# 71 FR 66723: Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the CDL

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-19246

## Section

- **Citation:** 71 FR 66723
- **Heading:** Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the CDL
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 71 / 71 FR 66723

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 383, 384, 390, and 391 [Docket No. FMCSA-1997-2210] RIN 2126-AA10 Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the CDL AGENCY:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION:
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

SUMMARY:
FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to merge information from the medical certificate into the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) process as required by section 215 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). This NPRM would implement section 215 by requiring interstate CDL holders subject to the physical qualification requirements of the FMCSRs to provide a current original or copy of their medical examiner's certificates to their State Driver Licensing Agency (SDLA). It would also require the SDLA to record on the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) driver record the certification the driver made regarding applicability of 49 CFR part 391, and, for drivers subject to part 391, the medical status information proposed in this NPRM. The driver's certification as to the applicability of part 391 and the specified medical certification status information would be made available to personnel authorized in 49 CFR part 384 via CDLIS and National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (NLETS) electronic inquiries, and on the CDLIS motor vehicle record (CDLIS MVR) obtained by employers and drivers. CDL drivers would no longer be required to carry the medical examiner's certificate, because their certification status would be verified electronically.

DATES:
Comments must be received by February 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-1997-2210 by any of the following methods:
• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251
rtificate, because their certification status would be verified electronically.

DATES:
Comments must be received by February 14, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number FMCSA-1997-2210 by any of the following methods:
• Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic site.
• Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this rulemaking (RIN 2126-AA10). Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://dms.dot.gov , including any personal information provided. Please refer to the Privacy Act heading for FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov
t: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included in the docket and we will consider late comments to the extent practicable. FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Chief, Physical Qualifications Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 366-4001; E-mail address: Maggi.Gunnels@dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline of the NPRM
A. Legal Basis 1. Authority Over Drivers Affected 2. Authority To Regulate State CDL Programs B. Background 1. Current CDL Information and Recordkeeping Systems 2. Medical Certification of CDL Drivers Subject to Part 391 3. Current CDL Requirements Regarding Physical Qualifications 4. State Feasibility Pilot Tests 5. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 6. Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee C. Rulemaking Proposal 1. Highlights of Proposed New CDL Licensing Process 2. Potential Impacts on States 3. Potential Impacts on Motor Carriers Employing CDL Drivers 4. Potential Impacts on Drivers D. Implementation Date E. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes F. Summary Cost Benefit Analysis G. Rulemaking Analyses List of Subjects A. Legal Basis
Section 215 of MCSIA (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1767 (Dec. 9, 1999)) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C
Licensing Process 2. Potential Impacts on States 3. Potential Impacts on Motor Carriers Employing CDL Drivers 4. Potential Impacts on Drivers D. Implementation Date E. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes F. Summary Cost Benefit Analysis G. Rulemaking Analyses List of Subjects A. Legal Basis
Section 215 of MCSIA (Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1767 (Dec. 9, 1999)) (set out as a note to 49 U.S.C. 31305) provides that: “The Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate to be made a part of commercial driver's licenses.” The population of drivers required to obtain a CDL is different from the population of drivers required to obtain a medical certificate. For that reason, in order to implement this congressional mandate, the proposed rule reconciles the differences between the scope of the Agency's authority to regulate the physical qualifications of drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and its authority to establish requirements for the issuance of commercial driver's licenses. The proposed rule would place requirements on only those drivers required to obtain a CDL from a State who are also required to obtain a certificate from a medical examiner indicating that they are physically qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. The proposed rule would also establish requirements to be implemented by States that issue CDLs to such drivers. These requirements would ensure that accurate and timely information about the medical examiner's certificate would be contained in the electronic CDLIS driver record maintained in compliance with the CDL regulations. Finally, the proposed rule would require States to take certain actions against CDL holders if such information is not kept accurate and up-to-date in a timely manner.
1. Authority Over Drivers Affected
a. Drivers Required To Obtain a Medical Certificate
erpretations of those sections (and their predecessors), and defined in 49 CFR 390.5 as follows:
Interstate commerce means trade, traffic, or transportation in the United States—
(1) Between a place in a State and a place outside of such State (including a place outside of the United States);
(2) Between two places in a State through another State or a place outside of the United States; or
(3) Between two places in a State as part of trade, traffic, or transportation originating or terminating outside the State or the United States.
With certain limited exceptions, 1 FMCSA has fulfilled the statutory mandate of 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(3) by establishing physical qualification standards for all drivers covered by these provisions. (49 CFR 391.11(b)(4)). Such drivers must also obtain from a medical examiner a certification indicating that the driver is physically qualified to drive a CMV. (49 CFR 391.41(a), 391.43(g) and (h)). The proposed rule would not make any change in the requirements for obtaining a medical certificate. But, on the basis of this authority, it would require drivers subject to the medical examiner's certificate requirement who are also required to obtain a CDL, to furnish the original or a copy of the certificate to the licensing State. As explained in the Summary Cost Benefit Analysis in this Notice, the proposed rule should improve compliance by CMV operators with the physical qualification standards in the FMCSRs. By doing so, the proposed rule would aid the Agency in ensuring that the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them to operate safely and that such operation does not have a deleterious effect on their health, as required by section 31136(a)(3) and (4). The other minimum requirements of section 31136, set out in subsections (a)(1) and (2), are not applicable to the proposed rule, because it does not involve either the safety of CMV equipment or the operational activities of the operators.
1 See 49 CFR 390.3(f) and 391.2.
b
y and that such operation does not have a deleterious effect on their health, as required by section 31136(a)(3) and (4). The other minimum requirements of section 31136, set out in subsections (a)(1) and (2), are not applicable to the proposed rule, because it does not involve either the safety of CMV equipment or the operational activities of the operators.
1 See 49 CFR 390.3(f) and 391.2.
b. Drivers Required To Obtain a CDL. The authority for FMCSA to require an operator of a CMV to obtain a CDL rests on different statutory provisions than those authorizing the promulgation of physical and medical qualifications for such operators; the authority is found in 49 U.S.C. 31302. The requirement to obtain a CDL is applicable to drivers of specified CMV categories that are different from the categories specified in 49 U.S.C. 31132(1) and the implementing regulations, as discussed in the preceding section. The four categories of CMVs for which an operator is required to have a CDL, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 31301(4) and specified in 49 CFR 383.5, are:
• Those with a gross combination weight rating or gross combination weight, of at least 26,001 pounds, including towed units with gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight of more than 10,000 pounds;
• Those with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of at least 26,001 pounds;
• Those designed to transport at least 16 passengers, including the driver; or
• Those of any size used to transport either hazardous materials that require a placard on the vehicle under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin under 42 CFR part 73.
In addition, the vehicles involved must be used “in commerce to transport passengers or property.” (49 U.S.C. 31301(4))
port at least 16 passengers, including the driver; or
• Those of any size used to transport either hazardous materials that require a placard on the vehicle under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin under 42 CFR part 73.
In addition, the vehicles involved must be used “in commerce to transport passengers or property.” (49 U.S.C. 31301(4)). The term “commerce” is defined for the purpose of the CDL statutes and regulations as:
trade, traffic, and transportation—
(A) in the jurisdiction of the United States between a place in a State and a place outside that State (including a place outside the United States); or
(B) in the United States that affects trade, traffic, and transportation described in subclause (A) of this clause. (49 U.S.C. 31301(2). See also 49 CFR 383.5.)
However, the statutory provisions governing CDLs also contain a limitation on the scope of the authority granted to FMCSA. The provision at 49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(7) states that:
The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle. The regulations—

(7) shall ensure that an individual taking the tests is qualified to operate a commercial motor vehicle under regulations prescribed by the Secretary and contained in title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, to the extent the regulations apply to the individual; (Emphasis added).
The current CDL provisions require each CDL driver either to certify that he/she meets the qualification requirements contained in 49 CFR part 391 or, if the driver expects to operate entirely in intrastate commerce and is not subject to part 391 but is subject to State driver qualification requirements, to certify that he/she is not subject to part 391. (49 CFR 383.71(a)(1))
; (Emphasis added).
The current CDL provisions require each CDL driver either to certify that he/she meets the qualification requirements contained in 49 CFR part 391 or, if the driver expects to operate entirely in intrastate commerce and is not subject to part 391 but is subject to State driver qualification requirements, to certify that he/she is not subject to part 391. (49 CFR 383.71(a)(1)).
Therefore, reading all of these statutory provisions as a whole, FMCSA interprets section 215 of MCSIA to be applicable only to CDL holders or applicants operating or intending to operate in interstate commerce, as
2. Authority To Regulate State CDL Programs
FMCSA, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31311 and 31314, has authority to prescribe procedures and requirements for the States to observe in order to issue CDLs. ( See, generally , 49 CFR part 384.) In particular, under section 31314, in order to avoid loss of funds apportioned from the highway trust fund, each State shall comply with the following requirement:
(1) The State shall adopt and carry out a program for testing and ensuring the fitness of individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles consistent with the minimum standards prescribed by [FMCSA] under section 31305(a) of [Title 49 U.S.C.]. (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(1). See also 49 CFR 384.201.).
If a State does not comply with these requirements, it is also subject to possible loss of grant funds under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). ( See 49 CFR 350.217.).
On the basis of this authority, the proposed rule would require States issuing CDLs to drivers operating or intending to operate in interstate commerce, to obtain all information on the required medical examiner's certificate for entry into the CDLIS driver record. The proposed rule would also require the States to take certain specified actions if such information is not provided by the CDL applicant or holder.
B. Background
1
proposed rule would require States issuing CDLs to drivers operating or intending to operate in interstate commerce, to obtain all information on the required medical examiner's certificate for entry into the CDLIS driver record. The proposed rule would also require the States to take certain specified actions if such information is not provided by the CDL applicant or holder.
B. Background
1. Current CDL Information and Recordkeeping Systems
The Commercial Driver's License Information System or CDLIS is the existing information system that serves as a clearinghouse and depository of all information about the licensing, identification, and disqualification of CDL operators of commercial motor vehicles. This NPRM uses the term “CDLIS driver record” as the name of the electronic record containing a CDL driver's status and history located in the database of the driver's State-of-Record. 2 The motor vehicle record (MVR) is the term, that by convention and usage, generally describes the driver history information provided from the driver record to the driver or employer by a SDLA, usually for a fee. Historically the FMCSRs have used a variety of terms such as driver record or driving record in the context of various requirements for motor carriers to investigate and obtain the driving history and status of all operators of commercial motor vehicles, both CDL and non-CDL. This NPRM proposes to standardize usage of the terms CDLIS driver record for CDL drivers, and driver record for non-CDL drivers to refer to the computer record stored by the SDLA. It further proposes to standardize usage of the terms CDLIS motor vehicle record (CDLIS MVR) for CDL drivers and motor vehicle record (MVR) for non-CDL drivers, to mean the driver history information provided to the driver or employer by the SDLA from the driver record.
