Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13249 

1To view the NPRM and the comments we 

received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document/FMCSA-2018-0332-0001. 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 383 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0332] 

RIN 2126–AC23 

Commercial Driver’s License Out-ofState Knowledge Test; Withdrawal 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; 

withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA is withdrawing a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

to allow driver applicants to take the 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

general and specialized knowledge tests 

in a State (the testing State) other than 

the applicant’s State of domicile. The 

NPRM also proposed that the 

applicant’s State of domicile would be 

required to accept knowledge test 

results from the testing State. As 

explained further below, FMCSA is 

taking this action after considering the 

comments received following the 

publication of the NPRM. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

July 29, 2019, at 84 FR 36552 is 

withdrawn as of March 9, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Nikki McDavid, Chief, Commercial 

Driver’s License Division, Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590 0001, (202) 366–0831, 

nikki.mcdavid@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In August 2017, FMCSA issued 

regulatory guidance titled, ‘‘Commercial 

Driver’s License Standards: Regulatory 

Guidance Concerning the Issuance of 

Commercial Learner’s Permits’’ (August 

2017 Guidance) (82 FR 36101 (Aug. 3, 

2017)), which clarified the 

circumstances under which a CDL 

applicant’s State of domicile may accept 

the results of knowledge testing 

administered to the applicant in another 

State. The August 2017 Guidance 

permits the testing State and the State 

of domicile to enter into a voluntary 

agreement prior to the general 

knowledge test being administered by 

the testing State. The guidance 

emphasizes that, because only the State 

of domicile is authorized to issue a 

Commercial Learner’s Permit (CLP) or 

CDL, the responsibility for compliance 

with the requirements of 49 CFR 383.71 

(driver application and certification) 

and 383.73 (CLP/CDL issuance) remains 

with the State of domicile. To the 

Agency’s knowledge, no States have 

entered into an agreement pursuant to 

the August 2017 Guidance. 

On July 29, 2019, FMCSA published 

in the Federal Register (Docket No. 

FMCSA–2018–0332, 84 FR 36552) an 

NPRM 1 to amend 49 CFR 383.79(a)(1) 

and (2) by permitting a State also to 

administer knowledge test(s) to an outof-State applicant, and by requiring the 

State of domicile also to accept those 

knowledge testing results. 

FMCSA received comments on the 

NPRM from the following parties: The 

American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators (AAMVA); American 

Trucking Associations (ATA); California 

Department of Motor Vehicles 

(California); C. R. England, Inc.; Illinois 

Secretary of State (Illinois); Iowa 

Department of Transportation (Iowa); 

Minnesota Department of Public Safety, 

Driver and Vehicle Services Division 

(Minnesota); Minnesota State Patrol 

(MSP); Montana Department of Justice 

(Montana); National School 

Transportation Association (NSTA); 

Pennsylvania Department of 

Transportation (Pennsylvania); 

Truckload Carriers Association (TCA); 

Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles 

(Virginia); and six private citizens. 

To improve the Agency’s 

understanding of the impact of the 

NPRM on States and CDL applicants, 

FMCSA posed several specific 

questions. The questions and a 

summary of the responsive comments 

are set forth below. 

Question 1. To what extent will State 

Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) need 

to adapt existing procedures and 

processes to receive out-of-State 

knowledge testing results and remotely 

deliver the physical CLP or upgraded 

CDL? What are the costs associated with 

making these changes? 

Responses: All SDLAs responding to 

this question stated that changes to 

existing CLP application and issuance 

procedures and software would be 

necessary; some also questioned how 

remote delivery of the CLP credential 

would be accomplished. 

Only Pennsylvania responded to the 

cost question specifically, estimating a 

cost of approximately $525,000 for the 

system changes needed to accept 

knowledge test results from other States 

and a cost of approximately $1.6 million 

to begin offering knowledge testing to 

out-of-State driver applicants. Other 

States noted there would be costs 

associated with changing existing 

systems and processes to accept test 

results from other States but did not 

quantify the amounts. 

All State commenters said the NPRM 

would require changes in current 

procedures for processing knowledge 

test results and issuing CLPs. Minnesota 

and Virginia noted, for example, they 

would need to revise current processes 

to allow an applicant’s record to remain 

‘‘open’’ in pending status while waiting 

to receive the applicant’s out-of-State 

knowledge test results. California 

questioned how it would receive the 

completion of knowledge testing 

notification from the testing State. 

Question 2. What additional State 

implementation concerns are raised by 

[the NPRM]? 

Responses: Pennsylvania noted that 

there is currently ‘‘no way to verify the 

person taking the knowledge test in 

another jurisdiction is in fact the same 

person taking the skills test later in the 

process,’’ adding that ‘‘[the Commercial 

Skills Test Information Management 

System] does not provide a mechanism 

for verification with other 

jurisdictions.’’ Virginia also noted 

security concerns, stating that ‘‘the 

requirement to issue a CLP remotely 

undermines the current processes 

Virginia has in place to ensure that a 

credential is securely issued to the 

applicant.’’ California also expressed 

concern over the proposed remote 

delivery requirement, questioning how 

secure delivery could be assured if the 

CLP credential was sent to an address 

outside their State. Montana noted 

‘‘grave concerns about the real and 

substantial threat of fraudulent activity’’ 

if Montana is required to issue a CLP to 

an applicant who does not personally 

appear at a Montana driver license 

location. Minnesota and Virginia cited 

ongoing difficulties in the processing of 

out-of-State skills testing results, which 

could carry over to the processing of 

knowledge testing results. 

