[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32689-32697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14225]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0292]
RIN 2126-AC14


Third Party Commercial Driver's License Testers

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to allow States to permit a third party skills 
test examiner to administer the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) 
skills test to applicants to whom the examiner has also provided skills 
training. Under this proposal, States would have the option to permit 
this practice, which is currently prohibited under FMCSA rules. The 
Agency believes that allowing States to permit this practice could 
alleviate CDL skill testing delays and reduce inconvenience and cost 
for third party testers and CDL applicants, without negatively 
impacting safety.

[[Page 32690]]


DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before 
September 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2018-0292 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor, 
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. 
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of 
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting 
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nikki McDavid, Chief of the CDL 
Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at 
Nikki.mcdavid@dot.gov, or by telephone at 202-366-0831. If you have 
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact 
Docket Services, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is 
organized as follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting comments
    B. Viewing comments and documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Executive Summary
III. Abbreviations
IV. Legal Basis
V. Background
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
VII. Section-by-Section
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Assistance for Small Entities
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    K. Privacy
    L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)
    P. Environment (NEPA)

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this 
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0292), indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for 
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and 
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only 
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a 
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of 
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions 
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, put the 
docket number, FMCSA-2018-0292, in the keyword box, and click 
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!'' 
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. 
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on 
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them 
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for 
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would 
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, 
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of 
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is customarily not made available to the general 
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is 
exempt from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is relevant or 
responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the 
submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each page of your 
submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions designated as 
CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be placed in the 
public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent 
to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, 1200 New 
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that FMCSA 
receives that is not designated specifically as CBI will be placed in 
the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this 
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0292, in the 
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket 
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have 
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the 
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the 
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 
(Pub. L. 114-94), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a negotiated rulemaking ``if a 
proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). As this proposed rule is not likely to result 
in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to 
issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

[[Page 32691]]

II. Executive Summary

    49 CFR 383.5 defines a ``third party skills test examiner'' as a 
person employed by a third party tester who is authorized by the State 
to administer the CDL skills test. Section 383.75(a)(7) prohibits a 
third party skills test examiner who is also a skills instructor from 
administering the CDL skills test to an applicant who received skills 
training from that examiner. The Agency proposes to remove that 
restriction and permit the States to allow this practice at their 
discretion.
    Removing the restriction may reduce testing delays and improve how 
quickly a driver could be hired. Additionally, the increased efficiency 
in skills testing could benefit third party testers and CDL applicants 
by reducing the time and cost spent to complete testing. FMCSA believes 
the proposed change would not undermine the integrity or effectiveness 
of CDL skills training or testing. The Agency's proposal to remove the 
skills testing restriction on third party examiners responds to public 
comment received in response to the DOT's Notification of Regulatory 
Review (82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)), discussed further below. This 
proposal, if adopted as a final rule, would be a deregulatory action as 
defined by Executive Order (E.O.)13771, ``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs.''
Costs and Benefits
    The proposed removal of the restriction would not impose new costs 
on Commercial Learner's Permit holders (CLP) holders, SDLAs, motor 
carriers, third party testers or third party skills examiners. FMCSA 
believes the proposed change may increase the efficiency of CDL skills 
testing by reducing testing delays and improving how quickly a driver 
may be hired while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CDL Commercial Driver's License
CDLIS Commercial Driver's License Information System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Commercial Learner's Permit
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act
CSTIMS Commercial Skills Test Information Management System
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
IT Information Technology
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MPR Master Pointer Record
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulation Identifier Number
SBA Small Business Administration
SDLA State Driver Licensing Agency
Sec.  Section Symbol
U.S.C. United States Code

