL or non-CDL would be displayed on the CLP.
    FMCSA proposes to add a definition for ``CLP'' and ``Nonresident 
CLP'' to Sec.  383.5 (Definitions). Substantive information 
requirements for the CLP would be analogous to the information required 
for a CDL and Nonresident CDL; and the term ``Commercial Learner's 
Permit'' or ``CLP'' must be prominently displayed on the document. If 
the person being issued a CLP is domiciled in a foreign jurisdiction, 
other than Canada or Mexico, the word ``Nonresident'' must also appear 
on the CLP.
    FMCSA also proposes that a photograph or digitized image of the 
driver, the appropriate vehicle group, endorsement, and restriction 
codes must be shown on the CLP document. The proposed Sec. Sec.  
383.153 and 383.155 reflect these changes.
d. Recording the CLP in CDLIS
    Current State policies make it possible for a driver to obtain a 
CLP from more than one State, because only about half the States create 
a CLP driver record in CDLIS. To address this problem, the OIG 
recommended that, the CLP be recorded in the CDLIS, and section 703 of 
the SAFE Port Act required the Agency to implement the report that 
included the recommendation. In addition, section 4122 of SAFETEA-LU 
requires the inclusion of the CLP in CDLIS.
    Because the CLP together with an underlying non-CDL is a form of 
CDL for training when the driver is accompanied by a CDL holder, it is 
important that the CLP be subject to the same recordkeeping 
requirements as a CDL (49 CFR 383.23(c)). Moreover, these recordkeeping 
provisions would aid in the administration of nationwide CLP 
reciprocity and ensure uniform application of disqualifications to CLP 
holders. FMCSA has determined that the CDLIS has the capacity to handle 
the additional entries that are anticipated as a result of this 
proposal. Finally, the provision fulfills the OIG recommendation and 
SAFETEA-LU requirement that CDLIS be notified of all CLPs issued.
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  383.71, 383.73, 384.205, 
384.206, 284.207, and 384.225 to create a CDLIS record for a CLP and to 
require posting all CLP transactions to CDLIS.

7. Maximum Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP and CDL

a. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for CLP
    The general principle behind limiting the duration of a CLP and 
restricting the number of times it can be renewed without retaking the 
general CDL knowledge and endorsement tests is public safety on the 
highway. Every CLP holder is expected to demonstrate the minimum level 
of requisite skills in a test situation and obtain a CDL within a 
reasonable period of time (Sec.  383.25(d)). If the CLP holder does not 
obtain the CDL within a reasonable period of time, it could be an 
indication that the CLP holder is having difficulty developing the 
required skills to handle a CMV safely. Consequently, a protracted 
learning period for a CLP holder could pose a safety hazard on the 
nation's public roads and highways. Therefore, it is important to 
closely monitor CLP holders to determine if they might be experiencing 
any safety problems. Such monitoring could be accomplished by checking 
the driver

[[Page 19288]]

