Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 13247 

foot elevation contour for approximately 

4.1 miles to its intersection with the 

northern fork of an unnamed creek in 

Salt Canyon known locally as Salt Creek 

in section 23, T14N/R7W; then 

(3) Proceed westerly (upstream) along 

Salt Creek approximately 760 feet to its 

intersection with the 1,720-foot 

elevation contour in section 23, T14N/ 

R7W; then 

(4) Proceed northeasterly, then 

westerly along the meandering 1,720- 

foot elevation contour for approximately 

11.3 miles, crossing onto the Clearlake 

Oaks map, to the intersection of the 

elevation contour with the Mendocino 

National Forest boundary along the 

western boundary of section 12, T15N/ 

R8W; then 

(5) Proceed north along the 

Mendocino National Forest boundary 

approximately 896 feet to its 

intersection with the unnamed creek in 

Sulphur Canyon; then 

(6) Proceed northeast (downstream) 

along the unnamed creek approximately 

770 feet to its intersection with the 

1,400-foot elevation contour in section 

12, T14N/R8W; then 

(7) Proceed northeasterly, then 

northwesterly along the meandering 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with the Mendocino 

National Forest boundary along the 

western boundary of section 36, T15N/ 

R8W; then 

(8) Proceed north along the western 

boundary of section 36 to its 

intersection with the northern boundary 

of section 36; then 

(9) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 36 to its 

intersection with the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(10) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour, crossing 

onto the Benmore Canyon map and 

continuing easterly along the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour to its intersection 

with the southern boundary of section 

11, T14N/R7W; then 

(11) Proceed north in a straight line to 

the northern boundary of section 11; 

then 

(12) Proceed east along the northern 

boundary of section 11, crossing Wolf 

Creek, to the intersection of the section 

boundary with the 1,320-foot elevation 

contour; then 

(13) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the 1,400-foot elevation contour in 

section 11; then 

(14) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour to the 

western boundary of section 12, T14N/ 

R7W; then 

(15) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line, crossing the North Fork of Cache 

Creek, to the 1,400-foot elevation 

contour in section 12 west of the 

summit of Chalk Mountain; then 

(16) Proceed southeasterly, then 

southerly along the meandering 1,400- 

foot elevation contour to its third 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 13; then 

(17) Proceed west in a straight line to 

an unnamed, unimproved 4-wheel drive 

road in section 13; then 

(18) Proceed south in a straight line, 

crossing over a second unnamed, 

unimproved 4-wheel drive road in 

section 13, to the 1,240-foot elevation 

contour in section 24, T14N/R7W; then 

(19) Proceed east in a straight line to 

the 1,400-foot elevation contour in 

section 24; then 

(20) Proceed southeasterly, then 

northeasterly along the meandering 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with an unnamed creek in 

section 19, T14N/R6W; then 

(21) Proceed southwesterly 

(downstream) along the unnamed creek 

to its intersection with the 1,200-foot 

contour in section 19; then 

(22) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the northern boundary of section 30, 

T14N/R6W; then 

(23) Proceed southeast, then east 

along the northern boundary of section 

30 to its intersection with the 1,400-foot 

elevation contour; then 

(24) Proceed south in a straight line to 

the unnamed creek in Benmore Canyon 

in section 30; then 

(25) Proceed southeast in a straight 

line to the 1,400-foot elevation contour 

in section 30; then 

(26) Proceed southeasterly along the 

1,400-foot elevation contour to its 

intersection with the eastern boundary 

of section 31, T14N/R6W; then 

(27) Proceed generally south along the 

eastern boundary of section 31 and 

continuing along the eastern boundary 

of section 6, T13N/R6W, crossing onto 

the Lower Lake map, to the intersection 

of the boundary line and State Highway 

20 north of Phipps Creek; then 

(28) Proceed west in a straight line to 

the 1,200-foot elevation contour; then 

(29) Proceed northerly along the 

1,200-foot elevation contour, crossing 

onto the Benmore Canyon map, and 

continuing along the 1,200-foot 

elevation contour to its intersection 

with an unnamed trail in section 31, 

T14N/R6W; then 

(30) Proceed north in a straight line to 

State Highway 20; then 

(31) Proceed west along State 

Highway 20, returning to the beginning 

point. 

