COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S LICENSE 

THIRD PARTY TESTING ANTI-FRAUD 

SYSTEM 

Phase II – Prototype, Pilot Testing and 

Evaluation 

Final Evaluation 

 November 2007
FOREWORD 

The purpose of this project was to develop specifications and pilot test an anti-fraud system for 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) third party testing activities in at least three jurisdictions. If 

enhancements are made, additional jurisdictions are expected to adopt the system. The resultant 

system, designated the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS), has 

the potential to strengthen commercial vehicle safety and security by ensuring the integrity of the 

nation’s commercial driving license program. 

This project was segmented into two phases. Phase I included documenting the business and 

technical requirements for a CDL anti-fraud system, detailing the current level of automation in 

jurisdiction licensing systems, and developing functional and performance specifications and a 

detailed design for a prototype and pilot system. Phase II included developing a prototype antifraud system, testing the system, and assessing the ability of the prototype system to combat 

CDL fraud. Specifically, the analysis estimated the safety and security benefits offered by the 

prototype system. 

This deliverable documents and completes the efforts of Phase II, Task 5 – Final Evaluation, 

which was conducted in parallel with Phase II, Task 4 – Prototype and Pilot Testing, which 

began in February 2006 and continued through December 2006. 

NOTICE 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the 

interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its 

contents or the use thereof. 

The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or 

manufacturers’ names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the objective 

of this document. 
Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 

FMCSA-RRT-07-026

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

5. Report Date 

November 2007 

4. Title and Subtitle

Commercial Driver’s License Third Party Testing Anti-Fraud System 

Phase II – Prototype, Pilot Testing and Evaluation

6. Performing Organization Code 

MC-RRT 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

4301 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400 

Arlington, VA 22203 11. Contract or Grant No. 

DTMC75-03-G-00002 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report, Jan. – Dec. 2006 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

Office of Analysis, Research and Technology 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room 600 West 

Washington, DC 20590

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

FMCSA 

15. Supplementary Notes 

16. Abstract 

The purpose of this project was to develop specifications and pilot test an anti-fraud system for commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

third party testing activities in at least three jurisdictions. If enhancements are made, additional jurisdictions are expected to adopt 

the system. The resultant system, designated the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS), has the 

potential to strengthen commercial vehicle safety and security by ensuring the integrity of the nation’s commercial driving license 

program. This project was segmented into two phases. Phase I included documenting the business and technical requirements for a

CDL anti-fraud system, detailing the current level of automation in jurisdiction licensing systems, and developing functional and 

performance specifications and a detailed design for a prototype and pilot system. Phase II included developing a prototype antifraud system, testing the system, and assessing the ability of the prototype system to combat CDL fraud. Specifically, the analysis 

estimated the safety and security benefits offered by the prototype system. 

17. Key Words 

Commercial driver’s license skills test, CDL skills testing, fraud 

prevetion and detection, anti-fraud, Commercial Skills Test 

Information Management System, CSTIMS, third party testers 

 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions 

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif. (of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

83 

22. Price 

N/A 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized. 
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FRO

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By 

LENGTH LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 fyd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 ymi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 m

AREA AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 sft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 syd2 square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 sac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 ami2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 s

VOLUME VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters ml ml milliliters 0.034 flgal gallons 3.785 liters l l liters 0.264 gft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cyd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 c

MASS MASS 

oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 olb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 pT short tons (2,000 lbs) 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 s

(

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exac

°F Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius °C °C Celsius 1.8 C + 32 F

temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature temperature te

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 ffl foot-lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 f

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or S

lbf pound-force 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 ppsi pound-force per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 p

p

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be done to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

AAMVA would like to thank the people without whom this project would not have been 

possible. To everyone in the jurisdictions visited and to those individuals who volunteered their 

time to make the Working Group a success, you have our heartfelt appreciation. 

We extend additional thanks to Quon Kwan of FMCSA for his thorough and timely review of the 

drafts of this document. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

ACRONYMS...............................................................................................................................III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ IV

1. 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................1

2. PILOT PARTICIPATION EXPERIENCE .......................................................................8

2.1 BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................8 

2.2 ALASKA .....................................................................................................................10 

2.3 ARIZONA....................................................................................................................11 

2.4 NEW MEXICO............................................................................................................13 

2.5 SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................................................14 

3. ISSUES AND REQUESTED ENHANCEMENTS RESULTING FROM PILOT.......16

3.1 ALASKA .....................................................................................................................16 

3.2 ARIZONA....................................................................................................................17 

3.3 NEW MEXICO............................................................................................................17 

3.4 SOUTH DAKOTA ......................................................................................................18 

3.5 FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS .....................................................................19 

4. COST ESTIMATES ...........................................................................................................22

4.1 ENHANCEMENT COSTS..........................................................................................22 

4.2 DEPLOYMENT COSTS.............................................................................................23 

4.3 ONGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS ........................................................................24 

4.4 TOTAL COSTS...........................................................................................................24 

5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................25

6. RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................27

6.1 FUNDING....................................................................................................................27 

6.2 FUNCTIONALITY .....................................................................................................27 

6.3 DEPLOYMENT ..........................................................................................................29 

i 
LIST OF APPENDICES 

APPENDIX A...............................................................................................................................30

APPENDIX B ...............................................................................................................................34

APPENDIX C...............................................................................................................................49

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Business Requirement Recommendations for Third Party Testing.................................. 3 

Table 2. State-Specific Pilot Activities........................................................................................... 6 

Table 3. Functionality Requirement Priority Ranking Definitions............................................... 19 

Table 4. Functional Requirements Enhancement Costs ............................................................... 23 

Table 5. CSTIMS Deployment and Training Costs...................................................................... 23 

Table 6. CSTIMS Ongoing Operational Costs ............................................................................. 24 

Table 7. CSTIMS Total Costs....................................................................................................... 24 

Table 8. Priority Definitions ......................................................................................................... 49 

Table 9. Jurisdiction Parameters................................................................................................... 51 

Table 10. Organizations................................................................................................................ 52 

Table 11. Testers........................................................................................................................... 53 

Table 12. Users ............................................................................................................................. 54 

Table 13. Users ............................................................................................................................. 56 

Table 14. Applicants ..................................................................................................................... 57 

Table 15. Scheduling .................................................................................................................... 58 

Table 16. Test Results................................................................................................................... 61 

Table 17. Certification Control Documents (CCDs) .................................................................... 66 

Table 18. Sanctions....................................................................................................................... 66 

Table 19. Audits............................................................................................................................ 67 

Table 20. E-mail Notifications...................................................................................................... 68 

Table 21. Reports.......................................................................................................................... 69 

Table 22. Change Log................................................................................................................... 70 

Table 23. General (Miscellaneous)............................................................................................... 71 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Commercial Skills Test Information Management System............................................. 5 

ii 
ACRONYMS 

3PT Third Party Tester 

AA AAMVA Administrator (CSTIMS User) 

AAMVA American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

AK Alaska 

AU Auditor (CSTIMS User) 

AZ Arizona 

CCD Certification Control Documents 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License

CDLIS Commercial Driver License Information System 

CM CDL Monitor (CSTIMS User) 

CSTIMS Commercial Skills Test Information Management System 

DMV Department of Motor Vehicles 

DOT US Department of Transportation 

DPS Department of Public Safety 

EX Examiner (CSTIMS User) 

FL Florida 

FM FMCSA (CSTIMS User) 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

FYnnnn Fiscal Year nnnn 

GVWR Gross Vehicle Weight Rating 

ID Identification 

Identifier 

JA Jurisdiction Administrator (CSTIMS User) 

MVA Motor Vehicle Agency 

MC MVA Clerk (CSTIMS User) 

MVD Motor Vehicle Division 

NM, NMx New Mexico 

PDPS Problem Driver Pointer System 

RP Tester’s Responsible Party (CSTIMS User) 

SA System Administrator (CSTIMS User) 

SC South Carolina 

SD South Dakota 

U.S. United States 

VIN Vehicle Identification Number 

WI Wisconsin 

iii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Issuance of fraudulent commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) is a nationwide problem. The 

United States Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General released a report 

in May 2002 stating that suspected criminal activity had been identified in at least 16 

jurisdiction CDL programs. Large-scale fraud had been identified in the CDL programs 

of Florida, Georgia, Illinois, and North Carolina. In each of these jurisdictions, hundreds 

of CDLs were issued fraudulently. Nationwide, thousands of CDL holders have been 

retested due to suspicion concerning the issuance of their CDLs. In Illinois alone, nine 

deaths could be directly traced to crashes involving commercial drivers that fraudulently 

received their CDLs. 

The purpose of this project was to develop specifications and pilot test an anti-fraud 

system for CDL third party testing activities in at least three jurisdictions. If 

enhancements are made, additional jurisdictions are expected to adopt the system. The 

resultant system, designated the Commercial Skills Test Information Management 

System (CSTIMS), has the potential to strengthen commercial vehicle safety and security 

by ensuring the integrity of the nation’s commercial driving license program. 

This project was segmented into two phases with five distinct tasks. These included: 

• Phase I – Requirements, Specifications, and Design 

– Task 1: Business Requirements Definition—Document the business and 

technical requirements for a CDL anti-fraud system, including the 

identification of known vulnerabilities in the current CDL system(s). This task 

was completed in February 2004. 

– Task 2: Technology Baseline Assessment—Detail the current level of 

automation in jurisdiction licensing systems and document specific 

jurisdiction licensing systems. This task was completed in February 2004. 

– Task 3: Specifications Development and Design—Develop functional and 

performance specifications and a detailed design for a prototype and pilot 

system to address the vulnerabilities and meet the business requirements 

identified in Task 1. This task was completed in December 2004. 

• Phase II – Prototype, Pilot Testing, and Evaluation 

– Task 4: Prototype and Pilot Testing—Develop a prototype anti-fraud system 

and test the system in at least three pilot jurisdictions. This task continued 

through December 2006. 

– Task 5: Final Evaluation—Assess the ability of the prototype system to 

combat CDL fraud and estimate the safety and security benefits offered by the 

prototype system. This task continued through December 2006. 

Task 1, which was completed in February 2004, included efforts to conduct a literature 

review to determine vulnerabilities in CDL testing associated with the use of third party 

testers. The goal was to identify both the key functionality of an anti-fraud system and 

any best practices within the MVA community to address such fraud through the proper 

iv 
administration of a CDL third party tester program at the jurisdiction level. Task 2, which 

was completed in February 2004, surveyed jurisdictions to determine how technology 

was currently deployed in support of CDL third party tester programs and also involved 

an end-to-end review of jurisdiction processes for the establishment, administration, and 

monitoring of third party testers. 

Working within time and budgetary constraints imposed by the Statement of Work, the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) completed site visits 

to three jurisdictions. AAMVA also formed a Working Group to approve the interview 

guides and validate the recommendations from these visits. 

AAMVA completed site visits in the following jurisdictions: Florida, South Carolina, and 

Wisconsin. These jurisdictions volunteered time and staff to participate in this effort as 

did FMCSA staff and, in some instances, third party testers within the jurisdiction. Prior 

to the site visits, jurisdictions were supplied with a set of questions to be covered during 

the site visit. During the site visits, a facilitated discussion was conducted based on the 

distributed questions. Each meeting began with the jurisdiction MVA giving a 

presentation of their current approach to CDL third party testing. Following that 

presentation, a question and answer exchange took place as their processes were 

reviewed further. The sessions concluded with specific discussions of instances of fraud 

within the jurisdiction. 

All jurisdictions visited had a well-defined process in-place to ensure third party testers 

and all examiners are properly trained and audited; however, every jurisdiction could 

have benefited from additional automation to improve oversight of the third party testing 

program. 

AAMVA prepared and delivered to FMCSA a Technical Memorandum deliverable 

which documented the findings of Task 1 – Business Requirements Definition and Task 2 

– Technology Baseline Assessment, which were conducted in parallel from December 

2003 through February 2004. 

Task 3, Specifications Development and Design, consisted of biweekly meetings with 

representatives that administered, conducted, and monitored CDL third party tester 

programs. This forum determined the business rules and policies and made the final 

decisions that were incorporated into the system design. The resulting system design 

dealt with the events that occurred within the scope of CDL third party testing and 

described the system responses to each of those events. The events and the system 

responses were described in terms of information flows. These information flows were 

subsequently used in Phase II to produce a prototype system that was piloted by 

jurisdictions and third party testers. 

In December 2004, AAMVA prepared and delivered to FMCSA a Technical 

Memorandum deliverable which documented the requirements of Task 3 – Specifications 

Development and Design. 

v 
vi 

Phase II, Task 4, Prototype and Pilot Testing, began in February 2006 and continued 

through December 2006. During the pilot testing and evaluation period, a prototype 

CSTIMS was deployed in four jurisdictions (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and South 

Dakota) and was used to schedule, administer, evaluate, and conduct oversight for CDL 

skills testing. Thirty-eight jurisdiction and CDL third party testing agencies and 117 CDL 

testing examiners participated in the evaluation. As of December 31, 2006, the four 

participating pilot jurisdictions collectively used CSTIMS to schedule 9,246 CDL skills 

tests for 2,619 CDL applicants and provide real-time and historical oversight. During this 

period, CSTIMS reported an overall test pass rate of 94% for the participating 

jurisdictions. 

Phase II, Task 5, Final Evaluation, was conducted in parallel with Task 4. During the 

evaluation period, the pilot jurisdictions, FMCSA, and AAMVA identified and 

documented 112 issues, areas for enhancement, and recommendations for improvement. 

Of these items, 28 were designated “critical.” Nineteen funding, functionality, and 

deployment recommendations were offered to address these items. Estimates for the cost 

and effort to modify CSTIMS to address these items, to complete CSTIMS deployment 

and training for all jurisdictions, and to provide ongoing operational support were 

formulated. Initial costs associated with enhancements, national deployment, and 

jurisdiction training are estimated at $1,144,044. Ongoing support costs are estimated at 

$280,812 per year. 
1. PROJECT OVERVIEW 

Issuance of fraudulent commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) is a nationwide problem. The United 

States Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General released a report in May of 

2002 stating that suspected criminal activity had been identified in at least 16 State CDL 

programs. Large-scale fraud has been identified in the CDL programs of Florida, Georgia, 

Illinois, and North Carolina. In each of these states, hundreds of CDLs were issued fraudulently. 

Nationwide, thousands of CDL holders have been retested due to suspicion concerning the 

issuance of their CDLs. In Illinois alone, nine deaths were directly traced to crashes involving 

commercial drivers that fraudulently received their CDLs. 

The purpose of this project was to develop specifications and pilot test an anti-fraud system for 

CDL third party testing activities. If enhancements are made, additional jurisdictions are 

expected to adopt the system. The resultant system, designated the Commercial Skills Test 

Information Management System (CSTIMS), has the potential to strengthen commercial vehicle 

safety and security by ensuring the integrity of the nation’s commercial driving license program. 

This project was segmented into two phases with five distinct tasks. These included: 

• Phase I – Requirements, Specifications, and Design 

– Business Requirements Definition—Document the business and technical 

requirements for a CDL anti-fraud system, including the identification of known 

vulnerabilities in the current CDL system(s). 

– Technology Baseline Assessment—Detail the current level of automation in state 

licensing systems and document specific state licensing systems. 

– Specifications Development and Design—Develop functional and performance 

specifications and a detailed design for a prototype and pilot system to address the 

vulnerabilities and meet the business requirements identified in Task 1. 

• Phase II – Prototype, Pilot testing, and Evaluation 

– Prototype and Pilot Testing—Develop a prototype anti-fraud system and test the 

system in at least three pilot states. 

– Final Evaluation—Assess the ability of the prototype system to combat CDL fraud 

and estimate the safety and security benefits offered by the prototype system. 