record prior to granting a renewal of the CLP.
    Some States, such as Alabama, are considering issuing CLPs for the 
same period as licenses, 5 years. When a CLP is issued for a lengthy 
period of time, it has been used illegally in some cases as a CDL in a 
co-driver situation, while the CDL holder is in the sleeper berth.
    FMCSA considered two alternatives for limiting the initial issuance 
and renewal periods for CLPs.
    First, a commercial driver training program including classroom and 
behind the wheel training usually takes 6 to 8 weeks. Considering that 
some students may need additional behind the wheel experience before 
taking the skills test for a CDL, a CLP valid for 90 days would be 
reasonable. Likewise, some driver-students may not pass the skills test 
on the first attempt and scheduling a retest may take several weeks. In 
that situation, the students would be allowed to renew their CLP for an 
additional 90 days without having to retake the general and endorsement 
knowledge tests.
    Under the second alternative, FMCSA recognizes that not all CLP 
holders take formal training at a commercial driving school. They may 
need more time (e.g., 180 days) to pass the skills test because they 
are not training and practicing behind-the-wheel skills on a full time 
basis as they would in a formal training program. Therefore, FMCSA 
could propose a CLP be valid for 180 days. Again, some driver-students 
may not pass the skills test on the first attempt and scheduling a 
retest may take several weeks, so the students could be allowed to 
renew their CLP for an additional 90 days without having to retake the 
general and endorsement knowledge tests.
    FMCSA believes public safety demands a limitation on the time 
allowed for a student to obtain a CDL without having to start the 
process over by retaking the general and endorsement knowledge tests. 
There is also concern that limiting initial validity to a short period 
of time (e.g., 90 days) puts an undue burden on both the driver and the 
State licensing agency in processing more renewals. Therefore, FMCSA 
proposes the second alternative and proposes to add new Sec.  383.25 
and to amend Sec. Sec.  383.71 and 383.73.
b. Initial Validity and Renewal Periods for a CDL
    The States vary in their initial duration and renewal periods for 
CDLs. The trend has been to expand the time periods in order to handle 
more drivers with the same staff and budget. In New York, for example, 
the renewal period for a driver's license, including CDLs, has gone 
from 5 years to 8 years. In Arizona, for example, all driver's 
licenses, including CDLs, do not have to be renewed until the driver 
turns 65 years old.
    The ever increasing length of initial and renewal periods for CDLs 
is defeating the purpose of renewal. The renewal process allows the 
driver to update information on the license and the State to update 
this information on the electronic driving record, place a new 
photograph on the license, check the driving record (i.e. current State 
of licensure, CDLIS, and Problem Driver Pointer System (PDPS)), and, in 
the case of the hazardous materials endorsement, require the driver to 
retake the test required by Sec.  383.71.
    FMCSA considered two alternatives for limiting the initial term and 
renewal periods for CDLs.
    Under the first alternative, the current average validity period 
for a license in the United States is slightly under 5 years. Some 
States use periods as low as 2 years and others use 8 years; a few 
licenses remain valid to age 65. Since the hazardous materials 
endorsement threat assessment must be performed at least every 5 years 
in accordance with a Transportation Security Administration interim 
rule, the initial and renewal periods could be set at a maximum of 5 
years to bring the CDL renewal and threat assessment cycles into 
agreement. This would promote uniformity among the States and limit the 
escalating length of validity periods. However, FMCSA recognizes that 
States with periods over 5 years may object because they could not 
handle more frequent transactions with current staffing and budget 
levels.
    Under the second alternative, while the current average validity 
period for a license in the United States is just under 5 years, the 
number of drivers is increasing. Therefore, States would need some 
flexibility to extend the validity periods to accommodate the increase 
with current staffing and budget levels. Except for Arizona and 
Georgia, we know of no State that currently has an initial and renewal 
period greater than 8 years. An 8-year period is also the renewal 
period DHS has adopted in its final rule to implement the REAL ID Act. 
By proposing an 8-year maximum renewal period, FMCSA agrees with the 
DHS requirements for all drivers' licenses. An 8-year period would 
provide most States the flexibility to expand beyond 5 years. At the 
same time, it would still promote highway safety by placing a cap on 
the maximum validity periods and preventing more States from following 
Arizona's lead by eliminating any renewal until age 65. At least once 
every eight years, the driver would update information on the license 
and the State would update this information on the electronic driving 
record, place a new photograph on the license, and check the driving 
record.
    FMCSA proposes the second alternative, and Sec. Sec.  383.71 and 
383.73 would be modified.

