[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36552-36559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15963]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0332]
RIN 2126-AC23


Commercial Driver's License Out-of-State Knowledge Test

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

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA proposes to allow driver applicants to take the 
commercial driver's license (CDL) general and specialized knowledge 
tests in a State (the testing State) other than the applicant's State 
of domicile. Under this proposed rule, a State would not be required to 
offer the knowledge tests to out-of-State applicants. However, if the 
testing State elects to offer the knowledge tests to these applicants, 
it would transmit the results to the State of domicile, which would be 
required to accept the results. Because this proposal would not change 
the existing standards for administration of the knowledge tests, the 
Agency concludes it would have no detrimental impact on safety.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before September 
27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2018-0332 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting 
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikki McDavid, Chief, Commercial 
Driver's License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 by telephone at 
202-366-0831 or by email, [email protected]. If you have questions 
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket 
Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0332), indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and 
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only 
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of 
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, 
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0332, in the keyword box, and click 
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' 
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. 
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on 
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an

[[Page 36553]]

unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of 
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is customarily not made available to the general 
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is 
exempt from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or 
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the 
submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your 
submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions designated as 
CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the 
public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent 
to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any commentary that FMCSA 
receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in 
the public docket for this rulemaking.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0332, in the 
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket 
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have 
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-
0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except 
Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law, 
114-94 (FAST Act), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a negotiated rulemaking ``if a 
proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). As this proposed rule is not likely to lead to 
the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to issue 
an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    To promote further flexibility in the CDL issuance processes, FMCSA 
proposes to allow driver applicants to take the CDL knowledge tests 
required by 49 CFR 383.25(a)(3), 383.25(a)(5), and 383.95(c)(1) and 
(4), in any State (the testing State), when that State is other than 
the applicant's State of domicile. Under this proposed rule, the 
testing State would transmit the driver applicant's knowledge testing 
results to the State of domicile. The NPRM applies to the general 
knowledge test for the CLP, as well as specialized knowledge tests for 
the passenger (P), school bus (S), tank vehicle (N), double/triple 
trailer (T), and hazardous materials (H) endorsements, therefore the 
testing state may be transmitting more than one test result. The State 
of domicile would be required to accept the results of the knowledge 
test(s) in fulfillment of the applicant's testing requirements, as long 
as all other requirements under 49 CFR 383.71 have been met. The 
purpose of the proposal is to facilitate a driver applicant's ability 
to take the knowledge test(s) outside the State of domicile, while 
maintaining the ``one driver/one license/one record'' requirement 
described below. It would also make the knowledge testing process more 
consistent with the skills testing process, which may already be 
conducted outside the State of domicile, with the test results required 
to be sent back to the domicile State (49 CFR 383.79(a)) and the 
license issued by the domicile State. Because this proposal would not 
change the standards for administration of the knowledge tests, the 
Agency concludes it would have no detrimental impact on safety.

Costs and Benefits

    FMCSA evaluated the potential for the proposed rule to result in 
incremental costs and benefits. The Agency determined that the proposed 
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive 
Order (E.O.) 12866 or within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and 
procedures. The proposed rule may result in costs for States to adapt 
procedures or information systems to accept out-of-State knowledge test 
results. Increasing the flexibility of driver applicants to take a 
knowledge test in any State may reduce driver costs in terms of time 
and travel expenditures associated with returning to their State of 
domicile. Improving access to training programs that best suit drivers' 
needs may also increase the number of driver applicants and positively 
impact both the supply and skill level of CDL holders. However, the 
Agency is unable to quantify these potential impacts, for reasons which 
are discussed further below in section IX.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This proposed rule is based on the broad authority of the 
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, as amended (CMVSA) (Pub. 
L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, 49 U.S.C. chapter 313); the 
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended (MCSA) (Pub. L. 98-554, 
Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 49 U.S.C. 31136); and the Motor Carrier Act of 
1935, as amended (MCA) (chapter 498, 49 Stat. 543, 49 U.S.C. 31502).
    The CMVSA, implemented in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384, provides that 
``[a]fter consultation with the States, the Secretary of Transportation 
shall prescribe regulations on minimum uniform standards for the 
issuance of commercial drivers' licenses and learner's permits by the 
States . . .'' (49 U.S.C. 31308). More specifically, the statute 
requires that: An individual may have only one CLP at a time; 
applicants must first pass a knowledge test that complies with minimum 
standards prescribed by the Secretary; and the CLP document must have 
the same information and security features as the CDL (49 U.S.C. 31302, 
31308(2)-(4)). Additionally, 49 U.S.C. 31309(b) requires that a 
driver's record must be created for each CLP holder in the Commercial 
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS). Section 31311(a)(12)(A) 
requires that the State issue a CDL only to drivers domiciled in that 
State. This NPRM proposes to establish procedures for the issuance of 
CLPs by the State of domicile when the applicant takes and passes the 
knowledge test required by 49 CFR 383.25(a)(3) in a State other than 
the applicant's State of domicile.
    The MCSA, which confers authority to the Secretary of 
Transportation to