• Task 1 - Business Requirements Definition and Task 2 - Technology Baseline 

Assessment 

– Third party testing is the administration of CDL skills tests by persons authorized by 

the jurisdiction’s Motor Vehicle Agency (MVA) (including another jurisdiction, an 

employer, a private driver training facility or other private institution, or a 

department, agency or instrumentality of a local government). The following 

conditions must be met by all Third Party Examiners:1

 

1 Excerpted from 49 CFR Ch. III (October 1, 2003 Ed.); § 383.75 Third party testing. 

1 
• The tests given by the third party are the same as those which would otherwise be given 

by the State; and 

• The third party as an agreement with the State containing, at a minimum, provisions that: 

– Allow the FMCSA, or its representative, and the jurisdiction to conduct random 

examinations, inspections, and audits without prior notice; 

– Require the State to conduct onsite inspections at least annually; 

– Require that all third party examiners meet the same qualification and training 

standards as State examiners, 

– Require that, at least on an annual basis, State employees take the tests actually 

administered by the third party as if the State employee were a test applicant, or that 

States test a sample of drivers who were examined by the third party to compare 

pass/fail results; and 

– Reserve unto the State the right to take prompt and appropriate remedial action 

against the third-party testers in the event that the third party fails to comply with 

State or Federal standards for the CDL testing program, or with any other terms of the 

third-party contract. 

Jurisdictions use different terms (e.g., third party administrator, third party tester) for the 

companies/agencies for which the individual tester works. Likewise, jurisdictions refer to the 

individual performing the examination using different terms (e.g., safety officer, third party 

tester, third party examiner). In the project documentation, the term “third party tester” refers to 

companies or agencies regulated by the jurisdiction for CDL testing (except when referring to a 

specific jurisdiction). The term “examiner” refers to individuals who conduct CDL testing and 

applies to both third party and jurisdiction MVA employees (again, except when referring to a 

specific jurisdiction). 

Jurisdictions use a variety of approaches to employ third party examiners for CDL testing. Some 

jurisdictions conduct CDL testing strictly with MVA employees, some use a combination of 

MVA employees and third party examiners, while still others rely solely on third party 

examiners. The possibility for fraudulent licensing activity occurs regardless of the approach. 

Phase I, Task 1 – Business Requirements Definition and Phase I, Task 2 – Technology Baseline 

Assessment were conducted in parallel beginning in December of 2003 and continuing through 

February of 2004. Task 1 included efforts to conduct a literature review to determine 

vulnerabilities in CDL testing associated with the use of third party testers. The goal was to 

identify both the key functionality of an anti-fraud system and any best practices with the MVA 

community to address such fraud through the proper administration of a CDL third party tester 

program at the jurisdiction level. Task 2 surveyed jurisdictions to determine how technology was 

currently deployed in support of CDL third party tester programs and also involved an end-toend review of jurisdiction processes for the establishment, administration, and monitoring of 

third party testers. 

Working within time and budgetary constraints imposed by the Statement of Work, the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) completed site visits to three 

jurisdictions. AAMVA also formed a Working Group to approve the interview guides and 

validate the recommendations from these visits. 

2 
AAMVA completed site visits in the following jurisdictions: Florida, South Carolina, and 

Wisconsin. These jurisdictions volunteered time and staff to participate in this effort, as did 

FMCSA staff and. in some instances third party testers within the jurisdiction. Prior to the site 

visits, jurisdictions were supplied with a set of questions to be covered during the site visit. 

During the site visits, a facilitated discussion was conducted based on the distributed questions. 

Each meeting began with the jurisdiction MVA giving a presentation of their current approach to 

CDL third party testing. Following that presentation, a question and answer exchange took place 

as their processes were reviewed further. The sessions concluded with specific discussions of 

instances of fraud within the jurisdiction. A description of each jurisdiction’s processes was 

provided as part of Task 2. 

All jurisdictions visited had a well-defined process in-place to ensure third party testers and all 

examiners were properly trained and audited; however, every jurisdiction would benefit from 

additional automation to improve oversight of the third party testing program. Based on 

recommendations from the jurisdictions that were visited, the following table of 

recommendations was compiled. Table 1 lists business requirements, recommendations to satisfy 

theses requirements, and notes on how implementing these recommendations would reduce CDL 

fraud opportunities. Subsequent continuing discussions with and analysis by, the Working Group 

determined which recommendations should be implemented electronically in a new system and 

which ones would require procedural changes. 

Table 1. Business Requirement Recommendations for third party testing 

Recommendation Business Reason 

Notification to the Motor Vehicle Agency (MVA) for any 

driver control actions (withdrawals, suspensions, 

cancellations, and revocations) taken against an Examiner 

and Notification to the MVA if an Examiner has been 

removed from the program and the reason for his/her 

removal. 

Ensure timely notification to the 

MVA of Examiners no longer 

eligible to test CDL applicants. 

Schedules for all tests to be conducted by any examiner 

(with the applicant’s name) should be provided to the MVA in 

advance. 

Detect unusual testing patterns 

and minimize multiple testing. 

Timely notification to the MVA of all test results (pass or fail) Prevent applicants from taking 

multiple tests before results can 

be received at the MVA. 

Identification of individuals involved in CDL third party testing 

(third party testers and Third Party Examiners) where fraud 

is suspected or proven. 

Ability to identify all drivers tested by a particular examiner 

over a certain time period if: (a) fraud is determined to exist 

(even if the driver has moved to another jurisdiction) and (b) 

when a driver is convicted of an offense or involved in a 

crash. 

Reduce continuing fraud by those 

individuals previously suspected 

or convicted. 

3 
Recommendation Business Reason 

Pass/fail rates for examiners should be provided on a 

regular schedule and also on demand. Also, the total 

number of tests administered by each examiner and the 

number per day per examiner should be reviewed based on 

parameters that reveal patterns which may indicate possible 

fraud. In addition, the days of the week on which an 

examiner tests should be evaluated. (e.g., if an examiner is 

only testing on Saturday and Sunday, this may raise a red 

flag). 

For quality assurance, it should 

be possible retrieve various 

statistics on tests administered by 

one Examiner. 

Allow the maneuvering and road skills portions of the test to 

be conducted by a different Examiner than the one who 

administered the pre-trip. 

While the best case is to have 

one examiner administer all 

portions of the test, inclement 

weather, illness of the Examiner, 

etc. may preclude this. 

Capability to obtain test results when driver moves to 

another jurisdiction. 

Ensure driver history contains 

testing information in addition to 

accidents, convictions, and driver 

control actions. 

Strict control over accountable forms (those forms issued to 

the tester or examiner by the MVA and given to the applicant 

by the Examiner upon successful completion of the test). 

Many jurisdictions already issue and control document 

numbers as part of their oversight of third party testers and 

Examiners [FL: “waiver,” SC: Safety Officer Certification 

Form (Form 447SO), WI: “Half sheet”]. In many 

jurisdictions, this is a manually controlled process. 

Reduce the possibility of 

fraudulent documents created 

from official stock. 

Provide the option for jurisdictions that issue licenses 

centrally to record electronically whether CDLs to the 

address stated in the application are returned as 

undeliverable. 

Permits jurisdictions to detect 

residency fraud. 

Provide the option for jurisdictions to record electronically 

whether the identification of CDL applicants was checked by 

the third party examiner prior to testing. 

Include third party examiners 

more fully in implementing antifraud measures. 

Provide the option for jurisdictions to allow third party testers 

to check applicant driver license and vehicle registration 

status prior to testing. 

Include third party examiners 

more fully in implementing antifraud measures. 

Provide the option for jurisdictions to automate transmission 

of test results while requiring the testers to maintain, or 

follow-up by submitting, records with original signatures. 

Allow jurisdictions to ensure 

greater authenticity of test results. 

Automatic notification to MVA on any convictions received or 

driver control actions taken on third party examiners. 

Ensure drivers are qualified to 

administer examinations. 

AAMVA prepared and delivered to FMCSA a Technical Memorandum deliverable which 

documented the findings of Task 1 – Business Requirements Definition and Task 2 – 

Technology Baseline Assessment, which were conducted in parallel from December 2003 

through February 2004. 

4 
Task 3 – Specifications Development and Design 

Phase I, Task 3, Specifications Development and Design, consisted of biweekly meetings with 

representatives that administer, conduct, and monitor CDL third party tester programs. This 

forum determined the business rules and policies and made the final decisions that were 

incorporated into the system design. The resulting system design dealt with the events that occur 

within the scope of CDL third party testing and describe the system responses to each of those 

events. The events and the system responses were described in terms of information flows. These 

information flows were subsequently used in Phase II to produce a prototype system that would 

be piloted by jurisdictions and third party testers. 

Figure 1 summarizes the resultant high-level CSTIMS system design elements, participants, and 

information flow. 

Figure 1. Commercial Skills Test Information Management System 

CSTIMS was designed to run on the Internet. Jurisdictions do not need to write or support any 

computer programs. Authorized users may log onto and use CSTIMS from any computer with 

Internet access. 

The CSTIMS process flow and system design was centered on the users involved with CDL 

skills testing and associated testing information. Applicants make appointments for CDL skills 

5 
tests with Jurisdiction or third party testers. The testers create schedules on CSTIMS for the 

applicants and assign examiners to administer the skills tests. The examiners administer the skills 

tests, and either the tester or examiner may enter the test results into CSTIMS. Once the 

applicant has successfully passed all applicable skills tests, the applicant may be issued the 

applicable CDL. An MVA clerk may retrieve the applicant’s test results from CSTIMS to verify 

completion of all tests and eligibility for the CDL. Jurisdiction administrators may set up and 

monitor jurisdiction-specific oversight criteria. Auditors may perform audits of testers and 

maintain audit record for testers on CSTIMS. CDL monitors may use CSTIMS to monitor 

sanctions on testers/examiners to ensure eligibility to administer testing. FMCSA will have 

complete oversight access to all skills testing activity. Authorized users may run oversight 

reports to monitor applicant, tester, and examiner eligibility, scheduling, testing, sanctions, and 

audits. 

In December 2004, AAMVA prepared and delivered to FMCSA a Technical Memorandum 

deliverable which documented the requirements of Task 3 – Specifications Development and 

Design. 

Task 4 – Prototype and Pilot Testing 

Phase II, Task 4, Prototype and Pilot Testing, began in February 2006 and continued through 

December 2006. During the pilot testing and evaluation period, a prototype CSTIMS was 

deployed in four jurisdictions (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota) and was used 

to schedule, administer, evaluate, and conduct oversight for CDL skills testing. Thirty-eight 

jurisdiction and third party CDL testing agencies and 117 CDL testing examiners participated in 

the evaluation. 

As of December 31, 2006, the four participating pilot jurisdictions (see note in Table 2) 

collectively used CSTIMS to schedule 9,246 CDL skills tests for 2,619 CDL applicants and 

provide real-time and historical oversight. During this period, 6,536 skills tests were 

administered, with an overall test pass rate of 94% for the participating jurisdictions. Table 2

provides state-specific operational pilot activity through December 31: 

Table 2. State-Specific Pilot Activities 

Pilot 

Jurisdiction 

Operational 

Start Date 

Test 

Applicants 

Tests 

Scheduled 

Tests 

Administered Pass Rate

Alaska* 07/07/2006 61 209 109 91% 

Arizona 04/24/2006 668 2,237 1,760 90% 

New Mexico 07/18/2006 828 3,139 1,644 93% 

South Dakota 06/12/2006 1,062 3,661 3,023 96% 

Totals 2,619 9,246 6,536 94% 

*Alaska ended its operational CSTIMS pilot participation on August 15, 2006. Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota 

continued to use CSTIMS as of December 31, 2006. 

6 
Task 5 – Final Evaluation 

Phase II, Task 5, Final Evaluation, was conducted in parallel with Task 4. During the evaluation 

period, the four pilot jurisdictions (Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota), one non-pilot 

jurisdiction (Oregon), FMCSA, and AAMVA identified and documented 112 issues, areas for 

enhancement, and recommendations for improvement. Of these items, 28 were designated 

“critical.” Nineteen funding, functionality, and deployment recommendations were offered to 

address these items. Estimates for the cost and effort to modify CSTIMS to address these items, 

to complete CSTIMS deployment and training for all jurisdictions, and to provide ongoing 

operational support were formulated. Initial costs associated with enhancements, national 

deployment and jurisdiction training are estimated at $1,144,044. Ongoing support costs are 

estimated at $280,812 per year. The remainder of this report discusses the activities and outcome 

of Task 4 and Task 5. This deliverable documents and completes the efforts of Phase II, Task 5, 

Final Evaluation. 

7 
2. PILOT PARTICIPATION EXPERIENCE 

2.1 BACKGROUND 

AAMVA, in conjunction with FMCSA and a Working Group consisting of representatives from 

the 24 jurisdictions involved in CDL third party testing, designed and developed an Internetbased, online system to address and combat potential CDL skills test fraud. The system was 

named the CDL Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS). 

AAMVA solicited jurisdiction volunteers from the Working Group to participate in a pilot 

evaluation of CSTIMS. A mandatory requirement for participation was that both the 

jurisdiction’s motor vehicle agency and at least one major third party tester commit to use 

CSTIMS for all CDL skills test scheduling and administration during the full pilot evaluation 

period. Four jurisdictions volunteered to participate in the pilot evaluation: Alaska, Arizona, 

New Mexico, and South Dakota. All four met or exceeded the participation criteria and were 

selected. 

Following FMCSA approval of the prototype system, CSTIMS was deployed to the four selected 

pilot jurisdictions to be used operationally in support of their CDL skills testing programs and to 

evaluate its effectiveness in supporting overall CDL testing oversight and fraud-prevention goals. 

The formal CSTIMS pilot evaluation began in February 2006 and was conducted by the 

jurisdictions of Alaska, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota. In each pilot jurisdiction, 

participants included each of the jurisdiction motor vehicle agencies and selected jurisdiction and 

third party testing organizations. A total of 41 agencies and organizations in these 4 jurisdictions 

participated, including 38 CDL testing organizations with 117 examiners. See appendix A for a 

detailed list of pilot participants. 

Prior to commencement of formal CSTIMS pilot usage and evaluation, AAMVA traveled to 

each of the participating jurisdictions and presented a 2-day onsite training session to the motor 

vehicle agency and third party tester personnel who would be either directly using CSTIMS, 

overseeing its usage, and/or evaluating its effectiveness to combat CDL testing fraud. The 

CSTIMS user training consisted of a combination of nine modules of PowerPoint presentations 

with supporting user hands-on sessions. The syllabus covered the following topics: 

• CSTIMS Basic Concepts 

• User Procedures 

• Administration 

• Applicant Management 

• Schedule Management 

• Test Results Management 

• Audits and Sanctions 

• Reports 

• Detecting Fraud 

8 
Following the onsite training, jurisdictions conducted additional training for personnel who were 

unable to attend the AAMVA-administered sessions. AAMVA provided a training version of 

CSTIMS for the participants to use for internal training and for development of procedures to 

integrate use of CSTIMS into existing CDL skills test scheduling, management, and anti-fraud 

monitoring processes. 

After a jurisdiction had completed its internal training, testing, procedures development, initial 

administrative setup, and data entry, AAMVA developers migrated the jurisdiction’s CSTIMS 

data from the training database to the production database, and the jurisdiction was placed into 

production status. The jurisdiction then began formal pilot use of CSTIMS to schedule, manage, 

and monitor CDL skills testing activity. Formal CSTIMS pilot usage and evaluation began with 

Arizona, and then continued with South Dakota, Alaska, and New Mexico. The formal pilot 

evaluation period ended in August 2006. 

At the conclusion of the formal pilot period, representatives from the motor vehicle agencies and 

testing organizations in the pilot jurisdictions, FMCSA, and AAMVA participated in a CSTIMS 

pilot debrief meeting on August 15-16, 2006, at AAMVA Headquarters. Each pilot jurisdiction 

motor vehicle agency and participating third party tester presented reports which detailed their 

pilot experiences, provided their insights regarding operational issues, and offered 

recommendations to address perceived operational inefficiencies and enhance overall anti-fraud 

effectiveness of the application. Each jurisdiction report provided valuable feedback, insight, and 

recommendations for enhancement of CSTIMS for eventual national deployment. See appendix 

B for the complete jurisdiction reports. 