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This NPRM would modify a requirement adopted in the final rule, 
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit 
Standards'' (78 FR 17875 (Mar. 25, 2013)). This proposed change is 
based primarily on the broad authority of the Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Safety Act of 1986, as amended (the 1986 Act) (Pub. L. 99-570, Title 
XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313), which 
established the CDL program. The 1986 Act required the Secretary, after 
consultation with the States, to prescribe uniform minimum standards 
for the issuance of CDLs, including ``minimum standards for written and 
driving tests of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(1)). This proposal would amend one of the current 
CDL testing requirements imposed on the States.
    This NPRM is also consistent witth the concurrent authorities of 
the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended (the 1984 Act) (Pub. 
L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136); and 
the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, as amended (the 1935 Act) (Chapter 498, 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502). The 1984 Act grants the Secretary broad 
authority to issue regulations ``on commercial motor vehicle safety,'' 
including to ensure that ``commercial motor vehicles are . . . operated 
safely.'' 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). The proposed change is consistent with 
the safe operation of CMVs. In accordance with section 31136(a)(2), the 
removal of the restriction on third party examiners would not impose 
any ``responsibilities . . . on operators of commercial motor vehicles 
[that would] impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.'' 
This proposed rule does not directly address medical standards for 
drivers (section 31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects caused by 
driving CMVs (section 31136(a)(4)). FMCSA does not anticipate that 
drivers would be coerced (section 31136(a)(5)), as a result of this 
rulemaking.
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), 
provides that ``The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe 
requirements for--(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of 
employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor 
carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of 
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, 
when needed to promote safety of operation.'' This NPRM, addressing 
skills testing requirements, is related to the safe operation of motor 
carrier equipment .
    Lastly, the Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49 
CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of 
Transportation by 49 U.S.C. Chapters 311, 313, and 315 as they relate 
to commercial motor vehicle operators, programs, and safety.

V. Background

    On May 9, 2011, FMCSA published a final rule amending the CDL 
knowledge and skills testing standards and establishing minimum 
Commercial Learner's Permit Standards (76 FR 26854). That final rule 
included a provision prohibiting driver training schools from 
administering the CDL skills test to applicants who received skills 
training from that school, unless there is no skills testing 
alternative location within 50 miles of the school and an examiner does 
not train and test the same skills applicant (Sec.  383.785(a)(7)). In 
adopting the prohibition, FMCSA noted that its purpose was ``to reduce 
both the opportunity for fraud and unintended bias in skills testing.'' 
\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 76 FR 26854, 26869 (May 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following publication of the May 9, 2011 final rule, FMCSA received 
petitions requesting reconsideration of Sec.  383.75(a)(7) on the 
grounds that the prohibition was too restrictive and would create 
hardship for States, training schools, and motor carriers. The Agency 
granted the petitions,\2\ ultimately revising the provision in a March 
25, 2013, final rule (78 FR 17875). In the 2013 final rule, FMCSA 
acknowledged the ``hardship and unintended consequences that this 
provision could cause for States,

[[Page 32692]]

schools, and aspiring CDL holders.'' \3\ Accordingly, the revised (and 
current) version of Sec.  383.75(a)(7), in effect since April 24, 2013, 
permits CDL training schools to skills-test their student applicants, 
as long as the individual examiner who provided skills training to the 
applicant does not administer the skills test to that applicant. In 
making this change, FMCSA noted that ``prohibiting individual examiners 
from administering skills tests to student applicants they have trained 
will further the Agency's and Congress's fraud prevention objectives.'' 
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Before the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Decision on Petition for Reconsideration'' (August 
12, 2012), available in Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659.
    \3\ 78 FR 17875, 17877 (Mar. 25, 2013).
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2017, as part of the Administration's ongoing efforts to 
review existing regulations to evaluate their continued necessity and 
determine whether they are crafted effectively to solve current 
problems, DOT published a ``Notification of Regulatory Review'' seeking 
the public's input on existing rules and other agency actions (82 FR 
45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)). In response to that notification, SAGE Truck 
Driving Schools (SAGE) recommended that FMCSA eliminate the 
prohibition, set forth in Sec.  383.75(a)(7), that prevents a third 
party skills examiner from administering a CDL skills test to an 
applicant who received skills training from that examiner.\5\ In 
support of its recommendation, SAGE made the following points: (1) The 
prohibition is unnecessary because State-based CDL testing compliance 
agencies have many other effective tools to detect and prevent fraud in 
CDL skills testing; (2) it causes significant inconvenience and cost 
for third party testers, CDL applicants, the transportation industry, 
and the public; (3) it needlessly makes CDL training and testing 
operation more difficult and costly, thereby exacerbating the CMV 
driver shortage; and (4) it contributes to CDL testing delays in some 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This comment is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2017-0069-2671.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA agrees with SAGE's 
recommendation to remove the current prohibition on third party skills 
test examiners and proposes to amend Sec.  383.75(a)(7) accordingly.

