Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24817

regulations establishing new tolerances

or raising tolerance levels or

establishing exemptions from tolerance

requirements do not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. A certification

statement to this effect was published in

the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46

FR 24950).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 185 and

186

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Agricultural commodities, Feed

additives, Food additives, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: April 28, 1995.

Peter Caulkins,

Acting Director, Registration Division, Office

of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR

parts 185 and 186 be amended as

follows:

PART 185—[AMENDED]

1. In part 185:

a. The authority citation for part 185

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 348.

b. By revising § 185.5450, to read as

follows:

§ 185.5450 Tralomethrin.

(a) A time-limited food additive

regulation is established for the

combined residues of the insecticide

tralomethrin ((S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl-(1R,3S)-2,2-dimethyl-3-

[(RS)-1,2,2,2-tetrabromoethyl]-

cyclopropanecarboxylate; CAS Reg. No.

66841-25-6) and its metabolites (S)-

alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1R,3R)-

3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and

(S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-

dibromovinly)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate

calculated as the parent in or on the

following food commodities when

present as a result of application of the

insecticide to the growing crops:

Commodity Parts per

million

Expiration

date

Cottonseed oil ... 0.20 Nov. 15,

1997.

(b) A time-limited food additive

regulation is established permitting

residues of the pesticide tralomethrin

((S)-alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-

(1R,3S)-2,2-dimethyl-3-[(RS)-1,2,2,2-

tetrabromoethyl]-

cyclopropanecarboxylate; CAS Reg. No.

66841-25-6) and its metabolites (S)-

alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1R,3R)-

3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and

(S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-

dibromovinly)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate

calculated as the parent in or on the

following food commodity resulting

from application of the insecticide to

tomatoes in accordance with an

experimental program (34147-EUP-2).

The conditions set forth in this section

shall be met.

Commodity

Parts

per million

Expiration

date

Tomato puree ....... 1.00 June 1,

1997.

(1) Residues in the food not in excess

of the established tolerance resulting

from the use described in paragraph (b)

of this section remaining after

expiration of the experimental program

will not be considered to be actionable

if the insecticide is applied during the

term of and in accordance with the

provisions of the experimental use

program and feed additive regulation.

(2) The company concerned shall

immediately notify the Environmental

Protection Agency of any findings from

the experimental use that have a bearing

on safety. The firm shall also keep

records of production, distribution, and

performance, and on request make the

records available to any authorized

officer or employee of the

Environmental Protection Agency or the

Food and Drug Administration.

PART 186—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 186

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 348.

2. By adding new § 186.5450, to read

as follows:

§ 186.5450 Tralomethrin.

(a) A time-limited feed additive

regulation is established permitting

residues of tralomethrin ((S)-alphacyano-3-phenoxybenzyl-(1R,3S)-2,2-

dimethyl-3-[(RS)-1,2,2,2-

tetrabromoethyl]-

cyclopropanecarboxylate; CAS Reg. No.

66841-25-6) and its metabolites (S)-

alpha-cyano-3-phenoxybenzyl (1R,3R)-

3-(2,2-dibromovinyl)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate and

(S)-alpha-cyano-3-

phenoxybenzyl(1S,3R)-3-(2,2-

dibromovinly)-2,2-

dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate

calculated as the parent in or on the

following feed resulting from

application of the insecticide to

tomatoes in accordance with an

experimental program (34147-EUP-2).

The conditions set forth in this section

shall be met.

Feed

Parts

per million

Expiration

date

Tomato pomace,

wet.

1.50 June 1,

1997.

Tomato pomace,

dry.

4.00 June 1,

1997.

(b) Residues in the feed not in excess

of the established tolerance resulting

from the use described in paragraph (a)

of this section remaining after

expiration of the experimental program

will not be considered to be actionable

if the insecticide is applied during the

term of and in accordance with the

provisions of the experimental use

program and feed additive regulation.

(c) The company concerned shall

immediately notify the Environmental

Protection Agency of any findings from

the experimental use that have a bearing

on safety. The firm shall also keep

records of production, distribution, and

performance, and on request make the

records available to any authorized

officer or employee of the

Environmental Protection Agency or the

Food and Drug Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–11386 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 95–41; FCC 95–146]

Fixed Satellite Systems

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Commission is hereby

proposing rules that would eliminate

the distinction between our Transborder

Policy and Separate International

Satellite Systems (Separate Systems)

Policy and to treat all U.S.-licensed

geostationary fixed-satellites under a

single regulatory scheme. Our action is

in response to applications from
24818 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1See 47 U.S.C. 701(d). Additionally, Congress has

declared it to be U.S. policy ‘‘to make available to

consumers a variety of communications satellite

services utilizing the space segment facilities of

Intelsat and any additional such facilities which are

found to be in the national interest’’ and which are

technically compatible with and avoid significant

economic harm to the Intelsat system. Pub. L. 99–

93, 99 Stat. 425 (1985) (quoted in Historical and

Statutory Notes to 47 U.S.C.A. 701).