At the debrief meeting, FMCSA announced that FY2008 funds had been obtained for 

enhancement and continued operation of CSTIMS, but that they were unable to obtain FY2007 

funds to sustain operation during FY2007. Current CSTIMS operations would end on December 

31, 2006, or sooner depending on remaining FY2006 funding. The pilot jurisdictions expressed a 

desire to continue to use and evaluate CSTIMS as a CDL skills test monitoring and anti-fraud 

tool for the balance of CY2006 and through CY2007, subject to continuing availability of 

sustaining project funding. However, they stated they would have no incentive to continue using 

CSTIMS for the remainder of CY2006 if there was no likelihood of continued CSTIMS 

operation in CY2007. Additionally, two of the current CSTIMS pilot jurisdictions stated they 

would not continue using CSTIMS until certain critical modifications were made. 

In response to this request, FMCSA secured additional funds to support continued operation of 

CSTIMS into CY2007. Funding would cover basic operation and maintenance of CSTIMS 

computer hardware, software, and databases at current levels of functionality through May 2007. 

No funding for CSTIMS enhancements was included at this level of funding support. 

As of December 31, 2006, evaluation of CSTIMS still continued and the four pilot jurisdictions 

had collectively scheduled 2,619 CDL applicants for 9,246 skills tests, and reported an overall 

jurisdiction-wide test pass rate of 94%. 

9 
2.2 ALASKA 

CDL Oversight Prior to Pilot 

Prior to using CSTIMS, Alaska’s CDL skills testing program consisted of a combination of 

automated and paper-based elements. The CDL knowledge test was administered via a testing 

machine that calculated and retained scores. third party tester and examiner information was 

maintained by the DMV in an MS-Excel database. Daily information on road tests was entered 

by the tester into an MS-Access database. The tester created biweekly reports on road tests and 

sent them to the DMV. The majority of the actual process for CDL skills test application, 

scheduling, administration, scoring, and transmittal to the DMV for review and CDL issuance 

was manual and paper-based. The applicants hand-carried their CDL applications and associated 

testing scores to the DMV for final document review and CDL issuance. All applicable forms 

were submitted with batch work to be scanned for archiving. 

Auditing was done once a year, if time allowed, by a DMV staff person. No covert audits had 

been conducted. Throughout the year, third party testers faxed or e-mailed CDL exam logs to the 

DMV, where they were filed without review, comparison, or data entry. The DMV ran a 

quarterly report of the number of tests conducted by tester. 

Issues and problems with the current manual system included forged documents or changed test 

scores. Sloppy penmanship and hard to read, incomplete information on forms could lead to 

fraud or incomplete information. 

CDL Oversight with CSTIMS 

Formal oversight usage of CSTIMS occurred from July 7, 2006, to the debrief meeting on 

August 15, 2006. No further CSTIMS usage or evaluation was conducted after that date. 

During that time, CSTIMS monitored 61 CDL applicants who made 74 appointments to take 209 

individual CDL skills tests. Of the 209 scheduled tests, 109 tests were administered, with an 

overall passing rate of 91%. 

Costs Associated with Using CSTIMS 

The tester reported specific dollar costs associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for the 

pilot: startup: $2,000, training: $2,500, and ongoing costs: $50-$100/day. 

Changes Associated with Using CSTIMS 

During the CSTIMS pilot, current CDL skills testing procedures and policies remained 

unchanged. The participating third party tester continued to schedule, administer, score, and 

process CDL skills testing with the existing manual/paper-based system, then repeated the data 

entry and update process with CSTIMS. 

10 
The third party tester stated that it had to maintain the current CDL skills testing procedures 

while it also used CSTIMS. It found the duplicate data entry and management associated with 

both systems to be a time-consuming burden. 

Level of Participation 

Alaska participation in the CSTIMS pilot included the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) 

and one third party testing organization with 13 examiners. Onsite training of the DMV users 

occurred in February 2006, followed by data preparation and setup. 

CSTIMS Support for New Oversight Requirements 

The third party tester identified two new skills testing management/oversight requirements that 

CSTIMS could be used to meet/satisfy: the capability to provide newer, more comprehensive 

reports, and the ability to export information to spreadsheets/databases for processing by existing 

jurisdiction DMV management systems. 

Impact of Using CSTIMS 

The perceived impact of using CSTIMS in support of CDL skills testing differed between the 

DMV and the participating third party tester. While the DMV felt CSTIMS was moderately 

effective in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals, the tester did not feel that it helped to 

detect fraud. The DMV considered CSTIMS highly effective as an oversight/enforcement tool, 

whereas the tester did not see any benefit. Both the DMV and the tester felt that the piloted 

version of CSTIMS was not very effective as a skills test scheduling/management tool. The 

DMV felt CSTIMS was highly effective as a reporting tool, whereas the tester felt it was not 

very good. 

The DMV found that CSTIMS would eliminate the current need for CDL applicants to carry test 

scores to and from the DMV/third party tester and for third party testers to complete and turn in 

test logs. CSTIMS reports on tester/examiner employment, testing activity, and pass/fail rates 

helped meet DMV and tester management/oversight requirements. 

2.3 ARIZONA 

CDL Oversight Prior to Pilot 

Prior to using CSTIMS, Arizona’s CDL skills testing program consisted of a combination of 

paper-based and automated elements. Examinations were scored manually on paper forms. Test 

results were manually input into various electronic tracking tools. Automated reports were 

produced on data entered into a third party tester database. Additional manual elements included 

receiving and evaluating third party tester authorizations and certification applications. 

According to the MVD, the current process was very labor intensive. Employees had to enter 

11 
data into several tracking tools that were not related, which made comprehensive data analysis 

extremely difficult. 

CDL Oversight with CSTIMS 

Formal pilot evaluation began on April 24, 2006, and continued as of December 31, 2006. 

During that time, CSTIMS monitored 668 CDL applicants who made 807 appointments to take 

2,237 individual CDL skills tests. Of the 2,237 scheduled tests, 1,760 tests were administered, 

with an overall passing rate of 90%. 

Costs Associated with Using CSTIMS 

Reported costs associated with implementing CSTIMS for the pilot were in terms of personnel 

resources, rather than in dollars. There were no startup costs: computers and system access were 

already available to the participants. Ongoing costs involved additional time spent by 

participants performing data entry into CSTIMS. One MVD administrator managed CSTIMS 

exception e-mails. The two-day training session involved 11 people, including one MVD 

examiner who traveled 180 miles to participate. 

Changes Associated with Using CSTIMS 

During the CSTIMS pilot, all existing procedures continued unaffected and in parallel with the 

pilot. The only change to the current procedures was the addition of CSTIMS-related data entry 

and data management. 

Level of Participation 

Arizona participation in the CSTIMS pilot included the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) and six 

jurisdiction and third party testing organizations with a total of 56 examiners. Onsite training of 

the MVD users occurred in February 2006, followed by data preparation and setup. 

CSTIMS Support for New Oversight Requirements 

The MVD identified two new skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS 

could be used to meet/satisfy: calendar-based scheduling of examiners, and the capability to 

provide pass/fail data in real time, rather than in rigidly scheduled month-end reports. 

Impact of Using CSTIMS 

The MVD found that the CSTIMS automated reports were more complete and concise than were 

available in the existing system. For the pilot, data entry was required on the part of the 

participants for the first time. A special aspect of CSTIMS was cited: this was the first time third 

party testers had to report or establish a schedule of examinations. E-mails generated by 

CSTIMS to alert of skills testing process exceptions kept one MVD person busy identifying and 

cataloging them for subsequent analysis. 

12 
CSTIMS met or satisfied existing skills testing management/oversight requirements which 

included comprehensive tester/examiner pass/fail reporting, scheduling of test applicants, and 

tracking changes to the status of applicants. Within the scope of the trial, all expectations were 

met. However, MVD cautioned that the enhancements list indicated that more remained to be 

done. 

Though the MVD was unsure if CSTIMS was effective in meeting fraud detection/prevention 

goals, it did see effectiveness as an oversight/enforcement tool. The available data provided new 

insights into their testing activity: it disproved a claim that jurisdiction personnel were failing at 

least 60% of applicants, and it revealed that pass/fail rates for school district and public works 

third party testers were nearly the same as for jurisdiction testers. The MVD found CSTIMS to 

be effective as a skills test scheduling/management tool: its functionality was more 

comprehensive than current functionality built into the jurisdiction’s tracking tool. As an 

effective reporting tool, within the confines of the pilot, CSTIMS provided reasonably 

comprehensive data that was easily sorted and compared. 

2.4 NEW MEXICO 

CDL Oversight Prior to Pilot 

Prior to using CSTIMS, New Mexico’s CDL skills testing program was an all-manual system. 

Testing was performed by 180 examiners from nine third party testers affiliated with jurisdiction 

educational institutions—there were no MVD examiners. As part of the CDL testing oversight 

program, all testers were required to provide the CDL monitor with weekly testing schedules and 

monthly test activity reports. 

CDL Oversight with CSTIMS 

Formal pilot evaluation began on July 18, 2006, and continued as of December 31, 2006. During 

that time, CSTIMS monitored 828 CDL applicants who made 1,053 appointments to take 3,139 

individual CDL skills tests. Of the 3,139 scheduled tests, 1,644 tests were administered, with an 

overall passing rate of 93%. 

Costs Associated with Using CSTIMS 

No specific CSTIMS-associated costs were cited by the MVD or the third party testers. 

Changes Associated with Using CSTIMS 

During the pilot, the six participating third party testers used CSTIMS exclusively to schedule 

applicants for CDL skills testing and to enter test results. 

13 
Level of Participation 

New Mexico participation in the CSTIMS pilot included the Motor Vehicle Division and six 

third party testing organizations with a total of 16 examiners. Onsite training of the MVD users 

occurred in February 2006, followed by data preparation and setup. 

CSTIMS Support for New Oversight Requirements 

The MVD cited one new skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS could 

be used to meet/satisfy: linkage with existing knowledge testing system whereby knowledge test 

result and endorsement information is passed seamlessly into CSTIMS to maintain a complete 

skills testing history for each individual. 

Impact of Using CSTIMS 

The MVD looked upon CSTIMS to provide testing program oversight and monitoring 

information. According to the CDL Monitor: “New Mexico (currently) is a paper state, but when 

I see CSTIMS, I see a lot of paper disappearing.” 

2.5 SOUTH DAKOTA 

CDL Oversight Prior to Pilot 

Prior to using CSTIMS, South Dakota’s CDL skills testing program consisted of a combination 

of paper-based and automated elements. When an applicant was scheduled for a skills test, a 

“pre-trip” information form with driver information was faxed to the intended third party tester. 

Examiners used paper worksheets to record/score test results. Worksheets were scanned into a 

file system to have a copy on file. CDL testing data was entered on a mainframe for subsequent 

verification. Weekly, monthly, and annual reports were automated. This process of verifying all 

procedures for verification of a CDL took a long time. 

CDL Oversight with CSTIMS 

Formal pilot evaluation began on June 12, 2006, and continued as of December 31, 2006. During 

that time, CSTIMS monitored 1,062 CDL applicants who made 1,277 appointments to take 

3,661 individual CDL skills tests. Of the 3,661 scheduled tests, 3,023 tests were administered, 

with an overall passing rate of 96%. 

Costs Associated with Using CSTIMS 

No significant costs were associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for the pilot. There were 

no startup costs; ongoing costs consisted of staff time and phone charges. One-on-one training 

sessions were performed by a single trainer traveling throughout the jurisdiction. 

14 
Changes Associated with Using CSTIMS 

During the CSTIMS pilot, current CDL skills testing procedures and policies remained 

unchanged. Participating third party testers continued to schedule, administer, score, and process 

CDL skills testing with the existing manual/paper-based system, then repeated the data entry and 

update process with CSTIMS. Introduction of CSTIMS added two additional steps for 

verification of CDL testing. Manual data entry was required twice by examiners to complete the 

process. Prior to the pilot, examiners were not required to report schedule tests; however, with 

CSTIMS, they now were required to do so. 

Two factors impacted the CSTIMS pilot experience for South Dakota’s participating third party 

testers: most of their examiners had very little computer experience and were intimidated by 

CSTIMS, or they did not have access to high-speed Internet and had to deal with slow 

transaction response times. 

Level of Participation 

South Dakota participation in the CSTIMS pilot included the Department of Public Safety (DPS) 

and 25 Third Party testing organizations with a total of 32 examiners. Onsite training of the DPS 

users occurred in February 2006, followed by data preparation and setup. 

CSTIMS Support for New Oversight Requirements 

The DPS did not cite any new skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS 

could be used to meet/satisfy. 

Impact of Using CSTIMS 

South Dakota’s DPS found that CSTIMS’ facilities for test scheduling and test pass/fail score 

reporting supported existing jurisdiction testing management/oversight requirements. However, 

based on their pilot experiences to date, they were not ready to render an overall assessment 

regarding CSTIMS’ effectiveness in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals. 

15 
3. ISSUES AND REQUESTED ENHANCEMENTS RESULTING 

FROM PILOT 

Throughout the CSTIMS pilot, AAMVA, FMCSA, the CSTIMS Working Group, and the 

participating pilot jurisdictions maintained an ongoing dialog to characterize common and 

jurisdiction-specific requirements for CDL skills testing anti-fraud oversight, assess how well 

CSTIMS was addressing them, and how CSTIMS might be enhanced to better address current 

and evolving requirements. Feedback from all stakeholders was gathered and consolidated to 

form a timely roadmap of functional areas within CSTIMS where enhancements might be made 

to best achieve desired goals. 

Some cited issues and requests for enhancement by the pilot jurisdictions appear to be related to 

users learning a new application, becoming familiar with it, and then becoming impatient 

because it continued to require more deliberate steps than they felt was necessary to perform 

certain operations. As user experience and proficiency with CSTIMS increased, expectations for 

“user-friendliness” and efficiency changed. 

3.1 ALASKA 

The Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles and the participating third party tester provided both 

joint and user-specific reactions and expectations for CSTIMS. Among their main 

recommendations, both user groups requested that a more “user-friendly” calendar tool be 

provided to better facilitate the applicant and examiner scheduling function. They also 

recommended that all information needed to issue a license to an applicant be displayed on a 

single screen, including everything on the skills test sheet. 

Both groups recommended that CSTIMS be integrated with the DMV’s automated knowledge 

testing system and with the DMV’s driver records system. The DMV recommended that 

CSTIMS import and maintain knowledge test scores so that all test scores (knowledge and skills) 

were in a common database accessible to authorized DMV representatives and testers. The DMV 

additionally requested that CSTIMS be able to import test scores into an individual’s driving 

record and also be able to push information to FMCSA. 

The participating tester requested an expanded reporting capability, including a capability to 

export information to an external spreadsheet/database to feed existing reporting to the 

jurisdiction DMV. The tester also recommended that common information for a scheduled series 

of skills tests be entered only once instead of multiple times. 

The DMV found CSTIMS to be an improvement over their existing system by providing a 

database of testers and examiners, a means for tracking appointments on a calendar, data entry of 

test results, and the ability to run reports. However, since CSTIMS was a self-contained, standalone program not integrated into their current system, it required more work for their DMV 

representatives and third party testers instead of streamlining their process, mainly because of 

parallel appointment scheduling with existing calendars and then, again, with CSTIMS. The 

16 
DMV did not find that CSTIMS created or made worse any current issues or problems. From the 

DMV perspective, “the potential of what the program can do for tracking CDL skill tests, testers, 

and examiners for the purpose of fraud prevention is promising.” 

3.2 ARIZONA 

The Arizona Motor Vehicle Division provided both joint and user-specific reactions and 

expectations for CSTIMS. Their overall reaction was that CSTIMS provided a more 

comprehensive view of examiner performance for three types of testers: jurisdiction, school 

district, and public works third party, specifically their pass/fail rates. 

During the pilot, skills test scheduling information appeared to be entered in “batches,” either 

just prior to the actual test date, or after the fact, instead of real-time, as the events occurred. 