Signed: March 2, 2022. 

Mary G. Ryan, 

Administrator. 

Approved: March 2, 2022. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy). 

[FR Doc. 2022–04999 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 383 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2018–0292] 

RIN 2126–AC14 

Third Party Commercial Driver’s 

License Testers; 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 States to permit a third party 

skills test examiner to administer the 

Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) 

skills test to applicants to whom the 

examiner has also provided skills 

training, a practice now prohibited 

under FMCSA regulations. FMCSA 

takes this action after considering the 

comments received following 

publication of the NPRM, as explained 

further below. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

July 9, 2019, at 84 FR 32689, 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 October 2017, as part of the 

Department’s review of existing 

regulations to evaluate their continued 

necessity and effectiveness, DOT 

published a ‘‘Notification of Regulatory 

Review’’ seeking public input on 

existing rules and other agency actions 

(82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)). In response 

to that notification, SAGE Truck Driving 

Schools (SAGE) recommended that 

FMCSA eliminate the prohibition, set 

forth in § 383.75(a)(7), that prevents 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
13248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 9, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

1To view the NPRM and comments, go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2018-0292- 

0002. 

2 In the NPRM, FMCSA requested quantitative 

data addressing the impact of the current 

prohibition on skills testing delays, but did not 

receive data addressing this issue. 

States from permitting a third party 

skills examiner from administering a 

CDL skills test to an applicant who 

received skills training from that 

examiner. In support of its 

recommendation, SAGE asserted that 

the prohibition is unnecessary because: 

(1) State-based CDL testing compliance 

agencies have many other effective tools 

to detect and prevent fraud in CDL skills 

testing; (2) the rule causes significant 

inconvenience and cost for third party 

testers, CDL applicants, the 

transportation industry, and the public; 

(3) it needlessly makes CDL training and 

testing operation more difficult and 

costly, thereby exacerbating the CMV 

driver shortage; and (4) it contributes to 

CDL testing delays in some States. 

On July 9, 2019, FMCSA published an 

NPRM 1 to amend 49 CFR 383.75(a)(7) to 

allow States to permit a third party 

skills test examiner to administer the 

CDL skills test to applicants to whom 

the examiner has also provided skills 

training. This practice is currently 

prohibited under 49 CFR 383.75(a)(7). 

When issuing the proposal, the Agency 

noted that lifting the restriction could 

potentially alleviate skills testing delays 

and reduce cost and inconvenience for 

third party testers and CDL applicants, 

without negatively impacting safety. 

The Agency received 95 comments on 

the NPRM before the deadline of 

September 9, 2019. Most comments 

were submitted by individuals, many of 

whom identified themselves as trainers, 

testers, or drivers. Several organizations 

commented on the proposal, including 

the American Bus Association, 

Commercial Vehicle Training 

Association (CVTA), Truckload Carriers 

Association, National Limousine 

Association, American Trucking 

Associations, the Minnesota Trucking 

Association, and the Minnesota School 

Bus Operators Association. The 

following State driver licensing agencies 

also commented on the NPRM: Virginia 

Department of Motor Vehicles; Missouri 

Department of Revenue; Oregon 

Department of Transportation, Driver 

and Motor Vehicle Services; 

Washington State Department of 

Licensing; and Minnesota Department of 

Public Safety, Driver and Vehicle 

Services Division. 

Most commenters opposed the NPRM, 

citing concerns about fraud, conflict of 

interest, or examiner bias. These 

commenters argued that allowing the 

same individual to train and test the 

applicant could undermine the integrity 

of the skills testing process, thereby 

negatively impacting safety. As one 

individual noted, ‘‘The proposed rule 

removes the necessary impartiality of 

the CDL examiner, allowing the 

instructor to fail or pass student drivers 

with whom they have developed a 

relationship. This is not a fair 

assessment of the candidates’ abilities.’’ 