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Agency, having reconsidered the efficacy of Sec.  383.75(a)(7) 
in light of SAGE's comments, proposes to permit third party examiners 
to administer the skills test to CDL applicants to whom they have also 
provided skills training. Under this approach, States utilizing third 
party examiners would have the flexibility to determine whether 
examiners may test CDL applicants they also trained. The decision to 
permit those examiners to conduct skills testing would be entirely at 
the State's discretion.
    FMCSA believes that the proposed change is appropriate because, as 
SAGE noted, there are other means of detecting and preventing fraud in 
CDL skills testing. Section 383.75, ``Third party testing,'' requires 
States that utilize third party testers, (defined in Sec.  383.5 as a 
person/entity authorized by the State to employ skills test examiners 
to administer the CDL skills test) to undertake a number of actions 
designed to ensure the integrity of the skills testing process. For 
example, at least every two years, States must do one of the following: 
Have State employees covertly take the skills tests administered by the 
third party, as if the employee were a CDL applicant; have State 
employees co-score the applicant during the skills test to compare 
pass/fail results with the third party examiner; or re-test a sample of 
drivers tested by a third party to compare pass/fail results (Sec.  
383.75(a)(5)). Additionally, States must: Take prompt remedial action 
against a third party tester that fails to comply with applicable CDL 
testing standards (Sec.  383.75(a)(6)); maintain an agreement with the 
third party tester that includes, among other things, provisions 
allowing FMCSA or the State to conduct random inspections, 
examinations, and audits of its operations (Sec.  383.75(a)(8)(i)); and 
require the third party tester to use only examiners who complete 
formal training approved by the State and are certified by the State to 
conduct CDL skills testing (Sec.  383.75(a)(8)(vi)).
    Additionally, under Sec.  384.229, States must establish and 
maintain a database to track the skills tests administered by each 
State and third party examiner; examiners must be identified by name 
and identification number. State-established databases must also track 
pass/fail rates of applicants tested by each State and third party 
skills test examiner (to detect examiners who have unusually high pass 
or failure rates), as well as dates and results of the States' 
monitoring of third party testers and skills examiners. The databases 
can be used by both FMCSA and SDLAs to identify and investigate 
potentially fraudulent testing. The Agency invites comment from the 
States addressing the extent to which they have detected fraud in third 
party testing, including quantitative data derived from the required 
monitoring of third party testers and skills examiners.
    The Agency monitors each State's CDL program through Annual 
Performance Reviews (APRs) and Skills Testing Reviews (STRs) conducted 
in accordance with Sec.  384.307. If FMCSA determines that a State does 
not meet one or more of the minimum standards for substantial 
compliance under part 384, the State must take action to correct the 
cited deficiencies, or explain why FMCSA's determination of non-
compliance is incorrect. As part of this review process, the Agency 
evaluates the States' compliance with the CDL regulations in parts 383 
and 384, and is therefore able to timely identify potential problem 
areas in third party testing. During the five-year period beginning in 
2014, FMCSA identified 16 States that were out of compliance with at 
least one provision in 383.75.\6\ Each of these States has either 
corrected the problem, or is in the process of implementing corrective 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This information is captured in FMCSA's States Compliance 
Records Enterprise (SCORE) program database, the Agency's primary 
tool for tracking States' compliance with parts 383 and 384.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency notes that, in addition to these current regulatory 
requirements, another fraud-detection tool will be available when the 
Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) regulations are implemented. 
Information collected through the Training Provider Registry (TPR) 
established by the ELDT final rule will allow FMCSA to determine 
whether applicants trained by specific providers have abnormally high 
(or low) CDL skills test passage rates. In such cases, investigation of 
the training provider may be warranted, which could reveal whether, if 
the provider is also a third party tester in the State(s) in which 
training is provided, the individual examiner who administered the 
skills test also trained the CDL applicants. In accordance with Sec.  
380.721(a)(5), CDL skills test passage rate anomolies may be a basis 
for the training provider's removal from the TPR.
    Given these multiple means of detecting and preventing fraud in CDL 
skills testing, FMCSA believes that the proposed removal of the 
prohibition currently imposed by Sec.  383.75(a)(7) would have no 
impact on safety; \7\ the