[[Page 36554]]

regulate drivers, motor carriers, and commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), 
requires the Secretary to ``prescribe regulations on commercial motor 
vehicle safety.'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). At a minimum, the regulations 
shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and 
operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs 
do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the 
physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to 
operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a 
deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) 
CMV drivers are not coerced to operate a CMV in violation of a 
regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136(a) or chapters 51 and 313 
of title 49. This proposed rule, like all of the Agency's 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 49 CFR part 383 
proposed in this rule are intended to facilitate drivers' ability to 
choose CMV training that best suits their needs. This NPRM does not 
directly address medical standards for drivers (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3)) 
or possible physical effects caused by operating a CMV (49 U.S.C. 
31136(a)(4)). The Agency does not anticipate that this proposal would 
result in the coercion of CMV drivers (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(5)).
    The MCA authorized the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to 
prescribe requirements for the ``qualifications . . . of employees'' of 
for-hire and private motor carriers (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)). This rule, 
like all the Agency's CDL regulations, is based in part on that 
authority and is intended to ensure the qualifications of individuals 
who obtain a CLP.
    Additionally, FMCSA is required to consider ``costs and benefits'' 
of any regulations prescribed under the authority of the MCSA or the 
MCA (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A), 31502(d)). Those factors are addressed 
below.
    Finally, the Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49 
CFR 1.87(e)(1), (f) and (i) to carry out the functions vested in the 
Secretary by 49 U.S.C. chapters 313, 311, and 315, respectively, as 
they relate to CMV operators, programs, and safety.