2Letter from James L. Buckley, Under Secretary

of State for Security Assistance, Science and

Technology, to F.C.C. Chairman Mark Fowler (July

23, 1981) (‘‘Buckley Letter’’) (printed in Appendix

to Transborder Satellite Video Services, 88 F.C.C.2d

258, 287 (1981)).

3 Id. at 280.

4Presidential Determination No. 85–2 (Nov. 28,

1984), 49 F.R. 46,987. The Separate Systems Policy

is written into law as part of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987,

Pub. L. 99–93, section 146(g), 99 Stat. at 426.

5At the time, the restriction against

interconnection with the PSN was deemed

necessary to protect the core revenue base of

Intelsat which consisted of switched voice and

other services.

6Letter from George P. Shultz, Secretary of State,

and Malcolm Baldridge, Secretary of Commerce, to

F.C.C. Chairman Mark S. Fowler (Nov. 28, 1984).

7Establishment of Satellite Systems Providing

International Communications, 50 FR 42266 (1985)

(‘‘Separate Systems Dicision’’), recon., 61 RR2d 649

(1986), further recon., 1 F.C.C. Rcd 439 (1986).

domestic and international satellite

system operators for authority to

provide both domestic and international

services. In addition, the Executive

Branch has recommended that all U.S.-

licensed fixed-satellites be subject to the

same regulatory scheme. Permitting U.S.

operators to provide the widest range of

service offerings technically feasible

will allow them to use their satellites

more efficiently and to provide

innovative and customer-tailored

services.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before June 8, 1995 and reply

comments must be submitted on or

before June 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments and reply

comments should be submitted to

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

M. Coles, Attorney, Satellite Policy

Branch, International Bureau (202) 739–

0731.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Adopted: April 5, 1995.

Released: April 25, 1995.

By the Commission:

1. The Commission is hereby

proposing rules that would eliminate

the distinction between our Transborder

Policy and Separate International

Satellite Systems (Separate Systems)

Policy and to treat all U.S.-licensed

geostationary fixed-satellites under a

single regulatory scheme.

II. Background

2. The Transborder and Separate

Systems Policies both involve the use of

non-Intelsat satellites for the provision

of international services. Both policies

are based on the Communications

Satellite Act of 1962 (‘‘Satellite Act’’)

which provides for U.S. participation in

the global commercial communications

satellite organization that became

Intelsat, but also specifically provides

that additional satellite systems may be

authorized if ‘‘required to meet unique

governmental needs or if otherwise

required in the national interest.’’ 1 The

Transborder and Separate Systems

Policies evolved from these general

principles at different times and in

response to different circumstances.

A. Transborder Policy

3. The Transborder Policy was

established in 1981 and permits

domestic fixed-satellite operators

(‘‘domsats’’) to provide international

public telecommunications services

within the coverage areas (‘‘footprints’’)

of their satellites where: (1) Intelsat

cannot provide the service; or (2) it

would be clearly uneconomical or

impractical to use Intelsat facilities.2

Most of the applications approved for

transborder services have involved

instances where use of the Intelsat

system would be clearly uneconomical

or impractical, i.e. use of Intelsat

facilities would require multiple

satellite hops, terrestrial facilities, and

co-located domestic and international

earth stations, which would

significantly increase the cost of

providing the service.3 Typically,

services authorized under the

uneconomical or impractical standard

have been characterized as ‘‘incidental’’

to domestic services already being

provided.

4. U.S. domsats have provided more

extensive services (i.e., point-to-point

and two-way services) between the U.S.

and Mexico and between the U.S. and

Canada because Intelsat has not

traditionally provided service between

the U.S. and these points. Thus, a wider

range of services was permitted between

the U.S. and contiguous locations (i.e.,

Canada and Mexico) than between the

U.S. and non-contiguous locations.

5. Another significant feature of the

Transborder Policy is that it does not

prohibit voice services through the

public switched network (‘‘PSN’’), as

did our Separate Systems Policy

initially. Until recent modifications in

the Separate Systems Policy permitting

interconnection with the PSN, the

ability of domsats to provide public

switched services under the

Transborder Policy was the main

distinguishing feature between the two

policies.