[[Page 32693]]

Agency invites comments on this issue. In its comments to the October 
2017 Regulatory Review document, SAGE contends that the current 
prohibition contributes to CDL testing delays and, consequently, CMV 
driver shortages. Although FMCSA understands the reasoning underlying 
SAGE's conclusion that there is a link between the current prohibition 
and skills testing delays, the Agency cannot independently confirm this 
assertion. The Agency specifically requests comment, including 
qualitative or quantitative data, addressing the impact of the current 
prohibition on CDL skills testing delays and the availability of CDL-
credentialed drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ FMCSA is aware of a recent occurrence in a midwestern State, 
in which several CDL applicants passed the skills test administered 
by the same individual who trained them (in violation of Sec.  
383.75(a)(7)), but failed upon re-testing conducted pursuant to 
Sec.  383.75. However, in that situation it is unclear whether the 
failed re-testing resulted from examiner fraud or bias, or from the 
fact that the individual may not have been properly qualified as a 
third party examiner. In any event, FMCSA discovered discrepancies 
in the course of an annual program review of the State's testing 
program, which subsequently resulted in re-testing the affected 
drivers. This process illustrates one of the existing means of 
detecting fraud or bias in CDL skills testing. The Agency recently 
reviewed the State Compliance Records Enterprise (SCORE) database, 
containing records related to States' compliance with 49 CFR parts 
383 and 384, and found no additional instances of non-compliance 
with Sec.  383.75(a)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 383.75(a)(7)