8. Establish a Minimum Age for CLP

    An individual is not eligible to operate a CMV in intrastate 
commerce before age 18 (49 CFR 350.341(f)), and in interstate commerce 
before 21 years (49 CFR 391.11(b)(1)), except for those persons either 
excepted or exempted under 49 CFR 390.3(f), 391.2 and subpart G of part 
391. Despite this fact, some States are currently issuing CLPs to 
applicants younger than 18 years of age. As a result, an individual who 
cannot operate a CMV in intrastate or interstate commerce is allowed to 
train and obtain behind-the-wheel experience in a CMV under the age of 
18.
    FMCSA considered two alternatives for setting a minimum age for 
issuing a CLP. First, to avoid the inconsistency between States for 
setting the minimum age for operating a CMV with a CLP, FMCSA could 
recommend that an applicant for a CLP be at least 18 years old. The age 
limit is especially important if a CLP holder, as proposed, would be 
granted reciprocity to drive in another State while training.
    The second alternative is the same as the first alternative. 
However, the exceptions and exemptions to the 21 years of age 
requirement for interstate commerce under 49 CFR 390.3(f), 391.2, and 
subpart G of part 391 would also be recognized for the issuance of a 
CLP.
    FMCSA proposes the second alternative to be consistent with the 
exceptions and exemptions from age requirements granted in Parts 390 
and 391 to operate in interstate commerce and, if adopted by the State, 
in intrastate commerce. A provision would be added to new Sec.  383.25 
and to Sec.  383.71 to specify a minimum age requirement with limited 
exceptions.

9. Preconditions To Taking the CDL Skills Test

    Currently, issuance of a CLP is not a precondition for issuance of 
a CDL. Therefore, a CDL applicant could legally obtain behind-the-wheel 
training on any public or private road without a CLP. Also, there is 
the issue of applicants without a CLP getting less than two weeks 
training at so called ``CDL mills rather than 6 to 8 weeks of training 
that

[[Page 19289]]

teaches them to properly operate a CMV.
    In addition, the CLP holder should not be eligible to take the CDL 
skills test in the first 30 days after initial issuance of the CLP, 
because it affords the applicant an opportunity to obtain skills 
training and to practice what he or she is taught. This 30-day 
prohibition on taking the skills test may also have an effect on the 
training period and thoroughness of the curriculum being taught at the 
CDL mills, because of the interval between the general training to pass 
the knowledge test for a CLP and the point at which the driver is 
eligible to take the skills test.
    FMCSA proposes to add these conditions in Sec.  383.25 and to amend 
part 383, subpart H. The Agency has published a NPRM (72 FR 73226, 
December 26, 2007) that would require that applicants for a CDL obtain 
training that meets specific curriculum requirements. The entry level 
driver training requirement (RIN 2126-AB06) would work together with 
the requirements in this rulemaking to ensure that applicants for a CDL 
have received adequate training and have had adequate opportunity to 
learn safe driving skills behind the wheel of a CMV. The comment period 
for the Agency's entry-level driver training rule expires on May 23, 
2008 (73 FR 15471, March 24, 2008).