2 “State of Record” is the jurisdiction that maintains the CDLIS driver record for every CDL driver licensed within its jurisdiction
rther proposes to standardize usage of the terms CDLIS motor vehicle record (CDLIS MVR) for CDL drivers and motor vehicle record (MVR) for non-CDL drivers, to mean the driver history information provided to the driver or employer by the SDLA from the driver record.
2 “State of Record” is the jurisdiction that maintains the CDLIS driver record for every CDL driver licensed within its jurisdiction. See 49 CFR 384.107 and AAMVA, Inc.'s “Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual.”
Different methods are used for obtaining responses from the CDLIS driver record by different user groups. Federal and State MCSAP personnel largely use the FMCSA CDLIS-Access software developed and operated by FMCSA, and provided to these personnel. State and local police performing traffic enforcement as part of MCSAP or other operations, predominantly use the National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System to obtain whatever form of the driver status and/or history information the SDLA provides from the CDLIS driver record. Drivers and motor carriers have access to CDLIS driver record information by purchasing the MVR from the SDLA, subject to the limitations in 49 CFR 384.225(e).
2. Medical Certification of CDL Drivers Subject to Part 391
With limited exceptions, all drivers who operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce must comply with the qualification requirements of 49 CFR part 391 (49 CFR 391.1). This includes CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(7)).
There are exceptions from the medical certification requirement provided under 49 CFR 390.3(f) including, for example, drivers engaged in transportation performed by Federal, State or local governments, and school bus drivers providing school to home and home to school transportation
CFR part 391 (49 CFR 391.1). This includes CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(7)).
There are exceptions from the medical certification requirement provided under 49 CFR 390.3(f) including, for example, drivers engaged in transportation performed by Federal, State or local governments, and school bus drivers providing school to home and home to school transportation. Additional exceptions are also provided under 49 CFR 391.2 and include drivers engaged in certain custom farm operations, the seasonal transportation of bees using CMVs controlled and operated by a beekeeper, and the operation of certain farm vehicles.
Each driver subject to the physical qualification requirements must be examined and certified by a medical examiner, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, at least once every 2 years. For certain drivers, such as those with severe cases of hypertension or other acute medical conditions, more frequent medical reexamination may be required by medical examiners to determine whether the driver can still be certified.
Medical examiners document the results of the examination on a medical examination report (also referred to as the “long form”). If the medical examiner determines that a driver is physically qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 391.41(b), the examiner certifies the driver meets the physical qualification standards by completing a form substantially in accordance with the medical examiner's certificate contained in 49 CFR 391.43. The certificate also contains check boxes indicating whether the driver is subject to any restrictions while operating a CMV, such as wearing corrective lenses or a hearing aid, or whether the driver was granted a medical variance and thus the certificate must be accompanied by a medical exemption document or a skill performance evaluation (SPE) certificate
certificate contained in 49 CFR 391.43. The certificate also contains check boxes indicating whether the driver is subject to any restrictions while operating a CMV, such as wearing corrective lenses or a hearing aid, or whether the driver was granted a medical variance and thus the certificate must be accompanied by a medical exemption document or a skill performance evaluation (SPE) certificate.
A driver granted an exemption or SPE certificate must carry an original or copy of the accompanying documentation, e.g., exemption document or SPE certificate, at all times while operating a CMV in interstate commerce. See, e.g., 49 CFR 391.49(j)(1). The driver must also provide an original or copy of the Medical Examiner's certificate to the employing motor carrier who must retain it in the driver's qualification file (sections 391.51(b)(7) and 391.51(d)(4)).
3. Current CDL Requirements Regarding Physical Qualifications
Before the enactment of section 215 of MCSIA, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act (CMVSA) provided that FMCSA “may require issuance of a certification of fitness to operate a commercial motor vehicle to an individual passing the tests * * *” (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(8)). Because the authority is permissive, not mandatory, the current regulations that implement the CDL program only require the States to obtain a certification from the driver that either the driver qualification provisions of 49 CFR part 391 apply, or that the driver operates entirely in intrastate commerce. Most States meet this requirement by providing an appropriate box on the CDL application form for the driver to check.
Drivers are not currently required by the CDL regulations to provide an original or copy of the medical examiner's certificate to the SDLA as proof of the driver's physical qualification to operate a CMV in interstate commerce
the driver operates entirely in intrastate commerce. Most States meet this requirement by providing an appropriate box on the CDL application form for the driver to check.
Drivers are not currently required by the CDL regulations to provide an original or copy of the medical examiner's certificate to the SDLA as proof of the driver's physical qualification to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Likewise, there are no CDL compliance regulations that require the SDLA to ensure that: (1) The driver's medical certification is accurate; (2) the driver who self certifies he or she is subject to part 391 has a current medical certification; or (3) the medical examiner's certificate for the driver does not expire during the course of the licensing period. Diagram 1, “Existing System,” illustrates the current way CDL drivers meet these requirements, and highlights that there is a lack of integration currently between the existing medical certification and CDL licensing processes. The purpose of this NPRM is to address this situation.
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P EP16NO06.000
4. State Feasibility Pilot Tests
In September 1990, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (predecessor Agency to FMCSA) entered into a contract with the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM) and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to assess the feasibility of integrating the medical certification and CDL issuance and renewal processes. AAAM and AAMVA worked with FHWA to help select States to participate in six pilot tests, and determine whether States could assume some level of responsibility for ensuring CDL drivers are certified as physically qualified before a CDL is issued or renewed.
The States selected to test various approaches for merging the medical certification and CDL processes were Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Utah. During the study, each pilot State had to address a variety of budgeting, operational and technical challenges
l of responsibility for ensuring CDL drivers are certified as physically qualified before a CDL is issued or renewed.
The States selected to test various approaches for merging the medical certification and CDL processes were Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and Utah. During the study, each pilot State had to address a variety of budgeting, operational and technical challenges. All six States achieved at least 1 full year of operations data and demonstrated it would be feasible for SDLAs to take a more active role in verifying that a CDL applicant has obtained medical certification such as that being proposed in this rule. For purposes of this NPRM, we briefly discuss the results of the tests. However, more details about the individual concepts tested by each State are in the final report. The final report for the study, entitled “Prototype State Medical Review Program,” dated January 31, 1995, is included in the rulemaking docket.
Two States wanted to test the possibility of placing the driver's medical certification status on the CDLIS driver record. Each was successful in demonstrating this could be operationally implemented. During the pilot test, these two States placed information about the medical certification status on the CDLIS driver record and made this information electronically available to the SDLA and, ultimately, to Federal and State enforcement personnel who could use it as part of roadside inspections or traffic enforcement. The other four States explored methods for verifying medical certification as part of issuing the CDL that did not include recording the medical certification status on the driver record. As such, they are not germane to the MCSIA section 215 requirement to make the certificate part of the CDL.
5
State enforcement personnel who could use it as part of roadside inspections or traffic enforcement. The other four States explored methods for verifying medical certification as part of issuing the CDL that did not include recording the medical certification status on the driver record. As such, they are not germane to the MCSIA section 215 requirement to make the certificate part of the CDL.
5. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In 1994, FHWA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (59 FR 36338, July 15, 1994) titled “Commercial Driver Physical Qualifications as Part of the Commercial Driver's License Process.” The ANPRM requested comments on the concept of requiring the States to verify the medical certification of CMV drivers and include documentation within the States' CDL information systems. The ANPRM indicated the Agency was considering a rulemaking to require State licensing agencies to review and verify the accuracy of the medical examination report (long form), and record documentation of the medical certification status on CDLIS driver record, prior to issuing or renewing a CDL. States would thus ensure that all applicants seeking a CDL for the purpose of operating CMVs in interstate commerce were in compliance with the medical certification standards before issuing the CDL. Medical examination reports would be sent to the SDLA for review and evaluation by a State Medical Review Board to achieve better quality control over the medical certifications issued, before the State could issue a CDL. FHWA prepared a report summarizing all the public comments to the ANPRM, entitled “Summary of Comments to the ANPRM: CDL Medical Fitness.” A copy of the report is included in the docket.
6
ination reports would be sent to the SDLA for review and evaluation by a State Medical Review Board to achieve better quality control over the medical certifications issued, before the State could issue a CDL. FHWA prepared a report summarizing all the public comments to the ANPRM, entitled “Summary of Comments to the ANPRM: CDL Medical Fitness.” A copy of the report is included in the docket.
6. Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee
After evaluating the public comments received in response to the ANPRM, FHWA announced its intention to form a Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee (Committee) to develop an NPRM for merging the medical certification and CDL issuance and renewal processes. A notice of intent to form the Committee was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18713). The Agency invited interested parties to comment on the proposal to establish the Committee, and to submit applications or nominations for Committee membership. The notice provided a preliminary list of entities identified as interested parties that should be included in the negotiated rulemaking process, either directly as members of the Committee or as part of a broader caucus of similar or related interests.
On July 23, 1996, FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register (61 FR 38133) announcing the first meeting of the Committee, the membership, and major issues the Committee would consider. Twenty-five organizations and FHWA were represented on the Committee. The charter for the Committee was approved by the Secretary on July 12, 1996, with an expiration date of July 12, 1998. The Committee held several meetings between August 7, 1996, and November 20, 1997.
Commercial Driver Physical Qualifications Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee
Membership List (Approved by Secretary Peña 7/10/96)
1. Federal Highway Administration 2. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 3. New York (State commercial driver licensing agency) 4. Utah (State commercial driver licensing agency) 5
eral meetings between August 7, 1996, and November 20, 1997.
Commercial Driver Physical Qualifications Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee
Membership List (Approved by Secretary Peña 7/10/96)
1. Federal Highway Administration 2. American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 3. New York (State commercial driver licensing agency) 4. Utah (State commercial driver licensing agency) 5. Wisconsin (State commercial driver licensing agency) 6. Montana (State commercial driver licensing agency) 7. Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance 8. International Association of Chiefs of Police 9. American Trucking Associations 10. National Private Truck Council 11. National School Transportation Association 12. United Motor Coach Association & American Bus Association (sharing one seat on the committee) 13. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association 14. Independent Truckers and Drivers Association 15. Teamsters Union 16. Amalgamated Transit Union 17. Lancer Insurance 18. AI Transport 19. American Insurance Association 20. National Association of Independent Insurers 21. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 22. Farmland Industries 23. American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 24. Association for Advancement of Automotive Medicine 25. American Academy of Occupational Health Nurses 26. American Academy of Physicians' Assistants Although the Committee did not reach consensus concerning the major issues considered (and listed in the July 23, 1996, notice), the Committee supported moving forward with a rulemaking proposal focused on improving the availability of information about driver physical qualifications, and recording medical
C. Rulemaking Proposal
1. Highlights of Proposed New CDL Licensing Processes
This rulemaking would apply to all CDL holders who: (1) Operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 383.5; and (2) are subject to the driver qualification requirements under 49 CFR part 391
th a rulemaking proposal focused on improving the availability of information about driver physical qualifications, and recording medical
C. Rulemaking Proposal
1. Highlights of Proposed New CDL Licensing Processes
This rulemaking would apply to all CDL holders who: (1) Operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 383.5; and (2) are subject to the driver qualification requirements under 49 CFR part 391. FMCSA proposes in this NPRM to add a requirement that CDL holders to whom 49 CFR part 391 applies must begin providing an original or copy (at the option of the SDLA) of their medical examiner's certificate to their SDLA for recording of information specified in this NPRM on the CDLIS driver record. The States would be provided the flexibility to establish their own processes for receiving this information from drivers. SDLAs would also be required to downgrade a CDL if the driver's medical certification is no longer valid. A “CDL downgrade” means the State either: (1) Restricts a previously unrestricted CDL to intrastate transportation or to interstate transportation excepted from part 391 as provided in 49 CFR 390.3(f) or 391.2; or (2) The State removes the CDL privilege entirely from the driver's license.