    FMCSA would revise the current text of Sec.  383.75(a)(7) to 
provide that the State may allow a skills test examiner who is also a 
skills instructor, either as part of a school, training program or 
otherwise, to administer a skills test to an applicant who received 
skills training by that skills test examiner.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    Under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), 
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 
3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, this 
proposed rule does not require an assessment of potential costs and 
benefits under section 6(a)(4) of that Order. This proposed rule is 
also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and 
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 (May 22, 1980); 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 
1979)). Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget has not 
reviewed it under these Orders.
    This proposed rule would permit States that use third party testers 
to allow third party skills test examiners to administer the CDL skills 
test for students they instructed. This practice is currently 
prohibited by Sec.  383.75(a)(7).
    As discussed above, FMCSA believes the proposed change may increase 
the efficiency of CDL skills testing while maintaining an equivalent 
level of safety. The NPRM would affect States, third party testers and 
CDL applicants.
States
    There are currently 33 SDLAs that administer the CDL skills test 
and also allow third party testers to do so. An additional ten SDLAs 
rely exclusively on third party testers. The remaining seven States and 
the District of Columbia do not permit third party testing.\8\ Under 
the proposed rule, the decision by an SDLA to permit third party 
examiners to skills test CDL applicants they also trained would be 
discretionary, and FMCSA is therefore unable to predict how many of the 
43 SDLAs that allow or rely solely upon third party testing would adopt 
that approach. Similarly, the Agency does not know if the proposed 
change would result in additional training providers being approved by 
SDLAs as third party testers. The Agency also has no basis on which to 
predict whether any of the seven States and the District of Columbia 
that currently do not permit third party testing would initiate third 
party testing that permits skills examiners to test students they have 
also trained. FMCSA invites comment on the extent to which SDLAs would 
utitlize the flexibility afforded by this NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A General Accounting Office (GAO) report published in 2015 
found that 29 States use both State testers and third party testers 
and that 10 States use third party testers only. Since publication 
of the GAO report, Massachusetts, Montana, New York and Texas 
adopted legislation permitting third party testing. The New Jersey 
Motor Vehicles Commission is currently operating a pilot program for 
third party testing pursuant to legislation enacted in 2016. The 
remaining seven States and Washington, DC use State testers only. 
See https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-607 (Accessed June 19, 
2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Third Party Testers
    In the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the ELDT final rule, 
``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Operators,'' \9\ FMCSA estimated that 5,150 organizations 
(including CDL training schools, motor carriers, public transit 
agencies, school districts, et al.) provide CDL skills training across 
6,350 locations.\10\ At this time FMCSA is unable to estimate the 
number of CDL skills training providers that are also third party 
testers. However, as noted above, the Agency will have access to that 
information after the ELDT TPR becomes operational, and thus will be 
able to identify these entities for monitoring and enforcement 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, ``Regulatory Evaluation of Minimum Training 
Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators, 
Final Rule,'' https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&dct=SR%2BO&D=FMCSA-2007-27748
    \10\ Other training providers that might also be third party 
testers include Public Transit Agencies (1,820), School Districts 
(9,410), Private School Bus Carriers (3,790), Other Passenger 
Carriers (30), and Other Carriers (300).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CDL Skills Test Applicants
    A CDL applicant must hold a CLP in order to take the CDL skills 
test. FMCSA estimates that approximately 476,000 CLPs are issued 
annually nationwide. This estimate is based primarily on information 
from the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a 
nationwide computer system, administered by AAMVA, that enables SDLAs 
to ensure that each commercial driver has only one driver's license and 
one complete driver record. According to AAMVA, approximately 476,000 
new Master Pointer Records (MPRs) were added annually to CDLIS during 
calendar years 2013 through 2015. An MPR is typically added to CDLIS 
within 10 days of issuing a CLP to a driver who is believed to have 
never held one previously, and is therefore a reasonable proxy for 
estimating the number of CDL skills test applicants.
    FMCSA notes that because the Agency cannot estimate the number of 
States that would choose to permit third party examiners to train and 
test the same individual, the extent to which this population would be 
affected by the proposed rule is unknown.
Costs, Benefits and Transfer Payments
Costs
    FMCSA did not identify any new costs to SDLAs, third party testers, 
or CDL applicants (i.e., CLP holders) that would arise from the 
proposed rule. FMCSA invites comment, including qualitative or 
quantitative data, addressing whether the proposed rule may result in 
new costs.
    The proposed change could conceivably result in cost savings by 
reducing wait times for CDL skills testing, thereby alleviating testing 
delays, and improving how quickly a driver may be hired. The monetized 
value of the reduced wait times would constitute cost savings to CDL 
applicants and to motor carriers that seek to employ them by avoiding 
opportunity costs. For example, CDL applicants could become wage-
earning drivers more quickly, and carriers would be able to engage the 
new CDL holders in economically productive activities that much sooner. 
Again, due to the fact that the Agency has no basis to estimate the 
number of States which would allow skills testing currently

[[Page 32694]]