B. Separate Systems Policy

6. The Separate Systems Policy was

established in response to a 1984

Presidential Determination that satellite

systems separate from Intelsat,

providing service between the U.S. and

international points, ‘‘are required in

the national interest.’’ 4 In response to

the Presidential Determination, the

Secretaries of State and Commerce

jointly advised the Commission to

authorize separate systems provided

that (1) each system be restricted to

providing services through the sale or

long-term lease of capacity for

communications not interconnected

with public switched message networks

(except for emergency restoration

service); 5 and (2) each system gain

approval from the foreign authority with

which communications links are being

established and enter into consultation

procedures in accordance with Article

XIV(d) of the Intelsat Agreement to

ensure technical compatibility and to

avoid significant economic harm to

Intelsat.6

7. In 1985, we authorized several

applicants to build separate satellite

systems to provide international public

telecommunications services under

these condition.7 Since many of the

orbital positions requested by separate

systems applicants were deemed to be

critical, limited resources for the

provision of particular international

services, we decided we would not

permit separate systems operators to

divert this capacity for domestic

communications. However, we decided

that separate system licensees could

provide domestic service within the

U.S. on an ‘‘ancillary’’ basis, which

permits licensees to use their separate

system facilities for domestic

communications that are reasonably

related to their use of the facilities for

international communications. This was

intended to accommodate those

international customers who have

limited domestic communications needs

related to their international uses.

C. Recent Developments

8. Since we first began to license

separate systems, Intelsat has continued

to evaluate the risk of economic harm

posed by these systems and has

concluded that the provision of limited

switched services over systems

consulted under Article XIV(d) would
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 24819

8Most recently, the Nineteenth Assembly of

Parties of Intelsat determined that the

interconnection of up to 8,000 64-kbps equivalent

circuits via each separate system satellite would not

cause significant economic harm to the Intelsat

system. The Executive Branch has not yet notified

the Commission that the Separate Systems Policy

should be modified accordingly.

9See Letter from Thomas J. Murrin, Deputy

Secretary of Commerce, and Lawrence S.

Eagleburger, Deputy Secretary of State, to F.C.C.

Chairman Alfred C. Sikes (December 14, 1990)(100

64–kbps circuits consistent with U.S. obligations).

Letter from James Baker, Secretary of State, and

Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce, to F.C.C.

Chairman Sikes (November 27, 1991)

(interconnection of private lines to the PSN

consistent with U.S. obligations and U.S. goal of

complete elimination of PSN interconnection

restrictions by January 1997). Letter from Bradley P.

Holmes, United States Coordinator for International

Communications and Information Policy,

Department of State, and Gregory L. Chapados,

Assistant Secretary, Department of Commerce, to

F.C.C. Chairman Sikes (January 8, 1993)(1,250 64-

kbps circuits consistent with U.S. obligations). See

also Permissible Services of U.S. Licensed

International Communications Satellite Systems

Separate from the International

Telecommunications Satellite Organization

(Intelsat), 7 F.C.C. Rcd 2313 (1992), further

modification, 9 F.C.C. Rcd 347 (1994); alpha

Lyracom d/b/a Pan American Satellite, el at., 9

F.C.C. Rcd 1282 (1994) (‘‘PAS Modification Order’’),

10Letter from Bradley P. Holmes, United States

Coordinator for International Communications and

Information Policy, Department of State, and

Gregory L. Chapados, Assistant Secretary for

Communications and Information, Department of

Commerce, to F.C.C. Chairman Alfred C. Sikes

(January 8, 1993).

11The ITU (International Telecommunications

Union) is a specialized agency of the United States

Nations whose goal is to promote international

cooperation in the efficient use of

telecommunications, including the use of the radio

frequency spectrum.

12 /Any domsat operators that need to change the

technical parameters of their proposed or

authorized satellites in order to provide co-primary

international service must file a request to amend

the application or modify the license under Part 25

procedures. 47 CFR Part 25.

not cause it significant economic harm.8

The Executive Branch advised us to

modify our Separate Systems Policy

accordingly. The cumulative effect of

these modifications is a phased

relaxation of the restrictions against

interconnection with the PSN—from no

circuits in 1985 to 8,000 circuits today—

with a goal of complete elimination of

all interconnection restrictions by

January 1997.9

9. The Executive Branch has also

notified the Commission that the

conditions identified in the Buckley

Letter should be replaced by the

Separate System Policy.10 In addition,

we have received applications from

domestic and international satellite

system licensees for authority to provide

a full range of both domestic and

international services.