Though this was a procedural issue, it did generate many exception alert e-mails to oversight 

personnel which became difficult to effectively interpret and manage. To promote better testing 

oversight management, the MVD requested that an e-mail alert filtering capability by category of 

alert be provided on a jurisdiction and individual level, and that an alert summary report be 

provided. 

The MVD encountered cases where current test vehicle identification and test scoring rules did 

not adequately handle some non-traditional vehicle configurations. They recommend that 

CSTIMS be expanded to support new rules and passing scores provided in the AAMVA Model 

CDL Examiner’s Manual, 2005 CDL Testing Model. 

Participants requested elimination of cases where re-entry of redundant information regarding a 

test vehicle was required, and that the number of screens to navigate to locate a scheduled or 

administered test be reduced. They would like to see all relevant test result information 

(applicant, schedule, and test) summarized on one screen for MVD staff. Additionally, they 

recommended modifying names of some items on computer screens and in selection lists to 

better fit current accepted usage. 

Arizona requested several long-term enhancements to extend the anti-fraud scope and 

effectiveness of CSTIMS: electronic scoring of the skills exam, automated data transfer to the 

jurisdiction licensing system to post the results of the exam directly to the applicant’s driving 

record, linkage with CDLIS for applicant record comparison and validation, and linkage with 

local (jurisdiction) management systems that would provide nationwide reports without 

duplication of efforts. 

3.3 NEW MEXICO 

New Mexico’s Motor Vehicle Division and participating third party testers offered several 

similar recommendations to enhance CSTIMS to improve its effectiveness as an anti-fraud tool. 

Simplicity in online forms and information entry/management were high on their list. Singlescreen, rather than multiple-screen, data entry was of particular importance. The MVD Deputy 

17 
Director summarized: “If the goal is ‘anti-fraud,’ then don’t lose focus: drop items that don’t 

support anti-fraud.” 

The MVD recommended streamlining information-intensive functions by providing basic 

information on a common screen with optional information on separate user-selectable 

screens/views. The capability to generate oversight reports from any set of criteria was cited as 

highly desirable. 

Both the MVD and testers requested linkage between the current knowledge testing system and 

CSTIMS, whereby a CSTIMS schedule for a skills test would be automatically generated upon 

successful candidate completion of the knowledge test. 

Some users experienced very slow response times via dial-up, in some cases losing their 

connection while waiting for transactions to up/download. 

3.4 SOUTH DAKOTA 

South Dakota’s Department of Public Safety provided both joint and user-specific reactions and 

expectations for CSTIMS. As with other jurisdictions during the pilot, they expressed concern 

with the amount of extra time required to enter information into CSTIMS, as well as their current 

system. 

The DPS offered suggestions for enhancing the test scoring facility to better support test vehicle 

types and associated passenger endorsements. As with other jurisdictions, they, too, requested 

that screen navigation and data entry be further streamlined for test scheduling and scoring, 

especially in consideration of the limited computer experience of many of their third party tester 

users. They requested that more key information be provided on a single screen so that users did 

not have to navigate several screens to perform core skills test processing and oversight 

functions. Testers requested broader latitude to handle applicant cancellations of scheduled tests 

prior to the actual test date. 

As with New Mexico, some South Dakota users experienced very slow response times via dialup, in some cases losing their connection while waiting for transactions to up/download. 

During the pilot, South Dakota began using the AAMVA CDL Examiner’s Manual 2005 CDL 

Testing Model, but was having difficulty using the current version of CSTIMS and its scoring 

model to render correct passing scores for test vehicles. The DPS recommended that CSTIMS 

functionality be expanded as soon as possible to support the 2005 CDL Testing Model. 

South Dakota and the other pilot jurisdictions cited a common issue: how to better support antifraud efforts with CSTIMS where third party testers are faced with delayed reporting situations 

(i.e., long distances between test sites and motor vehicle agency offices). 

18 
3.5 FUNCTIONALITY REQUIREMENTS 

Throughout the CSTIMS project, issues, desired enhancements, and recommendations were 

compiled from the project stakeholders (jurisdictions, FMCSA, AAMVA). At the pilot debrief 

meeting which followed the formal pilot period, a composite list containing 112 items was 

reviewed and prioritized by the stakeholders. Stakeholders assigned each item a relative priority 

based on their perception of the impact of the item on the short- and long-term usability and 

effectiveness of CSTIMS (see Table 3). 

Table 3. Functionality Requirement Priority Ranking Definitions 

Priority Meaning 

Critical (C) Show-stopper: can't use CSTIMS now without it 

High (H) Must have: but can use CSTIMS now without it 

Medium (M) Should have: but can use CSTIMS now without it 

Low (L) Nice-to-have: can use CSTIMS forever without it 

The 112 detailed enhancement recommendations represent a core set of 13 major functionality 

requirements for CSTIMS. These functionality requirements are key to maintaining continued 

CSTIMS effectiveness, facilitating full deployment, and achieving long-term CDL oversight 

goals. Each detailed item in the list is tied to one or more of these core functionality 

requirements. 

Each core functionality requirement was assigned a priority rank (Critical, High, Medium, Low) 

according to the overall ranking scores of its constituent enhancement recommendations and was 

also numerically ranked within its priority group. A complete list of issues, enhancements, and 

recommendations, priority assessments by the project stakeholders, and supported core 

functionality requirements, is included in appendix C. The following sections describe each 

functionality requirement. 

Critical 

Three functionality requirements, representing 24 separate enhancement recommendations, 

permit CSTIMS to continue to be used by the four pilot jurisdictions. Each requirement 

represents either a mandatory expansion of current capability to permit compliance with evolving 

CDL testing fraud oversight rules/regulations or provides increased data integrity and system 

access security. 

C1: Expand CSTIMS functionality to support the new AAMVA CDL Examiner’s Manual 

2005 CDL Testing Model. 

During the pilot, some jurisdictions began using the 2005 model for CDL skills test 

administration/scoring but were unable to use CSTIMS to fully support the multiple scoring 

forms permitted by the new model. Without full support for the new scoring model, CSTIMS 

19 
will not be able to meet the CDL skills test administration needs of current and future jurisdiction 

users. 

C2: Provide CSTIMS users with capability to make changes/corrections to, merge, or 

delete duplicate data or data entered in error. 

This is critical to maintaining data integrity. During the pilot evaluation period, users were not 

allowed to change or delete certain types of information. For continued operational use by the 

current pilot jurisdictions and for subsequent national deployment, these restrictions must be 

removed. 

C3: Replace current multiple-login ID/permissions settings for each user with a single login 

ID and composite set of permissions for the user. 

Operational experience gained from the pilot revealed that jurisdiction MVA staffing shortfalls 

require personnel to perform multiple roles for CDL testing administration, management, and 

oversight. CSTIMS must be modified to let each user also perform multiple roles at the same 

time. 

High 

Three functionality requirements, representing 46 separate enhancement recommendations, 

permit CSTIMS to be deployed to the remaining 47 jurisdictions. These requirements represent 

CSTIMS usability features that will permit jurisdictions to have maximum access to skills test 

applicant profiles and associated test score results information to facilitate timely, accurate, and 

unambiguous verification of eligibility to receive the CDL. Operational experience gained from 

the pilot revealed that the MVA staffing shortfalls also reduced available personnel time to 

perform basic skills for testing administration and oversight functions. During the pilot debrief, 

jurisdiction MVA and third party tester users identified cases where highly used CSTIMS 

functions could be streamlined for greater efficiency. 

• H1: Reduce/eliminate cases of repetitive/redundant data entry by allowing information to 

be entered once and shared across multiple screens/functions (e.g., contact information, 

test vehicle information, etc.). Autofill fields with applicable default values to reduce 

additional data entry to only require changes from default values. 

• H2: Streamline current CSTIMS screen navigation to remove and consolidate 

redundant/intermediate processing steps and associated screens for high-usage functions. 

• H3: Expand skills test results information provided to MVA clerks to include applicant 

information (e.g., knowledge test history, etc.); examiner identification; actual/passing 

test scores; specific indication of applicable CDL (including class, endorsements, 

restrictions) that applicant is eligible to be issued. 

20 
Medium 

Five functionality requirements, representing 41 separate enhancement recommendations, 

provide continued optimum CSTIMS performance for the current pilot jursidictions and provide 

optimum deployability to the remaining 47 jurisdictions. These requirements represent CSTIMS 

features that provide key jurisdiction-specific oversight monitoring and notification thresholds, 

and provide expanded visibility for jurisdiction/tester/examiner/applicant test history/outcome 

reporting. Operational experience gained from the pilot revealed that the jurisdictions require 

maximum flexibility in setting oversight monitoring thresholds: national thresholds did not 

always work for every jursidiction/region. 

• M1: Provide jurisdictions with enhanced capability to set and enforce jurisdictionspecific eligibility, scheduling, and notification criteria for testers, examiners, and 

applicants to achieve and sustain enhanced CDL skills test oversight goals. 

• M2: Add capability for jurisdictions or users to specify/filter which alerts they are to 

receive to facilitate more effective testing oversight. 

• M3: Expand scope of CSTIMS data change log function to include all data, not just 

schedules/tests. 

• M4: Expand CSTIMS reporting by adding a report for applicant data. 

• M5: Expand pass/fail reporting to provide pass/fail statistics at the state and national 

level. 

Low 

Two functionality requirements, representing 11 separate enhancement recommendations, 

provide long-term optimum deployability and operation for all jurisdictions. These requirements 

represent CSTIMS features that provide key access to external systems to integrate CSTIMS 

with existing automated systems and to provide access/support for users with limited current 

technology. Operational experience gained from the pilot revealed that once jurisdictions began 

operationally using CSTIMS, they quickly saw the need to be able to import/export information 

and to be able to support users without access to high-speed Internet access. 

• L1: Provide a CSTIMS capability to import/export information between external systems 

(e.g., CDLIS, PDPS, driver history file, automated knowledge test machines) or for 

external analysis. 

• L2: Provide special CSTIMS capability to efficiently process transactions from users 

with low-speed Internet connections (e.g., dial-up, possibly via special abbreviatedcontent windows. 

21 
4. COST ESTIMATES 

Estimates for the cost and effort to modify CSTIMS to address the 13 major functionality 

requirements, to complete CSTIMS deployment and training for all jurisdictions, and to provide 

ongoing operational support were formulated. 

4.1 ENHANCEMENT COSTS 

Identified issues, requested enhancements, and proposed recommendations related to the efficacy 

of the system were prioritized according to the perceived level of impact to users in a full 

national deployment. Appendix C contains a detailed composite list of each item and the relative 

priorities assigned by the project stakeholders. 

The overall cost to provide requested post-pilot enhancements includes associated level-ofeffort-based costs for analysis/design, development, testing/quality assurance, staff management, 

and project management. In addition to post-pilot enhancement costs, jurisdiction deployment 

costs and ongoing support and operational costs must also be considered. These costs are not 

directly related to the level of effort to provide the requested enhancements, but they are required 

for full deployment of CSTIMS to all of the jurisdictions, its continued operation, and requisite 

ongoing support. Each of these estimates is discussed below. 

The overall cost to provide the requested enhancements is outlined in the Table 4, with the major 

CSTIMS functionality enhancement areas grouped and ranked by relative priority. This task will 

implement the changes to CSTIMS resulting from the pilot and will result in Release 1.0.0 of 

CSTIMS, which will be made available to all jurisdictions. 

22 
Table 4. Functional Requirements Enhancement Costs 

CSTIMS Functional Enhancement Enhancement Cost 

Critical: 

 C1: 2005 test scoring model $35,418 

 C2: Users change/delete data $33,440 

 C3: User single login/permissions $75,089 

High: 

 H1: Remove repetitive test data entry $92,374 

 H2: Streamline screen navigation $43,604 

 H3:Provide MVA clerk more information $44,982 

Medium: 

 M1: Jurisdiction-specific oversight criteria $105,498 

 M2: Jurisdiction/user-specific alerts $34,722 

 M3: Expanded change log $17,139 

 M4: Applicant information reporting $38,342 

 M5: Expanded pass/fail reporting $14,346 

Low: 

 L1: Import/export test information $79,588 

 L2: Low-speed Internet support $0 (long-term/defer) 

Total: $614,542 

4.2 DEPLOYMENT COSTS 

Following implementation of CSTIMS enhancements, deployment and stakeholder training will 

be provided to the remaining 47 jurisdictions. CSTIMS deployment costs for the 47 remaining 

jurisdictions are estimated to be $529,502, as shown in Table 5. 

Table 5. CSTIMS Deployment and Training Costs 

Deployment Costs People Days Total 

Deployment/Training Staff 2 5 $9,000 

Travel 

 Airfare 2 $900 

 Car Rental 3 $150 

 Hotel 2 3 $720 

 Meals 2 4 $496 

 Miscellaneous 2 3 $600 

Per jurisdiction: $11,266 

TOTAL (47 jurisdictions) $529,502 

23 
CSTIMS deployment and user training activities will be conducted at a designated site in each 

jurisdiction at a time agreeable to the participants. Deployment costs will be incurred for two 

deployment coordinators to travel to each participating jurisdiction and present a 2-day training 

session. Each jurisdiction where CSTIMS is to be deployed will provide a training facility and 

will provide at least two CDL monitors and two third party tester representatives (a third party 

tester Responsible Party and a third party examiner). Attendance by as many additional 

jurisdiction and tester personnel as possible will be encouraged to maximize the information 

transfer opportunity of each deployment training session. 

Deployment training will be conducted on a “train-the-trainer” basis. All training materials will 

be made available to all other participants after the initial implementation. Answers to Frequently 

Asked Questions (FAQs) will also be produced to assist in the training of new participants. 

4.3 ONGOING OPERATIONAL COSTS 

These estimated annual costs are associated with the hardware/software warranty, developer 

labor, hosting, and full-time help desk support required to sustain the CSTIMS operating 

environment. These costs include subsequent user training associated with changes to CSTIMS 

as the functionality expands. Additional enhancements to CSTIMS will be provided by annual 

software releases. Annual ongoing operational costs are estimated to be: $280,812, as shown in 

Table 6. 

Table 6. CSTIMS Ongoing Operational Costs 

Operational Task Cost 

Hardware/Software Warranty Renewals $7,500 

Labor (developer) $95,712 

Hosting $24,000 

Help Desk $153,600 

Total $280,812 

4.4 TOTAL COSTS 

Estimated total costs include initial enhancement and jurisdiction deployment costs of 

$1,144,044 and annual ongoing operational costs of $280,812, as shown in Table 7. 

Table 7. CSTIMS Total Costs 

Costs Total 

Initial Costs: 

Enhancements $614,542 

Deployment $529,502 

Sub-total $1,144,044 

Annual Costs: 

Ongoing Operations $280,812 

Total Costs: $1,424,856 

24 
5. CONCLUSIONS 

Issuance of fraudulent Commercial Driver’s Licenses is an acknowledged nationwide problem. 

The purpose of the CSTIMS project is to prevent and detect fraud perpetrated by third party 

testers during the skills testing portion of the CDL process. To achieve this goal, specifications 

were developed and pilot testing was conducted for an automated anti-fraud system for CDL 

third party testing activities. If enhancements are made, additional jurisdictions are expected to 

adopt the system. 

Based on the experiences and feedback from the pilot jurisdictions, CSTIMS demonstrates a 

capability to strengthen the oversight of the CDL program by the states and FMCSA in the area 

of CDL third party testing. A chief fraud-prevention element of CSTIMS is its ability to provide 

visibility to the CDL skills testing process, including application, qualification, scheduling, 

administration, scoring, verification, and issuance. By providing this visibility and consequent 

auditability to the entire process, CSTIMS drastically reduces opportunities to attempt fraudulent 

activity. Another key fraud prevention element is CSTIMS’ process exception filtering, alerting, 

and reporting features. Jurisdiction CDL monitors receive real-time alerts when skills testing 

process events exceed jurisdiction-specific exception thresholds, permitting them to take 

appropriate actions to address potential fraud or substandard operation. 

There was no baseline or control group in the pilot testing of CSTIMS, so it was not possible to 

measure any direct effect on fraud. None of the participating jurisdictions reported any 

fraudulent activity specifically detected or uncovered by CSTIMS. 