10. Limit Endorsements on CLP to Passenger (P) Only

    This rule proposes that persons who are learning to drive a CMV 
with a CLP should not operate specialized vehicles (e.g., double/triple 
trailers or tank vehicles) or carry dangerous or high-value cargo (such 
as hazardous materials or passengers) before they acquire basic 
knowledge and skills.
    However, some States issue endorsements on their CLPs, or allow 
drivers to train on CMVs that require an endorsement without the need 
for the endorsement on the CLP or CDL. Section 383.93 requires a driver 
to pass the general knowledge and skills test for a CDL before being 
eligible to add endorsements for double/triple trailers, passenger 
vehicles, tank vehicles, vehicles used to transport hazardous 
materials, and school buses. While all endorsements require a knowledge 
test specific to the endorsement, only the passenger (P) endorsement 
under Sec.  383.93(c)(2) and the school bus (S) endorsement under Sec.  
383.93(c)(5) require successful completion of both a knowledge and 
skills test. Thus, only the P and S endorsements require the applicant 
to obtain behind-the-wheel experience to prepare to pass the skills 
test.
    FMCSA proposes that only the P endorsement be allowed on the CLP 
after the driver successfully passes the endorsement knowledge test. We 
further propose that the CLP holder with the P endorsement be 
prohibited from driving a CMV carrying passengers. While the S 
endorsement requires skills training to pass the skills test, it is 
only needed when the driver is actually transporting students. Thus, 
there is no need to have the S endorsement on the CLP when training for 
the CDL because it would not be a safe practice to allow driver 
trainees to transport students. If the applicant is training on a 
school bus, the endorsement knowledge test must be passed and noted on 
the driver's record.
    FMCSA also proposes that the P endorsement on the CLP be class 
specific. The driver can only undergo skills testing in a class of 
passenger vehicles or school bus for which he or she has passed 
knowledge training. This requirement is similar to what is required for 
P or S endorsements as CDL upgrades. The CLP holder must also be 
accompanied and directly supervised by a driver qualified for such a 
vehicle type.
    No other endorsements should be allowed on a CLP for safety 
reasons. The hazardous materials (H) endorsement is currently 
prohibited for security reasons. FMCSA sees no justification for 
allowing CLP holders to train on double/triple vehicles, tank vehicles, 
and vehicles carrying hazardous materials. Drivers wishing to develop 
skills on these vehicles must first obtain a CDL and then seek 
additional training needed for an endorsement.
    FMCSA proposes to add Sec.  383.25 and to amend Sec. Sec.  383.71, 
383.73, 383.93, and 383.153. These proposed requirements and 
restrictions for the P and S endorsements on the CLP would apply 
whether the CLP holder has only a non-CDL, or already has a CDL and is 
seeking an upgrade by adding the P or S endorsements.

11. Methods of Administering CDL Tests

    State and Federal investigations have revealed applicant and 
examiner fraud in the use of interpreters during knowledge and skills 
testing. The OIG has issued recommendations on this issue. The agency 
has issued Regulatory Guidance on 49 CFR Part 383 concerning the use of 
interpreters and written, verbal, and automated foreign language tests. 
The use of interpreters during knowledge testing has resulted in fraud; 
questions are sometimes answered by the interpreter, not the applicant. 
The use of interpreters during skills testing could pose a serious 
safety hazard to the driver, the examiner, the CMV and the general 
public on the highway. For example, if would be dangerous if a testing 
official gave the driver a command based on an observed hazard or 
situation, but the driver did not immediately comprehend the command.
    The OIG also recommended in its 2002 CDL audit report that FMCSA 
require testing protocols and performance oriented requirements for 
English language proficiency.
    FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  383.133. The fraud and safety 
concerns identified over the past few years lead FMCSA to conclude that 
the rules should provide clear guidance on test administration. The 
NPRM would propose to eliminate the use of interpreters in both the 
knowledge and the skills testing. There are alternate ways to conduct 
knowledge tests in foreign languages through the use of written, 
recorded and automated testing. With regard to skills testing, 
interpreters are a safety issue, not a language accommodation issue. 
While a foreign speaking applicant may have difficulty comprehending 
long questions and multiple choice responses in English, immediate 
response to verbal commands and instructions in English by a skills 
test examiner is vital to public safety. This proposed rule attempts to 
strike a balance between accommodation of applicants for whom English 
is their second language and who undergo CDL testing, while preserving 
the necessary protections against fraud and safety risks to drivers, 
skills test examiners, and the general public on highways.

12. Update Federal Knowledge and Skills Test Standards

    Section 4019 of TEA-21 required FMCSA to complete a review of the 
current system of CDL knowledge and skills testing, and determine if it 
is an accurate measure of an individual's knowledge and skills as an 
operator of a CMV. Section 4019 further required FMCSA to issue 
regulations reflecting the results of the review. This mandate was 
addressed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
(AAMVA) and the FMCSA jointly. The recently updated versions of AAMVA's 
model CDL knowledge and skills tests, and driver and examiner manuals 
were released to the States in January 2006. The updated model test 
package (Version 2005) meets a higher standard of knowledge and skills 
testing than the current Federal standards in part 383, subparts G and 
H. While some States are voluntarily adopting the updated model test