A commenter identifying as a trainer 

with 22 years of experience expressed a 

similar concern, explaining that ‘‘the 

reason another trainer has to test my 

student is to prevent bias or just passing 

them along.’’ Another commenter said 

that, while some companies ‘‘will do 

due diligence to make sure drivers are 

trained properly,’’ lifting the restriction 

would remove necessary checks and 

balances from the skills testing process. 

The Minnesota Trucking Association 

stated that lifting the restriction ‘‘would 

cause an increased risk of intentional 

and unintentional bias in testing 

results.’’ One individual observed that 

current alternative approaches to 

detecting fraud in CDL testing, 

identified in the NPRM, ‘‘rely on the 

principle of deterrence rather than 

prevention . . . which allows 

unqualified drivers to obtain their CDLs 

and legally operate [commercial] motor 

vehicles on public roadways without 

proper training—at least until the fraud 

is discovered.’’ 

All of the States that commented on 

the NPRM (Virginia, Oregon, 

Washington, Minnesota, and Missouri) 

also raised concern that lifting the 

prohibition could negatively impact 

safety by undermining the integrity of 

skills testing. As Washington stated, the 

NPRM ‘‘adds substantial risk’’ to third 

party testing ‘‘by introducing an 

apparent conflict of interest.’’ 

Additionally, three States voiced 

concerns about accepting skills testing 

results for applicants tested in States 

that had lifted the restriction. Oregon 

stated that, while the proposed change 

is ‘‘permissive in nature, given the 

requirement to accept out-of-State CDL 

skills test results, adoption by other 

jurisdictions will pose a risk that we 

have deemed unacceptable.’’ Similarly, 

Virginia noted it would be ‘‘unable to 

guard against fraud in these situations 

and that unsafe drivers will be licensed 

to drive interstate impacting safety in 

Virginia and elsewhere.’’ Washington 

expressed ‘‘strong concerns with 

accepting skills test results from other 

jurisdictions allowing [third party skills 

test examiners] to test the individuals 

they train.’’ 

Most of the organizations that 

commented in support of the proposal 

believed that lifting the restriction 

would not compromise safety, due to 

the extensive fraud detection measures 

already in place. As CVTA noted, 

‘‘[t]hird party testing occurs within a 

powerful network of state and federal 

regulation . . . [which] upholds the 

integrity of the examination process 

because it monitors examiner activity to 

prevent fraud.’’ Some individual 

commenters argued that permitting the 

same individual to train and test the 

applicant would not result in a conflict 

of interest. One instructor stated he 

finds the current restriction offensive 

because it presumes that ‘‘all teachers 

are frauds and not trustworthy to test 

their own students.’’ Several 

commenters asserted that lifting the 

restriction could enhance safety by 

expanding the opportunity for students 

to benefit from the expertise of different 

instructors. 

Some commenters supporting the 

proposal said that it would increase 

flexibility and efficiencies for both 

applicants and third party testers and 

would alleviate skills testing delays. For 

example, Greyhound Lines, Inc. stated 

that ‘‘[a]llowing Greyhound trainers to 

administer the CDL test to the drivers 

they train enables the drivers who pass 

the test to start their work assignments 

earlier than if they have to wait for a 

State-administered test.’’ 

The Agency carefully considered all 

comments. FMCSA acknowledges the 

NPRM’s potential for increasing the 

efficiency and flexibility of the skills 

testing process and reducing skills test 

delays.2 The Agency is persuaded, 

however, by numerous comments citing 

the NPRM’s potential for undermining 

the integrity of the CDL skills testing 

process and negatively impacting 

highway safety. FMCSA has therefore 

decided to retain the current regulation 

(49 CFR 383.75(a)(7)) prohibiting States 

from permitting a third party skills test 

examiner to administer the CDL skills 

test to applicants to whom the examiner 

has also provided skills training. The 

Agency hereby withdraws the July 9, 

2019, NPRM referenced above, based on 

the same legal authorities on which it 

issued the NPRM, set forth at 84 FR 

32689, 32691. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Robin Hutcheson, 

Acting Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2022–04968 Filed 3–8–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1