**Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659**

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

**Proposed Rule -- Comments from California DMV**

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (the department) is
generally supportive of the regulations governing the commercial driver
license (CDL) program as proposed in Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659.
However, the department would like to offer for consideration the
following list of recommendations to enhance the program and allow for a
more efficient and cost effective implementation by the states.

**[Summary of Comments]{.underline}**

**2005 Test Model Requirements:**

A major component of the regulations package is the adoption of the 2005
Test Model requirements. In fact, Section 383.9 of the proposal
incorporates these requirements by direct reference. California
participated in the development of the 2005 Test Model requirements and
supports these requirements as an important element to the enhancement
of Traffic Safety. However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) must be sensitive to the implementation
requirement for the States and the need for an extended implementation
schedule when addressing the expanding facilities needs and grant
funding. Many of the proposed changes would impose significant costs and
operational challenges if they were to be implemented within the time
frames specified. Our specific concerns are detailed below.

**Retention of Test Scores:**

*Section 383.131(c) requires states to record and retain information
regarding the applicant's knowledge (written) and skill test
(behind-the-wheel) scores on the driver history record, or in a linked
file.*

California's current electronic driver's license system does not
accommodate the collection and retention of individual test results.
Currently, as a CDL application is being processed, only a "pass" or
"fail" indicator is utilized. There is no capacity to record or retain
individual test scores. When the application is finalized and the
electronic record for that driver is updated to show the issuance of the
CDL, no records are kept to reflect test scores, the numbers of attempts
needed to pass each portion of the examination, or any other related
test data.

Complicating our ability to comply with these provisions is the fact
that the department is in the process of modernizing its Information
Technology (IT) Systems. Because of the enormity of this project, system
modifications are being done incrementally. The overall project is
projected to require five years to complete. Interrupting that process
to make major system changes to the outdated architecture being replaced
would result in significant costs and delays in this effort to transfer
away from the legacy system. California is still working through the
anticipated changes for the Commercial Driver License Information System
(CDLIS) Modernization, CDL Medical Card Regulations, the REAL ID Act,
and the recently published regulations for Commercial Motor Vehicle
Training Requirements; the addition of this proposal makes these
regulations even more daunting, both in terms of costs, resources, and
mandated timeframes.

The test data capture process identified in the proposed regulations
would introduce a significant level of complexity since it is very
common for CDL applicants to retake examinations multiple times before
achieving a passing score. Considering the number of test components
involved in the issuance of a CDL, it is conceivable that the department
would have to record a total of 39 individual scores for a single
applicant on a single application. Although the regulations provide that
a state may store this data in a separate database linked to the
driver's permanent record, this does little to mitigate the cost of
computer programming.

Further complicating this issue is the fact that the proposed
regulations do not clearly specify if this data is to be captured and
retained on every application involving a CDL. That is, will this
requirement apply to original applications, upgrades from a
non-commercial to a commercial license, and CDL renewal applications? A
clarification needs to be made to clearly define the parameters before
an accurate assessment of true program costs can be made.

Finally, the regulations do not specify the length of time that the test
scores must be retained or under what circumstances the state would be
required to share that test data. Would test scores have to be made
available for transmittal to another jurisdiction if a
California-license holder of a CDL surrenders that license and applies
for issuance in another jurisdiction? Would test data from multiple
applications and renewals be kept for each CDL holder? Again, the
answers to these questions will impact the overall extent on computer
programming efforts and budgetary needs.

The justification provided for retaining scores does not warrant the
programming cost and ongoing use of resources. While it would allow a
state to identify an examiner whose pass/fail rate falls above or below
the average, having the specific score does not assist in that process.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department strongly recommends that
this particular requirement be removed from the regulations.

**Skill Test Requirements:**

*Section 383.133(c) requires all skill tests (pre-trip, skills tests,
and road test) to be conducted in accordance with the 2005 Test Model.*

The proposed regulations require that the behind-the-wheel skills
testing be conducted in a location that comprises a much larger area
than is required under the current testing standards. California
participated in the development of the 2005 Test Model and supports the
proposed changes; however, the expanded skills test will more than
double the space required under the current CDL program.