IV. Background

    The purpose of the CMVSA was twofold: (1) To improve highway safety 
by ensuring that drivers of large trucks and buses were qualified to 
operate those vehicles, and (2) to remove unsafe, unqualified drivers 
from our Nation's highways. As noted above, the CMVSA furthered these 
goals by imposing minimum CDL licensing standards and requiring States 
to comply with them in order to avoid the withholding of certain 
Federal funds (49 U.S.C. 31314). Central to this legal framework was 
the ``domicile requirement,'' which mandated that ``the State may issue 
commercial drivers' licenses only to those persons who operate or will 
operate commercial motor vehicles and are domiciled in the State'' 
[emphasis added] (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(A)). The implementing 
regulation provides that ``no person may legally operate a CMV unless 
such person possesses a CDL . . . issued by his/her State of 
jurisdiction or domicile.'' (49 CFR 383.23(a)(2)). Congress enacted the 
domicile requirement, referred to here as the ``one driver/one license/
one record'' principle, as a means of preventing drivers from masking 
traffic violations or other disqualifying offenses in one State by 
applying for and receiving a ``new'' commercial license in another 
State.
    Following Congress's enactment of amendments to 49 U.S.C. chapter 
313, FMCSA published a final rule to implement those changes, 
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit 
Standards,'' on May 9, 2011 (2011 Final Rule) (76 FR 26854). The 2011 
Final Rule added 49 CFR 383.79 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs), which, as noted above, provides that a person who 
holds a CLP would be able to take the CDL skills test outside of his/
her State of domicile. The testing State would then send the skills 
test results to the State of domicile, which would be required to 
accept the results. The issue of knowledge testing outside the State of 
domicile was not raised during the 2011 rulemaking.
    On October 13, 2016, FMCSA published ``Commercial Driver's License 
Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 
(MAP-21) and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012'' 
(2016 Final Rule) (81 FR 70634). The 2016 Final Rule allows, but does 
not require, a State to accept applications from active duty military 
personnel who are stationed in that State, as well as administer the 
knowledge and skills tests for a CLP or CDL, including, as applicable, 
specialized knowledge tests for endorsements. States that choose to 
accept such applications are required to transmit the test results 
electronically to the State of domicile of the individual. The State of 
domicile may then issue the CLP or CDL on the basis of those test 
results.
    In January 2017, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) requested 
regulatory guidance clarifying that State Driver Licensing Agencies 
(SDLAs) may accept the results of knowledge tests taken in another 
State to ease the travel burden on driver applicants attending a truck 
driver training school outside their State of domicile. The Agency 
responded to ATA's request by publishing ``Commercial Driver's License 
Standards: Regulatory Guidance Concerning the Issuance of Commercial 
Learner's Permits'' on August 3, 2017 (August 2017 Guidance) (82 FR 
36101).
    The August 2017 Guidance, which is consistent with the 2016 Final 
Rule, is predicated on the existence of an agreement between the 
testing State and State of domicile prior to the general knowledge test 
being administered by the testing State. It also emphasizes that the 
responsibility for compliance with all requirements of 49 CFR 383.71 
and 383.73 remains with the State of domicile. FMCSA also stated that 
the guidance should not be construed to allow a State to issue a CLP or 
CDL to an individual who is not domiciled in that State. If this NPRM 
results in the publication of a final rule, the August 2017 Guidance 
would be obsolete at that point and would be rescinded.
    The procedure for transmitting skills test results between States 
is already in place as a result of the 2011 Final Rule. To facilitate 
States' compliance with the 2011 Final Rule, the American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) developed two web-based systems 
for the electronic transmission of skills test results: The Commercial 
Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS) and the Report Out-
of-State Test Results (ROOSTR). AAMVA continues to manage these systems 
and makes them available to the States at no charge. All States 
currently use one of these two systems to transmit or receive skills 
test results. After the publication of the August 2017 Guidance, AAMVA 
modified each of these systems to also allow transmission of the 
knowledge test results.
    FMCSA's informal dialogue with SDLA personnel in early 2018 
revealed that no State has yet opted to act pursuant to the August 2017 
Guidance. Primary reasons cited were the need for enabling legislation 
by the individual State legislatures and the fact that such legislation 
was not likely to be forthcoming without definitive Federal regulatory 
requirements. Additionally, some States indicated they were

[[Page 36555]]

focusing their limited resources on implementing other Federal 
requirements.
    In July 2018, Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao received a 
letter from 19 members of Congress requesting that FMCSA enact 
regulations requiring a State of domicile to accept the results of a 
knowledge test administered by another State in which the applicant 
received training. The letter, which is available in the docket of this 
rulemaking, cited a growing trend within the motor carrier industry to 
develop in-house central training sites to recruit and train new 
drivers from across the country. The letter further explained that 
these applicants are often unable to afford the financial burden 
associated with the travel requirement back to the State of domicile, 
from the State in which training takes place, in order to take the 
knowledge test and obtain the CLP. Finally, the letter emphasized that 
such a rule would not undermine the ``one driver/one license/one 
record'' principle, as the State of domicile would still be required to 
issue the credential. This NPRM responds to the concerns raised in the 
July 2018 Congressional correspondence.