Diagram 2, Proposed System, illustrates how the CDL and medical certification processes would be integrated. The process begins with obtaining medical certification. The new requirements are for recording the medical examiner's certificate information on the CDLIS driver record, and making the medical certification information available to FMCSA and State licensing and enforcement agencies as part of CDLIS inquiries.
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P EP16NO06.001
The proposal is to clarify which CDL drivers are subject to part 391 and to require the SDLA to record the driver's certification regarding applicability of part 391 on the CDLIS driver record
n the CDLIS driver record, and making the medical certification information available to FMCSA and State licensing and enforcement agencies as part of CDLIS inquiries.
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P EP16NO06.001
The proposal is to clarify which CDL drivers are subject to part 391 and to require the SDLA to record the driver's certification regarding applicability of part 391 on the CDLIS driver record. For those drivers subject to part 391, they
As a result of these CDL recordkeeping and information collection provision proposals, any future actions by the Agency that enhance the quality of the medical examination process would flow directly into the CDLIS driver record and thus would be available for use by all persons who are authorized to access this information. This NPRM, along with planned future rulemaking actions, would reduce the likelihood of States and employing motor carriers receiving improper or false medical certification documents from drivers.
Anticipated future actions include establishing a National Registry of Medical Examiners required by 49 U.S.C. 31149(d). The creation of the National Registry was authorized by section 4116 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726 (Aug. 10, 2005)). By that provision, Congress indicated FMCSA should implement a capability to accept as valid only medical examiner's certificates issued by medical examiners on the National Registry. FMCSA anticipates the required action to establish the National Registry would include standards to ensure that medical examiners on the Registry fully understand the physical qualification requirements applicable to drivers subject to part 391, and that enough examiners are certified.
2. Potential Impacts on States
a. General. States would continue to require each driver to certify what type of driving they do, either: (1) Subject to the qualification requirements of part 391; or (2) not subject to those requirements
rs on the Registry fully understand the physical qualification requirements applicable to drivers subject to part 391, and that enough examiners are certified.
2. Potential Impacts on States
a. General. States would continue to require each driver to certify what type of driving they do, either: (1) Subject to the qualification requirements of part 391; or (2) not subject to those requirements. The SDLA in each State would be required to modify its procedures, e.g. , forms or computer systems, to make the certification for type of driving electronically accessible from the CDLIS driver record. This includes status and history responses to CDLIS and NLETS inquiries, and on the CDLIS MVR responses generated from the CDLIS driver record and provided to the driver or employer by the SDLA.
The States would also be required to establish procedures for receiving the medical examiner's certificates from drivers subject to part 391. The process would include date stamping the certificate when received by the State; recording, within 2 business days, all required information proposed by this NPRM from the medical examiner's certificate onto the CDLIS driver record for all CDL drivers subject to part 391; and retaining the certificate or an image of the certificate for 6 months. Drivers, employers and enforcement personnel would be depending on the timely posting of the medical examiner's certificate information. The Agency is seeking comments on whether the number of days allowed for posting the medical certification data should be longer than 2 business days, and whether the retention period should be longer than 6 months.
Additionally, the States would be required to verify whether the driver is subject to part 391, and if so that the current medical certification status is designated as “qualified” before taking any action to issue, renew, transfer or upgrade that driver's CDL
ng the medical certification data should be longer than 2 business days, and whether the retention period should be longer than 6 months.
Additionally, the States would be required to verify whether the driver is subject to part 391, and if so that the current medical certification status is designated as “qualified” before taking any action to issue, renew, transfer or upgrade that driver's CDL. Further, the States would be required to update the medical certification status of the CDLIS driver record within 2 business days if the certification expires, to show the driver as “not-qualified.” The State must then complete a downgrade of the CDL within 60 days of the driver becoming not-qualified. Additionally, the States would be required to notify drivers of any possible CDL downgrade actions resulting from expired medical certification information. (See section “d. Notification of Drivers,” below.) The Agency is seeking comments about whether the proposed 2 business days for updating the medical certification status and the proposed 60 days for downgrading the CDL are reasonable and appropriate.
The States would further be required to make the driver's medical certification status information, and if applicable, medical examiner's certificate information, electronically accessible as part of the information obtained from the CDLIS driver record by authorized users, including the FMCSA, State licensing and enforcement agencies, drivers, and employers. Enforcement personnel would obtain this data electronically via CDLIS or NLETS. Employing motor carriers and drivers would obtain it on the CDLIS MVR. The States would have to modify their programs that provide the following responses: CDLIS, CDLIS equivalent for NLETS and CDLIS MVR to include the medical certification status information.
States such as California and Indiana already have programs that require drivers to provide copies of the Medical Examination Report (long form) to the State as part of the State's CDL program
the CDLIS MVR. The States would have to modify their programs that provide the following responses: CDLIS, CDLIS equivalent for NLETS and CDLIS MVR to include the medical certification status information.
States such as California and Indiana already have programs that require drivers to provide copies of the Medical Examination Report (long form) to the State as part of the State's CDL program. This rule does not propose submission of the long form. Those States already are denying a new or renewal of a CDL or taking action against an existing CDL if the State does not receive an updated certification by the time the previous one expires. They are also placing information about the current medical certification status on the driver record.
FMCSA is also seeking comments on how drivers could verify that the data regarding their medical certification status information is timely and properly recorded on their CDLIS driver record. The normal process for verification and correction of information on the CDLIS driver record is for drivers to go to an SDLA office in their licensing State and obtain a copy of their CDLIS MVR. Because of the ongoing operational nature of updates of medical certification status information, FMCSA requests comments on whether there is a more efficient method by which CDL drivers could accomplish this data quality review of their medical certification status information.
b. States Would Record Additional Specified Data if the Driver Is Subject to Part 391. This proposal builds on the proposal developed by the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee. The SDLAs would become the keepers of the record for the medical examiner's certification information. The SDLA would then become the primary source for verification of medical certification status
atus information.
b. States Would Record Additional Specified Data if the Driver Is Subject to Part 391. This proposal builds on the proposal developed by the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee. The SDLAs would become the keepers of the record for the medical examiner's certification information. The SDLA would then become the primary source for verification of medical certification status. It is therefore critical that the States record enough information to enable enforcement officials to trace the medical examiner's certificate back to the medical examiner in cases where investigations occur and find there are problems with the driver's certification.
FMCSA would require States to modify their information systems to add new data fields to the CDLIS driver record. One data field would record which of the two possible certifications the driver made regarding the applicability of part 391.
If the driver certifies he or she is subject to part 391, then FMCSA would require the State to record on the CDLIS driver record the following information:
○ Medical examiner's name.
○ Medical examiner's license or certificate number and the State that issued it.
○ Medical examiner's National Registry identification number (if the National Registry of Medical Examiners, required by 49 U.S.C. 31149(d), as added by section 4116(a) of SAFETEA-LU requires one). 3
3 Section 31149(d) becomes effective August 10, 2006. See section 4116(f) of SAFETEA-LU. FMCSA plans to implement regulations establishing the National Registry of Medical Examiners in the future. In order to minimize the number of times States have to update their information systems, States may want to make provisions in the CDLIS driver record to accept this information should it be required.
○ Date of physical examination/issuance of the medical examiner's certificate to the driver
SA plans to implement regulations establishing the National Registry of Medical Examiners in the future. In order to minimize the number of times States have to update their information systems, States may want to make provisions in the CDLIS driver record to accept this information should it be required.
○ Date of physical examination/issuance of the medical examiner's certificate to the driver.
○ Medical certification status determination (receipt of a current medical examiner's certificate means “qualified.”)
○ Expiration date of medical examiner's certificate (this can vary, depending on CDL driver's medical condition, from 3 months to 2 years).
○ Information from FMCSA that a medical variance was issued to the driver.
○ Any restriction ( e.g. , corrective lenses, hearing aid, etc.).
○ Date the information is entered on CDLIS driver record.
States would be required to keep a copy or an electronic image, including the time stamp, of the medical examiner's certificate received from the driver for 6 months so that FMCSA may request access to these certificates to verify States are inputting information in an accurate and timely manner as part of a State CDL compliance review.
c. State Input of Data for Medical Variances. FMCSA proposes adding information about the existence of medical variances, for example, the existence of a vision exemption or SPE certificate, to the CDLIS driver record maintained by the SDLA. Enforcement personnel could obtain both the current medical certification status, ascertain whether the driver has a medical variance, and determine the identity of the medical examiner, all by an electronic inquiry to CDLIS.
Interstate drivers (both CDL and non-CDL) granted an exemption from one or more of the FMCSRs are required by its terms and conditions to carry the exemption document or legible copy in their possession while driving. Drivers who are granted a SPE certificate are required by regulation to carry the SPE certificate or a legible copy. (49 CFR 391.49(j))
iner, all by an electronic inquiry to CDLIS.
Interstate drivers (both CDL and non-CDL) granted an exemption from one or more of the FMCSRs are required by its terms and conditions to carry the exemption document or legible copy in their possession while driving. Drivers who are granted a SPE certificate are required by regulation to carry the SPE certificate or a legible copy. (49 CFR 391.49(j)). It is important for enforcement personnel to know about the existence of medical variances that require the driver to carry such additional supporting information. Enforcement personnel are directed to ask such drivers to show them the required additional documentation the driver is required to carry as a condition of that medical variance. This requirement to include information about existing medical variances on the CDLIS driver record thus ensures that enforcement personnel can verify whether the driver is in compliance with the conditions for the issuance.
d. Notification of Drivers. Currently, most States notify drivers when an action is going to be taken against their driver license privilege. In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes that States notify interstate CDL drivers when they plan to downgrade the driver's license based on the lack of a valid medical certificate. FMCSA believes each State already has an automated system that generates notices for drivers who are identified for suspension action. The Agency further believes that these State systems could be modified to identify and notify drivers whose medical certification status has expired, and whose CDLs thus must be downgraded.
FMCSA included the cost of adding CDL drivers subject to part 391 to these State notification systems, as part of the developmental costs for the proposed rule during years one through three. The ongoing major cost of the notification system would be operational, at an estimated cost of $0.40 per driver notified
se medical certification status has expired, and whose CDLs thus must be downgraded.