prohibited by Sec.  383.75(a)(7), FMCSA is unable to quantify the 
amount of opportunity costs that would be avoided as result of the 
proposed change.
    Cost savings may also accrue in the form of reduced travel costs to 
CDL applicants, who, as a result of the current prohibition, must 
travel to an alternative testing site (e.g., another third party tester 
or an SDLA) rather than take the skills test at the site where they 
were trained. However, FMCSA has no basis to estimate how many CDL 
applicants currently confront that circumstance, the amount of time 
they spend travelling to an alternative testing site, or the extent to 
which such travel time would be eliminated as a result of the proposed 
change.The Agency requests comment addressing these factors, along with 
any additional cost savings of the proposed rule.
Benefits
    As is discussed above, FMCSA believes that the proposed removal of 
the prohibition currently imposed by Sec.  383.75(a)(7) would have no 
impact on safety, and would thus yield no positive or negative safety 
benefits. The Agency also has not identified any other positive or 
negative benefits to society that would result from this proposed rule.
Transfer Payments
    There are also certain transfer payment effects that may occur if 
this proposed rule is finalized. Transfer payments are monetary 
payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources 
available to society, and therefore do not represent actual costs or 
benefits of the proposed rule.\11\ Under the prohibition imposed on 
third party testers in 383.75(a)(7), CLP holders must presently arrange 
to a take skills test administrated by either an SDLA or another third 
party tester. These providers incur costs and receive fees to 
administer skills tests to these CLP holders. If a State chooses to 
allow third party examiners to administer the skills test to 
individuals they also trained, those CLP holders would no longer have 
to go elsewhere to take the skills test (unless the third party tester, 
as a training provider, does not employ a sufficient number of trainers 
who are also third party examiners). Provided that a third party skills 
tester who is also a training provider has adequate supply to meet 
demand for both training and testing, the cost of providing the skills 
test and the associated revenue for the provision of that service would 
be transferred to that skills tester (assuming the CLP holder chooses 
to receive skills testing from that provider, an assumption the Agency 
considers to be rational as it is expected to minimize costs to the CLP 
holder). These transfer payments would only occur in those States that 
choose to allow third party examiners to administer the skills test to 
applicants they have also trained, as proposed in the NPRM. The Agency 
is unable to predict how many of the 43 States that currently permit 
third party testing would also permit individual examiners to train and 
test the same CDL applicant, nor can the Agency predict whether 
additional training providers would become third party testers if this 
proposal is finalized. The Agency requests comments on the potential 
significance of transfer payments among third party testers,as a result 
of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ OMB Circular A-4 requires Agencies to discuss the 
distributional effects of rulemakings. According to Circular A-4, 
``distributional effects'' refer to ``. . . the impacts of a 
regulatory action across the population and economy, divided up in 
various ways (e.g., income groups, race, sex, industrial sector, 
geography).'' This approach allows decision makers to properly 
consider the distributional effects of a regulatory action on 
economic efficiency. E.O. 12886 authorizes this approach. See 
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ 
(Accessed June 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    E.O. 13771 requires that for ``every one new [E.O. 13771 regulatory 
action] issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for 
elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently 
managed and controlled through a budgeting process.'' 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 
3, 2017). Implementation guida nce for E.O. 13771 issued by OMB 
(Memorandum M-17-21) on April 5, 2017, defines two different types of 
E.O. 13771 actions: an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action, and an E.O. 
13771 regulatory action.
    An E.O. 13771 deregulatory action is defined as ``an action that 
has been finalized and has total costs less than zero.'' This proposed 
rulemaking has total costs less than zero and therefore is an E.O. 
13771 deregulatory action. Although, as previously noted, FMCSA cannot 
quantify the estimated cost savings of the rule, the potential cost 
savings are discussed qualitatively above.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), requires Federal 
agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small 
entities, analyze effective alternatives that minimize small entity 
impacts, and make their analyses available for public comment. The term 
``small entities'' means small businesses and not-for-profit 
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not 
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with 
populations under 50,000. Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis 
of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that 
agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these entities. FMCSA 
has not determined whether this proposed rule would have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, 
FMCSA is publishing this initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) 
to aid the public in commenting on the potential small business impacts 
of the proposals in this NPRM. We invite all interested parties to 
submit data and information regarding the potential economic impact 
that would result from adoption of the proposals in this NPRM. We will 
consider all comments received in the public comment process when 
deciding in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Assessment.
    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act (IRFA), which accompanies 
this NPRM, must include six components. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b) and (c). 
The Agency six components addressed in each section below require:
     A description of the reasons why the action by the agency 
is being considered;
     A succinct statement of the objective of, and legal basis 
for, the proposed rule;
     A description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the 
number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, 
and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the 
requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record;
     An identification, to the extent practicable, of all 
relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with 
the proposed rule; and
     A description of any significant alternatives to the 
proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable 
statutes and which minimize any significant economic impact of the 
proposed rule on small entities.

[[Page 32695]]