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking

    This proposal would modify 49 CFR 383.79(a)(1) and (2) by 
permitting a State to administer the knowledge test(s) to an out-of-
State applicant, and by requiring the State of domicile to accept those 
knowledge testing results. Under the proposed rule, a State would not 
be required to offer knowledge testing to out-of-State applicants. This 
approach is consistent with the current language of 49 CFR 
383.79(a)(1), which permits, but does not require, a State to 
administer the skills test to out-of-State driver applicants who obtain 
training in that State. The NPRM provides that, where a State does 
elect to administer a knowledge test to out-of-State applicants, the 
State must administer that test in accordance with the current 
standards set forth in subparts F, G, and H of 49 CFR part 383. These 
include: Testing requirements for specific vehicle groups and 
endorsements, general and specialized areas of knowledge that must be 
tested, and testing manuals and methods. However, under the proposal, 
out-of-State applicants would not be required to obtain knowledge 
training in the testing State.
    The Agency proposes to include all required knowledge testing 
within the scope of this proposal, in order to avoid a situation in 
which a driver applicant may take the general knowledge test out of 
State, but must return to their State of domicile to take a specialized 
knowledge test for one or more endorsements. For example, an individual 
who wants to become a commercial bus driver must take the general 
knowledge test for the CLP, as well as the knowledge test for the P 
endorsement. Under the NPRM, the testing State could permit the driver 
applicant to take both knowledge tests. Additionally, current CDL 
holders may wish to upgrade their license by adding an endorsement; 
under this proposal, they could also take the applicable knowledge 
test(s) outside their Sate of domicile, if the testing State offers 
that option. When a driver applicant passes the knowledge test(s), the 
testing State would transmit the results to the State of domicile 
through a secure, safe, electronic means, which would be required to 
accept those results in fulfillment of the applicant's testing 
requirements.
    FMCSA intends to simplify the task of obtaining a CLP or 
endorsement for applicants wishing to take the knowledge test(s) 
outside their State of domicile, while maintaining the ``one driver/one 
license/one record'' requirement. In the Agency's judgment, the NPRM 
would not adversely impact safety because the current standards for 
administering the knowledge test(s) would not change. All driver 
applicants are subject to the same pool of test questions, regardless 
of the State in which testing occurs. ``States must use the FMCSA pre-
approved pool of test questions to develop knowledge tests for each 
vehicle group and endorsement'' (49 CFR 383.133(b)(1)). The pool of 
questions comes from AAMVA's ``2005 CDL Test System (July 2010 or newer 
Version) 2005 Test Item Summary Forms.'' Each test administered must 
have a set number of questions overall, with a prescribed number of 
questions from each of the knowledge topic areas described in 49 CFR 
383.111. Under Sec.  383.135(a), driver applicants must correctly 
answer at least 80 percent of knowledge test questions to achieve a 
passing score. A State of domicile, therefore, may accept knowledge 
test results from a testing State and issue the CLP without concern 
that different States may have different testing standards.
    Additionally, this proposal would reduce travel time and other 
associated costs for applicants who choose to obtain CMV driver 
training outside their State of domicile and would otherwise have to 
return to their State of domicile for knowledge testing and issuance of 
the physical CLP or upgraded CDL. To the extent that reducing travel 
costs associated with out-of-State training increases the number of 
applicants or applicant access to high-quality training programs, there 
could be positive impacts on driver safety. However, the Agency does 
not have data indicating such an effect. FMCSA invites qualitative or 
quantitative information addressing the potential benefits of the NPRM.
    FMCSA anticipates that this proposal would require States to modify 
their current CLP and CDL upgrade issuance processes to some extent. 
For example, because the State of domicile would remain responsible for 
ensuring compliance with 49 CFR 383.71 and 383.73, the SDLA would need 
to permit the driver applicant to apply for a CLP before completing the 
knowledge test in the testing State.
    After accepting knowledge test results from the testing State, the 
State of domicile would issue the CLP or endorsement to the applicant 
in accordance with current requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 383. 
Under the ``one driver/one license/one record'' requirement, a State 
could not issue a CLP or endorsement to an individual who is not 
domiciled in that State; only the State of domicile may create the 
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) driver record 
and issue the physical CLP (with a P, S, or N endorsement, if 
applicable \1\), or add an endorsement to a driver's existing CDL. The 
State of domicile would need to establish a process for delivering the 
physical CLP, or upgraded CDL, to the driver applicant in other than 
the State of domicile. It would be up to the State of domicile to 
determine method(s) of delivery that would allow the applicant to 
receive the CLP or upgraded CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 49 CFR 383.25(a)(5)(iv), the P, S, and N endorsements 
are the only endorsements permitted on a CLP. Note that a CLP does 
not require an endorsement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the process for transmitting knowledge test results 
between States, through either CSTIMS or ROOSTR, is already in place. 
States will need to integrate this capability into their own systems 
and procedures. The Agency notes, however, that transmission of test 
results through either CSTIMS or ROOSTR does not require any changes to 
CDLIS.
    Finally, the Agency typically allows three years for the States to 
come into compliance with regulatory changes. Would a three-year 
compliance date allow sufficient time for States to accomplish changes 
in their laws and procedures necessary to implement the proposed 
requirements? Given that the