However, it was possible to measure the perception of the impact of the project on CDL skills 

testing fraud. CSTIMS’ process visibility and exception monitoring features did provide new 

levels of confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the CDL skills test administration programs 

to jurisdiction MVA and third party tester participants. 

Pilot participant perception of CSTIMS effectiveness as an anti-fraud tool, as an oversight tool, 

and as an administration tool varied by jurisdiction and by user role. Some individuals felt that 

using CSTIMS in their CDL skills testing process was too difficult and time-consuming. Since 

the formal pilot period was limited in duration, some third party testers chose to use both their 

current system and CSTIMS to schedule and administer their skills tests, thus requiring multiple 

entry of information into separate systems. This was the main reason Alaska chose to not 

continue use of CSTIMS beyond the formal pilot evaluation period. Once a jurisdiction migrated 

to full use of CSTIMS, this would no longer be a concern. Following completion of the formal 

pilot evaluation period, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota continued using CSTIMS. 

South Dakota subsequently began using CSTIMS exclusively for paperless verification of skills 

test scores prior to actual CDL issuance. 

Some pilot participants felt that there was unnecessary redundancy in entering and updating 

skills testing information, that verifying applicable information prior to issuing a CDL took more 

effort than desired, and that there was no way to score skills tests using the new 2005 CDL 

testing model. Some pilot jurisdictions indicated their continued use of CSTIMS was contingent 

on enhancements being made to address these three critical priority issues. 

25 
26 

As of December 2006, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Dakota continue to actively use 

CSTIMS and plan to continue into 2007. They find that the benefits of using CSTIMS over 

current paper-based systems outweigh short-term issues that will be addressed by planned 

enhancements that were identified during the formal evaluation period. 
6. RECOMMENDATIONS 

For CSTIMS to evolve beyond its current pilot implementation and move to full national 

deployment as an anti-fraud tool, a commitment must be made to fund key functionality 

enhancements to CSTIMS to augment and improve current fraud-prevention features and 

to facilitate its integration into jurisdiction CDL testing oversight and fraud-prevention 

programs. The following CSTIMS funding, functionality, and deployment 

recommendations address and provide solution paths to achieving these goals. 

6.1 FUNDING 

• FMCSA provide basic funding for FY2007 to support the continued and 

uninterrupted availability of the current CSTIMS application—Funding must 

cover basic operation and maintenance of CSTIMS computer hardware, software, 

and databases at current levels of functionality. No enhancements are included at 

this level of funding support. 

• FMCSA provide additional funding above basic operation and maintenance levels 

for FY2007 to support immediate modifications to the current CSTIMS 

application to provide or expand critical CDL oversight, anti-fraud, and data 

integrity capabilities 

• FMCSA provide funds to revise CSTIMS training materials to reflect changes in 

functionality and process 

• FMCSA provide funds for national deployment of the enhanced CSTIMS and 

training of users 

6.2 FUNCTIONALITY 

These functionality requirements are key to maintaining continued CSTIMS 

effectiveness, facilitating full deployment, and achieving long-term CDL oversight goals. 

They are grouped according to the priorities (Critical, High, Medium, and Low) 

described in section 3.5 and are ranked by decreasing importance within each priority 

group. 

27 
Critical 

• AAMVA immediately expand CSTIMS functionality to support the AAMVA 

CDL Examiner’s Manual 2005 CDL Testing Model 

• AAMVA provide CSTIMS users with capability to make changes/corrections to, 

merge, or delete duplicate data or data entered in error—This is critical to 

maintaining data integrity. 

• AAMVA replace current multiple-login ID/permissions settings for each user 

with a single login ID and composite set of permissions for the user 

High 

• AAMVA reduce/eliminate cases of repetitive/redundant data entry by allowing 

information to be entered once and shared across multiple screens/functions (e.g., 

contact information, test vehicle information, etc.); Autofill fields with applicable 

default values to reduce additional data entry to only require changes from default 

values 

• AAMVA immediately streamline current CSTIMS screen navigation to 

remove/consolidate redundant/intermediate processing steps and associated 

screens for high-usage functions 

• AAMVA expand skills test results information provided to MVA clerks to 

include applicant information (e.g., knowledge test history, etc.), examiner 

identification, actual/passing test scores, and specific indication of applicable 

CDL (including class, endorsements, restrictions) that applicant is eligible to be 

issued 

Medium 

• AAMVA provide jurisdictions with enhanced capability to set and enforce 

jurisdiction-specific eligibility, scheduling, and notification criteria for testers, 

examiners, and applicants to achieve and sustain enhanced CDL skills test 

oversight goals 

• AAMVA add capability for jurisdictions or users to specify/filter which alerts 

they are to receive to facilitate more effective testing oversight 

• AAMVA expand scope of CSTIMS data change log function to include all data, 

not just schedules/tests 

• AAMVA expand CSTIMS reporting by adding a report for applicant data 

• AAMVA expand pass/fail reporting to provide pass/fail statistics at the state and 

national level 

28 
Low 

• AAMVA provide a CSTIMS capability to import/export information between 

external systems (e.g., CDLIS, PDPS, driver history file, automated knowledge 

test machines) or for external analysis 

6.3 DEPLOYMENT 

• The CSTIMS deployment remain at its current pilot size (4 jurisdictions: AK, AZ, 

NM, SD) until recommended changes to CSTIMS are made and until sufficient 

funding is provided to support deployment to additional jurisdictions and training 

of their personnel 

• AAMVA update current CSTIMS training materials to accurately reflect changes 

and enhancements to process and functionality and provide update training to 

current pilot jurisdictions 

• Following implementation of CSTIMS post-pilot enhancements, AAMVA 

provide CSTIMS deployment and stakeholder training to the remaining 47 

jurisdictions 

29 
APPENDIX A 

CSTIMS PILOT PARTICIPANTS 

The following jurisdictions, agencies, testing organizations, examiners, and oversight 

personnel participated in the CSTIMS pilot and provided valuable feedback, insight, and 

recommendations for enhancement of this system for national deployment. 

Pilot Jurisdictions: 

Alaska • State of Alaska/DMV 

– Gail Buenaflor 

– Stephen Elliott 

– Donna Kadrich 

– Shelly Mellott 

– Elaine Newton 

– Mary G. WhiteMeacham 

• Center for Education 

Employment (CEE) 

– Wayne Craft 

– William Croft 

– Connie Duran 

– John Lovdahl 

– James D. MacLean 

– Frederic Ready 

– Tim Selk 

– Rebecca White 

Arizona • City of Phoenix – Personnel 

Department 

– Clark Burns 

– Romeo Cordova 

– Sheila J. Denney 

– Carlos Diaz 

– Steven Dopke 

– Roger Fyffe 

– Dominic Galaviz 

– Charles L. Giddens 

– Joe S. Gorriaz 

– Gilbert Holguin Jr. 

– Carlos A. Huerta 

– Jack R. Nobel Jr. 

– Bennie Padilla 

– Timothy J. Sterne 

• Mesa Unified School 

District #4 

– Allena Bothwell 

– David R. Charland 

– Gary L. Curtis 

– Alanea L. Duran 

– Larry E. Feldkamp 

– Stan E. Fleming 

– Judy Jones 

– Caroline M. Maclelland 

– Patricia A. Willis 

30 
• Motor Vehicle Division 

– Ken Dillman 

– Nicholas Grabowski, Jr. 

– Paul Lamprill 

– Lupe Montoya 

– David Paul 

– William Raiford 

• Scottsdale Unified School 

District 

– Darlene A. Huebner 

• Southwest Truck Driver 

Training, Inc. 

– Ken E. Barton 

– Kenneth A. Cockrell 

– Rene Flores 

– Louis J. Karl 

– Darlene A. Kube 

– Hilary H. Williams 

– Sean A. Williams 

• Tucson CDL 

– Cristina Marquez 

New Mexico • Central New Mexico 

– Steven Caucutt 

– Denise Gardner 

– Alvin Johnson 

– Dona Ana Community 

College 

– Harold D. Coffman 

– Charles Houghton 

– Carolyn Vandergeisen 

• Eastern New Mexico 

University – Roswell 

– Louis Bell 

– Bernice Jeminez 

– Carl E. Rempe 

• Motor Vehicle Division 

– MVD Santa Fe 

– MVD Cottonwood 

– MVD Sandiavista 

– MVD Montgomery 

– MVD Hobbs 

– MVD Las Cruces 

– MVD Farmington 

– MVD Roswell 

– Megan McCawleyRivera 

– Keith Perry 

– Albert Sisneros 

– Christopher Ybarra 

• New Mexico Junior College 

– Randolph Brecken 

– Randy Cook 

– Don Hancock 

– Michael D. Stout 

• NMDOT 

• San Juan College – School of 

Energy 

– Terry G. Fredericks 

– Irvin Lowder 

– Gene Smith 

31 
South Dakota • Aberdeen DOT 

– Alan J. Petrich 

• Asphalt Surfacing Co. 

– Richard Nash 

• Aurora County 

– Dale Steffen 

• B-J School Buses 

– Richard Meyer 

• Belle Fourche DOT 

– John Kissack 

• Bowes Construction 

– Tom Honkomp 

• Central States Transportation 

– Sid Gonsor 

• Cranny Sales and Service 

– Patrick Cranny 

• Curran Transportation, Inc. 

– Kelly Curran 

• Dells Materials Co. 

– Robin Karst 

• Department of Public Safety 

– Jeannelle Arndt 

– Brenda Badger 

– Geneva Barkley 

– Lynn Bixler 

– Richard Blaedorn 

– Sonja Briggs 

– Misty Burton 

– Tim Coomes 

– Pam Crossley 

– Marcia Droz 

– Craig Dudley 

– Jason Eckroate 

– Jenni Faulstich 

– Cheryl Finney 

– Tina Flynn 

– Don Hayward 

– Wendy Hedeen 

– Terri Heiser 

– Marilyn Hershly 

– Kate Hoisington 

– Ed Hruska 

– Terry James 

– Linda Jirsa 

– Paul Jung 

– Stan Knox 

– Todd Knudson 

– Brian Kribell 

– Karen Larson 

– Eileen Leichner 

– Jim Lilla 

– Jennifer Mohr 

– Ken Mowrer 

– Sue Myers 

– Char Nicolaisen 

– Ruby Reichling 

– Doug Rogers 

– Bruce Rollag 

– Roch Rosheim 

– Jane Schrank 

– Larry Schuman 

– Sandy Skalla 

– Dave Stackenwaldt 

– Laura Taylor 

– Carla Troudt 

– Linda Verba 

– Steve Vevig 

– Terry Weaver 

32 
• Hubert Excavating 

– Donald Hubert 

• Huron School District 

– June Berg 

• Johnson Feed, Inc. 

– Randy Hindt 

• Lake Area Technical Institute 

– David Dahl 

– Arvid Kraemer 

• MCT Transportation, LLC 

– Sharon Deeb 

– Don Knowler 

• Opperman Trucking 

– Cal Peck 

• Parkhurst Construction 

– Cliff Parkhurst 

• Rapid City DOT 

– Gary Zeller 

• School Bus, Inc. 

– David Haynes 

– Valerie Nardini 

• Jim Shafer Sioux Falls 

Transit 

– Dale Dorman 

• Tri-State Transportation 

– Calvin Erhart 

• Watertown School District 

– Patricia A. Story 

• Western Dakota Technical 

Institute 

– Joseph Doyle 

– Robert Doyle 

• Whitley Central Distribution 

Co., Inc. 

– Mark Leibrich 

• Williams Sanitation 

– Russell Williams 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

• Quon Kwan 

• Lloyd Goldsmith 

33 
APPENDIX B 

CSTIMS PILOT JURISDICTION DEBRIEF REPORTS 

Pilot reports were presented by the pilot jurisdiction motor vehicle agencies and 

participating third party testers at a debrief meeting held at AAMVA Headquarters on 

August 15-16, 2006. Each report included pilot experiences, insights regarding 

operational issues, and recommendations to address perceived operational inefficiencies 

and enhance the anti-fraud effectiveness of the application. The debrief reports provided 

valuable feedback, insight, and recommendations for enhancement of CSTIMS for 

national deployment. 

Reports were presented by: 

• Alaska: State of Alaska/DMV 

• Alaska: Center for Education Employment 

• Arizona: Motor Vehicle Division 

• New Mexico: New Mexico Junior College 

• South Dakota: Department of Public Safety 

In each report, jurisdiction comments have been highlighted in bold. 

34 
ALASKA - STATE OF ALASKA/DMV 

• Introduce jurisdiction members 

– Name: Elaine Newton

– Organization: State of Alaska DMV

– Job title/responsibilities: Contract Services Manger

– CSTIMS role: JA/AU

• Describe (at high-level) CDL skills testing program before pilot 

– Procedures/policies: 

third party testers complete application to become third party tester. 

When application is approved, number is assigned. 

Examiners complete Application for Examiner and sign Ethics Form. 

PDPS/CDLIS/ALVIN is checked. third party tester notifies DMV that 

Examiner Training is complete. Certificate is printed and number is 

assigned. 

third party tester and examiner information is maintained in an EXCEL 

data base. 

Applicant Applicant completes top portion of Application for Commercial 

Driver License. Applicant takes knowledge test on machine that calculates 

and retains scores. Scores are entered on application by DMV 

Representative. Applicant takes application to third party tester for 

verification of passed scores. Road test appointments are scheduled on 

paper calendar. When applicant completes road skills test, third party 

tester enters scores on Application for Commercial Driver License and 

Vehicle Inspection Skills Test Form. third party tester embosses Vehicle 

Inspection Skills Test with their stamp, keeps copy of Vehicle Inspection 

Skills Test Form and gives applicant original. Applicant brings 

Application for Commercial Driver License and Vehicle Inspection Skills 

Test form to DMV and completes Application for Alaska Driver License. If 

PDPS and CDLIS are clear, DMV issues a license. ALVIN requires the 

tester number. All forms are submitted with batch work to be scanned 

for archiving. 

Auditing: third party testers fax, mail, or e-mail, CDL Exam Log. These 

logs are filed without review, comparison, or data entry. 

DMV runs a quarterly report of number of tests conducted by tester. 

Auditing is done once a year, if time allows, by a DMV staff person in the 

third party tester Area. No covert audits have been conducted. 

People involved, type/number: Applicant, DMV Rep, third party tester, 

Contract Service Staff 

– Automated portions: Knowledge test and scanning documents for 

archiving

– Manual portions: Applicant completing forms. DMV and third party 

entering test scores on forms. Calendar. 

35 
– Special aspects 

– Issues/Problems: Forging documents or changing test scores. Sloppy 

penmanship, hard to read, incomplete information on forms could lead to 

fraud or incorrect information. 

• Describe (at high level) CDL skills testing program during pilot: what was 

changed/what stayed the same 

– Procedures/policies: Everything stayed the same. CEE entering 

appointments and scores in CSTIMS. DMV reps were not involved in the 

pilot. 

– People involved, type/number: Three people from DMV – RP, JA, CMs 

One third party tester

– Automated portions 

– Manual portions 

– Special aspects 

– Issues/Problems: Because CSTIMS does not have a user-friendly calendar, 

road skill appointments will still have to be made on a calendar and then 

entered into CSTIMS. Deleting RPs and Users. I changed the passwords 

of an ex-employee because anyone with a password can access CSTIMS 

from anywhere. 

All information needed to issue a license to an applicant needs to be on 

one page, including everything that is on the skills test sheet. 

CSTIMS should eliminate the need for an applicant to carry test scores to 

and from the DMV/third party tester. 

– The pass/fail rate and number of test per tester/examiner report is very helpful. 

This will eliminate the need for third party testers to compete and turn in a test 

log and also lets the DMV know if an examiner is not doing tests and may no 

longer be working at the third party tester. 