FMCSA included the cost of adding CDL drivers subject to part 391 to these State notification systems, as part of the developmental costs for the proposed rule during years one through three. The ongoing major cost of the notification system would be operational, at an estimated cost of $0.40 per driver notified. For calculating the maximum possible impact on the States, FMCSA used the worst case scenario that would show all drivers receiving a notice of a CDL downgrade, for a total national cost of $1.29 million per year, which is included in the total estimated State costs discussed later in the preamble's Summary Cost Benefit Analysis section. (See section F. “Summary Cost Benefit Analysis.”). FMCSA is seeking comment concerning the number of notifications the States would need to mail to CDL drivers receiving notice of a downgrade.
e. Costs. FMCSA estimates that the requirements set forth in this NPRM would cost the States $18.3 million over the first 3 years of implementation and would decrease to $4.0 million per year in the fourth year and afterward. For further detail on the cost issue, see section F. “Summary Cost Benefit Analysis,” contained below in this NPRM, or the more detailed stand alone Regulatory Evaluation document contained in the docket. FMCSA is seeking comments about whether these evaluations of the cost impacts are accurate.
3. Potential Impacts on Motor Carriers Employing CDL Drivers
a. Carrier Would Request a Copy of the CDLIS Motor Vehicle Record from the Current State of Licensure Before Allowing the Driver to Operate a CMV in Interstate Commerce
tailed stand alone Regulatory Evaluation document contained in the docket. FMCSA is seeking comments about whether these evaluations of the cost impacts are accurate.
3. Potential Impacts on Motor Carriers Employing CDL Drivers
a. Carrier Would Request a Copy of the CDLIS Motor Vehicle Record from the Current State of Licensure Before Allowing the Driver to Operate a CMV in Interstate Commerce. Under the proposed rule, the motor carrier that employs a CDL driver subject to part 391 to operate a CMV would need to obtain the driver's CDLIS MVR, verify the driver has a medical certification status of qualified, and place that CDLIS MVR in the driver qualification (DQ) file, (thereby documenting medical certification for such CDL drivers) before allowing the driver to operate a CMV for the motor carrier.
Under FMCSA's current regulation, the motor carrier has up to 30 days to obtain the driver's MVR (for both CDL and non-CDL drivers) and place it in the DQ file (49 CFR 391.23(b)). The driver is immediately permitted to begin operating a CMV pending completion of the driver record check. However, the proposed rule would change this current practice by requiring the motor carrier to obtain and place a copy of the driver's CDLIS MVR in the DQ file before allowing an interstate CDL driver to operate a CMV. FMCSA believes the 30-day timeframe specified in § 391.23(b) is a hold-over from years ago when this process was accomplished via regular U.S. mail. Now States offer driver's MVRs electronically, and numerous companies sell a service to assist motor carriers to obtain MVRs. FMCSA believes many motor carriers are already obtaining MVRs electronically, generally before making an offer to hire the driver. For this reason, this NPRM would not impose any significant additional burden on motor carriers except those that are letting newly hired drivers operate a CMV before verifying the driver holds a valid CDL
mpanies sell a service to assist motor carriers to obtain MVRs. FMCSA believes many motor carriers are already obtaining MVRs electronically, generally before making an offer to hire the driver. For this reason, this NPRM would not impose any significant additional burden on motor carriers except those that are letting newly hired drivers operate a CMV before verifying the driver holds a valid CDL. There would be no change in the current 30 days allowed to obtain a motor vehicle record for non-CDL drivers who must also provide a copy of their medical examiner's certificate.
Under this proposed rule, motor carriers would no longer be required to place a copy of a current medical examiner's certificate in the DQ file for CDL drivers subject to part 391. Information about the current medical certification status for those drivers would be on the CDLIS MVR the motor carrier is already required to obtain and place in the DQ file. However, the motor carrier would be required, under the proposed rule, to obtain and file a copy of any medical exemption granted to a CMV driver (both CDL and non-CDL). Carriers are already required to obtain a
b. Costs. FMCSA believes the net cost impact on motor carriers would at worst be neutral, and more likely is a modest cost saving. Carriers would be relieved of obtaining or making a copy of the medical examiner's certificate and placing a copy of it in the DQ file for CDL drivers subject to part 391. This proposal would expand an existing requirement for the motor carrier to obtain or make a copy of any medical variance, e.g. , Medical Exemption document or SPE certificate, granted to a CMV driver and place it in the driver qualification file for the small number of drivers with such a medical variance. However, motor carriers would also be required to obtain the CDLIS MVR before allowing CDL drivers to operate a CMV.
4. Potential Impacts on Drivers.
a. Privacy Rights
in or make a copy of any medical variance, e.g. , Medical Exemption document or SPE certificate, granted to a CMV driver and place it in the driver qualification file for the small number of drivers with such a medical variance. However, motor carriers would also be required to obtain the CDLIS MVR before allowing CDL drivers to operate a CMV.
4. Potential Impacts on Drivers.
a. Privacy Rights. FMCSA does not believe the proposed rule would have an adverse effect on drivers' privacy for the following reasons. First, none of the driver's confidential medical information ( i.e. specific details from the “long form” or the actual medical records maintained by medical examiners) would be placed on the CDLIS driver record—the SDLA would post the FMCSA-specified status information regarding whether the driver is currently medically certified, which does not include confidential information. A status of not-qualified does not violate any privacy right, as it does not provide any detail as to the reason for being not-qualified. In other words, a status of not-qualified could just as well mean the driver decided not to take a physical examination because he or she is not currently working as a CDL driver. Second, information about the issuance of medical variances is already public. Information about the granting of any exemptions, e.g. , vision, diabetes, is published in the Federal Register (49 U.S.C. 31315(b)). Alternatively, if a driver has a medical examiner's certificate based on having an SPE certificate, the medical examiner's certificate has the box checked saying it is only valid when accompanied by an SPE certificate. Thus, any enforcement personnel or potential employer would or should know about the condition requiring the driver to have in his or her possession an SPE certificate or a legible copy whenever operating a CMV. (49 CFR 391.49(j)(1). Finally, access to the data on the CDLIS driver record is restricted to only FMCSA, States, motor carrier employers for authorized use and the driver
SPE certificate. Thus, any enforcement personnel or potential employer would or should know about the condition requiring the driver to have in his or her possession an SPE certificate or a legible copy whenever operating a CMV. (49 CFR 391.49(j)(1). Finally, access to the data on the CDLIS driver record is restricted to only FMCSA, States, motor carrier employers for authorized use and the driver. (49 CFR 384.225(e)). Enforcement personnel accessing this information via NLETS are similarly restricted to official use. The Driver Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2721-2725) provides additional restrictions on access to the driver record. However, FMCSA is seeking comments about whether there would be any issues under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) regarding access to CDL drivers' medical examiner's certificate information arising from the provisions set forth in this proposal.
b. Impact if a Driver Is Found Operating a CMV with a Medical Certification Status of “Not-qualified” or No CDL Privilege Because of a Downgrade of the CDL.
This rulemaking proposal would require the appropriate medical certification status information to be placed on the CDLIS driver record for all CDL holders, and would remove the requirement for CDL drivers subject to part 391 to carry the medical examiner's certificate. However, the proposal would also establish that the medical certification status information be made available to enforcement personnel as well as to drivers and employing motor carriers. This is expected to become an increasingly valuable enforcement tool, particularly in conjunction with anticipated future rulemakings dealing with driver physical qualifications, such as establishment of the Congressionally-mandated National Registry of Medical Examiners
certification status information be made available to enforcement personnel as well as to drivers and employing motor carriers. This is expected to become an increasingly valuable enforcement tool, particularly in conjunction with anticipated future rulemakings dealing with driver physical qualifications, such as establishment of the Congressionally-mandated National Registry of Medical Examiners. Nonetheless, nothing in this proposed rule prevents a CDL driver subject to the requirements of part 391 from retaining a copy of the medical examiner's certificate for his or her own records, particularly in the event an SDLA fails or delays in entering the information onto the CDLIS driver record. All non-CDL drivers would continue to provide a copy or original of the medical examiner's certificate to their employing motor carrier, a requirement not changed by this proposed rule.
This NPRM proposes a new requirement that a CDL driver subject to part 391 would have his or her CDL downgraded within 60 days of the medical certification status expiring, i.e. , the status becoming “not-qualified.” Under 49 CFR part 383 after such a downgrade, a driver found operating a CMV in interstate commerce without a valid CDL, when the regulations require the driver to hold one, could receive a traffic offense citation for violating § 383.51(c)(6). Thus the downgrade proposed in this NPRM could lead to a traffic conviction requiring a 60-day CDL disqualification on the CDLIS driver record for the first offense. This conviction would be retained and considered in any future licensing action, including intrastate CDL eligibility.
This proposed downgrade within 60 days would provide safety benefits by significantly enhancing incentives for drivers to comply with the medical certification standards
traffic conviction requiring a 60-day CDL disqualification on the CDLIS driver record for the first offense. This conviction would be retained and considered in any future licensing action, including intrastate CDL eligibility.
This proposed downgrade within 60 days would provide safety benefits by significantly enhancing incentives for drivers to comply with the medical certification standards. Drivers could be placed out-of-service as part of a roadside inspection or traffic enforcement stop, if a driver is found operating a CMV in interstate commerce with a downgraded CDL that resulted from the medical certification status becoming not-qualified because the driver failed to obtain the required new medical examiner's certificate. Currently, the driver could be cited and possibly fined for operating a CMV without a valid medical certification, but generally the driver would be allowed to continue to drive. Additionally, unless this violation results in a carrier compliance review or other enforcement action, it has little impact on the motor carrier. (See 49 CFR 391.41(a)). By linking the medical certification status to the eventual status of the CDL, this proposed rule would provide greater enforcement tools to address driver qualification issues.
If a driver's medical status becomes not-qualified, but the CDL has not yet been downgraded, the driver can be cited under current § 390.37 for not keeping his/her medical status current. In addition, while not proposed in this NPRM, FMCSA has the option of adding a similar, new disqualifying offense for a serious traffic violation under Table 2 of 49 CFR 383.51(c). This disqualifying offense would be applicable if a driver operates a commercial motor vehicle requiring a CDL in interstate commerce during the proposed 60-day window of having received a medical certification status of “not-qualified,” but the CDL has not yet been downgraded
e option of adding a similar, new disqualifying offense for a serious traffic violation under Table 2 of 49 CFR 383.51(c). This disqualifying offense would be applicable if a driver operates a commercial motor vehicle requiring a CDL in interstate commerce during the proposed 60-day window of having received a medical certification status of “not-qualified,” but the CDL has not yet been downgraded. If such a disqualifying offense were established, then any CDL driver operating in interstate commerce not excepted from part 391 who does not have a current medical examiner's certificate on file with their SDLA could receive a traffic citation for this serious traffic violation. FMCSA seeks comments about whether FMCSA should add such a disqualifying offense to Table 2 of § 383.51(c) for operating a CMV without the required medical certification.
c. Provision of Documentation to Motor Carrier for Medical Variance. All drivers who operate CMVs in interstate commerce pursuant to a medical variance, such as an Medical Exemption or SPE certificate, would be required to provide their employing motor carrier with a copy of the medical variance document. The employing motor carrier
d. Provision Requiring CDL Drivers to Provide Medical Certificate to SDLA. Under the proposed rule, a CDL would not be issued, renewed, upgraded or transferred by the SDLA to a driver subject to 49 CFR part 391 qualification requirements, unless the State has on record a current medical examiner's certificate. Initially, drivers would not need to obtain a new medical examiner's certificate. Beginning 3 years after the effective date, drivers would be required to provide a copy or an original, as determined by the SDLA, of either their existing medical examiner's certificate or a new one, to their SDLA before any licensing action, including a renewal. Drivers would also be required to provide a copy or original of each new medical examiner's certificate to their SDLA
er's certificate. Beginning 3 years after the effective date, drivers would be required to provide a copy or an original, as determined by the SDLA, of either their existing medical examiner's certificate or a new one, to their SDLA before any licensing action, including a renewal. Drivers would also be required to provide a copy or original of each new medical examiner's certificate to their SDLA. The information from these certificates, including their expiration dates, would be added to the CDLIS driver record by the SDLA. If the driver has not provided a current medical examiner's certificate within 5 years after the effective date of a final rule on this subject, or the certification expires, the CDL medical certification status would be marked as “not-qualified,” and the SDLA would be required to initiate a downgrade of the driver's CDL. The driver would be notified by the SDLA that the CDL would be downgraded.
e. Number of Drivers Subject to the Proposed Process. The group of CDL drivers that would be most impacted by this rulemaking would be those not actively driving, are subject to 49 CFR part 391, but who are retaining their CDL without maintaining their medical certification. To estimate the number of possible drivers affected, FMCSA performed the following analysis.