Question 3. Would 2 years, or 3 years, 

allow SDLAs sufficient time to achieve 

compliance with the proposed 

requirement to accept any out-of-state 

knowledge test results? Please explain 

the basis of your preferred compliance 

date. 

Responses: Three States responded to 

this question. Pennsylvania said it 

would need 2.5 years to accommodate 

necessary changes in State laws and 

processes. California and Virginia said 

they would need 3 years to achieve 

compliance. 

Question 4. If [the NPRM] is finalized, 

would your SDLA offer knowledge 

testing to out-of-state CLP applicants or 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13250 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

CDL holders wishing to add an 

endorsement to their license? Why or 

why not? 

Responses: Of the States that 

responded directly to this question, 

Minnesota and California said they 

would not offer out-of-State testing; 

Virginia said it would likely offer outof-State testing if authorized by the State 

legislature. Iowa also implied that it 

would offer knowledge testing to out-ofstate CLP applicants by noting that 

Iowa-based driver training programs, 

which attract many out-of-State 

students, bring ‘‘tremendous economic 

value’’ to the State. Pennsylvania said 

that, without ‘‘process improvements 

and additional funding,’’ it would be 

difficult to provide testing out-of-State 

applicants. 

Question 5. Would the proposed 

changes allow applicants who take 

driver training outside their State of 

domicile to obtain a CLP or upgraded 

CDL more efficiently? If so, please 

provide specific examples of time or 

cost savings that may accrue if the 

proposed changes were adopted. 

Responses: Pennsylvania responded 

that, if its concerns were addressed, 

allowing out-of-State knowledge testing 

‘‘could be a significant achievement in 

enhancing access for our future 

commercial drivers and their 

employers.’’ Iowa predicted the 

proposed rule would enhance efficiency 

and that associated cost savings would 

accrue to employers, trainers, and 

drivers. ATA, TCA, and other 

commenters also believed the rule 

would enable applicants to receive their 

CLPs more efficiently. Minnesota, 

which does not intend to provide 

knowledge testing to out-of-State 

applicants, stated that ‘‘[t]he only 

efficiency with this proposal is to truck 

driving students who take training in 

another state that is not a border state.’’ 

Commenters provided additional 

input beyond answering these five 

questions, as summarized below. 

Some commenters, including ATA, 

TCA, and NSTA, believed the proposed 

rule would have no detrimental impact 

on safety because all CLP applicants 

must be tested and licensed in 

accordance with the standards 

established by the May 9, 2011, final 

rule titled, ‘‘Commercial Driver’s 

License Testing and Commercial 

Learner’s Permit Standards’’ (76 FR 

26854). Some States expressed concern 

that, if adopted, the proposed rule 

would undermine the State of 

domicile’s ability to maintain control 

over the testing process and ensure that 

only qualified drivers obtain a CLP. 

Several commenters commended the 

proposed rule for relieving the time and 

travel cost burden on CLP applicants 

who must return to their State of 

domicile to take the knowledge test after 

receiving training in another State. On 

the other hand, one commenter stated 

there is no undue burden imposed by 

requiring a CLP applicant to take the 

knowledge test in their State of 

domicile, noting that ‘‘[l]earning needed 

to pass the written knowledge test can 

be done by reading the written materials 

available from any SDLA.’’ 

Several commenters noted that the 

proposed rule would benefit driver 

training schools and motor carriers by 

enhancing efficiency of the training 

process, thereby helping to alleviate 

driver shortages. As one commenter 

explained, a more efficient testing 

process will encourage more drivers to 

apply for a CDL, which means ‘‘more 

opportunities to fill the gap between the 

supply and demand of commerciallylicensed drivers.’’ 

Two commenters asserted that 

FMCSA is exceeding its legal authority 

over the States’ commercial licensing 

processes by requiring the State of 

domicile to accept knowledge test 

results from another State. Virginia 

stated that the rule is an unfunded 

mandate and FMCSA has not indicated 

it will provide funding to help States 

comply. Some States noted the potential 

loss of testing fees if applicants 

domiciled in their State elect to take the 

knowledge test in another State. 

The Agency carefully considered all 

comments. The NPRM was intended to 

promote further flexibility in the CDL 

issuance process without negatively 

impacting safety. All State commenters 

noted, however, that due to process 

complexities associated with the 

proposed change, SDLAs would need to 

implement significant changes to 

accommodate the receipt of out-of-State 

knowledge test results. Given States’ 

security and operational concerns 

surrounding out-of-State knowledge 

testing, including remote delivery of the 

CLP credential, FMCSA concludes the 

proposed change is not advisable at this 

time. The Agency hereby withdraws the 

July 29, 2019, NPRM, based on the same 

legal authorities on which it issued the 

NPRM, set forth at 84 FR 36552, 36553. 

The Agency notes, however, that States 

may enter into voluntary agreements for 

out-of-State knowledge testing in 

accordance with the August 2017 

Guidance discussed above. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Robin Hutcheson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04966 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1