[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18713-18717]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10548]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 391

[FHWA Docket No. MC-93-23]
RIN 2125-AD20


Commercial Driver Physical Qualifications As Part of the 
Commercial Driver's License Process

AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to form a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on 
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and Physical Qualifications 
Requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The FHWA proposes to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
advisory committee (the Committee) under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act to consider the relevant issues 
and attempt to reach a consensus in developing regulations governing 
the proposed merger of the State-administered commercial driver's 
license procedures and the driver

[[Page 18714]]

physical qualifications requirements of 49 CFR Part 391. The Committee 
would be composed of people who represent the interests that would be 
substantially affected by the rule.
    The FHWA invites interested parties to comment on the proposal to 
establish the Committee and on the proposed membership of the 
Committee, and to submit applications or nominations for membership on 
the Committee.

DATES: Interested parties may file comments and nominations for 
committee membership on or before May 29, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and/or nominations should be sent to FHWA Docket 
No. MC-93-23, Room 4232, HCC-10, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 
Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 
20590. All comments received will be available for examination at the 
above address from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of 
comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard/envelope.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Teresa Doggett, Office of Motor 
Carrier Research and Standards, (202) 366-4001, or Ms. Grace Reidy, 
Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0834, Federal Highway 
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. Office 
hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Secretary of Transportation has authority to establish 
standards for physical qualifications that must be met by drivers in 
interstate commerce. 49 U.S.C. 31502 and 49 U.S.C. 31136. This 
authority is delegated to the Federal Highway Administrator. 49 CFR 
1.48. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) set forth 
the qualifications of drivers who operate commercial motor vehicles 
(CMV) in interstate commerce. 49 CFR 391.11. The Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) provides, in section 12005(a)(8) (49 
U.S.C. 31305(a)(8)), that Federal standards may be promulgated to 
require issuance of a certification of fitness to operate a CMV to each 
person who passes a CDL test and may require such person to have a copy 
of such certification in his or her possession whenever operating a 
CMV.
    In September 1990, the FHWA explored options for giving 
responsibility for medical qualification determinations to the State 
licensing agencies as part of the CDL process. Six States--Alabama, 
Utah, Arizona, North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri--began pilot 
programs seeking efficient ways to assure that commercial motor vehicle 
drivers meet the Federal physical qualifications requirements before 
they are issued a license. The pilots were developed by the FHWA and 
its contractors, the Association for the Advancement of Automotive 
Medicine and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 
in conjunction with a committee of State government licensing 
officials.
    The pilot projects were completed on January 31, 1995, and a final 
report was submitted to the agency. The report revealed that the State 
driver licensing agencies demonstrated the potential to assume 
responsibility for commercial motor vehicle driver medical 
qualification determinations as part of the CDL process. However, some 