As of August of 2005, there were approximately 12.2 million CDL index or pointer records in the CDLIS central site index. The Agency estimates 10 percent of the CDLIS driver records associated with these index pointers are inactive. Based on an analysis of the split of inter- and intrastate drivers from the annual Drug and Alcohol Testing survey conducted by FMCSA, the Agency estimates about 74 percent of the estimated active 10.98 million CDLIS driver records are for interstate drivers, or about 8.13 million. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed none of these are operating in excepted interstate commerce, i.e. , all of them are subject to part 391
it of inter- and intrastate drivers from the annual Drug and Alcohol Testing survey conducted by FMCSA, the Agency estimates about 74 percent of the estimated active 10.98 million CDLIS driver records are for interstate drivers, or about 8.13 million. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed none of these are operating in excepted interstate commerce, i.e. , all of them are subject to part 391. If all of these CDL drivers, who had self-certified they were qualified to operate in interstate commerce, wish to retain their CDL, they would be required to present a copy or original of a current medical examiner's certificate to their SDLA, either at the time of the next issuance (as defined in 49 CFR 384.105(b)) of their CDL or when the medical certificate expires, whichever occurs first. Thereafter, they would have to provide the medical certificate every time it expired. Two years after the States would be required to be in compliance with this proposal (no later than 5 years after the effective date of a final rule on this subject), all of these drivers would not be allowed to continue operating CMVs in interstate commerce unless their CDLIS driver record includes the information that they have submitted a current medical examiner's certificate, prepared by a medical examiner, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, to their SDLA demonstrating they are physically qualified under part 391.
FMCSA estimates from its annual Drug and Alcohol Testing survey that 3.1 million CDL drivers of the estimated 8.13 million CDLs who self certified they are subject to part 391, are “actively” driving for a living. Therefore, the Agency estimates 5.03 million of these CDL drivers who certified that part 391 applies to them are not actively driving. The Agency further estimates that 2.26 million of these 5.03 million drivers would elect to obtain medical certification and retain their CDLs, while the remaining 2.77 million would have their CDL downgraded
bject to part 391, are “actively” driving for a living. Therefore, the Agency estimates 5.03 million of these CDL drivers who certified that part 391 applies to them are not actively driving. The Agency further estimates that 2.26 million of these 5.03 million drivers would elect to obtain medical certification and retain their CDLs, while the remaining 2.77 million would have their CDL downgraded. This would leave a pool of 5.36 million medically certified CDL drivers (2.26 million + 3.1 million). Refer to the separate Regulatory Evaluation in the docket for this rulemaking for a more detailed discussion of the number of drivers likely to be affected by this proposal. (Note. This analysis does not include any attempt to estimate the number of CDL drivers who operate in excepted service, i.e., who operate in interstate commerce but are excepted from part 391 and do not need medical certification to retain their CDL.)
f. Impact of the New Code “W” on Drivers Domiciled in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Drivers of commercial motor vehicles who are domiciled in and licensed by, Canada or Mexico are subject to the requirements of U.S. law while operating a CMV in the United States. (49 U.S.C. 31132(4), 31502(a) and 31301(2)). These drivers must meet the FMCSA physical qualifications and must possess a license issued by their country of domicile that the U.S. has recognized as comparable to a U.S. CDL.
FMCSA previously determined that the Canadian Provinces and Territories have medical and physical qualification requirements comparable to those applicable in the United States, with certain exceptions (49 CFR 391.41, note, as added by 67 FR 61818, October 2, 2002) The Canadian equivalent to CDLIS contains documentation of driver physical qualification, although the program requirements vary by Province and Territory
ermined that the Canadian Provinces and Territories have medical and physical qualification requirements comparable to those applicable in the United States, with certain exceptions (49 CFR 391.41, note, as added by 67 FR 61818, October 2, 2002) The Canadian equivalent to CDLIS contains documentation of driver physical qualification, although the program requirements vary by Province and Territory.
FMCSA also determined that the Licencias Federales de Conductor issued by the United Mexican States is itself evidence that the operator has met physical qualification standards required by the United States. (Commercial Driver's License Reciprocity with Mexico, (57 FR. 31454, July 16, 1992).) Proof of compliance with the medical certification requirements is recorded within the Mexican Licencias Federales de Conductor information system, as well as marked on the license document. Drivers must renew both their medical certification and Licencia Federal together every 2 years.
FMCSA considers both licenses issued by Canadian Provinces and Territories in conformity with the Canadian National Safety Code and the Licencias Federales de Conductor issued by the United Mexican States, to satisfy the CDL requirements of 49 CFR part 383 (49 CFR 383.23(b)(1), note 1) and to be compatible with the U.S. CDLs.
As indicated in the footnote to 49 CFR 391.41, Canada and the United States have entered into a reciprocity agreement that Canadian drivers who do not meet the physical qualification requirements specified in the Canadian National Safety Code, but are issued a Provincial or Territorial waiver/exemption, will be excluded from operating a CMV in the United States. Similarly, U.S. CDL drivers granted a medical variance will be excluded from operating a CMV in Canada
d States have entered into a reciprocity agreement that Canadian drivers who do not meet the physical qualification requirements specified in the Canadian National Safety Code, but are issued a Provincial or Territorial waiver/exemption, will be excluded from operating a CMV in the United States. Similarly, U.S. CDL drivers granted a medical variance will be excluded from operating a CMV in Canada. At a technical level, it was jointly determined by AAMVA and Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) that a code of “W” would be placed on the commercial driver's license document to identify those drivers who are issued a waiver/exemption or variance to exclude them from operating in the other country.
This NPRM proposes to establish a new restriction code by revising section 383.95 to specify a new restriction code “W” to be placed on the CDL document to identify U.S. CDL holders subject to part 391 who have obtained a medical examiner's certificate with a medical variance in order to operate CMVs in the United States. If implemented, this restriction will allow U.S. enforcement
The U.S. has not yet discussed with Mexico the proposed creation or use of a “W” restriction on the CDLs issued in the United States. Therefore, the Agency is unable to assess the potential impact this restriction could have on U.S. drivers who intend to operate CMVs in Mexico.
g. Costs. FMCSA estimates that the requirements set forth in this NPRM would cost drivers a total of $3.22 million per year beginning in the fourth year after the effective date of a final rule on the subject and every year thereafter. For more detail on the cost issue, see section F. “Summary Cost Benefit Analyses,” below in this NPRM, or the more detailed stand alone Regulatory Evaluation document contained in the docket.
D. Implementation Date
FMCSA proposes to begin enforcement of the requirements set forth in this NPRM 3 years after the effective date of a final rule on the subject
the subject and every year thereafter. For more detail on the cost issue, see section F. “Summary Cost Benefit Analyses,” below in this NPRM, or the more detailed stand alone Regulatory Evaluation document contained in the docket.
D. Implementation Date
FMCSA proposes to begin enforcement of the requirements set forth in this NPRM 3 years after the effective date of a final rule on the subject. The Agency believes the standard 3-year phase-in period would provide the States with sufficient time to pass required State implementing legislation, to modify their information systems to begin recording the medical examiner's certificate information onto the CDLIS driver record, and to begin making that information available from the CDLIS driver record. Also, the proposed 3-year phase-in period would ensure employing motor carriers and drivers have an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the new requirements and that CDL drivers are prepared to provide a valid medical examiner's certificate to their SDLA as required by this NPRM.
The Agency will also be working with the States to modernize CDLIS, as required by section 4123 of SAFETEA-LU. The CDLIS modernization plan will include a date by which all States must use the new version of CDLIS. Both the CDLIS modernization effort and inclusion of the medical examiner's certificate information on the CDLIS driver record will require States to update their CDLIS computer programs. The Agency requests comments about the importance of having the implementation schedule for this rule coincide with the implementation date for CDLIS modernization.
The Agency is seeking comments about how many States will require passage of legislation to authorize them to carry out the proposals in this rulemaking, and whether the proposed three-year implementation period is sufficient.
E. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes
Part 383
Conforming amendments
ion schedule for this rule coincide with the implementation date for CDLIS modernization.
The Agency is seeking comments about how many States will require passage of legislation to authorize them to carry out the proposals in this rulemaking, and whether the proposed three-year implementation period is sufficient.
E. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes
Part 383
Conforming amendments. Throughout parts 383, 384, and 391 terms used referring to a driver record or driver history have been revised for clarity. The term “CDLIS driver record” refers to the electronic record of driver information and history stored by the State-of-Record as part of CDLIS. The Agency's use of the term “motor vehicle record” refers to the information provided to a driver or employer about the status and history of a driver. The term “CDLIS MVR” refers to the information provided to a driver or employer about the status and history of a driver that holds a CDL.
Section 383.5. FMCSA proposes to add definitions for “CDLIS driver record” and “CDL downgrade.”
Section 383.71(a). FMCSA proposes to revise the certification requirement in the CDL application process to clarify how applicants should certify if they operate in interstate commerce, but are excepted from part 391.
Section 383.71(g). FMCSA proposes to add a new requirement that applicants who are subject to part 391 must begin providing their SDLA an original or a copy (at the State's option) of each medical examiner's certificate they obtain.
Section 383.73(a)(5). FMCSA proposes to have the SDLA enter on the CDLIS driver record the certification made according to § 383.71(a)(1) and, if the driver is required to have a medical certificate, record the information from the certificate in the CDLIS driver record.
Section 383.73(b)(6)
SDLA an original or a copy (at the State's option) of each medical examiner's certificate they obtain.
Section 383.73(a)(5). FMCSA proposes to have the SDLA enter on the CDLIS driver record the certification made according to § 383.71(a)(1) and, if the driver is required to have a medical certificate, record the information from the certificate in the CDLIS driver record.