Why the Action by the Agency Is Being Considered
    FMCSA regulations define third party tester and third party skills 
test examiner (49 CFR 383.5). A third party tester is as a person 
(including but not limited to, another State, motor carrier private 
training facility or other private institution, or a department, agency 
or instrumentality of a local government) authorized by the State to 
employ skills test examiners to administer the CDL skills test. A 
``third party skills test examiner'' is defined as a person employed by 
a third party tester who is authorized by the State to administer the 
CDL skills test. Section 383.75(a)(7) prohibits a third party skills 
test examiner who is also a skills instructor from administering the 
CDL skills test to an applicant who received skills training from that 
examiner skills test examiner. The Agency's proposal to remove the 
skills testing restriction on third party examiners responds to public 
comment received in response to the DOT's Notification of Regulatory 
Review (82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2, 2017)).
The Objectives of and Legal Basis for the Proposed Rule
    The objective of the NPRM is to provide States with the option to 
permit a third party skills test examiners to administer the Commercial 
Driver's License (CDL) skills test to applicants to whom the examiner 
has also provided skills training. The Agency believes that permitting 
this practice could reduce wait times for CDL skills testing and reduce 
the inconvience and cost for CDL applicants and third party testers. 
Recent surveys conducted by the Commercial Vehicle Training Association 
and FMCSA, based on 2016 data show that wait times for initial CDL 
skills testing and retesting vary by State. Providing the States the 
discretion to lift the prohibition on third party skills testers from 
administering the skills tests to applicants they instruct may reduce 
testing delays and improve how quickly motor carriers can hire new CDL 
holders. FMCSA believes the proposed change would not undermine the 
integrity or effectiveness of CDL skills training.
    The NPRM is based primarily on the broad authority of the 
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, as amended (the 1986 Act) 
(Pub. L. 99-570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, codified at 49 U.S.C. 
chapter 313), which established the CDL program. The 1986 Act required 
the Secretary, after consultation with the States, to prescribe uniform 
minimum standards for the issuance of CDLs, including minimum standards 
for written and driving tests of an individual operating a commercial 
motor vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(1)). The proposed rule would amend 
one of the current CDL testing requirements imposed on the States.
    The NPRM is also consistent with the concurrent authorities of the 
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, as amended (the 1984 Act) (Pub. L. 
98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136); and the 
Motor Carrier Act of 1935, as amended (the 1935 Act) (Chapter 498, 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502). A full explanation of the legal basis for 
this rulemaking is set forth in Section IV.
A Description of and, Where Feasible, an Estimate of the Number of 
Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
    ``Small entity'' is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Section 601(3) defines 
a ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as ``small business 
concern'' under section 3 of the Small Business Act. This includes any 
small business concern that is independently owned and operated, and is 
not dominant in its field of operation. Section 601(4), likewise 
includes within the definition of ``small entities'' not-for-profit 
enterprises that are independently owned and operated, and are not 
dominant in their fields of operation. Additionally, section 601(5) 
defines ``small entities'' as governments of cities, counties, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with 
populations less than 50,000.
    The proposed rule could affect training providers, some of which 
are already authorized third party testers in 43 States. In the 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the ELDT final rule, ``Minimum 
Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Operators,'' FMCSA estimated that 5,150 organizations (including 
community colleges, proprietary CDL training schools, freight and 
property motor carriers and motocoach carriers) provide CDL skills 
training across 6,350 locations \12\. The RIA also estimated that there 
may be an additional 15,350 training providers, which theoretically 
could become third party testers. These entities include public school 
districts, private school bus carriers, public transit agencies and 
other passenger carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Of the 5,150 CDL training schools, 700 consist of 
proprietary training providers and community colleges. The remaining 
1,500 represent an estimate of small entities training few students, 
most likely representing individuals who training a few students a 
year (e.g., CDL holders training family members or friends).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency lacks annual revenue data to determine how many of the 
training entities identified in the ELDT RIA are within the SBA size 
standards to qualify as small entities. Large motor carriers that have 
training programs for potential new hires and students that may seek 
employment elsewhere are not likely small entities. Many of the 
private, for profit CDL training providers are multi-disciplinary post-
secondary institutions with branch campuses in multiple States. These 
training providers may exceed the SBA size standard based the combined 
revenue from CDL training programs and other programs. Some of the 
training providers identified in the ELDT RIA are not small entities 
because they are instrumentalities of the States or local government 
with population greater than 50,000. For example, community colleges 
that are chartered by State agencies such as State Boards of Higher 
Education. As instrumentalities of the States their population would 
exceed 50,000.
    In 33 States, SDLAs augment their own administration of skills 
tests with third party testers. In another 10 States, SDLAs rely 
exclusively on third party testers to perform skills tests. Ten States 
and the District of Columbia do not permit third party testing. Of the 
43 States that either allow third party testing or rely exclusively on 
third party testing, the Agency is unable to predict how many States 
would permit instructors employed by third party testers to be the 
skills test examiners for students they have instructed. The Agency 
specifically requests comment from SDLAs in these States whether they 
would permit instructors to also serve as skills test examiners for 
their students as a result of the proposed rule, and if so, how many 
third party testers within their State would be impacted by the 
proposed rule and what the magnitude of that impact would be. FMCSA 
also requests comments from SDLAs if this change would result in their 
approval of additional third party testers, beyond those currently 
approved, or what other factors or limitations SDLAs consider in 
determining how many third party testers are approved.
    The Agency is unable to predict whether any of the 10 States that 
do not permit third party testing would choose to permit third party 
testing as a result of the proposed rule. As nothing currently 
prohibits these States from allowing third party testers, the Agency 
does not believe that position would be changed solely on the basis of 
this