States indicated they would require enabling legislation and additional 
funding to administer the process.
    Currently, the FMCSRs require that CMV drivers be medically 
examined and certified as physically qualified once every two years in 
order to operate in interstate commerce. If the driver meets the 
Federal physical qualifications requirements, a medical examiner then 
issues a medical certificate which indicates that the driver is 
qualified to drive. Drivers must carry this certificate while driving 
and employers must maintain a copy in the drivers' qualification files. 
49 CFR 391.41(a), 391.43, 391.45 and 391.51(b)(1). Enforcement of these 
requirements is performed primarily through roadside inspections of 
vehicles and drivers or through Federal or State safety compliance 
reviews of motor carriers.
    In addition, 49 CFR 383.71(a) requires that during the CDL 
application process a person who operates or expects to operate in 
interstate or foreign commerce, or is otherwise subject to 49 CFR Part 
391, shall certify that he or she meets the qualification requirements 
contained in 49 CFR Part 391. In practice, some States rely solely on 
the drivers' certifications while other States also require drivers who 
certify that they meet the qualification requirements of Part 391 to 
produce the required medical certificate in order to be issued a CDL. 
Before issuing the CDL, a few States also review the medical ``long 
form'' that the medical examiner completes to assure that the 
regulatory requirements are met.
    The FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM)(copy enclosed in Docket File) on July 15, 1994, requesting 
comments on merging the CDL and physical qualifications programs. 59 FR 
36338. The FHWA stated in the ANPRM that merging the systems would 
allow the States to make the physical qualification determinations 
prior to issuing a CDL. Under such an approach, the CDL would then be 
the sole document a commercial driver would have to carry and would be 
evidence that a driver is medically qualified to operate the CMV.
    The proposal to merge the medical fitness determination into the 
CDL process has several very strong potential benefits. Drivers would 
be relieved of the responsibility to carry a medical fitness card, thus 
eliminating the potential for such cards to be inadvertently lost, 
damaged or destroyed. Enforcement personnel would also have immediate 
notice of the medical fitness status of a driver, without the time-
consuming need to refer to and authenticate a separate document. 
Carriers would no longer need to maintain driver medical qualification 
certificates, as the license document itself would confirm the fitness 
of the driver.
    In addition, States would be better able to identify unqualified 
drivers that currently operate without medical cards or with forged 
medical cards. Where questions exist regarding a license applicant, the 
driver licensing agency could refer the applicant and the medical 
fitness form to the State medical advisory board for further review. 
Medical advisory boards are currently in place in many States and are 
used to review medical qualifications of passenger car drivers and for 
intrastate CMV operators. The agency understands that forty-seven 
States currently have either a medical advisory board or some kind of 
medical review process for the above-described driver licensing 
determinations. In this rulemaking, the FHWA proposes to include 
medical determinations involving interstate CMV drivers in existing 
State medical review infrastructure programs by taking advantage of 
established working practices that are prevalent within State licensing 
agencies.
    The results of the six-State pilot program provide support for the 
benefits of this proposal. The final report found that drivers who did 
not meet current medical standards could be readily detected and could 
be restricted from driving CMVs entirely or within parameters set by 
the driver licensing agency and its medical advisory board. Medical 
examiners would be able to contact the driver licensing agency medical 
unit or medical advisory board if questions arose during a physical. 
The