[[Page 36556]]

functionality to transmit knowledge test results currently exists in 
CSTIMS and ROOSTR, could the proposed requirements be implemented 
within two years? FMCSA seeks comment and supporting data addressing 
the length of time States would need to comply with the changes 
proposed in the NPRM.

VI. Questions

    The Agency requests that commenters address the questions below, 
but also welcomes comments or questions on any other issues related to 
this proposal.
    1. To what extent will SDLAs need to adapt existing procedures and 
processes to receive out-of-State knowledge testing results and 
remotely deliver the physical CLP or upgraded CDL? What are the costs 
associated with making these changes?
    2. What additional State implementation concerns are raised by 
today's proposal?
    3. Would two years, or three years, allow SDLAs sufficient time to 
achieve compliance with the proposed requirement to accept any out-of-
State knowledge test results? Please explain the basis for your 
preferred compliance date.
    4. If this proposal is finalized, would your SDLA offer knowledge 
testing to out-of-State CLP applicants or CDL holders wishing to add an 
endorsement to their license? Why or why not?
    5. Would the proposed changes allow applicants who take driver 
training outside their State of domicile to obtain a CLP or upgraded 
CDL more efficiently? If so, please provide specific examples of time 
or cost savings that may accrue if the proposed changes were adopted.

VII. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the 
United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor 
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the 
countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement 
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the 
regulatory differences among nations.

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis

    The text of 49 CFR 383.79 would be revised by adding new paragraph 
(a)(1) permitting a State to administer the general knowledge test, 
and/or specialized knowledge tests, to a CLP or endorsement applicant 
who is to be licensed in his or her State of domicile and requiring the 
testing State to transmit the knowledge testing results to the 
applicant's State of domicile. New paragraph (a)(2) would require the 
CLP applicant's State of domicile to accept knowledge testing results 
from the testing State in fulfillment of the applicant's testing 
requirements under Sec.  383.71 and the State's test administration 
requirements under Sec.  383.73. Current paragraph (a) would be re-
designated as new paragraph (b); current paragraph (b) would be re-
designated as new paragraph (c). Section 383.79 would be re-titled 
``Knowledge and driving skills testing of out-of-State applicants; 
knowledge and driving skills testing of military personnel'' to reflect 
the proposed revisions to the current regulatory text, as summarized 
above.