• Describe level of participation/activity during pilot 

– How many months/weeks CSTIMS was used: 1 month in production 

– Number of participating Jurisdiction DMV offices 

o Number of administrators – 1

o Number of CDL monitors – 1

o Number of MVA clerks – 0

o Number of auditors – 1

– Number/type of participating testers (third party/jurisdiction) 

o Number of responsible parties – 3

– Number of participating examiners 

o Number who scheduled themselves – 0

o Number who were scheduled by tester – 13

– Number of applicants processed – 118

– Number of scheduled appointments – 209

36 
– Number/type of scheduled tests 

– Number/type of completed tests 

– Pass/fail rates 

o For state – n/a

o By tester – 91% pass, 9% fail 

• Costs associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for pilot 

– Startup 

– Ongoing 

– Training 

– Travel 

– Other (specify) – Staff Time

• Existing skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS: 

– Met/satisfied: Being able to run reports and check the calendar for 

appointments 

– Did not meet/satisfy: Still the need for test scores to be carried to third 

party tester and back to DMV. Still have to maintain another calendar. 

Need for knowledge test scores to be included in applicant’s info on 

CSTIMS. 

• New skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS could be 

used to meet/satisfy 

• Issues/problems that CSTIMS: 

– Fixed/resolved: The ability to have a data base or testers and examiners, 

track appointments on the calendar, and data enter test results and run 

reports. 

– Did not fix/resolve: CSTIMS is a self-contained, stand-alone program that 

will create more work for our DMV reps (and third party testers), instead 

of streamlining, such as the appointments still being made on a calendar 

and then later entered into CSTIMS. 

– Created/made worse: None – the potential of what the program can do for 

tracking CDL skill tests, testers and examiners for the purpose of fraud 

prevention is promising. 

• Recommendations based on pilot experience 

– Enhancements to CSTIMS better meet current requirements: Input of 

knowledge scores so all the scores are in one database and can be viewed 

by DMV Reps and skill testers. 

– New requirements that CSTIMS should satisfy: Ability to push info to 

FMCSA. 

Need to integrate with DMV system to import test scores on driving 

record.

37 
• Impact of using CSTIMS 

– Effectiveness in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals: Medium

– Effectiveness as an oversight/enforcement tool: High

– Effectiveness as an skills test scheduling/management tool: Low

– Effectiveness as a reporting tool: High

ALASKA - CENTER FOR EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT 

• Introduce jurisdiction members 

– John Lovdahl/Rebecca White 

– Center for Employment Education 

– President/Administrative Assistant 

– Oversight/daily inputting and reporting 

• Describe (at high-level) CDL skills testing program before pilot 

– Procedures/policies: Exclusive contract for all CDL testing in the 

Municipality of Anchorage. Responsible for testing 800–1,600 CDL tests 

annually. Individual goes to DMV for knowledge tests. Brings original 

paper work to CEE at time of test. After test is complete, paperwork is 

filled out by examiner, embossed for authenticity, and given to applicant 

to bring back to DMV to finish licensing procedures. Enter daily 

information on road tests into Access Database. 

Create reports biweekly and send to DMV (all information about road 

tests). 

– People involved: 13 examiners, 3 office staff

– Automated portions: None

– Manual portions: All

– Special aspects: 

– Issues/Problems: No direct link to DMV to verify scores or to check on 

tests taken.

• Describe (at high level) CDL skills testing program during pilot: what was 

changed/what stayed the same 

– Procedures/policies: Increased inputting time (CSTIMS is very slow). 

Double inputting (had to maintain procedures that were in place). 

– People involved: 13 examiners, 3 office staff

– Automated portions: None

– Manual portions: ALL

– Special aspects 

38 
– Issues/Problems: Time it takes to enter information into CSTIMS. 

Entering information for one road test three separate times, which 

increases the time it takes and has more potential for wrong information 

to be entered. 

Reports not able to be generated to match existing reporting needs. 

Can’t export to EXCEL. 

• Describe level of participation/activity during pilot 

– How many months/weeks CSTIMS was used: 2 months; 1 month in the 

training mode, 1 month full version. 

– Number of participating Jurisdiction DMV offices 

o Number of administrators: ?? 

o Number of CDL monitors: ??

o Number of MVA clerks: ??

o Number of auditors: ??

– Number/type of participating testers (third party/jurisdiction) 

o Number of responsible parties: 3 

– Number of participating examiners 

o Number who scheduled themselves: None

o Number who were scheduled by Tester: 13

– Number of applicants processed: 61

– Number of scheduled appointments: 74

– Number/type of scheduled tests: TOTAL TESTS SCHEDULED 74, CDL 

A, 45, CDL B 17, CDL B SCHOOL BUS, 8, CDL C PASSENGER, 3, 

CDL C SCHOOL BUS, 1 

– Number/type of completed tests: CDL A, 27, CDL B 10, CDL B SCHOOL 

BUS, 4, CDL C PASSENGER, 1, CDL C SCHOOL BUS, 1 

– Pass/Fail rates 

o For state: ??

o By tester: ??

• Costs associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for pilot 

– Startup: $2,000

– Ongoing: $50-$100 per day

– Training: $2,500

– Travel: N/A

– Other (specify) 

• Existing skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS: 

– Met/satisfied: Ability to see examiners pass/fail rate. 

– Did not meet/satisfy: Increased time it takes to do required activities. 

39 
• New skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS could be 

used to meet/satisfy: Better reports, ability to export information to a 

spreadsheet/database for existing reporting to DMV Jurisdiction (may vary 

by jurisdictions). 

• Issues/problems that CSTIMS: 

– Fixed/resolved: ??

– Did not fix/resolve: ??

– Created/made worse: Triples time it takes to schedule road tests and report 

information to DMV. 

• Recommendations based on pilot experience 

– Enhancements to CSTIMS better meet current requirements: Be able to enter 

common information for a road test once instead of three times. Right 

now, there is no area or screen that addresses removal of airbrake 

restriction or automatic transmission restrictions. 

– New requirements that CSTIMS should satisfy: Generate reports that can 

export information, speed up system time when inputting. 

• Impact of using CSTIMS 

– Effectiveness in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals: From a third 

party tester point of view, CSTIMS has not helped detect fraud. It has 

made a more cumbersome system that costs the end-user more money to 

implement. If the system were to have quicker response time, less 

duplicate inputting, and more flexibility for reporting results to states 

jurisdictions requirements, then it would help. One of the issues is the 

amount of extra work it generated. We could not replace our current 

scheduling process to use the CSTIMS scheduling, which means we are 

doubling the work just for scheduling. When you have to do twice the 

work, it can mean that sometimes staying caught up is an issue. Then we 

were going back and entering past appointments, which does nothing for 

fraud detection. Ultimately I think all states are in a similar situation, 

trying to do more with less. This system could be effective if it were to be 

developed more. 

– Effectiveness as an oversight/enforcement tool: Our experience was that we 

did not see any benefit. 

– Effectiveness as an skills test scheduling/management tool: Not very good

– Effectiveness as a reporting tool: As a third party, not very good. 

40 
ARIZONA – MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION 

• Introduce jurisdiction members 

– William (Randy) Raiford 

– Motor Vehicle Division 

– Deputy Assistant Division Director 

– Competitive Government Partnerships Program 

– Ken Dillman 

– Motor Vehicle Division 

– Northern Region CDL Coordinator 

– Motor Carrier Program 

• Describe (at high-level) CDL skills testing program before pilot 

– Procedures/policies: Examinations are scored manually on paper forms. 

Results are tracked by manually inputting the result data into various 

electronic tracing tools. 

– People involved: type/number: Jurisdiction Examiners 13, Third Party 

Examiners 378 

– Automated portions: Canned reports of the data entered in the third party 

database 

– Manual portions: Scoring an examination, inputting examination results 

data, receiving, and evaluating third party authorization and certification 

applications 

– Special aspects 

– Issues/Problems: The current process is very labor intensive. Employees 

must enter data into several tracking tools that are not related in any 

way. This makes comprehensive data analysis extremely difficult. 

• Describe (at high level) CDL skills testing program during pilot: what was 

changed/what stayed the same 

– Procedures/policies: The only change to the current procedures is the 

addition of data entry and data management relating to CSTIMS. All 

existing procedures continued unaffected and in parallel with the pilot. 

– People involved: type/number: MVD 3, two administrative personnel and 

one jurisdiction examiner. 

– Automated portions: Reports from CSTIMS are more complete and 

concise than are available in the existing system. 

– Manual portions: Data entry was required on the part of the participants 

for the first time. 

– Special aspects: This is the first time third party had to report or establish 

a schedule of examinations. 

41 
– Issues/Problems: The exception: e-mails kept one MVD person busy 

identifying and cataloging for analysis. 

• Describe level of participation/activity during pilot 

– How many months/weeks CSTIMS was used: 6 months

– Number of participating Jurisdiction MVD offices: 2 headquarters 

personnel and one field office 

o Number of administrators: 1

o Number of CDL monitors: 3

o Number of MVA clerks: 0

o Number of auditors: 1

– Number/type of participating testers (third party/jurisdiction): One (1) 

Jurisdiction and four (4) third parties 

o Number of responsible parties: 5

– Number of participating examiners 

o Number who scheduled themselves 

o Number who were scheduled by tester 

– Number of applicants processed 

– Number of scheduled appointments 

– Number/type of scheduled tests 

– Number/type of completed tests 

– Pass/fail rates 

o For state: 94%

o By tester 

- City of Phoenix 86% 

- Mesa USD 89% 

- Scottsdale USD 84% 

- Southwest Truck 95% 

- Tucson CDL 80% 

• Costs associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for pilot 

– Startup: None. Computers and access already available to the 

participants. 

– Ongoing: Additional time spent by participants performing data entry 

into CSTIMS. One MVD administrator managing exception e-mails. 

– Training: One two-day training session involving 11 people. 

– Travel: One MVD examiner traveled 180 miles round trip to the training. 

– Other (specify) 

42 
• Existing skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS: 

– Met/satisfied: Comprehensive pass/fail reporting; scheduling of 

applicants; tracking of changes to the status of an applicant. 

– Did not meet/satisfy: Within the scope of the trail, all expectations were 

met. The enhancement list indicates we have a long way to go. 

• New skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS could be 

used to meet/satisfy: 

– Scheduling of examiners. 

– Pass/fail data available in real time, instead of waiting for month end 

reporting. 

• Issues/problems that CSTIMS: 

– Fixed/resolved: CSTIMS provided a more comprehensive view of what the 

performance of the three different types of participants displayed. 

Specifically the pass/fail ratios. 

– Did not fix/resolve: Data entry appeared to be performed in “batches” as 

opposed to real time. This process created a lot of alert e-mails. Arizona 

does not believe that this issue would continue in “live” production. 

– Created/made worse: There appears to be an issue with the forms. If an 

examiner is examining for a passenger endorsement, and the bus has an 

exposed frame, the form scoring numbers do not account for the items on 

the frame that need to be inspected. These items are not accessible on a 

traditional coach/transit bus. They are accessible on a traditional school 

bus type of vehicle. This issue may be mitigated with the deployment of 

the new score sheet and BCS testing AAMVA has proposed in their 

sample CDL Examiners Manual circa 2005. CSTIMS will need to be 

updated to apply those changes anyway. 

• Recommendations based on pilot experience 

– Enhancements to CSTIMS better meet current requirements: 

o Ability for a tester to “void” a certificate. 

o Rename Class B and C “non coach/school bus” to truck. 

o Audit tracking could be changed from a “pass/fail” to a method of tracking 

various levels of “non-compliance.” 

o Eliminate the need to reenter redundant data regarding the vehicle. 

o Need a “back” button on various screens. 

– New requirements that CSTIMS should satisfy 

o Electronic scoring of the skills exam. 

o Automated data transfer to the Jurisdiction licensing system, to post the 

results of the exam directly to the applicants DL record. 

o Link with CDLIS for applicant record comparison and validation. 

o Link with local management system that would provide nationwide 

reports without duplication of efforts. 

43 
• Impact of using CSTIMS: 

– Effectiveness in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals: Unsure

– Effectiveness as an oversight/enforcement tool: The data began to develop 

specific trends. On one hand, the data began to dispel a claim that 

jurisdiction personnel failed at least 60% of applicants. On the other 

hand, school district and public works third parties were performing 

near jurisdiction pass/fail ratios. 

– Effectiveness as a skills test scheduling/management tool: CSTIMS 

functionality is more comprehensive than the current functionality built 

into Arizona’s tracking tool. 

– Effectiveness as a reporting tool: Within the confines of the pilot, the 

application provided reasonably comprehensive data that was easily 

sorted and compared. 

44 
NEW MEXICO – NEW MEXICO JUNIOR COLLEGE 

• By: Randy Cook - Hobbs, New Mexico

• Goals: 

– Highway Safety—Individuals, Vehicles, and Fraudulent CDLs. 

• Problems: 

– Too complicated of form, too many screens (change to one pull up form 

per individual) 

– Hardware/Programs/Personnel/Commitment/Finances 

– Personnel: Training, Experience as well as Certification/re-certifications 

of Examiners, Audits-covert and overt, scheduling tests, paperwork, 

Variety of management/methods/style, 

– 50+ States/Jurisdictions, too many differences. 

o Major differences with just the 4-involved right not let alone 50+. 

– Entering information of candidate, and then problems with: no shows, 

examiner changes 

• What’s Needed: 

– Simplicity in the form and information. 

– Allow jurisdictions to add their own specific/individual State information. 

– Have MVD initiate the form when candidate takes the Knowledge tests, 

and gets in the system, especially Hazmat. 

– Have CDL candidate take additional appropriate knowledge tests first to 

be able to take the Skills tests. Example-(tanker) (Hazmat, placarded, but 

no product on board). 

o (Or) wait to get CDL for a period of time, so the Examiner can turn in the 

paperwork. 

o (Or) initiate Examiner/3rd. party, instant (1-hr.) computer input in system. 

– One screen per CDL candidate, scroll down for all information. 

– Generate report from any criteria. 

– Forms correctable anytime only with comments and corrector’s name 

attached. 

– Online training for Examiners or other appropriate officials with 

clearance, with verifiable certification of training. 

– Change form to cover class “C” skills testing different from A & B 

– Have all criteria on “Bus” with a strike through if not appropriate. 

o (Or) call it a Coach—Other Bus—School Bus. 

45 
SOUTH DAKOTA – DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 

• Introduce jurisdiction members 

– Stan Knox 

o Department of Public Safety 

o Training Specialist 

o JA – CM 

– Jenni Faulstich 

o Department of Public Safety 

o Telephone Representative 

o JA 

• Describe (at high-level) CDL skills testing program before pilot 

– Procedures/policies: Examiners use paper to record test results. The forms 

are then scanned into a file system to have a copy on file. 

– People involved, type/number: 

 third party testers: 30

 Jurisdiction Examiners: 0

– Automated portions: Weekly, Monthly, and Yearly reports

– Manual portions: Scoring on worksheets. Encoding on mainframe when 

converting CDL for verification.

– Special aspects 

– Issues/Problems: It takes a long time to verify all procedures for 

verification of CDL. 

• Describe (at high level) CDL skills testing program during pilot: what was 

changed/what stayed the same 

– Procedures/policies: Another two steps to follow for verification of CDL 

testing 

– People involved: 49

– Automated portions: 

– Manual portions: Data entry is required twice by third party examiner 

(RP) to complete process. 

– Special aspects: Prior to third party examiner (RP) were not required to 

report schedule tests.

– Issues/Problems: Most (RPs) have very little computer experience or do 

not have access to high speed Internet.