California currently uses two types of CDL testing sites. In areas where
the tests can be accommodated at a regular field office, CDL
applications are accepted and all of the tests are administered at these
locations. However, the majority of CDL skills tests are administered at
specially-designated commercial drive test sites. These leased
facilities allow us to relieve the congestion from large truck traffic
that would otherwise be encountered at our regular driver license and
vehicle registration processing locations. The new testing requirements
would make it necessary to significantly expand or relocate all of our
current skill test facilities.

While we note that the regulations provide states a three-year window in
which to comply with the expanded test site requirements, the state's
complex property acquisition (capital outlay), coupled with the current
budgetary climate, would not allow time to obtain funding approval,
construction, and occupancy by the final implementation date.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that the
compliance timeframe for the expanded skills test facilities be allowed
to phase in over at least ten years and that grant monies be made
available for this purpose.

**Pre-Trip Skills Examination:**

*Subsection(c) (6) specifies that the pre-trip and skills components
must be conducted prior to the road test.*

Currently, CDL skills tests administered at a regular field office
involves driving to the actual skill test area which, in many cases, is
several miles away. The drive to the skill test area is considered part
of the road test and the driver is scored on his/her performance during
the trip. While we agree that there is a safety issue when the driver
has not demonstrated his/her driving skill prior to entering traffic, we
are unable to eliminate this practice given the existing facility
limitations.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: A phased approach over several years is
recommended until all enhancements are made to the CDL test sites.

**Re-Testing Procedures:**

*Subsection(c) (6) specifies that if a driver fails one portion of the
test, he must take [all]{.underline} portions of the test again in order
to pass.*

There is no measurable benefit from the implementation of this
regulation. Requiring the CDL applicant to retake parts of the drive
test examination process that have already been successfully completed
(pre-trip, skills and road) will have a major cost impact on the
department. Currently, if a driver fails the pretrip or skills test,
he/she is required only to retake the failed portion. Requiring that all
previously completed portions of the exam be retaken would significantly
increase the workload to conduct skill tests and data capture
requirements.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that the
retesting requirement be removed from the final regulations as it serves
no purpose.

**Requirements for Commercial License Permit (CLP):\
***Section 383.25 (and section 383.73 (a) ) requires states to issue a
CLP valid only for 180 days, and to allow for a 90-day CLP renewal.*

Currently, the period of validity of a CLP is up to one year. The goal
of the CLP program is to give the driver sufficient time to gain the
knowledge and practical experience necessary to operate a large
commercial vehicle while under the direct supervision of a qualified CDL
holder. The more time that a novice driver spends with a licensed
driver, the more opportunity there is for exchange of information,
mentoring, and the development of safe driving habits. This being the
case, it does not seem reasonable to limit a CLP to 180 days.

Further, those drivers who decide that an additional period of practice
beyond 180 days is necessary before completing the examination process
would be required to come into a departmental field office to obtain an
extension. This is inconvenient for the applicant and will increase
processing costs for the department.

Reducing the validity period of the CLP to 180 days also brings into
question whether the regulations intend that an application be valid
only for that period, and not the one year period currently authorized
in California. Are states meant to reduce the term of the CDL
application from one year to six months? Will those applicants who have
not completed the full examination process and received their CDL within
six months be required to start a new application, pay another
application fee, and take all of the previously passed tests again? This
would seem to be unnecessarily burdensome.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: Reducing the validity period of the CLP to
180 days may have a negative impact to traffic safety since it limits
the applicant's ability to properly train; the department recommends
that the current validity period of one year be retained.

**CLP Endorsements:**

*Sections 383.73 (a), 383.93 and 383.153 specify that a CLP may have a
passenger endorsement, but that endorsement must be marked to prohibit
the carrying of passengers. States are prohibited from issuing all other
federally-approved CDL endorsements to the holder of a CLP.*

These provisions raise a number of procedural questions. For example, it
is reasonable that if a driver intends to operate a particular type of
vehicle when fully licensed, he or she should be allowed to practice in
that type of vehicle while holding a CLP (except those involving
passengers and hazardous materials). It does not seem appropriate to
restrict such a driver from gaining experience in operating the specific
vehicle that will be used once he or she is fully licensed.