IX. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed rule and 
determined that it is not a significant regulatory action under section 
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as 
supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). Accordingly, 
the Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that 
Order. The proposed rule also is not significant within the meaning of 
DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.6 dated December 
20, 2018). The Agency's analysis follows.
Baseline
    The Agency's previous regulatory guidance on 49 CFR part 383--
Commercial Driver's License Standards Section 383.73 State Procedures 
(82 FR 36101 (Aug. 3, 2017)) clarifies that Section 383.73 does not 
prohibit States from accepting and processing CLP applications from 
out-of-State applicants (e.g., individuals who are not domiciled in the 
State but who receive training there) and administering the general 
knowledge test to such applicants, provided there is agreement between 
the testing State and the applicant's State of domicile. In September 
2018, AAMVA made available to States the capability to receive 
knowledge test results from other States within CSTIMS and ROOSTR. As 
noted above, to date, no States are using the capability to transmit 
out-of-State knowledge test results under the existing guidance.
    The new capability allows the testing State to enter knowledge 
testing results in the web-based system. States that opt to receive 
email notifications will receive notification that an applicant in 
their State has taken a knowledge test. The State of domicile is then 
responsible for posting the results to the driver record.
    States currently access CSTIMS and ROOSTR through different 
platforms and use different procedures to receive the results of skills 
tests taken out of State. These existing systems and procedures will 
impact the manner in which States comply with the proposed rule and 
receive out-of-State knowledge test results.
Impact of the Proposed Rule
    If this proposed rule results in a final rule, FMCSA would rescind 
the current guidance, which otherwise expires on August 3, 2022. The 
proposed rule would allow, but not require, States to administer 
general and specialized knowledge tests to out-of-State drivers 
applying for a CLP, and specialized knowledge tests to CDL holders 
wishing to upgrade their license by adding an endorsement. However, the 
proposed rule would require the State of domicile to accept results 
from the testing State. Therefore, all States would have to be capable 
of accepting knowledge testing results transmitted from the testing 
State. FMCSA also notes that, as explained above, the proposed rule 
would permit out-of-State knowledge testing for all endorsements, in 
contrast to the current guidance, which addresses only the general 
knowledge test required under 49 CFR 383.25(a)(3). That guidance was 
issued in response to stakeholders' request for clarification that the 
general CLP knowledge test could be taken out of State.
    The State of domicile would need to allow the individual to apply 
for a CLP or endorsement prior to taking the applicable knowledge 
test(s) in the testing State. States also may have to develop 
procedures for receiving results of the knowledge test(s) from out of 
State. The extent of changes needed will depend on the existing 
platform and current processes for accepting the skills test results. 
For example, States that implemented a manual process for receiving 
skills test results may use a similar process to receive knowledge test 
results. On the other hand, States that currently receive skills test 
results automatically may need only minor incremental programming 
changes to add the ability to receive knowledge test results in the 
same manner.
Costs
    Costs to implement changes to State licensing procedures and 
information technology (IT) systems may include upfront (onetime) and 
ongoing costs (or

[[Page 36557]]