[[Page 18715]]

review of the fitness qualifications as part of the licensing process 
streamlines the procedure and creates a single record for each driver. 
The pilot found that fraudulent or expired medical certifications and 
the lack of required medical certifications of drivers did not exist in 
the six participating States.
    In the ANPRM, the FHWA asked interested parties to comment on 
specific issues including the feasibility of the ``merger'' concept; 
how best to achieve such a system; how to reconcile the differences 
between the States' four-year CDL renewal cycle with the FHWA's two-
year medical certificate cycle; whether medical examiners should be 
certified to perform examinations; the degree of flexibility States 
should have in determining how to implement any new, merged standard; 
and the types of resources required by States to implement a new, 
merged standard. Seventy-six parties responded to the notice, including 
State agencies, for-hire motor carriers, private carriers, safety 
advocates, and medical groups.
    The responses received from commenters to the ANPRM generally 
involved one of five general issues. Because the parties likely to be 
interested in this proposed regulation (i.e., State licensing agencies, 
carriers, drivers, medical professionals) are fairly well defined, and 
the issues identified through the ANPRM are also well defined, the 
agency believed that this proposed rulemaking would be a good candidate 
for negotiated rulemaking. The range of interested parties and issues 
to be addressed are not the only reasons for the decision to initiate a 
negotiated rulemaking. The agency is enthusiastic about the opportunity 
to work cooperatively with partners in the motor carrier community at 
large to discuss this issue and approaches to resolving it in an open 
exchange of ideas. The opportunity to engage in face-to-face discussion 
of concerns and benefits will hopefully allow for a creative, 
cooperative approach to addressing the merger of medical fitness and 
licensing decisions.
    As referenced earlier, the five general issues identified by the 
respondents to the ANPRM were: (1) whether States would have statutory 
authority to verify the physical qualifications of a driver; (2) 
whether there will be adequate staff available to verify drivers' 
compliance with physical qualifications requirements at the time a 
license is issued; (3) the feasibility of merging the two-year medical 
certificate with the States' four-year licensing cycle; (4) the motor 
carrier's role in assuring physical qualifications of the driver; and 
(5) the cost of training licensing examiners and/or staffing medical 
review boards on the administration of the process.
    Comments on the ANPRM included questions on the potential costs to 
States of assuming responsibility for verifying medical fitness as part 
of CDL issuance or renewal. Some carriers expressed concern that 
licensing agencies would be unable to adequately confirm information on 
the medical form and suggested that the current carrier responsibility 
for driver fitness be maintained. The agency believes that the results 
of the six-State pilot program indicate a strong likelihood that States 
can assume responsibility for the medical fitness determination 
process. This rulemaking will form the basis for addressing the 
questions raised by respondents to the ANPRM, as well as other issues 
that may be identified as this process continues.
    Pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 561-570, the 
agency has decided to form a negotiated rulemaking committee. As 
discussed earlier, the agency believes that this approach is most 
likely to lead to an efficient and successful transfer of 
responsibility for medical fitness determinations to State licensing 
agencies. Unlike traditional, informal notice and comment rulemaking, 
this process will allow for the open exchange of ideas and information 
among and between parties with an interest in the outcome of this 
issue. The agency believes that in adopting this approach, the process 
will lead to creative, innovative approaches to resolving issues that 
might not emerge through the individual efforts of commenters to a 
docket. The process will still result in the promulgation of a notice 
of proposed rulemaking. This will provide an opportunity for comment by 
other interested parties and the general public, but the initial 
proposal that will be published for comment will reflect the exchange 
of ideas and differing proposals that occur in negotiations. One result 
of the negotiations will be a better informed commercial motor vehicle 
safety community with a fuller understanding of the benefits and 
potential problem areas associated with State verification of medical 
fitness determinations. This knowledge should help all parties, 
including the agency, to develop a more practical, effective means of 
dealing with these medical fitness determinations.

Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Conveners

    As provided for in 5 U.S.C. 563(b), a convener assists the agency 
in identifying the persons or interests that would be significantly 
affected by the proposed rule. The convener conducts discussions with 
representatives of such interests to identify the issues of concern to 
them and to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a negotiated 
rulemaking committee.
    The FHWA retained the services of a contractor to act as a convener 
and provide advice on the feasibility of using a negotiated rulemaking 
process for this rule. The convening team met with FHWA officials to 
review background information on the issues, including the responses to 
the ANPRM, potential interested parties, and objectives of the agency. 
Prior to conducting interviews with prospective participants, the 
convening team analyzed the views of the various respondents to the 
ANPRM and the level of controversy generated by the issues as outlined 
in the ANPRM.
    The conveners attempted to develop the range of interests that 
would be affected by the rule and identify individuals who would be 
able to represent or articulate those interests. The conveners then 
sought to interview those individuals to determine their views on the 
issues involved and whether they would be interested in participating 
in the negotiated rulemaking. The convening team sought to determine 
whether the negotiated rulemaking process would be effective in 
developing the rule. Each party was also asked if there were other 
individuals or groups which should be contacted and these additional 
parties were also interviewed. Based upon these interviews, the 
conveners submitted a convening report (copy enclosed in Docket File) 
in December 1995 to the FHWA, recommending that the agency proceed with 
the negotiated rulemaking process.

Determination of Need for Negotiated Rulemaking Committee

    The purpose of a negotiated rulemaking committee is to develop 
consensus on a proposed rule. ``Consensus'' means the unanimous 
concurrence among the interests represented on the negotiated 
rulemaking committee unless the committee explicitly adopts some other 
definition. This requirement also means that the agency itself 
participates in the negotiations in a manner similar to that of any 
other party.