Some types of CDL endorsements may be issued without requiring the
driver to complete a specific driving skills test. In such cases, it
would seem appropriate to issue the endorsement even during the CLP
period. Again, if the CLP holder is going to learn the necessary skills,
shouldn't he or she be given the opportunity to practice?

It is also unclear from the regulations whether an applicant could take
the prerequisite knowledge test for a particular endorsement at the time
he or she takes other tests to receive a CLP. The regulations seem to
indicate that endorsements have to be applied for after the CDL is
issued. The impact of such an interpretation would be significant for
both the driver and the department.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: California understands the rationale for
restricting new commercial drivers from obtaining certain endorsements
until they have attained an adequate degree of skill, but withholding
the endorsements until after a CDL is issued would be problematic.
Revise the regulation to give states greater flexibility to issue
endorsements in cases where that experience will benefit the driver in
gaining valuable experience, such as the operation of large trucks or
buses.

**Special Requirements for a CLP:**

*Section 384.227 applies all existing CDL requirements to a CLP, and
adds several new requirements. This regulation establishes a minimum age
18 to obtain a CLP. The applicant must also provide proof that he or she
is a US citizen, or has been granted permanent resident status. The
provisions also state that all applicants must provide acceptable
documentation to confirm state of domicile.*

**Age Limit**- By establishing a minimum age of 18, the regulations take
away California's ability to issue a CDL to 16 and 17 year olds who are
currently eligible to drive a commercial vehicle in certain limited
circumstances (e.g. driving agricultural equipment on a family farm;
transporting livestock/horses to fairs). California believes that the
circumstances under which a CDL is issued to a driver under 18 years of
age are adequately controlled and do not constitute a risk to traffic
safety. Therefore, this regulation poses a hardship on drivers who
currently benefit from this accommodation.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The regulation should be written to allow
states who wish to issue a commercial CDL to persons under the age of 18
years may do so, as long as such person is not employed for the purpose
of operating a commercial motor vehicle.

**State of Domicile**- The department believes that any requirement that
a CDL applicant present documentation to verify his or her state of
domicile is administratively burdensome and serves no useful purpose
since there is no reasonably cost-effective method of verifying the
authenticity of documentation presented. Not all California residents
would be able to meet this standard as many individuals share residences
and written evidence (e.g. utility bills, rental agreements) is not
available in their names. Additionally, since California is a
centralized card issuance state, the commercial driver license will be
sent directly to the applicant, which serves as confirmation that the
address is valid.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: Without an electronic means to verify the
residence address, having the applicant demonstrate proof as suggested
in the proposed regulations does not provide much value. Introducing
more documents for field office employees to verify will introduce more
risk in accepting fraudulent documents. Even the most diligent and
trained employees should not be expected to verify literally thousands
of different documents and inspect them for authenticity and validity.
The department recommends that the requirement to present proof of state
of domicile be removed from the regulations.

**Applying CDL sanctions to CLP**

*Sections 383.51, 384.210, 384.231, and 384.217 modify the regulations
to support the concept that a CLP is a commercial license, and that all
violations/sanctions received by a driver who holds a CLP should be the
same as if he or she was fully licensed.*

Currently, California bases its CDL actions on the citation or abstract
of conviction when properly marked for commercial operation by the
arresting officer and the court. Under the new regulatory scheme, a
driver stopped while driving a non-commercial vehicle would likely
provide the officer with his or her Class C (non-commercial) license.
Some law enforcement officers do not have the equipment necessary to
access the department's electronic driving records to check for issuance
of a CLP. As a result, the department would not be able to depend on the
CDL indicators to identify a CDL holder. Major programming changes would
be required to enable the department to verify, for *every* abstract of
conviction, whether a CLP was issued at the time of the violation.