[[Page 19290]]

package (tests and manuals), the majority of the States will not fully 
adopt them until the Federal testing standards are raised to meet the 
model test standards.
    FMCSA considered two alternatives for updating the Federal 
knowledge and skills testing standards.
    Under the first alternative, FMCSA would incorporate the AAMVA 
model test package (Version 2005) by reference into the Federal 
regulation for CDL knowledge and skills standards. This is justified 
because AAMVA's 2005 model testing package was developed with major 
input by representatives from the industry that would be affected by 
the new testing standards, and as a way of promoting uniformity among 
the States.
    Some modifications to part 383, subparts G and H, would be needed 
to match the knowledge standards in the model testing package. These 
modifications would address: (1) The number of questions that are 
required on the general and endorsement knowledge tests; (2) the number 
of knowledge categories (domains) that must be represented with 
questions on the general and endorsement knowledge tests; and (3) the 
adoption of the AAMVA 2005 Requirements Document algorithm for creating 
multiple versions of the knowledge test.
    In addition, modifications to part 383, subparts G and H, would be 
needed to: (1) Make the entire pre-trip inspection (not just the air 
brake inspection) part of the skills standard, rather than the current 
knowledge standard; (2) prohibit the banking of parts of the skills 
test (for example, an applicant who passes the pre-trip and off-road 
maneuvers, but fails the on-road part of test must retake all three 
parts of the skills test); (3) adopt the expanded definition of CMV in 
section 4011(a) of TEA-21 to include both ``gross vehicle weight rating 
and gross vehicle weight'' and ``gross combination weight rating and 
gross combination weight,'' ``whichever is greater.'' ;\4\ (4) 
eliminate Sec.  383.77, since the substitute for a driving skills test 
was intended only for the initial testing cycle prior to April 1, 1992; 
and (5) adopt the OIG recommendation to require covert monitoring of 
State and third party skills test examiners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The expanded definition should be limited to roadside 
enforcement and not used for skills testing in order to maintain the 
representative vehicle concept.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second alternative is the same as the first alternative, except 
that the AAMVA model testing package would not be adopted by reference. 
Only the major aspects of the model testing package would be 
incorporated into the Federal knowledge and skills testing standards, 
similar to what is in the current testing standards in part 383, 
Subparts G and H.
    FMCSA proposes the first alternative in order to promote more 
uniformity among the States. FMCSA proposes to amend Sec.  383.5 and 
part 383, subparts G and H, and to add Sec.  384.229.

13. New Standardized Endorsements and Restriction Codes

    Currently, uniform codes are not required for all endorsements and 
restrictions on a CDL. For example, unlike the standardized CDL codes 
for the double /triple trailer (T), hazardous materials (H), tank 
vehicle (N), passenger vehicle (P) and school bus (S) endorsements, the 
air brake restriction has no standardized code. The fact that States 
are using five different codes causes enforcement problems. In one 
State a ``K'' restriction means an air brake restriction while in 
another State it means an intrastate-only restriction.
    Several issues have been raised by motor carriers and State driver 
licensing skills examiners in regard to CMVs with (1) automatic 
transmissions or manual transmissions; (2) air over hydraulic versus 
air brakes; and (3) non-fifth wheel (e.g., pintle hook) versus fifth 
wheel combination vehicles. Motor carriers are concerned when they hire 
drivers with a CDL who (1) cannot operate manual transmission vehicles; 
(2) cannot test or operate a full air brake system; and/or (3) cannot 
hook up a fifth wheel power unit with a semi-trailer. State examiners 
are concerned when they cannot test the applicant on (1) a full air 
brake system; (2) a manual transmission; and/or (3) fifth wheel 
combination hookup because the vehicle brought to the test is not so. 
However, there is no current Federal requirement that the test vehicles 
be outfitted with these features. A number of States have imposed 
restrictions on CDLs for drivers who take the skills test