[[Page 18716]]

    Before establishing such a negotiated rulemaking committee, the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(a)) directs the head of an 
agency to consider whether:
    1. There is a need for the rule;
    2. There are a limited number of identifiable interests that will 
be significantly affected by the rule;
    3. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee can be 
convened with a balanced representation of persons who can adequately 
represent those interests and are willing to negotiate in good faith to 
reach a consensus on a proposed rule;
    4. There is a reasonable likelihood that a committee will reach 
consensus on the proposed rule within a fixed period of time;
    5. The negotiated rulemaking will not unreasonably delay the 
issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking and the final rule;
    6. The agency has adequate resources and is willing to commit such 
resources, including technical assistance, to the committee; and
    7. The agency, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with its 
statutory authority and legal obligations, will use the consensus of 
the committee as the basis for the rule proposed by the agency for 
notice and comment.
    The FHWA believes that all of the requisite negotiated rulemaking 
factors are satisfied with regard to the proposal to merge the medical 
qualification determination and the CDL processes and that the 
negotiating process could provide significant advantages over 
conventional informal rulemaking. This determination is based on the 
review of the comments to the ANPRM and the convener's report submitted 
by the contractor. There is broad consensus among the parties contacted 
by the conveners that there are weaknesses in the current medical 
qualifications system that can be improved. The potentially affected 
interests are limited in number; there are clearly fewer than 25 
distinct interests that would be affected by the rule. A balanced 
committee representing the various interests at stake in this matter 
can be empaneled. The parties contacted by the conveners have expressed 
their interests in discussing the issues and believe that there is a 
strong likelihood of reaching consensus on the issues within a 
reasonable period of time. The FHWA believes that these negotiations 
will not delay, but will expedite the rulemaking process since the 
negotiations will enable the agency to benefit from the committee 
members' practical first-hand insights and knowledge into the operation 
of the physical qualifications determinations and the benefits and 
costs of integrating those determinations into the licensing process. 
Gaining those insights and resolving the controversies surrounding the 
identified issues would otherwise take the agency considerably longer 
to resolve by using traditional rulemaking. The agency is committed to 
facilitating the negotiated rulemaking process and will devote the 
necessary resources, including technical assistance, to the Committee. 
The member or members of the Committee representing the agency shall 
participate in the deliberations and activities of the Committee with 
the same rights and responsibilities as other members of the Committee, 
and shall be authorized to fully represent the agency in discussions 
and negotiations of the Committee. The agency, to the maximum extent 
possible, consistent with its statutory authority and legal 
obligations, will use the consensus of the Committee as the basis for 
the rule proposed by the agency for notice and comment.
    Therefore, based on this analysis of the seven factors mentioned 
above, the agency has concluded that the use of the negotiated 
rulemaking procedure in this case is in the public interest.

Potential Topics for the Negotiated Rulemaking Process

    Based on the interviews conducted with potential committee members 
and the report provided by the convener, the FHWA proposes that the 
following issues would be considered in the negotiated rulemaking 
process.
    1. Whether the physical qualifications guidelines currently used by 
the agency should be modified to more effectively implement the current 
medical standards.
    2. The scope of any medical qualifications tracking system which 
might be used by law enforcement officials, as well as by carriers 
interested in medical information that is not currently available.
    3. What is the status of the various federally-funded State 
Prototype Medical Review pilot programs which explored the merger of 
the medical qualifications and licensing processes, and what useful 
information can be utilized from these efforts in drafting a rule on 
merging CDL and physical qualifications requirements?
    4. How much control should various parties have over the medical 
review process and should the current commonly-used procedure, in which 
a company directs its drivers to physicians it selects, be replaced 
entirely or could it simply be modified? For example, should the agency 
require drivers to submit a medical long form to employers and the 
appropriate State licensing agency instead of replacing the current 
system?
    5. How can the current physical examination requirements used by 
medical providers be clarified? How can these requirements and 
guidelines be more effectively communicated to the medical provider 
community?
    6. Is there a way to allow merger of the separate requirements 
without burdening the small operator who moves to another State? In 
this case, although the driver's medical certification would still be 
valid, he or she might still be required to be recertified in the new 
State, thus potentially requiring a new certificate and a corresponding 
fee (e.g. medical reciprocity of old certificate to new States).
    Once the negotiated rulemaking process begins, Committee members 
may raise other issues necessary for successful completion of the 
rulemaking.