The department supports the concept that a commercial driver should be
held to a higher standard, but only based on operation of commercial
vehicle. While department has complied with current regulations which
require commercial sanctions to be based on convictions regardless of
the type of vehicle operated at the time of the violation, we continue
to object to the use of convictions in non-commercial vehicles as the
basis of commercial sanctions. The department agrees that a driver
operating a commercial motor vehicle with a CLP should be held to the
same standard as a driver that holds a regular CDL; however, we oppose
holding a CLP holder to that higher standard for operation of a
non-commercial vehicle. Section 384.231 of the new regulations specifies
sanctions to be applied to a CLP holder for the operation of commercial
and non-commercial vehicles, which is consistent with the sanctions for
a CDL holder.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The regulation seems overly harsh to the
applicant since the applicant is still learning how to operate the
commercial vehicle. The regulations should be amended to base commercial
sanctions of a CLP holder only on violations which occur in the
operation of a commercial vehicle.

**Using a CDL in the Commission of a Felony:**

*Current regulation (Section 384.217) requires the disqualification of a
driver who uses a commercial vehicle in the commission of specified
felonies. The proposed regulations would modify this requirement to
require a disqualification for a CDL holder who operates a
non-commercial vehicle in the commission of specified felonies.*

*Under the regulatory proposal, this will be the only section which does
not apply the CDL standard to a CLP holder.*

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department opposes basing this
disqualification on operation on a non-commercial vehicle. As previously
mentioned, the department agrees that a driver operating a commercial
motor vehicle with a CLP should be held to the same standard as a driver
that holds a regular CDL; however, we oppose holding a CLP holder to
that higher standard for operation of a non-commercial vehicle.

**Requirements for the Renewal, Upgrade, or Issuance of a Duplicate:**

*Section 383.71 requires re-verification of a person's state of domicile
upon each application for the renewal of a CDL, even when the driver's
address has not changed.*

California objects to the "verification of domicile" requirement.
Extending this burdensome requirement to the CDL renewal process,
especially in cases where the driver's residence has not changed, is not
supportable.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The verification of state of domicile
closely resembles the requirements from the federal REAL ID Act and
should be removed from the regulations.

**Re-Verification of Citizenship:**

*Section 373.71 requires re-verification of citizenship or permanent
residency for a CDL at every renewal, upgrade, etc.*

The department believes that this proposed regulation is unnecessary and
imposes additional costs on the state and added inconvenience to the
driver. Citizenship and permanent residency are essentially permanent
legal statuses. The only change to permanent residency would be the
granting of U.S. citizenship. Since both statuses are acceptable for
issuance of a CDL, there appears to be no need to re-verify this status
every time a new application is filed.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends deleting this
requirement from the proposed regulations. This requirement closely
resembles the requirements from the federal REAL ID Act and should be
deleted.

**Image/Photo Comparison:**

*Section 384.227 requires the state to perform a check of the
image/photo of the driver at the time a CDL is renewed, upgraded,
transferred or a duplicate is issued. (This applies to a CLP as well.)*

The department currently has procedures in place to manually compare the
applicant's photo/image when the applicant appears in person at a field
office. However it is impossible to compare the likeness digitally
maintained in the department's database with the actual applicant unless
the driver applies in person.

If implemented, the department would no longer have the ability to
process a commercial driver's license renewal application by mail or
Internet. This would be an unnecessary burden on drivers who are denied
these methods of renewal. For commercial drivers who driver interstate,
or long haul, having to renew in person is more than an inconvenience.
It may require the driver to lose work and income in order to renew in
person. Commercial drivers must meet California's stringent safe driving
requirements to participate in the renewal by mail program, so there is
no adverse traffic safety impact.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The regulations should be modified to
require the photo-compare procedure only in those cases where the CDL
holder is required to appear in person at a motor vehicle field office
to complete his or her transaction.