Discussion

10. We propose to eliminate the

transborder policy in its entirety and to

subject all U.S.-licensed geostationary

satellite to a modified version of the

separate systems policy. Under the new

policy, all such satellites would be able

to offer domestic services and any

international services they can

successfully coordinate internationally.

These changes would allow major U.S.

corporations to meet their increasingly

global communications needs without

the delays and uncertainties associated

with the current policy of waiving parts

of the transborder or separate systems

policies on a case-by-case basis.

11. We tentatively conclude that

permitting U.S. operators to provide the

widest range of service offerings

technically feasible and consulted by

Intelsat will permit them to use their

satellites more efficiently and to provide

innovative and customer-tailored

services. Domsat licensees will be able

to provide these international services

without regard to whether these services

are incidental to an existing domestic

network or whether Intelsat could

provide the service. consequently,

subject to the approval of the affected

foreign country and successful

consultation with Intelsat and ITU 11

coordination with other administrations

with satellite systems that may be

affected, domsats would be able to

provide services between the U.S. and

non-contiguous points on the same basis

as separate systems.12 In order to ensure

that domsats and separate systems are

subject to the same regulatory scheme,

we also propose removing the limitation

that separate systems may only provide

domestic service on an ‘‘ancillary’’

basis.

12. We do not expect the proposed

policy changes to result in harm to

Intelsat. Intelsat has consulted more and

more international services over U.S.

separate satellites, suggesting that these

services have not harmed it

economically or technically.

13. We also request comment on

whether the proposed policy changes

should apply to other U.S. satellite

systems, such as mobile-satellite service

and direct broadcast service systems;

whether Comsat, a U.S. licensee, should

be permitted to provide domestic

service using intelsat facilities; and

whether and under what conditions

non-U.S. satellites should be permitted

to serve the U.S. Domestic market.

14. The proposed policy changes will

require certain changes to Part 25 of our

rules. Initially, we propose to eliminate

all references to ‘‘transborder’’,

‘‘domestic’’, ‘‘separate’’ and

‘‘international’’ satellite systems. These

references are found in §§ 25.110(b),

25.113 (b) and (d), 25.114(c), 25.115(c),

25.117(a), 25.130(d), 25.131(b), (g) and

(j), 25.140 (a) and (b), 25.202(c), 25.210

(e), (f) and (j), 25.211(b) and 25.276(c).

We also propose to reconcile differences

in the financial qualification

requirements for domsats and separate

systems, allow all U.S.-licensed satellite

system operators to elect whether they

will operate on a common carrier or

non-common carrier basis, and make

modifications to our earth station

licensing procedures. Finally, because

the recent changes to Part 25 require

separate system operators to meet the

same technical standards as domsat

operators, we proposed to eliminate

§ 25.210(f) which permits exceptions to

the technical requirements in

accordance with the Separate Systems

Decision.

15. We also invite all interested

parties to comment on any other issues

raised by the proposed changes,

including considerations as to how the

proposed changes will affect orbital

assignments, 2° orbital spacing between

U.S. satellites in the geostationary orbit,

the need to reopen coordination with

satellite systems from other countries,

and whether any special requirements

should be placed on satellite operators

providing both domestic and

international service.

Ex Parte Rules—Non-Restricted

Proceeding

This is a non-restricted notice and

comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex

parte presentations are permitted,

except during the Sunshine Agenda

period, provided they are disclosed as

provided in Commission rules. See

generally 47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, and

1.1206(a).

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act

A. Reason for Action

This rulemaking proceeding is

initiated to obtain comment regarding

proposed elimination of the

Commission’s Transborder Policy and

removal of certain restrictions on

separate international satellite systems

with respect to domestic services in

order to subject all U.S.-licensed fixedsatellites to the same regulatory

treatment.

B. Objectives

The Commission seeks to subject all

U.S.-licensed fixed-satellites to the same

regulatory policy.

C. Legal Basis

The proposed action is authorized

under Sections 4 and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303(r), and
24820 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Section 201 of the Communications

Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C. 721(c).

D. Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other

Compliance Requirements

The proposed policy changes will not

create additional burdens on the public.

E. Federal Rules That Overlap,

Duplicate or Conflict With These Rules

None.

F. Description, Potential Impact, and

Number of Small Entities Involved

The proposed policy changes

discussed in this Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking will enhance service

options and price competition for any

small businesses involved in the

provision of international

telecommunications services via U.S.-

licensed satellites.

