|
[Federal Register: February 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 36)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9305-9307]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23fe06-25] ==============================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 383 [Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2181]
RIN 2126-AA03 Commercial Driver Instruction Permits; Withdrawal AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), withdrawal. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
additional minimum Federal standards for State-issued learner's permits
that allow drivers to be trained in the operation of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs). The NPRM requesting comments was published on August
22, 1990, at 55 FR 34478. The comment period was extended to November
30, 1990 (55 FR 42741, October 23, 1990). FMCSA determined that the
issues addressed in the NPRM and the public comments on these issues do
not reflect many initiatives and activities that occurred after
publication of the NPRM. Therefore, the 1990 NPRM is obsolete and it is
in the public interest to withdraw it. DATES: The NPRM with request for comments published on August 22, 1990,
is withdrawn as of February 23, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Redmond, Senior
Transportation Specialist, (202) 366-5014, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Office hours are 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The commercial driver's license (CDL) program, established by the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act (CMVSA) of 1986 [Pub. L. 99-570,
October 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-170] is an evolving program. Part 383
of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, implements the CMVSA
(currently codified at 49 U.S.C. 31301 et seq.). As of April 1, 1992,
it prohibits any person who does not possess a CDL or learner's permit
issued by his or her State of domicile from operating a CMV requiring a
CDL. The prohibition impacts driver-training activities by limiting
trainees to their State of domicile to receive training and behind-the-
wheel experience, and take the skills test necessary to obtain a CDL.
This creates problems because commercial driver training facilities are
not equally available in all States. To address this and other issues such as lack of uniformity of
duration of learners' permits, associated driver history recordkeeping,
and test reciprocity between States, the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) published an NPRM to: (1) Propose standards for issuing a
learner's permit; (2) make it easier for out-of-State drivers to obtain
on-the-road skills-training operating a CMV; and (3) make it easier for
such drivers to obtain a CDL outside their State of domicile. The NPRM
proposed additional minimum Federal requirements for a learner's
permit, which was referred to as a commercial driver's instruction
permit (CDIP). FHWA's intent was to establish minimum standards,
uniformity, and reciprocity for commercial instructional permits and to
remove impediments to driver training caused by CDL residency
requirements. Effective January 1, 2000, DOT transferred responsibility for motor
carrier functions and operations to FMCSA (64 FR 72959, December 29,
1999). In the discussion below, the governing agency is referred to as
FMCSA, regardless of whether the action described occurred before or
after this transfer of responsibility. Comments Received on the NPRM The NPRM requested comments from interested parties by October 22,
1990, and this comment period was later extended through November 30,
1990. As of August 1, 2005, there were 65 submissions to the NPRM
docket; the last comment was posted in the docket on October 17, 1995.
FMCSA reviewed all comments regardless of submission date. Of the 65
submissions, 58 are directly related to the proposed rule, three are
letters addressed to Members of Congress requesting support for the
rule, one amended a previous comment, two addressed other issues
indirectly related to the proposed rule, and one contains a petition to
extend the comment period. The largest single group of commenters was
State driver licensing officials. The majority of commenters opposed
the proposal put forward by FMCSA, but proposed an alternative approach
developed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(AAMVA). Learner's Permit for Out-of-State Residents Two fundamental issues raised in the 1990 NPRM concerned problems
obtaining on-the-road skills-training and taking the CDL skills test in
a representative vehicle because States are prohibited from issuing a
permit or CDL to a driver not domiciled in that jurisdiction. This
limits the ability of drivers to obtain required on-the-road skills-
training, and obtain a learner's permit or temporary CDL in States
where they are not permanently domiciled. The NPRM proposed amending 49 CFR 383.23 to allow any jurisdiction
where the driver receives training, even if it is not the State of
domicile, to issue a learner's permit. The intent was to address the
problem that commercial driver training facilities are not equally
available in all States. [[Page 9306]] Many commenters argued that implementation of FMCSA's proposal
would be complex. The commenters stated that each jurisdiction would
need to develop a list of approved training schools for CMV drivers,
and only students in such approved programs would be eligible for out-
of-State CDIPs and temporary 60-day CDLs. Additionally, many State
licensing agencies argued that each out-of-State CDIP issued would
create a second driver history record for that driver, one for the
basic license in the jurisdiction of domicile, and one for the CDIP in
the jurisdiction where the training occurred. The State licensing
agencies expressed concern that the proposal would undermine a
fundamental concept of the CDL program, "one-license, one-record." State licensing agencies and AAMVA opposed the prospective