**Use of CLP for Training/Testing in a State other than the State of
Record:**

*Section 383.79 requires a state to administer the skill tests to a
person who has a CLP from another state and who has taken training in
this state. The test results must be transmitted electronically from the
testing state to the state of record in an efficient and secure manner.
The state of record must accept the results of a skill test administered
by another state. The state of record (domicile) will issue the
license.*

The department supports this proposal as we believe it is a benefit to
both commercial trucking firms and the drivers seeking employment that
must undergo professional training. However, until all jurisdictions can
provide the same level of standards, it is premature to impose this
requirement onto states.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that a
federally-approved program be established to certify that states meet
the level of standards required by the federal government. This
certification will provide assurance that other states are applying
equal standards before the state of record accepts the results of a
skill test that is administered by another state.

**New Requirements for Examiners (State and Third Party):**

*Sections 384.228 and 384.229 establish specific certification
requirements and training standards for CDL examiners. The examiners
will also have to complete specified refresher training courses every
four years. States will be required to track the scores for each test
conducted by each examiner and their pass/fail rates. The regulations
also establish minimum standards for monitoring all examiners and
keeping the required records.*

The department supports strengthening the certification and training
requirements for CDL examiners. However, Section 384.229 requires
information to be tracked and monitored in four different data files.
This is too prescriptive and should only require the states to develop a
method to track and monitor examiner skill tests.

California believes the federal government should not impose on the
state's hiring standards. California state employees hired to positions
of trust at DMV are required to submit to background checks. California
DMV has been utilizing the LiveScan automated fingerprint and name-based
state and criminal history checks since 2002. California law prohibits
the re-processing of background checks on existing employees.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends the requirements
are too prescriptive and the federal government should not impose hiring
standards on the state.

**Changes of Address:**

*Proposed Section 383.73 establishes new standards to guard against the
fraudulent issuance of a CDL. This section specifies that a CDL (or CLP)
can only be mailed to the address reflected on the application.*

There should be an accommodation made for drivers that submit an
official change of address notification. It is reasonable to expect that
a number of address changes could take place during the validity period
of the CLP. If the intent of the regulations is to require a new
application when an address change occurs, this implies that the
applicant would have to make an in-person visit to a field office to
change his or her address and provide new evidence of domicile.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: Modify the proposed regulations to allow a
CLP holder to submit a change of address form using the state's approved
submission methods and, upon receipt, allow the finalized CDL to be
mailed to that address.

**Actions Taken Against a Driver for Fraud:**

*Section 383.73(k)(1) of the regulations requires states to have
procedures in place for suspending/canceling/revoking a driver who is
[convicted]{.underline} of fraud related to the testing and issuance of
a CLP or CDL. The procedures must deny the renewal, transfer, or upgrade
of a fraudulently obtained CLP or CDL, and the state must record any
such withdrawal on the person's driving record. The driver may not
reapply for a new CDL for at least one year.*

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department agrees that this is an
appropriate sanction, but suggests that the term "cancellation" be
removed from the final regulation. A cancellation action is taken
"without prejudice" and another application can be started immediately.
Given the nature of the fraudulent activity, a cancellation of the CDL
does not seem to be sufficiently punitive.

**Suspicion of Fraud:**

Section 383.73(k)(2) *requires a state to re-examine a driver within 30
days of discovery, or upon receipt of credible information that causes
the state to suspect, that fraud was involved in the issuance of the
CDL. If the review is not completed within 30 days, the state must
suspend the driver until the review is complete.*

Suspending a driver on the "suspicion" of fraud after 30 days when no
determination of fraudulent activity has been clearly established, even
when the information is credible, constitutes the taking of the license
without due process. The department agrees that if a state suspects that
a CDL was obtained fraudulently, or that the issuance of a CDL was based
on fraudulent activity, action should be taken expeditiously. However,
requiring a re-examination of the driver within 30 days may hinder a
state's ability to properly investigate the incident and bring all
credible evidence to bear. The unintended consequence of this provision
may be to reduce the number of convictions for fraud.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: Each state needs the flexibility to
respond to unique situations of suspected fraud as it deems appropriate
given the specific circumstances. This will ensure that appropriate
action is taken not only to deal with a specific driver, but to reduce
the incidence of fraudulent activity overall. The regulations should be
revised to allow a state sufficient time to investigate all allegations
of fraud given the individual circumstances involved in each case. As
long as a driver is cooperating and responding in a timely manner to a
state's inquiries, he or she should not be suspended based on an
artificial time frame.