• Describe level of participation/activity during pilot: 

– How many months/weeks CSTIMS was used: training 3-14-06 to 6-11-06; 

production 6-12-06 to present 

46 
– Number of participating Jurisdiction DMV offices 

o Number of administrators: 3

o Number of CDL monitors: 4

o Number of MVA clerks: 45

o Number of auditors: 3

– Number/type of participating testers (third party/jurisdiction) 

o Number of responsible parties: 30

– Number of participating examiners: 0

o Number who scheduled themselves: 30

o Number who were scheduled by tester: 0

– Number of applicants processed: 223

– Number of scheduled appointments: 248

– Number/type of scheduled tests 

– Number/type of completed tests 

– Pass/fail rates 

o For state 

o By tester: Pass 96%

• Costs associated with implementing/using CSTIMS for pilot 

– Startup: None

– Ongoing staff time, program phone charges 

– Training: One on One time 

– Travel Trainer: Traveled using one–on-one training session throughout the 

state of SD 

– Other (specify) 

• Existing skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS: 

– Met/satisfied: Pass/fail reporting rate scheduling drivers

– Did not meet/satisfy 

• New skills testing management/oversight requirements that CSTIMS could be 

used to meet/satisfy 

• Issues/problems that CSTIMS: 

– Fixed/resolved 

– Did not fix/resolve: Does not have a place for passenger endorsement for 

other than coach/transit school bus

– Created/made worse: Created another task before examining drivers. 

Takes more time to enter information into CSTIMS (before/after).

47 
48 

• Recommendations based on pilot experience 

– Enhancements to CSTIMS better meet current requirements 

– New requirements that CSTIMS should satisfy 

• Impact of using CSTIMS 

– Effectiveness in meeting fraud detection/prevention goals: Unsure at this 

time.

– Effectiveness as an oversight/enforcement tool 

– Effectiveness as an skills test scheduling/management tool 

– Effectiveness as a reporting tool 

LIST OF CONCERNS 

• Do the Feds want us to keep a log of cancellations on a driver? (how many 

times a driver cancels and reschedules) 

• To be able to cancel a test when driver notifies the tester, not on the day the 

test is scheduled for. 

• When canceling a test, there needs to be a way to cancel all tests at once 

instead of individually. 

• Passenger scoring criteria. 

• When giving a skill test to an individual, that test will always be completed in 

the same vehicle. Is there a way where all the vehicle information will stay in 

the fields instead of inserting the information each time? 

• To be able to cancel all test at once (VI, BC, RT). 

• To be able to put in more than one form. 

• Having trouble changing general information in system once we have add an 

applicant. 
APPENDIX C 

PILOT ISSUES, ENHANCEMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND PRIORITIES 

Throughout the CSTIMS project, issues, desired enhancements, and recommendations were 

compiled from the following project stakeholders: the four pilot jurisdictions (Alaska [AK], 

Arizona [AZ], New Mexico [NM1, NM2, NM3], and South Dakota [SD]), one non-pilot 

jurisdiction (Oregon [OR]), FMCSA, and AAMVA. At the pilot debrief meeting which followed 

the formal pilot period, a composite list containing 112 items was reviewed and prioritized by the 

stakeholders. 

Stakeholders assigned each item a relative priority based on their perception of the impact of the 

item on the short- and long-term usability and effectiveness of CSTIMS, as shown in Table 8. 

Table 8. Priority Definitions 

Priority Meaning 

Critical (C) Show-stopper: Can't use CSTIMS now without it 

High (H) Must have: But can use CSTIMS now without it 

Medium (M) Should have: But can use CSTIMS now without it 

Low (L) Nice-to-have: Can use CSTIMS forever without it 

The 112 detailed enhancement recommendations represent a core set of 13 major functionality 

requirements for CSTIMS: 

Critical 

• C1: Expand CSTIMS functionality to support the new AAMVA CDL Examiner’s 

Manual 2005 CDL Testing Model. 

• C2: Provide CSTIMS users with capability to make changes/corrections to, merge, or 

delete duplicate data or data entered in error. 

• C3: Replace current multiple-login ID/permissions settings for each user with a single 

login ID and composite set of permissions for the user. 

High 

• H1: Reduce/eliminate cases of repetitive/redundant data entry by allowing information to 

be entered once and shared across multiple screens/functions (e.g., contact information, 

test vehicle information, etc.). Autofill fields with applicable default values to reduce 

additional data entry to only require changes from default values. 

49 
50 

• H2: Streamline current CSTIMS screen navigation to remove and consolidate 

redundant/intermediate processing steps and associated screens for high-usage functions. 

• H3: Expand skills test results information provided to MVA clerks to include applicant 

information (e.g., knowledge test history, etc.), examiner identification, actual/passing 

test scores, specific indication of applicable CDL (including class, endorsements, 

restrictions) that applicant is eligible to be issued. 

Medium 

• M1: Provide jurisdictions with enhanced capability to set and enforce jurisdictionspecific eligibility, scheduling, and notification criteria for testers, examiners, and 

applicants to achieve and sustain enhanced CDL skills test oversight goals. 

• M2: Add capability for jurisdictions or users to specify/filter which alerts they are to 

receive to facilitate more effective testing oversight. 

• M3: Expand scope of CSTIMS data change log function to include all data, not just 

schedules/tests. 

• M4: Expand CSTIMS reporting by adding a report for applicant data. 

• M5: Expand pass/fail reporting to provide pass/fail statistics at the state and national 

level. 

Low 

• L1: Provide a CSTIMS capability to import/export information between external systems 

(e.g., CDLIS, PDPS, driver history file, automated knowledge test machines) or for 

external analysis. 

• L2: Provide special CSTIMS capability to efficiently process transactions from users 

with low-speed Internet connections (e.g., dial-up, possibly via special abbreviatedcontent windows. 

Table 9 through Table 23 describes each item, its relative priority to project stakeholders, and 

associated CSTIMS functionality recommendation(s) supported by the feature. 
Table 9. Jurisdiction Parameters 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Passing Score 

Criteria 

Add support for new skills test pass/fail score and criteria documented in AAMVA CDL Examiner's Manual, 2005 CDL Testing Model. Allow jurisdictions to select which set of skills test scoring criteria to use: the current Version 2.0, or the new 2005 version. 

C1 Working 

Group 

C C C 

2 Applicant 

Minimum Age 

Currently, all Applicants must be at least 18 years old, regardless of jurisdiction. Add new jurisdictionspecific parameter: "Applicant Minimum Age," with a default value of "18," to allow jurisdictions to set their own minimum age for skills testing (i.e., cross-check DOB). 

M1 AK H L L 

3 CDL Required Current CDL-requirement parameter applies only 

to third party examiners, not to Jurisdiction Examiners. Add another CDL-requirement parameter to apply to Jurisdiction Examiners. 

M1 AK H M n/a 

4 Applicant Multischeduling 

Same Test 

Currently CSTIMS allows a jurisdiction to restrict scheduling an Applicant for the same test with different Testers, but allows multiple scheduling of the same test with the same Tester. Should the CSTIMS rule be changed to not allow all duplicate schedules for the same test regardless of Tester? 

M1 AAMVA Yes M L 

5 Scheduling Days Day-of-week scheduling limitations; some 

jurisdictions don’t allow testing on Sunday 

M1 FMCSA L L L 

6 Test Scores Should pull-downs be provided for Vehicle 

Inspection (Vehicle Type, Brakes, Axles, Min Pass Score, Max Score) and Road Test (Class, Vehicle Type, Transmission)? This would allow jurisdiction to select only those combinations that are germane and eliminate the “active” checkbox on VI. 

H1 AAMVA M H H/M 

51 
Table 10. Organizations 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Tester flag Add the capability to change an Organization's 

designation as a Tester to a non-Tester (and visa versa). Some checks required before allowing (e.g., if there are Examiners assigned, then can't make a Tester a non-Tester). 

C2 Working 

Group 

H L L 

2 Number of 

Examiners 

Calculate “Number of Examiners” rather than providing manual entry capability. Flag if less than Jurisdiction minimum. 

H1 Working 

Group 

L H L 

3 Organization 

Relationships 

Is there a need to consider a parent-child relationship between Organizations (i.e., state DMV and branch DMV offices; Tester HQ and branch offices)? 

H1 AAMVA L H L 

52 
Table 11. Testers 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Number of 

Examiners 

Current Tester screen has userentered/maintained "Number of Examiners" data item. The same item on the Tester and Examiner Reports is dynamically calculated and displays the number of linked examiners for that Tester. Can Tester screen be modified to do the same? 

H1 AK, AZ M H M 

2 Insurance Dates Add "Insurance Effective Date" and "Insurance 

Expiration Date" data items for each of the types of third party insurance (Notification prior to expiration?)

M1 AK M M L 

3 Test Fees Test Fees display with four decimal places. Can 

that be changed to two decimal places? 

M1 AAMVA M M L 

4 Principal Party On third party tester screen, need check box to 

ask if Principal Party info is same as Organization Point of Contact, and autofill if Yes. 

H1 AAMVA H M H 

5 Operating Hours Ability to set operating hours by day for Testers; 

some jurisdiction DMVs are open at different times on different days. 

M1 FMCSA M H M 

53 
Table 12. Users 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 User ID 

User Role 

Each User should have single LoginID and all applicable permissions/roles assigned once. Current system of requiring different UserIDs in order to assign different roles/permissions to same User is nuisance. 

C3 AK, AZ, SD H H C 

2 Secret 

Question 

The Secret Question/Answer should not be required inputs when adding a User; they should be entered by the User upon initial login (like FEWS). 

C3 AZ, SD M H C 

3 User Roles CSTIMS currently allows non-Tester roles (SA, 

JA, CM, MC, AU, FMCSA) to be assigned to 

Users who belong to Tester Organizations and Tester roles (RP, EX) to be assigned to Users who belong to non-Tester Organizations. This should not be allowed. The system should check for consistency between the Organization's Type and the Roles of its User members. 

C3 AK H H H 

4 User Roles Jurisdiction Administrator (JA) should have ability 

to set up any User in a jurisdiction with any jurisdiction-specific Role: CM, MC, AU, RP, EX. Currently Tester Roles (RP, EX) can only be set up by User with CM Role, and non-Tester Roles (CM, MC, AU) can only be set up by User with JA role: a nuisance. (Critical: tied to #1.)

C3 AK H M C 

5 User Roles FMCSA Jurisdiction Administrators (JAs) should 

be able to add other FMCSA JAs and other Users only with the FMCSA role; currently, System Administrators (SAs) must add all FMCSA personnel. 

C3 AAMVA L M C 

6 User versus 

Organization Primary Contact 

When adding a User to an Organization and assigning a User Role, should there be a way to designate that the Organization's Primary Contact will be that User and to use the Primary Contact information from the Organization? 

C3 AAMVA M M C 

54 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

7 User Roles Is there a need for a new, read-only 

supervisor/regional manager role within a jurisdiction? Currently the MVA Clerk (MC) role may meet this need unless regional managers need to look at other than test results (like permissions for current “FMCSA” Role, but only with Current Jurisdiction scope). 

C3 AAMVA L M L 

8 Examiner Role Currently there is no linkage between the 

“Examiner” Security Role entry and the “User is Examiner” check box. Should there be linkage between them such that assigning a Security Role of “Examiner” will also check the “User is Examiner” box and visa-versa? 

C3 AAMVA L H M 

9 User Status Currently there is no way to “deactivate” a User 

(i.e., retirement, job change). Do we need a way to activate/deactivate a User (new date field?), 

specify reason for the status change, and be able to list Users based on status (All, Active, Not Active)? 

C2 AAMVA H H C 

10 Delete User Want ability to delete Users C2 AK M H C 11 Examiner Role Should all Examiners be Users with an Examiner 

User Role (not a separate entity) even if they don't enter test results? 

C3 AAMVA M M L 

55 
Table 13. Users 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Testing 

Authorizations 

Generate an on-screen alert if an Examiner is required to hold a CDL and the Examiner's testing authorizations exceed their license class and endorsement(s) (e.g., if the Examiner has a Class B license and the CM enters authorization for Class A testing, an alert is generated) 

M1 AZ, SD L M M 

2 Add Examiner Send a confirmation e-mail alert to the Tester's 

Responsible Party and to the Examiner when a CDL Monitor adds the Examiner to that Tester (or modifies Examiner's testing authorization, e.g., class 'A' versus 'B')

M1 AK M M L 

3 Notification 

when Examiner Due for Training 

Need to send out notification when Examiner is due for training refresher. Send scheduled alert to CDL Monitors, Tester's Responsible Parties, and Examiners if current date is more than jurisdictionspecified number of days (new jurisdiction parameter needed) after the "Date Last Attended DMV Approved Examiner Training Course." 

M1 AK M M L 

4 Employment 

End Date 

Add capability to list Examiners by current employment status: All Examiners, Active, Inactive (based on Employment End date) 

H1 AK L M M 

5 Examiner 

Availability 

Need a way to post/track Examiner availability (vacations, doctor’s appointments, etc.) for scheduling. Need expanded calendar to allow for indicating available/non-available time for scheduling tests 

H1 FMCSA M M M 

56 
Table 14. Applicants 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Applicant SSN Add Applicant SSN as optional data item 

(originally Critical for AK; per FMCSA, item should be withdrawn due to legal/privacy issues; try instead FN+LN+DOB)

M1 AK H L L 

2 Knowledge 

Test Information 

Expand Knowledge Test section to include all applicable knowledge tests, not just the most current one (i.e., link to knowledge test system) 

H1, M4 AK, AZ C H L 

3 Knowledge 

Test Information 

Need a way to interface knowledge test machines with CSTIMS in order to update the Applicant Profile on CSTIMS with all knowledge tests (longterm: defer)

L1 AK H H M 

4 Merge 

Applicants 

Need a way to merge Applicant records if entered twice and the two entries are, in fact, the same individual 

C2, M4 FMCSA C C C 

5 Schedule/Test 

History 

Would like tab labeled “Schedule” relabeled “Schedule/Test History”; would like it to be more user-friendly (i.e., be able to select/view schedule/test entries from this list and make updates if necessary) 

H2 NM-DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- - H 

57 
Table 15. Scheduling 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Non-CDL skills 

tests 

Be able to schedule/manage non-CDL skills tests administered by either Jurisdiction and/or third party testers. Also ensure not exceeding total number of Tests per day. 

M1 AK, NM H M M 

2 Examiner 

Calendars 

Outlook-like hourly calendaring feature for scheduling Examiners to avoid overlapping bookings (long-term: defer)

H1 AK, NM C H M 

3 Schedule Test 

without Examiner 

Be able to schedule a test in advance and not be required to assign an Examiner to it in advance: Tester may book Applicants and tests way in advance, but not know which Examiners may be available until later on. (For interim, try a “TBD” as Examiner)

M1 AK, NM H H H 

4 Minimum 

Waiting Period 

Currently, jurisdictions may specify only one minimum waiting period before retesting following a failed exam regardless of test type. Allow jurisdictions to specify different minimum waiting periods for each Test Type. (In AK, they require 7-days waiting period following a failed BCS or RT, but only 1 day following a failed VI.) 

M1 AK H L C 

5 Candidate 

Examiners 

Restrict pull down list of candidate Examiners for a schedule being booked to include only “qualified” Examiners instead of all Examiners for a Tester. 

H1 AK M M M 

6 Candidate 

Examiners 

Limit the Examiners selected to be scheduled to those authorized and not under sanction; a solution may be to change the process of scheduling for an RP (e.g., when the Applicant 

wants to schedule a test, the RP asks for Class, 

etc.; only those Examiners available would show 

up on a “calendar”?) 

H1 FMCSA H M H 

58 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

7 Reschedule 

Test 

Require the User to specify the reason a test was rescheduled (change made to Scheduled Test Date/Time/Site/Route/ Examiner, etc), either from a pre-defined Reason for Reschedule selection list, or an entry in the Comments field. 

H1 AK H M C 

8 Out of State 

Applicant 

Some jurisdictions will allow their Examiners to administer tests to out-of-state drivers; the “Driver License Issuing State” should default to the current jurisdiction but allow selection of another; this is, possibly, yet another jurisdiction parameter (“Test Out-of-State Drivers?”) 

H1 AK H L n/a 

9 Examiner 

Scheduling 

Currently, only the Tester's Responsible Party may schedule tests for Examiners. Allow Examiners to be able to schedule their own tests (not centrally through an RP). (EX may schedule self, but not other EXs for same Tester)

C3 SD H M M/L 

10 Test Vehicle 

Information 

Some Testers that provide the test vehicle use the same vehicle for multiple applicants; can the vehicle information be saved between schedules? (i.e., add a tab for Tester Vehicles?)