Section 383.73(b)(6). FMCSA proposes to add a requirement for the SDLA, when a driver applies for a license transfer, to verify whether the driver is subject to part 391, and if so, whether the medical certification status is designated as “qualified” before taking any licensing action. To accommodate the period of time between the implementation date and when all drivers are required to submit medical certification information to the SDLA, FMCSA also proposes to allow drivers to provide SDLAs with their existing medical examiner's certificates. Those certificates must be issued with a date that is prior to 3 years after the effective date of the final rule on this subject, until the certificate expires, as evidence of current medical certification.
Section 383.73(c)(5). FMCSA proposes to add the same requirement as § 383.73(b)(6) for the license renewal process.
Section 383.73(d)(3). FMCSA proposes to add the same requirement as § 383.73(b)(6) to the license upgrade process.
Section 383.73(j). FMCSA proposes to add a new CDLIS recordkeeping requirement for medical certification status information. A number of items displayed on the medical examiner's certificate would be recorded on the CDLIS driver record. The medical certification status information must be updated within 2 business days of receiving a new medical examiner's certificate, or a current certification expiring. If a driver's medical certification expires, the SDLA must initiate a downgrade of the CDL. The SDLA must accept and record within 2 business days on the CDLIS driver record any medical variance issued by FMCSA to a driver.
Section 383.95
certification status information must be updated within 2 business days of receiving a new medical examiner's certificate, or a current certification expiring. If a driver's medical certification expires, the SDLA must initiate a downgrade of the CDL. The SDLA must accept and record within 2 business days on the CDLIS driver record any medical variance issued by FMCSA to a driver.
Section 383.95. FMCSA proposes to add a second restriction and to rename the section. The new restriction would be coded as “W” and would indicate the driver has received a medical variance.
Part 384
Section 384.105. FMCSA proposes to add a definition for CDLIS Motor Vehicle Record. The basic term of motor vehicle record was adopted from the existing usage. FMCSA solicits comments on whether some other descriptive title should be used instead, such as CDLIS driver history, or CDLIS driver and employer report.
Section 384.107. The Agency would revise paragraph (b) to incorporate by reference the most recent version of the CDLIS State Procedures Manual as of the final rule.
Section 384.206(a). FMCSA proposes to revise this compliance requirement to include performing the record checks specified in § 383.73.
Section 384.206(b)(3). The Agency would revise § 384.206(b) by adding a third required action to the two existing ones. This change would mean that a CDL for a driver subject to part 391 must be downgraded if the medical certification expires and no new medical examiner's certificate is provided.
Section 384.225. The Agency would revise all paragraphs under (e) to refer
Section 384.231. The Agency would update the reference to the CDLIS State Procedures manual to be to the most recent version incorporated by reference into § 384.107(b).
Section 384.234. The Agency would add a new compliance requirement to the existing State requirements in part 384 to comply with the State provisions specified in the proposed new § 383.73(j).
Part 390
Section 390.5
refer
Section 384.231. The Agency would update the reference to the CDLIS State Procedures manual to be to the most recent version incorporated by reference into § 384.107(b).
Section 384.234. The Agency would add a new compliance requirement to the existing State requirements in part 384 to comply with the State provisions specified in the proposed new § 383.73(j).
Part 390
Section 390.5. FMCSA proposes to add a new definition for “medical variance” as an inclusive term for all Federal programs dealing with physical qualification, including exemptions, and skill performance evaluation certificates. This definition does not cover waivers issued under subpart B of part 381. These waivers are issued for short periods of time and any waivers will be addressed through program documentation and not the driver's licensing systems.
FMCSA also proposes to add a definition for “motor vehicle record.”
Part 391
Section 391.2. In § 391.2, FMCSA proposes to change the section name from “General exemptions” to “General exceptions.” This proposed change would establish consistency with the term “exception” as used in § 390.3(f) and to remove confusion with the different meaning of the word “exemption” as used in 49 CFR 381, Subpart C and 49 CFR 391.62.
Section 391.23(m). FMCSA proposes to add a new paragraph (m) to explicitly specify what the employer must do with regard to CDL drivers subject to part 391 to comply with the long-existing requirement in § 391.41(a). This paragraph makes it explicit that substituting the driver's CDLIS MVR for the medical examiner's certificate has an impact on the timing of when the motor carrier must obtain and place the MVR in the DQ file as part of the hiring process. All non-CDL drivers would continue to be required to provide a copy or original of the medical examiner's certificate to their employing motor carrier.
Section 391.41(a)
makes it explicit that substituting the driver's CDLIS MVR for the medical examiner's certificate has an impact on the timing of when the motor carrier must obtain and place the MVR in the DQ file as part of the hiring process. All non-CDL drivers would continue to be required to provide a copy or original of the medical examiner's certificate to their employing motor carrier.
Section 391.41(a). The Agency proposes to amend § 391.41(a) to delete the existing exception reference to § 391.67, and to add an exception that CDL drivers subject to part 391 would be excluded from the requirement to carry the medical examiner's certificate because their current medical certification status information would be on the electronic CDLIS driver record, and could be verified via CDLIS or NLETS inquiries, and on the CDLIS MVR for drivers and employers. Again, all non-CDL drivers would continue to be required to provide a copy or original of the medical examiner's certificate to their employing motor carrier.
Section 391.43(g). The Agency proposes to amend § 391.43(g) to remove the requirement for the medical examiner to provide a copy of the medical examiner's certificate to the employing motor carrier, and to add a requirement that the examiner should retain a copy of all certificates for the duration of the certificate.
Section 391.51. FMCSA proposes to update the requirements for what must be contained in the driver qualification (DQ) file regarding medical certification for CDL drivers subject to part 391. These CDL drivers would no longer need to carry a medical examiner's certificate because the current status of their certification would be electronically available from CDLIS. Employers would satisfy the documentation requirement by obtaining the copy of the driver's CDLIS MVR they are already required to obtain from the SDLA and to place it in the DQ file.
F
or CDL drivers subject to part 391. These CDL drivers would no longer need to carry a medical examiner's certificate because the current status of their certification would be electronically available from CDLIS. Employers would satisfy the documentation requirement by obtaining the copy of the driver's CDLIS MVR they are already required to obtain from the SDLA and to place it in the DQ file.
F. Summary Cost Benefit Analysis
The regulatory evaluation describes and evaluates the proposal contained in this NPRM, as well as two other alternatives that were considered by the Agency. No changes are proposed in the physical qualification standards or medical advisory criteria for determining whether a driver may be medically certified as physically qualified to operate a CMV. A number of provisions are proposed to modify the procedures used to document a driver's current medical certification status as a condition for obtaining or retaining a CDL, and to enable motor carriers and enforcement personnel to verify the driver's medical certification status.
Currently, CDL drivers subject to part 391 must certify that they meet the driver qualifications in 49 CFR part 391, in order to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. These drivers are required to carry a current medical examiner's certificate while driving, and motor carriers must keep a copy of the medical examiner's certificates of all such drivers they employ on file. The purpose of these certificates is to prove that the driver is physically qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Under current regulations, no information about the driver's self-certification regarding applicability of part 391 or any medical certification status information is required to be placed on the CDLIS driver record, and the driver does not need to show the medical examiner's certificate to State officials when applying for, renewing, upgrading, or transferring a CDL in most States
state commerce. Under current regulations, no information about the driver's self-certification regarding applicability of part 391 or any medical certification status information is required to be placed on the CDLIS driver record, and the driver does not need to show the medical examiner's certificate to State officials when applying for, renewing, upgrading, or transferring a CDL in most States.
Alternative 1
This alternative would require medical certification status to be listed on the physical driver's license document of any driver holding a CDL who intends to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. In conducting this analysis, the Agency has assumed that in order to implement this alternative, the expiration periods for CDLs (average period of 5 years) and medical examiner's certificates (maximum period of 2 years) would need to be synchronized. While it is possible that States could list two separate expirations on a license, one for the license renewal and one for medical certification, SDLAs would still have to issue a new CDL each time the medical certification expired. As a result, listing two dates would not be likely to reduce processing costs. This alternative would require all States to renew both CDLs and medical certifications every time a medical certification was issued, and would therefore require them to process a much higher volume of CDLs. Drivers would also have to pay CDL renewal fees much more frequently. Currently, CDL renewal fees average $45 per renewal.
This alternative, like the others listed below, would also require that States: (1) Receive from the driver a medical examiner's certificate, and (2) post specified information from it on the electronic CDLIS driver record prior to issuing, renewing, upgrading or transferring that driver's CDL. Implementing this proposal would require SDLAs to modify their driver licensing computer systems to accommodate this new information
thers listed below, would also require that States: (1) Receive from the driver a medical examiner's certificate, and (2) post specified information from it on the electronic CDLIS driver record prior to issuing, renewing, upgrading or transferring that driver's CDL. Implementing this proposal would require SDLAs to modify their driver licensing computer systems to accommodate this new information. In addition, States would need to establish methods for receiving medical examiner's certificates from drivers either via mail or fax, or by having drivers present the medical examiner's certificate in-person at a SDLA office.
Table 1 below provides an itemized list by year of the costs incurred under this alternative. Costs in years 6 and later are identical to those for year 5 and are aggregated in the table. The net present value of the costs of this alternative over 10 years, assuming a 7 percent discount rate, is $526 million.
Table 1.—Total Cost of Alternative 1 [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Total Licensing Costs * $0 $0 $0 $97,000 $97,000 $485,000 $679,000 Mailing Costs * 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 22,500 31,500 Planning and Design ** 1,785 1,785 0 0 0 0 3,570 State Compliance Reviews *** 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 8,500 11,900 State Training Costs ** 425 425 425 0 0 0 1,275 State Computer Systems Development ** 4,250 4,250 4,250 0 0 0 12,750 State Computer Operations ** 0 0 0 510 510 2,550 3,570 Data Entry Costs ** 0 0 0 4,400 4,400 22,000 30,800 CDLIS Testing Costs ** 250 250 250 0 0 0 750 Total costs 6,710 6,710 4,925 108,110 108,110 540,550 775,115 Total Costs (7 percent discount rate) 6,710 6,271 4,302 88,250 82,477 338,170 526,180 Total Costs (3 percent discount rate) 6,710 6,515 4,642 98,936 96,054 439,901 652,758 * Cost to be borne by drivers. ** Cost to be borne by States. *** Cost to be borne by Federal Government
00 22,000 30,800 CDLIS Testing Costs ** 250 250 250 0 0 0 750 Total costs 6,710 6,710 4,925 108,110 108,110 540,550 775,115 Total Costs (7 percent discount rate) 6,710 6,271 4,302 88,250 82,477 338,170 526,180 Total Costs (3 percent discount rate) 6,710 6,515 4,642 98,936 96,054 439,901 652,758 * Cost to be borne by drivers. ** Cost to be borne by States. *** Cost to be borne by Federal Government. Alternative 2
Under this alternative, States would be responsible for receiving, recording and providing data from a medical examiner's certificate received from the driver prior to the State issuing, renewing, updating or transferring a CDL for a driver who operates in interstate commerce. The State would be responsible for including the medical certification status information on all reports provided to persons authorized to access information from the CDLIS driver record. This includes those using CDLIS and NLETS to make the inquiry, and drivers and employing motor carrier requesting a CDLIS MVR. The SDLA would also be required to downgrade a CDL if the medical certification expires. It is anticipated States would prefer mail delivery of certifications from drivers rather than in-person delivery, because this is expected to be less costly to both States and drivers. The SDLA would then record the specified certificate information on the electronic CDLIS driver record. Implementing this change would enable enforcement personnel to gain electronic access to verify CDL drivers have a medical certification status of “qualified” during roadside inspections or traffic stops.