**New Requirements for Third Party Test Programs:**

*Proposed Section 383.75 modifies the requirements for third party test
programs, and requires a state to certify both the program participants
(tester) and the examiners that conduct the actual driving skill tests.
It requires a third party examiner to meet the same certification
standards and training standards as an examiner employed by the state.
It establishes minimum standards for monitoring the tester and the
examiner and requires the tester to electronically notify the state of a
passing score. Each tester must file a performance bond in an amount
sufficient to defray the cost that would be incurred by the state to
retest drivers determined to have been given fraudulent scores by a
tester or examiner.*

The department agrees with the goal of increasing the standards for
third party testing program and to ensure better monitoring of program
participants. In California, the program is limited to an "Employer Test
Program" which allows employers to train and test their own employees.
Current participants in the Employer Test Program include private
companies, state agencies, and quasi-governmental entities.

Requiring a performance bond from a tester is appropriate to cover the
cost of retesting drivers when the state determines retests are
necessary. However, it does not seem necessary or reasonable to extend
that requirement to a governmental agency or quasi-governmental agency
that is part of an authorized third party testing program.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that the
regulations provide an exemption from the bond requirement for
governmental or quasi-governmental agencies, such as Public Utilities
and Transit Authority, respectively, participating in a state's third
party testing program.

**Third Party Testing Schedules:**

*Proposed Section 383.75(a) (7)(vi) requires a third party tester to
submit a schedule of skills tests on Friday which specify the
examinations to be conducted the following week.*

This is an unnecessary burden for the tester and a significant increase
in workload for the department. Receipt and processing of these
schedules would require a major expenditure of resources, yet would be
of little value in the monitoring process.

In California, the distances that must be traveled to monitor third
party tester locations require that the inspectors schedule their trips
well in advance. Methods used to establish and maintain viable
monitoring programs will vary greatly from state to state.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The regulations are too prescriptive and
should not include such specific levels of operational detail, but
rather should allow each state a sufficient amount of flexibility to
determine the best method of inspecting and monitoring third party
testers.

**Minimum Number of Third Party Skill Tests Administered:**

*Proposed Section 383.75(c) requires a state to revoke the certification
of any tester (participant) who does not conduct at least 50 skill test
examinations per year, and to revoke the certification of every examiner
who does not conduct at least ten (10) skill test examinations per
calendar year. The intent is to strengthen third party tester provisions
to ensure that those who test commercial drivers are not only trained
and competent, but retain that knowledge and competency by frequently
conducting the required sessions.*

The department supports a minimum number of third party skill tests
should be administered; however, the department questions the
significance of establishing 50/10 examinations. The number of drive
tests conducted does not provide a quality skills test. Along with
establishing qualifications for the examiner and third party testers,
there should be qualitative measurements that establish the minimum
standards for examiners and third party testers. For example, a ten
drive test minimum for examiners provides a loophole that is not in the
best interests of either the third party tester or public safety. An
examiner could conduct ten (10) driving tests in a single week, then not
give another test for the remainder of the year. Under the proposed
regulations, he or she would still be considered a qualified tester. The
examiner could start conducting third party tests again at any time with
no retraining and no certainty that he or she can adequately evaluate a
commercial driver.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that the
regulations be amended to include qualitative measurements, not
quantitative, for establishing any minimum testing requirements.

**Effect of Regulations of Fire Departments:**

*Proposed Section 383.75(c) requires that in order to be qualified as a
third party tester, a provider must administer a minimum of 50
examinations each calendar year.*

These provisions will have a significant impact on many fire
departments. Fire department personnel seeking a CDL that now operate
under California's Employer Testing Program will be required to take the
examinations at a departmental testing facility if their department
cannot maintain the 50 test-per-year standard.