H1 AZ M H H 

11 Save versus 

Add Buttons 

There are “Save” and “Add” buttons on the schedule input screen – what’s the difference? Rename “Add” to be “Clear”? 

H2 AZ L H C 

12 Import 

Schedules 

Upload from jurisdiction-developed online scheduling systems into CSTIMS 

L1 FMCSA ? M M 

13 Schedule 

Reason 

Add an “Other” entry to list of reasons for scheduling/re-scheduling the test(s). Include optional explanation in Comments. 

H1 FMCSA L M H 

14 Non-CDL 

Tests 

Ability to track non-CDL tests for jurisdiction Examiners; they are not limited to CDL testing and do many non-CDL exams; want to be able to ensure “Maximum Tests per Day” not exceeded. 

M1 FMCSA H H n/a 

15 Cancel/Delete 

Schedules 

Provide capability to cancel/delete unused schedules and associated tests. 

C2 AAMVA H M w/ 

cmt 

59 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

16 Scheduling 

Overlaps 

Some way to ensure Examiners aren’t scheduled for multiple Applicants at the same time (Applicant convenience); may require additional jurisdiction parameters for the average length of each Test 

(VI, BCS, and Road) or addition of a “Scheduled Test End Time” data item for each Test. 

M1 FMCSA L H H 

17 Applicant Prior 

Test Failures 

Wants an alert on Applicant's DL if person previously failed a test and retakes it later (want to see previous history) 

M1 NM3 

(debrief mtg) 

- - - 

60 
Table 16. Test Results 

# Item/ Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 

1 Cancel a Test Allow a previously-scheduled Test to be 

cancelled at any time (currently, previouslyscheduled tests cannot be cancelled if current date is earlier than scheduled test date). 

C2 AK, SD H H C 

2 Display Test 

Results 

Add display of actual test score, pass/fail threshold, target CDL+endorsements/restrictions, and Examiner ID to Test Results screens. 

H3 AK, NM, 

SD 

C H C 

3 Test Vehicle 

Type 

CDLs are required for some class C vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks carrying dynamite) that must 

be placarded; we have made no allowances for this in the Vehicle Type pull-downs (closest is “Straight Truck” but this isn’t exactly correct for a VW bug); should we add a type of “Other” (with required description?) only valid for class C? 

H1 AZ, NM M H M 

4 Test Result 

Inquiry 

The summary screen that the MVA Clerk displays to verify test results must be simple, contain all the summary information they need to make a decision (i.e., restrictions), and not force them to have to go to additional screens to get all the needed information. (For AK, this is a showstopper, must-have item.) (See also #2,) 

H3 AK, SD C H C 

5 Test Result 

Inquiry 

Add Examiner, actual test score, pass/fail threshold to current display. (See also #2.) 

H3 AK C H C 

61 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

6 Repetitive Entry 

of “Actual” Test Information 

When entering test results, it is cumbersome to have to enter the actual Examiner, Test Date/Time, Site/Route, and Test Vehicle information for each separate test, especially if it does not change. Need a way to enter actual information for a test then be able to copy it to other tests (i.e., via a "Same As" button), only making changes as necessary; one suggestion was to enter this data and then select the test type (radio button above the Test Results?); may require flag indicating results will be entered for multiple tests. 

H1 AZ, SD C C C 

7 Test Vehicle 

Characteristics and Passing Score 

Need to remove requirement to enter actual test vehicle characteristics when entering Basic Control Skills Test results: correct Pass/Fail score is based only on Form number. Need to remove requirement to enter test vehicle characteristics when entering Road Test results: correct Pass/Fail score is the same for all test vehicles (except for some states where passing score depends on transmission type or whether or not the test vehicle is school bus). 

H1 AK C C C 

8 BCS Form 

Number 

CSTIMS does not allow selection of a nondefault value for the actual Basic Control Skills Test Form Number. Only the default Form Number for the Test Site is used: it cannot be changed. Need to be able to select a non-default Form Number if necessary. 

H1 AAMVA 

(C) 

n/a H M 

9 Test Vehicle 

GCWR 

Modify “GVWR” to accept commas (e.g., 

29,200); For Class A vehicles, calculate/display GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating) – weight of drive unit and trailer – instead of listing both individually. 

H1 AZ M H L 

10 Individual Test 

Results 

A capability to print individual test results showing all the detail (like doing a screen print) (similar to #2). 

H3 NM H M C 

62 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

11 Applicant Test 

History 

Add capability to retrieve an Applicant's test history based on a single CCD (e.g., retrieve the 

Applicant based on the CCD; use that Applicant to search for all other test results); allows an MVA Clerk to see a driver’s history to determine if the driver should be licensed (double check on jurisdiction requirements – AZ only allows three failures on a single permit). 

H2 AZ M H H 

12 Test Scores Currently, test/passing scores are treated 

differently depending on Test Type: as number correct (Vehicle Inspection) or number wrong (Basic Control Skills, Road Test). Allow jurisdiction to select how to enter/evaluate test/passing scores for each type of test: minimum number correct, minimum percent correct, maximum number errors, or maximum 

percent errors (ex: NM bases/enters passing 

scores as percentages—not points). 

M1 AZ, NM M H H 

13 Maximum Period 

to Make Changes 

Increase maximum-allowed period to make changes to test results from 99 days to 999 days. 

M1 SD L L M 

14 Display Single 

Test Result 

If the outcome of a Test Result or Test Result Inquiry is just one schedule/test, then the normally displayed search/inquiry results screen, with just one hit, should be bypassed and the actual retrieved test be displayed, thus saving an unnecessary mandatory selection of the sole item from the search results list. This has been done for Applicant search. 

H2 AK H H H 

63 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

15 Applicant Test 

Results History 

All of an Applicant's current/previous tests relating to the “target CDL” (class, vehicle type, brakes, and transmission) to be shown on the Test Results Inquiry (designed primarily for the MVA clerk); this would show the history of failures and passes and preclude having to query on multiple schedules to see that all pieces have been passed. 

H2, H3 SD H H H 

16 Test Vehicle 

Class/Type 

Test Results screen needs edit on Class versus Type: e.g., not allow selection of a Class A School Bus, 

H1 SD H H H 

17 Test Results by 

Tester/Examiner 

There is a Test Results Inquiry search for test results by Applicant; users would like search by Tester/Examiner, 

H2 AZ H H H 

18 Vehicle 

Inspection Autofail 

VI Autofail – One of the listed reasons is "Did not correctly perform at least one of the three parts of air brake check." This number may change. Suggest that the message be made more generic by eliminating the number of parts. 

H1 AZ H H M 

19 Change Test 

Results 

Currently, no Security Role has the capability to change Test Results after the jurisdictionspecified amount of time. Should CDL Monitor be allowed to be able to change any results at any time if the situation warrants? 

C3 AAMVA H L ? 

20 Test Result 

Inquiry 

Add an Applicant Profile section to include Applicant's Knowledge Test information. 

H3 AK M M M 

64 
Item/ Functionality Requested # Change AK AZ NM1 

Function Requirement by 

21 Applicant Profile 

Information 

Since this is not likely to happen in the near future, what if the DMV user put the Applicant and knowledge test information in the Applicant Profile. The applicant goes to the third party tester for their skills test. The third party tester 

pulls up the applicant profile, can verify what knowledge tests were passed and schedules the skills test. third party tester enters the skills test information. The applicant comes into the DMV to get their license. The DMV looks them up on the Test Result Inquiry and all the Applicant's information is there for the DMV user to data enter and make a license—paperless! (permissions access issues) (long-term: defer) (short-term: add Applicant information to Test Result Inquiry) 

M4, L1 AK H H H/M 

22 Restrictions and 

Endorsements 

If we are working towards an Applicant not bringing in a piece of paper with test scores, the Test Result Inquiry should contain the complete list of Restrictions and Endorsements, etc., which is listed on the score sheet (see #2, #4),

H3 AK H H C 

23 Import Test 

Results 

If the score sheet can be automated, upload directly into CSTIMS and stored within CSTIMS; this would reduce the paper burden, store the results for posterity, and reduce errors in transcription (long-term: defer),

L1 FMCSA H H H 

24 Test Results 

Inquiry 

Some confusion on how much information must be provided to retrieve Test Results. Search rules need to better clarify how much Applicant/CCD information must be provided to retrieve Test Results. 

H2 AZ M H H 

25 Test Results Want capability to be able to request Test 

Results for all Test Types (Test Type Search), or for all Applicants (Applicant Search), or for all Examiners for a Tester (Examiner Search), 

H2, H3 AZ H H H 

65 
Table 17. Certification Control Documents (CCDs) 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 CCD Discard 

Reason 

Add “Voided” as a Certification Control Document Discard Reason, and provide comment. 

H3 NM n/a C C 

2 Examiner CCDs Currently, only CDL Monitor can assign 

CCDs to Testers and/or Examiners. Add capability for Testers Responsible Party to be able to reassign CCD from the Tester to its Examiners, either individually or in blocks (i.e.. RP update access to CCDs for Tester to reassign).

C3 NM n/a M H 

Table 18. Sanctions 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 Sanction 

Expiration Alert 

CDL Monitor should be e-mailed the “Minimum Advance Days to Notify of Sanction End” when a sanction is about to expire. 

M1 NM L M H/M 

66 
Table 19. Audits 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 Audit Documents Can documents be linked to Audits (e.g., 

initial findings, Tester response, etc.)? 

(long-term: defer)

L1 NM M H M 

2 Examiner 

Information 

Current Audit function does not include information on Examiners. Need to expand Audit to include Examiner information. What Examiner information should be audited/collected? 

C3 AK M H M 

3 Audit Results Currently, Audit results are Pass/Fail. 

Should different terms be used? (e.g.: “Compliant,” “Non-compliant,” “Serious non-compliance”) 

H1 AZ H H M 

67 
Table 20. E-mail Notifications 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 Grace Period Should a grace period or time limit be 

imposed before sending e-mails for changes to schedules to allow for corrections? 

M2 AZ H H H 

2 Selectable Email trigger 

reasons 

Trucking schools schedule one examiner for sequential test (suite of three) – e.g., 0800, 1000, 1200, 1400; if the first Applicant goes over the time (mechanical problem, showed a little late, etc.), all the subsequent tests will be delayed; entry of the actual time different from scheduled will generate multiple e-mails; desire is for the capability to select for which reasons e-mails are sent (time change, date change, etc.—all(?) the reasons for scheduled/actual changes) 

M2 AZ H H H 

3 Cancelled Test 

Alert 

Generate an e-mail alert to the Examiner, CDL Monitor(?), and Tester (?) when a Test is cancelled. 

M2 FMCSA L M M 

4 Cancelled/Delete

d Schedule Alert 

If a schedule is cancelled/deleted, the Examiner should be notified. 

M2 FMCSA L M H 

5 E-mail Alert 

Filtering 

Want e-mail alert filtering by category of alert and/or individual alert reason on jurisdiction and/or individual basis (allow jurisdiction administrator to set jurisdiction-level default alert filtering and individuals to modify jurisdiction defaults to meet their needs). 

M2 AZ-DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- H - 

68 
Table 21. Reports 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 Pass/Fail Report Add Jurisdiction and National pass/fail 

roll-up totals to the Pass/Fail Report. 

M5 AK, NM, 

SD 

M H H 

2 Multiple Failure 

Report 

Add a “Multiple Failure” report which would list all Applicants who have failed a particular test more than once 

M4 AZ L H M 

3 Tester Report Tester Report has a flag if there are too 

few Examiners; would like the minimum displayed 

M1 NM L M M 

4 Quarterly 

Jurisdiction Report 

“Quarterly Jurisdiction Report” can only be selected on calendar quarter; since we ask for the “Fiscal Year Start Month” (Jurisdiction Parameter), should this report be expanded to allow specification of a quarter based on either CY or FY? 

M1 AAMVA yes M H 

5 Export to Excel Provide a way to save/export reports to 

an Excel (or other common) file. 

L1 AK, NM, 

SD 

H L H 

6 Applicant Report Need an Applicant Report to allow 

tracking of Applicants within and across jurisdictions. Be able to sort/filter on jurisdiction, name, DL, DOB, etc. 

M4 AAMVA L H H 

7 Schedule 

Information Report 

MVA Clerks may view Schedules online, but are not allowed to run Schedule Information Report. Should they be allowed to? 

C3 AAMVA yes L L 

8 Alert Summary 

Report 

Need an Alert Summary Report to allow tracking of alert types (msg, e-mail), reasons, frequency, initiators, recipients within jurisdiction 

C3 AZ-DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- H - 

9 Pass/Fail Report Want pass/fail rates broken out by 

“Reason For Test.” (Currently, there is no Reason for Test data element, but there is a Schedule Reason data element.)

M5 AZ -DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- M - 

69 
Functionality Requested # Item/Function Change AK AZ NM1 N

Requirement by 

10 Pass/Fail Report Want pass/fail rates broken out by schooltrained versus off-the-street applicants. 

(Currently there is no data element for school-trained applicants; there is a “Walk-in” Schedule Reason.)

M5 AZ-DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- M - 

11 Average Test 

Scores Report 

Want a report that shows average test scores by test type, grouped by Examiner, Tester, and Jurisdiction, similar to current Pass/Fail Report. 

M5 AZ-DMV 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- H - 

Table 22. Change Log 

# Item/Function Change Functionality 

Requirement 

Requested 

by 

AK AZ NM1 N

1 Change Log 

Items 

Expand change log to track all changes to all data items, not just Schedules/Tests. 

M3 NM L M M 

2 User-specific 

Changes 

Add capability to restrict display to changes made by a specific User. Restrict this feature to selected User Roles (CM, FMCSA)? 

M3 AAMVA L M M 

70 
Table 23. General (Miscellaneous) 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

1 Import Provide a way to import data into some/all 

CSTIMS tables (long-term: defer).

L1 AK, AZ, 

NM,SD 

H H H 

2 Import Upload of test results directly from a PDA 

(long-term: defer).

L1 AK, AZ, 

NM,SD 

H H H 

3 Export Export capability to various formats 

(comma-delimited, Excel, etc.) so the state may do additional ad-hoc, or more detailed, reporting than is currently offered (long-term).

L1 AK, SD H M H 

4 Successful 

Add/Update Message 

Terms like “Insert Successful” and “Update Successful” aren’t terms with which our users are familiar; they’d prefer “Record Added” and “Record Saved” as replacements; they also requested more prominent (larger font?) and consistent location 

H2 NM L L M 

5 Cancel versus 

Return/Exit 

Confusion on the “Cancel” button; while it actually will cancel any changes made and not saved, if changes are entered and saved, the “Cancel” button functions as a “Return to Previous Screen” button. Rename the button (Back? Clear?) to anything that doesn’t make User think they are somehow canceling their work. 

H2 AZ, NM H M M 

6 Calendar 

Navigation 

Can the calendar be modified to use arrows to go forward and back between months (rather than the pull-downs currently in use)? 

H2 AAMVA H L H 

7 Notices on Home 

screen 

Add a notification section to Home screen where CSTIMS-wide and/or jurisdictionspecific notices may be displayed. Also allow for way to specify how long the notice will display (tie to Sanctions #1?). 

M2 AAMVA H M H 

71 
72 

# Item/Function Change Functionality Requirement Requested by AK AZ NM1 N

8 Search Results If a search returns just one hit, do not 

display the results list with this single entry; instead just display the retrieved record. 

H2 AAMVA H H H 

9 Delete Records Provide a way to delete records if there 

are no other records depending on them. 

C2 AAMVA H M C 

10 Terms for Tester 

and Examiner 

The jurisdiction-specific terms for Tester and Examiner should appear on all applicable screens and reports (longterm)

M1 AAMVA H M M 

11 Low-speed 

Internet Support 

Need to be able to support users without high-speed Internet access (i.e., need low-speed/dial-up support for people in the field, away from office), perhaps with a skeleton set of screens for basic applicant test scheduling/test result entry).

L2 NM3, SD 

(debrief 

mtg) 

- - -