Potential Participants Who Were Interviewed By Conveners

    The following entities were identified as interested parties that 
should be included in the negotiated rulemaking process either directly 
as members of the Committee or as a part of a broader caucus of similar 
or related interests:

Enforcement Groups

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
International Association of Chiefs of Police

State Licensing Agencies

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

Carriers

American Trucking Associations
National Private Truck Council
National School Transportation Association
United Bus Motor Coach Association
American Bus Association
Terra International (Agricultural)
Farmland Industries (Agricultural)

Drivers

Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association
Independent Truckers and Driver Association
Independent Truck Owner Operator Association
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Public Interest

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
American Automobile Association

[[Page 18717]]

Medical

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
American Association of Occupational Health Nurses

Insurance

Lancer Insurance (Busing Interests)
AI Transportation--AIG (Busing and Trucking)
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Proposed Agenda and Schedule

    The FHWA anticipates that the negotiated rulemaking committee will 
hold six two-day meetings, approximately once a month. The first 
committee meeting will focus on such matters as: determining if there 
are additional interests that should be represented on the Committee; 
identifying issues to be considered; and setting ground rules, a 
schedule, and an agenda for future Committee meetings.

Administrative Support

    The FHWA's Office of Motor Carrier Research and Standards will 
supply logistical, technical, and administrative support to the 
Committee. The meetings will be held at the FHWA headquarters in 
Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. is where a majority of the 
prospective Committee members are located. In general, Committee 
members will be responsible for their own expenses, but the FHWA will 
consider requests for compensation in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 568(c).

Applications for Membership on Committee

    The FHWA is soliciting comments on this proposal to establish a 
negotiated rulemaking advisory committee and on the proposed membership 
of the Committee. Persons may apply or nominate another person for 
membership on the Committee in accordance with the following 
procedures:
    Persons who will be significantly affected by the proposed rule and 
who believe that their interests will not be adequately represented by 
any person on the previously discussed list of potential participants 
may apply for, or nominate another person for, membership on the 
negotiated rulemaking committee. Each application or nomination shall 
include:
    1. the name of the applicant or nominee and a description of the 
interests such person shall represent;
    2. evidence that the applicant or nominee is authorized to 
represent parties related to the interests the person proposes to 
represent;
    3. a written commitment that the applicant or nominee shall 
actively participate in good faith in the development of the rule under 
consideration; and
    4. the reasons that the persons specified in this notice do not 
adequately represent the interests of the person submitting the 
application or nomination.

Announcement of FHWA Public Meeting

    In order to identify and select organizations or interests to be 
represented on the Committee, the FHWA will hold a public meeting on 
May 14, 1996. The meeting will be held at the Nassif Building, 400 7th 
Street, SW, Room 9230, Washington, D.C., at 8:30 a.m. e.t. All parties 
interested in this rulemaking, including the potential participants 
listed above and parties submitting applications or nominations for 
membership, are encouraged to attend this meeting. The convener/
facilitator will also attend this organizational meeting.
    As a general rule, the Federal Advisory Committee Act provides that 
no advisory committee may meet or take any action until an approved 
charter has been filed with the appropriate House and Senate committees 
with jurisdiction over the agency using the committee. Only upon the 
Secretary of Transportation's approval of the charter and the list of 
organizations or interests to be represented on the Committee and the 
filing of the charter will the FHWA form the Committee and begin 
negotiations.
    After review of the comments received in response to this notice 
and any additional comments received at the organizational meeting, the 
FHWA will issue a final notice announcing the Committee members and the 
date of the first Committee meeting.

    Authority: [5 U.S.C. 561-570].

    Issued on: April 23, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-10548 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P