This means that an emergency vehicle and an accompanying CDL licensed
driver would have to be taken out of service while the CLP holder is
being tested. This is a potential health and safety issue, particularly
for those fire departments that have limited numbers of fire engines at
their disposal.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department recommends that an
exemption from the 50 tests per year rule be provided in the regulations
for fire departments and other emergency service agencies that could
otherwise qualify as third party testers.

**Implementation Timeframe:**

*Section 384.301 establishes a three-year implementation period which
commences when the regulations are final. All states must be in
substantial compliance with the regulations no later than three years
from the effective date of the regulations.*

As indicated in the response to Section 383.133(c), above, the new
skills test requirements will more than double the amount of space
required under the current regulations. As a result, the department is
planning to establish five (5) new commercial test sites and will
relocate or expand ten (10) existing test sites to meet the
requirements. The first site has been funded and should be operational
by the end of 2009. Given the current economic climate, and the
complexity of the state's real estate acquisition procedures, the
planned facility expansion could not be achieved within the three-year
time-frame proposed in the regulations and could take up to 15 years to
complete a capital outlay project.

The department is also concerned about the major computer programming
effort that will be required to implement the proposed regulations.
Driver license systems will have to be restructured to capture, store,
and release information that is not currently maintained in the
department's files. This comes at a time when the department is already
involved in a major systems modernization project that will not be
completed. Initiating the CDL/CLP programming changes required by the
proposed regulations in the midst of this major system overhaul will
significantly increase costs and create problems in allocating
sufficient human resources to keep both projects on track.

It is extremely difficult to determine the cumulative cost of this
programming effort, because the regulations do not provide the technical
specifications which are necessary to estimate the true impact of the
requirements. Once the regulations are finalized, development of the
technical requirements will be initiated by CDLIS. Due to the complexity
and magnitude of the programming changes, it is imperative for the
technical specifications to be released in final form in sufficient time
for the state's development period.

[Recommendation]{.underline}: The department requests that, because of
the significant changes that must be accommodated, states should be
given up to five (5) years from the effective date of the regulations to
meet the substantial compliance benchmark. States that have a proposed
plan that considers the implementation of the regulations in a phased
approach should be accepted for minimum compliance. The regulations
should be modified to specify that the final effective date for any
*programming requirements* be no sooner than three years from the date
the programming specifications are final and released to the states.

**Cost to Implement:**

The department has begun the process of estimating costs for a number of
the components of the new CDL/CLP program. While it is difficult to
complete a precise cost analysis until technical specification are
developed and published, our initial estimates indicate that California
will incur significant unreimbursed costs.

In making our preliminary estimates, the department compared the costs
to those incurred while incorporating the recent Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) regulations. Based on the scope and
complexity of that effort, we estimate that our programming costs will
be more than double that which was needed to implement MCSIA. The
department estimates that the program mining costs for MCSIA are in
excess of \$10 million.

In addition, each new skill test site could cost up to \$4 million. It
is likely that the ten replacement facilities will require a similar
expenditure, bringing total costs for the fifteen (15) test sites to as
high as \$60 million.

The department will also incur significant costs to train all existing
CDL examiners to use the new criteria and new knowledge tests. The
training will require existing examiners to undergo a complete training
course that includes the availability of a truck to demonstrate a
hands-on environment. There are currently 225 state employees who are
qualified to administer CDL skill tests. We estimate that when the new
regulations go into effect, there will be an additional 332 Third Party
Testers that will have to undergo training. The initial cost to train
all of these examiners is estimated to be \$9 million over the three
year implementation period. In addition, the proposed regulations
required all examiners to be retrained every four year; it is estimated
that the cost to conduct refresher training will be \$1.5 million a
year.

The regulations require states to expand their current efforts in
monitoring third party testers. To meet this requirement, the California
estimates that its cost will increase by approximately \$2 million
annually.

New CLP/CDL procedures will substantially increase the time it takes to
complete the application process. It is estimated that the added cost
for processing a CDL will exceed \$800,000 a year.