cost savings) for each entity. Onetime costs may involve State 
personnel time to plan, develop practices, implement system changes, 
revise outreach materials, and train staff. Associated onetime IT 
system changes may involve programming, testing, and training costs 
which may include State or contractor personnel time. The extent to 
which these activities would be incremental costs attributable to the 
rule will depend in part on the ability of States to coordinate changes 
with other needed maintenance and revisions.
    Once able to receive results of out-of-State knowledge testing 
States may also incur ongoing incremental costs (or cost savings) 
associated with the new procedures, depending on the specific changes. 
For example, a manual procedure would impact State personnel time in 
the State of domicile each time a testing State transmits test results. 
There may also be some transfer of costs from one State to another 
depending on the specific procedures that States adopt for remote 
delivery of the physical CLP or upgraded CDL. These effects would 
depend on the extent to which States elect to administer knowledge 
tests to out-of-State drivers, thus necessitating that the State of 
domicile receive the test results and issue a CLP or upgraded CDL.
    Given the interest from members of Congress and the ATA, the Agency 
expects that at least some States would allow out-of-State drivers to 
take the knowledge test(s) to better accommodate truck and bus driver 
schools operating a centralized training model within their boundaries. 
In comments submitted on the Commercial Driver's License Requirements 
of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the 
Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 (Docket number: FMCSA-
2016-0051), ATA discussed training schools that use a centralized 
training model. According to ATA, under this model, these schools 
incentivize students through discounted tuition and potential 
employment to travel to another State for CDL training. The July 2018 
Congressional letter to Secretary Chao, discussed above, also noted a 
trend toward central training sites to recruit and train new drivers 
from across the country.
    For the 34 States that have fully adopted CSTIMS, FMCSA estimates 
that on average approximately 22,000 applicants take the skills test 
out of State annually (out of an approximate 205,000 who take the test 
and pass in these States). The number of skills tests taken in States 
that use limited CSTIMS functions or that use ROOSTR are not tabulated 
or reported. Some States may also elect to offer out-of-State knowledge 
testing to these applicants. However, since ongoing costs are likely to 
be highly State-specific and the Agency has no basis to estimate how 
many States would allow out-of-State drivers to take the knowledge 
test(s), the Agency is unable to quantify these costs. The Agency 
invites comments on the level of interest among the States in 
permitting out-of-State drivers to take the knowledge test(s) and 
anticipated State-level costs.
    Finally, potential driver applicants may experience minor cost 
savings (e.g., opportunity costs of time and travel) depending on how 
they would obtain knowledge training, take the knowledge test, and 
obtain a CLP in the absence of the proposed rule. For example, the ATA 
comments and the 2018 Congressional letter note that centralized 
training schools recruit candidates from all over the nation who then 
must incur the time and expense of returning to their State of domicile 
to take the knowledge test and obtain their CLP. However, the Agency 
does not have data on the amount and value (opportunity cost) of that 
time and travel expense in comparison to the baseline level of 
expenditures.
Benefits
    As noted above, all States must use the FMCSA preapproved pool of 
test questions to develop knowledge tests for each vehicle group and 
endorsement. Because the State in which a driver takes the knowledge 
test does not change the potential content covered, the Agency does not 
anticipate that this NPRM would adversely impact safety. The Agency 
does not have data on the impact the flexibility to take the knowledge 
test(s) out of State will have on the pool or skill level of CDL 
holders. In their 2016 comments, ATA touts the success of the 
centralized training model in terms of favorable knowledge and skills 
test pass rates. To the extent this proposal would further accommodate 
the centralized training model, the Agency invites comment and 
supporting data addressing the safety impact of the NPRM.
Uncertainties
    There are a number of uncertainties associated with the Agency's 
regulatory evaluation, primarily related to data limitations. Due to 
the variety of State-based CDL IT systems and procedures, the extent to 
which these would need to be modified to comply with the proposed rule 
will vary by State. The Agency does not have data on either the 
approach each State will take to interface with the CSTIMS/ROOSTR 
capability to receive knowledge test results or their intent to offer 
knowledge tests to out-of-State applicants. In addition, the number of 
applicants who will take knowledge tests out of State, and the costs 
saved from reducing travel time and cost under the proposed rule, is 
not known.
    In considering these data limitations, the Agency determined that 
more or better information to quantify costs and benefits would not 
likely change its selection of the regulatory alternative (compared to 
the ``no action'' alternative). Also, the proposed rule represents a 
logical extension to the existing requirement to accept skills test 
results administered out of State and, given the capabilities already 
in place, only relatively minor changes may be needed for compliance. 
Therefore, in the interest of providing flexibility to the CDL program 
in a relatively short timeframe, the Agency has not pursued a data 
collection effort to obtain estimates from the States to fill in these 
data gaps.

B. E.O. 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action. 
The Agency cannot estimate the cost savings; however, the cost savings 
are discussed qualitatively in the rule's economic analysis.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857) requires Federal agencies to 
consider the effects of the regulatory action on small business and 
other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. 
The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses and not-for-
profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are 
not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations of fewer than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 601(6)). Accordingly, DOT 
policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small 
entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse 
effects on these businesses.
    As described above, this proposal, if issued as a final rule, may 
result in necessary expenditures by States to receive knowledge testing 
results from applicants who take the knowledge test(s) outside their 
State of domicile. Neither States nor applicants are small entities. In 
addition, the CDL Program Implementation (CDLPI) grant program