[[Page 32696]]

proposal. The Agency requests comment from these 10 SDLAs concerning 
whether they would likely adopt third party testing and if they also 
would permit instructors to serve as skills test examiners for their 
students.
    A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other 
compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an estimate of 
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement 
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the 
report or record.
    The proposed rule does not create or modify existing third party 
tester recordkeeping requirements.
    An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule.
    FMCSA is not aware of any relevant Federal rules that may 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
    A description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule 
which accomplish the stated objectives of applicable statutes and which 
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small 
entities.
    The proposed rule eliminates a mandatory prohibition required by a 
specific regulation. Because of this singular focus, there is no 
significant alternative to considered.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities 
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the 
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of 
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this 
proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal 
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these 
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small 
businesses. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, 
call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The DOT has a policy regarding 
the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an 
explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ``The Rights of 
Small Entities to Enforcement Fairness and Policy Against 
Retaliation.'' Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed December 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) 
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary 
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act requires agencies to prepare 
a comprehensive written statement for any proposed or final rule that 
may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, 
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $161 million (which is 
the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 
2017 levels) or more in any one year. Because this proposed rule would 
not result in such an expenditure, a written statement is not required. 
However, FMCSA does discuss the costs and benefits of this proposed 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 
13132 if it has ``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.'' FMCSA determined that this proposal would not have 
substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the 
policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts 
any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism Impact Statement.

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires 
agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation 
also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an 
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects 
on children. FMCSA determined this proposed rule is not economically 
significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is 
required. In any event, FMCSA does not anticipate that this regulatory 
action could in any respect present an environmental or safety risk 
that could disproportionately affect children.

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, and has determined it would not effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

K. Privacy

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (5 U.S.C. 552a note) 
requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a 
regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. Because this 
final rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable 
information (PII), the Agency is not required to conduct a PIA.
    Section 208 of the E-Government Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note) 
requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially 
changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates 
information in an identifiable form. No new or substantially changed 
technology would collect, maintain, or disseminate information as a 
result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted a PIA.

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this 
program.

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. FMCSA has determined that it is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse 
effect

[[Page 32697]]

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not 
require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because 
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian 
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 
Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between 
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, 
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related 
management systems practices) are standards developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical 
standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary 
consensus standards.

P. Environment (NEPA)

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM consistent with the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action 
is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an 
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA 
Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680 (Mar. 1, 2004)), appendix 2, paragraph (6)(z). 
The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph (6)(z) covers (1) the 
minimum qualifications for persons who drive commercial motor vehicles 
as, for, or on behalf of motor carriers; and (2) the minimum duties of 
motor carriers with respect to the qualifications of their drivers. The 
proposed requirements in this rule are covered by this CE, there are no 
extraordinary circumstances present, and the proposed action does not 
have the potential to significantly affect the quality of the 
environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or 
copying in the regulations.gov website listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor 
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 
part 383 to read as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND 
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 
214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1766, 1767; sec. 1012(b) 
of Pub. L. 107- 56; 115 Stat. 397; sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 
Stat. 1144, 1726; and 49 CFR 1.73.

0
2. Revise Sec.  383.75(a)(7) to read as follows:


Sec.  383.75  Third party testing.

    (a) * * *
    (7) The State may allow a skills test examiner who is also a skills 
instructor either as a part of a school, training program or otherwise, 
to administer a skills test to an applicant who received skills 
training by that skills test examiner; and
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 26, 
2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-14225 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