The changes proposed under this alternative would ensure that all CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce who are not excepted from the driver qualification requirements of part 391 would have a medical certification status of “qualified” prior to the State issuing, renewing, upgrading or transferring a CDL
al certification status of “qualified” during roadside inspections or traffic stops.
The changes proposed under this alternative would ensure that all CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce who are not excepted from the driver qualification requirements of part 391 would have a medical certification status of “qualified” prior to the State issuing, renewing, upgrading or transferring a CDL. In addition, if a driver fails to obtain a new medical examiner's certificate before the old one expires, the State would be required to: (1) Update the status of that driver's medical certification status to “not-qualified,” and (2) begin taking action to downgrade that driver's commercial driving privileges unless a new, valid medical examiner's certificate is obtained by the driver. Table 2 below presents an itemized list of the costs associated with this alternative. The 10-year costs of this alternative are $59 million when discounted at 7 percent.
Table 2.—Total Cost of Alternative 2 [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Total Planning and Design** $1,785 $1,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,570 State Compliance Reviews*** 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 8,500 11,900 State Computer Systems Development** 4,250 4,250 4,250 0 0 0 12,750 State Computer Operations** 0 0 0 510 510 2,550 3,570 Training** 425 425 425 0 0 0 1,275 SDLA Data Entry Extra Time/Staffing** 0 0 0 2,200 2,200 11,000 15,400 CDLIS Testing Costs** 250 250 250 0 0 0 750 Mailing Costs* 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 22,500 31,500 Total 6,710 6,710 4,925 8,910 8,910 44,550 80,715 Present Value (Disc. at 7%) 6,710 6,271 4,302 7,273 6,797 27,871 59,224 Present Value (Disc. at 3%) 6,710 6,515 4,642 8,154 7,916 36,255 70,192 * Cost to be borne by drivers. ** Cost to be borne by States. *** Cost to be borne by Federal Government
000 15,400 CDLIS Testing Costs** 250 250 250 0 0 0 750 Mailing Costs* 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 22,500 31,500 Total 6,710 6,710 4,925 8,910 8,910 44,550 80,715 Present Value (Disc. at 7%) 6,710 6,271 4,302 7,273 6,797 27,871 59,224 Present Value (Disc. at 3%) 6,710 6,515 4,642 8,154 7,916 36,255 70,192 * Cost to be borne by drivers. ** Cost to be borne by States. *** Cost to be borne by Federal Government. Alternative 3
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2, with the exception that FMCSA would receive medical examiner's certificates through the mail or facsimile transmission from drivers, rather than having drivers submit the form directly to their licensing State. FMCSA would then enter the data and electronically route it directly to the licensing State as a CDLIS transaction, so that the information would be recorded on the driver's electronic CDLIS driver record.
This alternative would require States to develop the capacity to receive medical certification information on drivers electronically. State CDL computer systems already have a similar capacity to receive traffic convictions that occur in other States, transmitted electronically from these States, so developing this capacity is possible. This alternative would also require FMCSA to develop the recordkeeping capacity to receive and record medical examiner's certificates for all CDL licensed interstate drivers. Table 3 below presents the costs associated with this alternative. The net present value of the total cost of this proposed rule after 10 years is $63 million when discounted at 7 percent
developing this capacity is possible. This alternative would also require FMCSA to develop the recordkeeping capacity to receive and record medical examiner's certificates for all CDL licensed interstate drivers. Table 3 below presents the costs associated with this alternative. The net present value of the total cost of this proposed rule after 10 years is $63 million when discounted at 7 percent.
Table 3.—Total Cost of Alternative 3 [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Total Planning and Design ** $1,785 $1,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,570 State Compliance Reviews *** 0 0 0 1,700 1,700 8,500 11,900 State Computer Systems Development ** 5,500 5,500 5,500 0 0 0 16,500 State Computer Operations ** 0 0 0 510 510 2,550 3,570 Federal Computer Start Up *** 150 125 0 0 0 0 275 Federal Computer Maintenance 0 0 0 12 12 60 84 Training ** 425 425 425 0 0 0 1,275 Data Entry Extra Time / Staffing *** 0 0 0 2,200 2,200 11,000 15,400 Mailing Costs ** 0 0 0 4,500 4,500 22,500 31,500 CDLIS Testing Costs ** 300 300 300 0 0 0 900 Total 8,160 8,135 6,225 8,922 8,922 44,610 84,974 Present Value (Disc. At 7%) 8,160 7,603 5,437 7,283 6,807 27,908 63,198 Present Value (Disc. At 3%) 8,160 7,898 5,868 8,165 7,927 36,304 74,322 *Cost to be borne by driver. **Cost to be borne by State. ***Cost to be borne by Federal Government. Alternative 2 is the least expensive of the 3 alternatives, although Alternative 3 is fairly cost competitive. Alternative 1 is by far the most expensive of the three alternatives. Its higher costs are due mainly to the need to synchronize the CDL renewal and medical certification renewal periods. Alternative 1 would entail a much higher volume of CDL renewals at SDLAs and, as a result, States would incur more costs and drivers would have to pay renewal fees much more frequently.
The costs to the various entities under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table 4 below. These costs are undiscounted
due mainly to the need to synchronize the CDL renewal and medical certification renewal periods. Alternative 1 would entail a much higher volume of CDL renewals at SDLAs and, as a result, States would incur more costs and drivers would have to pay renewal fees much more frequently.
The costs to the various entities under Alternative 2 are summarized in Table 4 below. These costs are undiscounted. States would bear costs in the range of $4-$6.7 million per year under this alternative for the first three years, and drivers would bear costs of slightly more than $3 million per year once they begin submitting their medical certificates to the States after year 3.
Table 4.—Summary of Costs to Various Drivers/Entities, Alternative 2 Undiscounted [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Later years State Costs $6,710 $6,710 $4,925 $3,998 Driver Costs 0 0 0 3,212 Federal Costs 0 0 0 1,700 Total 8,910 Benefits
The Agency believes all three alternatives would offer comparable safety benefits. These benefits would result from preventing a limited percentage of physically not-qualified drivers from obtaining a CDL to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. FMCSA believes such not-qualified drivers are more likely to be involved in crashes than those who are qualified. The Agency estimates the proposed changes could result in the prevention of as many as 10 percent of the crashes attributable to physically not-qualified drivers. These benefits are expected to stem from a deterrent effect because the drivers would be providing their medical examiner's certificate to a government official, rather than a motor carrier, and may be less likely to engage in forgery. In addition, having easy electronic access to tracking information from the driver's medical certificate should facilitate any desired investigations of fraud in the medical certification system at the State and Federal level, and is likely to assist in exposing drivers that engage in untruthful statements about their medical certification status
rrier, and may be less likely to engage in forgery. In addition, having easy electronic access to tracking information from the driver's medical certificate should facilitate any desired investigations of fraud in the medical certification system at the State and Federal level, and is likely to assist in exposing drivers that engage in untruthful statements about their medical certification status. Thus, certain types of fraud might be deterred.
This proposed rule would also provide safety benefits by providing drivers with a greater incentive to renew their medical certifications on time.
FMCSA believes that this more timely renewal by CDL drivers of medical certifications is likely to provide enhanced safety benefits for the entire motor carrier industry. During the 2-year renewal period between medical examinations some percentage of drivers will develop physical problems that make them physically unqualified to drive. For instance, a driver may have experienced a decline in eyesight, developed high blood pressure, kidney problems, or heart problems. If these drivers put off obtaining a new medical examination, they would remain an increased safety risk. However, if they are medically examined on schedule, the medical problems that have developed in the interim can be discovered and treated effectively. Effective treatment of the physical problem would reduce the safety risk the driver poses, and hence will yield safety benefits to the public in the form of fewer crashes involving physically unqualified drivers. The Agency acknowledges the fact that the level of the safety benefits that would accrue from the proposed changes in this NPRM are to some extent uncertain, and therefore has conducted a sensitivity analysis using two different levels of assumed safety benefits.
If this proposed rule resulted in the avoidance of 10 percent of the crashes attributable to physically unqualified drivers, it would prevent approximately 268 crashes per year
level of the safety benefits that would accrue from the proposed changes in this NPRM are to some extent uncertain, and therefore has conducted a sensitivity analysis using two different levels of assumed safety benefits.
If this proposed rule resulted in the avoidance of 10 percent of the crashes attributable to physically unqualified drivers, it would prevent approximately 268 crashes per year. The Agency estimates that the average cost of a truck or bus crash with a CDL driver is $69,439. Avoiding 268 crashes would therefore result in approximately $18.6 million in annual undiscounted crash avoidance benefits. At this possible level of benefit, Alternative 2 would be cost beneficial, with an estimated 10-year net benefit of $20.7 million, assuming a 7 percent discount rate. Alternative 2 would also be cost beneficial if it resulted in avoiding only 4 fatal truck or bus crashes per year. These figures are summarized in Table 5 below. Alternative 3 would also be cost beneficial at this level of crash avoidance, with a slightly lower total net benefit of $16.8 million. Alternative 1 would not be cost-beneficial at this level of benefit.
Table 5.—10-Year Benefit Cost Comparison—All Crashes 7 Percent Discount Rate [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Total Discounted Crash Avoidance Benefits $0 $0 $0 $7,596 $14,197 $58,211 $80,004 Discounted Total Costs 6,710 6,271 4,302 7,273 6,797 27,871 59,224 Discounted Net Benefits −6,710 −6,271 −4,302 322 7,400 30,341 20,780 An alternative benefit-cost comparison for Alternative 2 based on an assumption of only a 5 percent reduction in crashes attributable to preventing physically not-qualified drivers from obtaining a CDL to operate CMVs is presented in Table 6 below. The proposed rule would not be cost beneficial at this level of crash prevention. The net present value of net costs under this level of benefits is $19 million. At this level of benefit, none of the alternatives would be cost beneficial
y a 5 percent reduction in crashes attributable to preventing physically not-qualified drivers from obtaining a CDL to operate CMVs is presented in Table 6 below. The proposed rule would not be cost beneficial at this level of crash prevention. The net present value of net costs under this level of benefits is $19 million. At this level of benefit, none of the alternatives would be cost beneficial. Were this proposed rule to result in no safety benefits, its total 10-year cost would be $59 million.