administrative burdens associated with an out-of-State CDIP. Seventeen
States and AAMVA opposed the out-of-State CDIP proposal, while five
States were in favor. There was similar opposition to the proposed
subsequent temporary 60-day CDL that would be issued by the State where
the training and testing took place. The State of Illinois, for
example, claimed the proposals were "ill-conceived and intrusive to
the [one-license, one-record per driver] CDL licensing philosophy." While AAMVA and 11 States opposed the NPRM proposal for addressing
this issue, they jointly proposed an alternative approach that would
uphold the "one-license, one-record" concept. Their counter proposal
would allow the applicant to transfer his or her jurisdiction of
licensure to the State where he or she receives training. The applicant
could initially obtain the required regular (non-CDL) license and CDIP
from the jurisdiction where training is received. Upon completion of
training, the applicant could obtain a permanent CDL from that
jurisdiction. The driver would then be free to return to the original
licensing jurisdiction and apply to transfer the CDL there, subject to
the CDL regulations and requirements of that jurisdiction for
transferring CDLs. While the States' proposal addresses the issue of
"one-license, one-record," it does not deal with the issue of domicile. Remote Electronic Supervision In Sec. 383.23, the NPRM proposed allowing, as an alternative to
in-cab supervision, remote electronic supervision via communication
with chaperones in accompanying vehicles under strictly controlled
conditions. Most commenters opposed that proposal, except for a small
number of public driver training schools and the States in which they
are located. The public training schools, in defending their support
for this proposed practice, asserted that trainees are allowed on roads
and highways open to public travel only after they have proven their
competence to instructors on a private range or by in-cab physically
accompanied driving. Vehicles for Which CDIPs Would Be Valid The NPRM also proposed allowing the use of CDIPs for all groups of
CMVs, including those requiring endorsements. Five State driver
licensing agencies opposed granting CDIP applicants the privilege to
operate passenger carrying ("P" endorsement) or hazardous material
placarded ("H" endorsement) CMVs, even though directly supervised in-
cab by a qualified driver. CDL Knowledge Tests AAMVA and nine State licensing agencies recommended adding a
safeguard requiring CDIP applicants to pass the CDL knowledge test
before receiving a CDIP, and to require the CDIP to display the CMV
training group for which the applicant applied to train. In addition,
many commenters also proposed that CDIP holders pass the knowledge test
for any endorsement prior to operating on roads open to public travel,
and that CDIP holders only be allowed to operate vehicles in the class
of vehicles covered by the class and endorsements on the CDIP. CDL Test Reciprocity The NPRM proposed authorizing States where training is received to
administer CDL knowledge and skills tests to drivers domiciled in other
States, and authorizing a license applicant's State of domicile to
accept test results obtained in the training State. AAMVA and some
State licensing agencies contend FMCSA should not attempt to specify
anything about State acceptance of out-of State tests. The commenters
argue that in some very limited instances, States already have
agreements with other States to accept their tests, and it is
unnecessary for FMCSA to promulgate anything about authorizing such
acceptance. Duration of the CDIP The NPRM proposed restricting the time periods for State-issued
CDIPs to no longer than one year. There was disagreement among the
commenters on the maximum time for which a driver may hold a valid
CDIP.\1\ AAMVA pointed out that because the initial CDL rules did not
address this issue, a number of jurisdictions did not adopt this aspect
of the AAMVA model law, resulting in the use of differing time periods
by licensing jurisdictions when issuing CDL learner's permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The original AAMVA CDL model law created to assist
jurisdictions in initiating their CDL programs specified 6 months as
the maximum length for initial issuance and renewal periods of
commercial learners' permits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commercial Driver's License Information System In Sec. 383.73, the NPRM proposed requiring States to notify the
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) central index
when it issues a CDIP to drivers who do not hold a CDL. CDLIS is the
information system designed to serve as the clearinghouse and
depository of information about any person who operates CMVs requiring
a CDL. CDLIS contains a driver's identification, licensing history with
any convictions (including convictions for any of the disqualifying
offenses listed in part 383), and disqualification history. States
would not be required to notify the CDLIS central index if the driver
already holds a CDL, since the driver would already be recorded on the
central index. Most commenters, including AAMVA, expressed support for
requiring addition of CDIP holders to the CDLIS central index at the
time of issuance of the CDIP. The driver licensing agency for the State
of Maryland objected to this proposal, arguing that adding CDIP holders
to the CDLIS central index would result in the needless entry of a
large number of otherwise non-commercial drivers who may never obtain a
CDL. CDIP Document The NPRM proposed that the CDIP document contain all information
the CDL contains, including a picture of the holder, except the
document would contain the designation "commercial driver's
instruction permit" instead of "commercial driver's license." It
further proposed including a statement on the CDIP indicating it is
invalid without the underlying State driver license, the number of