G. Any Significant Alternatives

Minimizing the Impact on Small Entities

Consistent with the Stated Objectives

The Notice solicits comment on

proposed policy changes necessary to

achieve Commission objectives. Any

significant alternatives may be set forth

in comments to this Notice.

Comment Dates

Pursuant to applicable procedures set

forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and

1.419, interested parties may file

comments on or before June 8, 1995 and

reply comments on or before June 23,

1995. To file formally in this

proceeding, you must file an original

and four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

you want each Commissioner to receive

a personal copy of your comments, you

must file an original plus nine copies.

You should send comments and reply

comments to: Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. Comments and

reply comments will be available for

public inspection during regular

business hours in the F.C.C. Reference

Center (Room 239) of the Federal

Communications Commission, 1919 M

St., NW., Washington, DC 20554.

Ordering Clauses

16. Accordingly, it is ordered That

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the

proposed regulatory action described

above and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT

on the proposals in this Notice.

17. This action is taken pursuant to

Sections 4 and 303(r) of the

Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 303(r), and

Section 201(c) of the Communications

Satellite Act of 1962, 47 U.S.C. 721(c).

18. For further information on this

Notice contact John M. Coles, Attorney,

(202) 739–0731.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 25

Communications common carriers,

Radio, Satellites.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–11286 Filed 5–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[FHWA Docket No. MC–95–16]

Commercial Driver’s License; Waiver

for Pyrotechnics Industry; Request for

Comments

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition; request for

comment.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is requesting

public comment on a petition submitted

by the pyrotechnics industry on March

6, 1995, for relief from the requirements

of the commercial driver’s license

regulations (CDL) (49 CFR Part 383).

The FHWA is proposing to authorize

waivers for certain drivers transporting

fireworks to displays during the period

of Independence Day celebrations from

the CDL testing and licensing standards.

The drivers to be covered by these

waivers are part-time drivers who have

an otherwise valid driver’s license, as

well as licenses or permits issued by

applicable State or local agencies

certifying that they are approved

pyrotechnic operators. A waiver issued

by a State under this proposal would

only authorize the transportation of less

than 500 pounds of fireworks classified

as DOT Class 1.3G explosives, from June

30 through July 6 of each year, provided

that the vehicles operated have gross

vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) of less

than 10,001 pounds and are operated

within 300 miles of the sites of origin.

The FHWA requests public comment on

whether, if granted, the proposed grant

of waiver authority would be contrary to

the public interest or diminish the safe

operation of commercial motor vehicles.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before June 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All signed, written

comments should refer to the docket

number that appears at the top of this

document and should be submitted to

the Federal Highway Administration,

Room 4232, Office of Chief Counsel,

HCC–10, 400 Seventh Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20590–0001.

All comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from 8:30

a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. Commenters

who want to be notified that the FHWA

received their comments should include a

self-addressed, stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Redmond, Office of Motor

Carrier Standards, (202) 366–4001, or

Mr. Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the

Chief Counsel, HCC–20, (202) 366–0834,

Federal Highway Administration,

Department of Transportation, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC

20590–0001. Office hours are from 7:45

a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Commercial Driver’s License

(CDL) regulations, issued pursuant to

the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety

Act of 1986 (Title XII, Pub. L. 99–570,

100 Stat. 3207, 3207–170) (49 U.S.C.

31502), are found at 49 CFR Part 383

(1994). Section 383.23 of the regulations

sets forth the general rule that no person

shall operate a commercial motor

vehicle (CMV) unless such person: (1)

Has taken and passed a knowledge test

and, if applicable, a driving test, which

meets Federal standards, and (2)

possesses a CDL, which is evidence of

having passed the required tests. These

Federal standards ensure that drivers of

a CMV: (1) Have a single driver’s license

and a single driving record, (2) are

tested for the knowledge and skills

needed to drive a vehicle representative

of the vehicle that they will be licensed

to drive, and (3) are disqualified from

driving a CMV when convicted of

certain criminal or traffic violations.

Drivers operating commercial motor

vehicles that haul hazardous materials

are also required to take and pass

specialized tests for specific

endorsements to their licenses.

The term ‘‘commercial motor vehicle’’

is defined to include, a motor vehicle:

(1) With a gross combination weight

rating of 26,001 or more pounds

inclusive of a towed unit with a GVWR

of more than 10,000 pounds; or

(2) With a GVWR of 26,001 or more

pounds; or

(3) Designed to transport 16 or more

passengers, including the driver; or

(4) Used in the transportation of

quantities of hazardous materials which

require the vehicle to be placarded

under the Hazardous Materials

Transportation Regulations (49 CFR part

172, subpart F). 49 CFR 383.5 (1994).