[[Page 36558]]

provides financial assistance to States to achieve compliance with the 
requirements of 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. Allowable costs under the 
CDLPI grant awards include, but are not limited to, expenses for 
computer hardware and software, publications, testing, personnel, 
training, and quality control.
    As discussed above, FMCSA has considered whether the proposed rule 
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Consequently, I certify that the proposed action would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities 
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. 
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning the 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of 
contact, Ms. Nikki McDavid, listed in the For Further Information 
Contact section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal 
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these 
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small 
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights 
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit 
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may 
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $161 million (which is the 
value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 
2017 levels) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects 
of this rule in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of 
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government.'' This proposal would amend the 
requirements in 49 CFR part 383 for the issuance of CLPs under 
specified circumstances. The Agency's commercial licensing regulations 
and requirements for State compliance, set forth in parts 383 and 384, 
do not have preemptive effect. States' participation in the CDL program 
is voluntary; States may withdraw at any time, although doing so will 
result in the loss of certain Federal aid highway funds pursuant to 49 
U.S.C. 31314. Because this proposal would not significantly amend 
requirements already in effect for participating States, FMCSA has 
determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the 
States, on the relationship between the Federal and State governments, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government.
    However, the Agency recognizes that, as a practical matter, this 
NPRM could have some impact on the States' current processes for 
issuing CLPs. Accordingly, by letters sent on January 8, 2019, FMCSA 
offered officials of the National Governors Association (NGA), the 
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), and AAMVA the 
opportunity to meet with FMCSA to discuss any questions or concerns 
about the impact of the proposal on current SDLA processes. Copies of 
those letters are available in the docket of this rulemaking. None of 
the groups requested a meeting in response to the Agency's invitation.

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies 
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also 
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an 
evaluation of the effect of the regulation on the environmental health 
and safety of children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not 
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on 
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that 
this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or 
safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

K. Privacy

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to 
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will 
affect the privacy of individuals. The Agency completed a Privacy 
Threshold Assessment (PTA) to assist in analyzing the new rulemaking to 
determine if it creates privacy risk for individuals that could require 
other entities to collect, use, store or share personally identifiable 
information (PII), or deploy technologies as a result of this 
rulemaking implementation. The PTA is also used to identify programs 
and systems that are privacy sensitive and help determine whether 
additional privacy compliance, such a PIA or System of Records Notice 
(SORN), is required for a particular rulemaking or system. Based on the 
preliminary adjudication of the PTA by the FMCSA Privacy Officer, this 
rule does not require the collection of PII and the Agency is not 
required to conduct a PIA. The PTA will be submitted to the Department 
of Transportation's Privacy Officer for review and final adjudication.

[[Page 36559]]

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this 
program.

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it 
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because 
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian 
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, 
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related 
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use 
technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of 
voluntary consensus standards.

P. Environment

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis 
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental 
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), 
Appendix 2, paragraph (s)(6) and paragraph (t)(2). The Categorical 
Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (s)(6) covers regulations concerning the 
requirement for States to give knowledge and skills tests to all 
qualified applicants for a CDL; the CE in paragraph (t)(2) covers 
regulations concerning State policies and procedures and information 
systems concerning the qualification and licensing of persons who apply 
for a CDL. The proposed requirements in this rule are covered by these 
CEs and the NPRM does not have any effect on the quality of the 
environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or 
copying in the regulations.gov website listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, 
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
chapter 3, part 383 to read as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND 
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 
214 and 215 of Pub. L 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 
1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56; 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 
109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 
Stat. 405, 830; secs. 5401 and 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 
1312, 1546, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.79 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c); and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (a).
    The addition and revision to read as follows:


Sec.  383.79   Knowledge and driving skills testing of out-of-State 
applicants; knowledge and driving skills testing of military personnel.

    (a) CLP applicants tested out-of-State--(1) State that administers 
knowledge testing. A State may administer general and specialized 
knowledge tests, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, 
to a person who is to be licensed in another United States jurisdiction 
(i.e., his or her State of domicile). Such test results must be 
transmitted electronically directly from the testing State to the State 
of domicile in a direct, efficient and secure manner.
    (2) The State of domicile. The State of domicile of a CLP 
applicant, or CDL holder, must accept the results of knowledge tests 
administered to the applicant by any other State, in accordance with 
subparts F, G, and H of this part, in fulfillment of the applicant's 
testing requirements under Sec.  383.71, and the State's test 
administration requirements under Sec.  383.73, if the applicant has 
satisfied all other requirements of Sec.  383.71.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-15963 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P