Question 1: Does the State have any role in certifying compliance with §391.11(b)(2) of the FMCSRs, which requires driver competence in the English language?

Guidance: No. The driver must certify that he or she meets the qualifications of part 391. The State is under no duty to verify the certification by giving exams or tests.

Question 2: Are States required to change their current medical standards for drivers who need CDLs?

Guidance: No, but interstate drivers must continue to meet the Federal standards, while intrastate drivers are subject to the requirements adopted by the State.

Question 3: To what does the phrase ‘‘as contained in §383.51’’ refer to in §383.73(a)(3)?

Guidance: The phrase refers only to the word ‘‘disqualification.’’ Thus the State must check the applicant’s record to ensure that he/she is not subject to any suspensions, revocations, or cancellations for any reason, and is not subject to any disqualifications under §383.51.

Question 4: Is a State required to refuse a CDL to an applicant if the NDR check shows that he/she had a license suspended, revoked, or canceled within 3 years of the date of the application?

Guidance: Yes, if the person’s driving license is currently suspended, revoked, or canceled.

Question 5: Must a new State of record accept the out-of-State driving record on CDL transfer applications and include this record as a permanent part of the new State’s file?

Guidance: Yes.

Question 6: What does the term “initial licensure” mean as used in §383.73?

Guidance: The term ‘‘initial licensure’’ as used in the context of §383.73 is meant to refer to the procedures a State must follow when a person applies for his/her first CDL.

Question 7: May a State allow an applicant to keep his/her current valid State license when issued an FRSI-restricted CDL?

Guidance: No. That would violate the single-license concept.

Question 8: Does the word ‘‘issuing’’ as used in §383.73(a) include temporary 60-day CDLs as well as permanent CDLs?

Guidance: Yes, the word ‘‘issuing’’ applies to all CDLs whether they are temporary or permanent.

Question 9: When a State chooses to meet the certification requirements of §383.73 (a)(1), (b)(1),(c)(1) and (d)(1) by demanding, as part of its licensing process, that a commercial driver maintain with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) currently valid evidence of compliance with the physical qualification standards of part 391, subpart E, may the State suspend, cancel or revoke the driver’s CDL if he/she does not maintain such evidence with the DMV?

Guidance: Yes. §383.73 requires a State to obtain from a driver applicant a certification that he/she meets the qualification standards of part 391, including subpart E (Physical Qualifications and Examinations).A requirement that a driver maintain currently valid evidence of compliance with subpart E does not conflict with part 383, since the CMVSA made it clear that the DOT was to issue ‘‘regulations to establish minimum Federal standards * * *’’ (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). A State may therefore demand more information or tests than the Federal CDL regulations require. If a driver fails to comply with State requirements which are not inconsistent with part 383, the State may suspend, cancel or revoke the driver’s CDL. This action is not a disqualification for purposes of §383.51, but a withdrawal of the commercial driving privilege.

Question 10: What action should enforcement officers take when a commercial driver’s CDL has been declared invalid by the issuing State because of a lapse in the driver’s medical certificate?

Guidance: Whatever the reason for the State’s decision, a driver with an invalid CDL may not lawfully drive a CMV.

Question 11: May licensing jurisdictions meet their stewardship requirements for surrendered licenses by physically marking the license in some way as not valid and returning it to a driver as part of the driver’s application for a new or renewal of an existing CDL?

Guidance: Yes. Provided the licensing jurisdiction meets the test of guaranteeing that the returned license document cannot possibly be mistaken for a valid document by a casual observer. A document perforated with the word ‘‘VOID’’ conspicuously and unmistakably displayed with holes large enough to be easily distinguished by a casual observer in limited light, which cannot be obscured by the holder of the document, would meet the test of being invalidated.