which would be displayed on the CDIP. AAMVA and most State licensing
agencies opposed use of a photograph on the CDIP document because it
would be redundant and costly to many States. Further, the commenters
argued that because the proposed CDIP is a temporary permit that must
be presented in conjunction [[Page 9307]] with the underlying State license, the photograph is unnecessary. In addition, AAMVA recommended a shorter title for the instruction
permit document. AAMVA stated the title commercial driver's
instruction permit is too long, making it difficult for some States
to include this phrase on the CDIP document. AAMVA recommended the term
"commercial learner's permit," or "CLP." Withdrawal of Proposal Since publication of the 1990 CDIP NPRM, major changes occurred in
the CDL program through other rulemakings, regulatory guidance,
legislation and policy decisions. 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 added
new dimensions to the program, significantly in the detection and
prevention of fraud and considerations of domicile. Some of the major
initiatives that affected and transformed the direction of the CDL
program are discussed below. State Compliance With Commercial Driver's License Program On May 18, 1994, FMCSA issued a final rule (59 FR 26029) setting
standards States must meet to comply with section 12009(a) of the CMVSA
and thus avoid any loss of Federal-aid highway funds as provided in
section 12011. CMVSA requires States to: (1) Prevent CMV drivers from
concealing unsafe driving records by restricting issuance of a CDL to
only the State of domicile; (2) ensure all CMV drivers demonstrate the
minimum levels of knowledge and skills needed to safely operate the
appropriate class of CMV before being licensed; and (3) subject CMV
drivers to new, uniform sanctions for certain unsafe driving behavior.
In addition, the Act requires an annual certification process for each
State to determine whether it is in compliance. In the event of
noncompliance, a percentage of highway funds may be withheld. CDL Standards and Program Improvements In 1994, FMCSA initiated a study to evaluate the effectiveness of
the CDL program. The final report, submitted to Congress in 1999,
documented a number of vulnerabilities within the CDL program and
provided corrective recommendations. Congress responded to these
findings in the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) of 1999
(Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748), addressing 17 CDL-related
vulnerability issues. MCSIA amended many provisions related to the
licensing and sanctioning of CMV drivers and required States to correct
numerous specific weaknesses in their CDL programs. In response to
MCSIA, FMCSA issued a final rule (67 FR 49742, July 31, 2002)
incorporating 15 of the 17 new requirements into the CDL regulations.
Among other things, the final rule required State CDL programs to
include disqualification of a CDL holder for alcohol and drug abuse
that occurred while operating a non-CMV, and disqualification of the
driver by the FMCSA Assistant Administrator if the driver's driving
behavior is determined to constitute an imminent hazard. The rule
specifies enhanced driver application procedures and State record check
requirements. In addition, the 2002 rule clarifies FMCSA's regulatory
relationship to CDLIS by requiring compliance with the current version
of the AAMVA "CDLIS State Procedures" manual, which the CDL
regulations incorporate by reference. September 11, 2001 The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center towers in New
York City and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, fraudulently
obtained driver's licenses from several States. Those licenses were
presented as identification to board the airplanes used in the attacks.
While those licenses were not CDLs, there is a potential risk CDLs or
CDIPs could be obtained in the same manner to use CMVs, particularly
those loaded with hazardous materials, for acts of terrorism. This
potential risk led the States, FMCSA, and Congress to require
development and implementation of better means for determining the
identity of license applicants and securing the license document. Other
measures to prevent terrorists from using CMVs in terrorist attacks
include development and implementation of security threat assessment
background checks for drivers to obtain or maintain a hazardous
materials endorsement on their CDL, as required by section 1012(b) of
the USA PATRIOT Act (Pub. L. 107-56, October 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 397). In addition, the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13, May 11, 2005,
119 Stat. 231) tightens the verification process for determining a
person's identity and legal presence in this country before issuing the
person a driver's license. In working with the Department of Homeland
Security to implement this Act, FMCSA intends to address the "State of
domicile" requirement in regard to student drivers who obtain driver
training and want to take their CDL skills test outside their State of
domicile. FMCSA intends to revisit issues addressed in the 1990 NPRM in light
of the initiatives and events that have taken place since its
publication. FMCSA will take into consideration the commenters'
recommendations to the 1990 NPRM, as well as relevant recommendations
generated by the DOT Office of Inspector General's May 8, 2002, Audit
Report, Improving Testing and Licensing of Commercial Drivers, and the
new Congressional requirements found in section 4122 of the Motor
Carrier Safety Reauthorization Act of 2005. Conclusion Many of the issues addressed in the 1990 NPRM and the public
comments to these issues did not consider the initiatives and events
that took place after publication of the NPRM. Therefore, the August
22, 1990 NPRM is obsolete and it is in the public interest to withdraw
the document. Issued on February 17, 2006.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E6-2554 Filed 2-22-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
|