Table 6.—10-Year Benefit Cost Comparison, Alternative 2 with Reduced Crash Avoidance 7 Percent Discount Rate [Thousands of dollars] Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Years 6-10 Total Discounted Crash Avoidance Benefits $0 $0 $0 $3,798 $7,099 $29,106 $40,003 Discounted Total Costs 6,710 6,271 4,302 7,273 6,797 27,871 59,224 Discounted Net Benefits −6,710 −6,271 −4,302 −3,475 301 1,235 −19,222 Because of the speculative nature of the benefits, it is possible that none of the Alternatives is cost beneficial under the terms of this proposal. This proposal implements the congressional mandate in section 215 of MCSIA. FMCSA anticipates it would also implement the National Registry of Medical Examiners as required by SAFETEA-LU, which the Agency believes could make further improvements in the medical certification program. The proposed requirements set forth in this NPRM are an important first step, and the Agency is separately considering additional changes to improve the medical certification processes in the future. The current changes proposed here are critical precursors for delivering electronic verification of improved medical certification information to State driver licensing agencies and roadside and traffic enforcement personnel as part of their programmatic processes. The FMCSA is also hopeful that substantial information quality improvements would result from the anticipated future rulemakings in the medical certification arena
here are critical precursors for delivering electronic verification of improved medical certification information to State driver licensing agencies and roadside and traffic enforcement personnel as part of their programmatic processes. The FMCSA is also hopeful that substantial information quality improvements would result from the anticipated future rulemakings in the medical certification arena. FMCSA anticipates the combination of this proposed rule and future actions involving the medical certification program would achieve substantial safety benefits to the public. A full description of how these costs and benefits estimates were developed is in
G. Rulemaking Analyses
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
FMCSA determined this proposed rulemaking is a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and is significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures. The NPRM is significant because of the level of congressional and public interest in the proposed rule. The NPRM has been reviewed by the Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This rulemaking would require States to verify that CDL holders who are subject to the physical qualification requirements under 49 CFR part 391 have obtained a medical examiner's certificate issued by a medical examiner, or certify that they are either operating entirely in excepted interstate commerce or entirely in intrastate commerce. The States would be required to enter either: (1) The information from the medical examiner's certificate, or (2) the information from the CDL application that the driver claimed exempt status or plans to operate entirely intrastate, onto the CDLIS driver record to be available to Federal and State enforcement agencies via CDLIS or NLETS inquiries and to drivers and employers on the CDLIS MVR
rce. The States would be required to enter either: (1) The information from the medical examiner's certificate, or (2) the information from the CDL application that the driver claimed exempt status or plans to operate entirely intrastate, onto the CDLIS driver record to be available to Federal and State enforcement agencies via CDLIS or NLETS inquiries and to drivers and employers on the CDLIS MVR.
The development costs the States would incur to implement this proposed rule include the cost to modify each State's information systems to enable them to record which certification the CDL driver made, and for those so required, information from the medical examiner's certificate to verify the driver's physical qualification. Operational costs to States include hiring and maintaining sufficient staff to receive these certificates from interstate CDL drivers at least every 2 years (in some cases more often), and to perform data entry functions to record all information from the paper medical examiner's certificates. State costs also include a requirement to downgrade the driver's CDL and to notify the driver of the planned downgrade, as well as updating the programs that provide the following responses: CDLIS, CDLIS equivalent for NLETS and CDLIS MVR status and history to users authorized in 49 CFR 384.225(e) to include specified medical certification status information. More details about these requirements are discussed under the section titled, “Executive Order 13132 (Federalism),” below.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Federal Agencies to take small businesses' particular concerns into account when developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating and enforcing regulations. To achieve this goal, the Act requires that agencies detail how they have met these concerns, by including a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). An initial RFA, which accompanies an NPRM, must include the following five elements:
ct requires Federal Agencies to take small businesses' particular concerns into account when developing, writing, publicizing, promulgating and enforcing regulations. To achieve this goal, the Act requires that agencies detail how they have met these concerns, by including a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). An initial RFA, which accompanies an NPRM, must include the following five elements:
(1) A description of the reasons why action by the Agency is being considered.
The Agency has identified numerous instances in which drivers who are physically unqualified or have failed to be medically examined have obtained CDLs and operated CMVs in violation of Federal regulations. The Agency believes, and research suggests, 4 that physically unqualified drivers are significantly more likely to be involved in motor vehicle crashes. The continued operation of CMVs by physically unqualified drivers therefore poses a significant risk to the health and safety of the general public. FMCSA believes that the changes being proposed here would, if implemented, reduce the number of large truck crashes that occur, and the losses in property, health, and lives that are associated with them.
4 See for instance: Ogden, E.J.D. and Moskowitz, H. “Effects of Alcohol and Other Drugs on Driver Performance.” Traffic Injury Prevention. 5:185-198. 2004.
J. Terran-Santos, M.D., A. Jimenez-Gomez, M.D., J. Cordero-Guevara, M.D., and the Cooperative Group Burgos-Santander. 1999. “The Association Between Sleep Apnea and the Risk of Traffic Accidents.” New England Journal of Medicine. 340:11. pp. 847-851
. (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.
The objectives of the proposed rule are to inhibit physically unqualified drivers from falsely certifying they are qualified or submitting fraudulent medical examiner's certificates, and thus reduce the number of physically unqualified drivers who are obtaining CDLs and operating CMVs in interstate commerce in violation of Federal regulations
bjectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule.
The objectives of the proposed rule are to inhibit physically unqualified drivers from falsely certifying they are qualified or submitting fraudulent medical examiner's certificates, and thus reduce the number of physically unqualified drivers who are obtaining CDLs and operating CMVs in interstate commerce in violation of Federal regulations. This proposed rule would also bring the CDL process into compliance with the requirements of section 215 of MCSIA, that requires FMCSA to initiate a rulemaking to provide for a Federal medical qualification certificate to be made part of the CDL. The changes being proposed here would bring the Agency into compliance with that mandate.
(3) A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
The latest estimates from the Agency's MCMIS database (February 2006) indicate a total of approximately 685,000 interstate motor carriers. However, FMCSA analysts believe the number of truly “active” motor carriers ( i.e. , those currently moving freight or passengers, operating under their own authority, and with required filings on record with FMCSA) is probably less than 500,000. For this analysis, FMCSA used the estimate of 475,500, which is based on research conducted in calendar year 2005. This number includes both for-hire and private interstate carriers. For this analysis, the Agency assumes that 75 percent of existing motor carriers are defined as small entities, since the Economic Census data and conversations with trade associations both indicate that approximately 75 percent of motor carriers qualify as small businesses. Therefore, of the 475,500 current motor carriers in MCMIS, approximately 356,625 are considered small entities and this proposed rule would apply to all that use CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce
re defined as small entities, since the Economic Census data and conversations with trade associations both indicate that approximately 75 percent of motor carriers qualify as small businesses. Therefore, of the 475,500 current motor carriers in MCMIS, approximately 356,625 are considered small entities and this proposed rule would apply to all that use CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce.
The changes being considered here would slightly reduce the paperwork and documentation requirements on employing motor carriers. Motor carriers are currently required to obtain a copy of the medical certificate from each driver they hire prior to letting that driver operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Motor carriers are also required to obtain from the drivers' SDLAs the MVR for all drivers they employ. This proposed rule change would enable motor carriers to get both the medical examiner's certificate and MVR from the licensing SDLA with one transaction. This proposed change would therefore reduce the current reporting and recordkeeping requirements for all motor carriers.
(4) A description of the proposed reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
These proposed rules would change the source from which motor carriers gather medical certification status for CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce. Currently, drivers provide an original or copy of the medical
ing an estimate of the classes of small entities which would be subject to the requirements and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
These proposed rules would change the source from which motor carriers gather medical certification status for CDL drivers operating in interstate commerce. Currently, drivers provide an original or copy of the medical
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all Federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
This proposed rule would make information from the medical certificate a part of the commercial driver's license. FMCSA is not aware of any other regulations which would duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The entire Regulatory Flexibility analysis is available in the docket for this proposal. FMCSA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMCSA seeks comments on the Regulatory Flexibility analysis set forth in this NPRM.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This proposed action would meet applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
FMCSA analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. FMCSA determined preliminarily that this rulemaking would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rulemaking would not involve taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights
t this rulemaking would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rulemaking would not involve taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This proposed action was analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which requires agencies to develop “an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.” Policies that have Federalism implications are defined in the Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, Federal agencies may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct costs, and that is not required by statute unless the Federal Government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Also, Federal agencies may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with local government officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments or the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Also, Federal agencies may not issue a regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with local government officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
If FMCSA believes it complies by having consulted with the States, Executive Order 13132 requires FMCSA to provide to OMB in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rulemaking a “Federalism Summary Impact Statement (FSIS).” The FSIS must include: (1) A description of the extent of FMCSA's prior consultation with State and local government officials; (2) a summary of the nature of their concerns; (3) the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and (4) a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local government officials have been met. Also, when FMCSA transmits a draft final rule with Federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, FMCSA must include a certification from the Agency's Federalism official stating that FMCSA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
Nothing in this proposal would directly preempt any State law or regulation. However, FMCSA believes this proposed action has Federalism implications because it would impose new direct operational costs on States, which would no longer be funded by FMCSA beginning 3 years after implementation, and limit State policymaking discretion if the State chooses to issue CDLs in compliance with the proposed revisions. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order regarding consultation would apply to this proposed rule. FMCSA will consult with State officials, including elected officials, on this proposal. In addition, FMCSA requests comments to the docket from elected State officials regarding the proposals in this NPRM
if the State chooses to issue CDLs in compliance with the proposed revisions. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order reg

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [71 FR 46 Time for Filing Employment Tax Returns and Modifications to the Deposit Rules](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_05-24563.md)
- [71 FR 287 Request for Burden Reduction Recommendations; Rules Relating to Prompt Corrective Action and the Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements; Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 Review](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-12.md)
- [71 FR 293 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8240.md)
- [71 FR 299 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 777-200, and 777-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E5-8244.md)
- [71 FR 315 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Mexican Gartersnake as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-1.md)
- [71 FR 1397 Proposed Establishment of Area Navigation Instrument Flight Rules Terminal Transition Route (RITTR) T-210; Jacksonville, FL](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-68.md)
- [71 FR 1718 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747SR, and 747SP Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-136.md)
- [71 FR 1988 Petitions for Rulemaking](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-172.md)
- [71 FR 3025 Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York and Vicinity](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-583.md)
- [71 FR 3027 Safety Zone; Vermilion River, Vermilion, OH. VYC Fleet Parade.](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-584.md)
- [71 FR 3254 Fisheries Off West Coast States and in the Western Pacific; Western Pacific Pelagic Fisheries; Guam Longline Fishing Prohibited Area](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-650.md)
- [71 FR 3352 Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination Obligations of Contractors and Subcontractors Regarding Disabled Veterans, Recently Separated Veterans, Other Protected Veterans, and Armed Forces Service Medal Veterans](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-440.md)
- [71 FR 3446 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Inflation Adjustment of Acquisition-Related Thresholds](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-701.md)
- [71 FR 3448 Defense Acquisition Regulations System; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Foreign Acquisition Procedures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-706.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-19246. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.