Transportation

STATE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LEGISLATION

2003 State Legislative Update

February 2004

By Matt Sundeen, Program Principal

(printer-friendly version)
To read portable document format (.pdf) files, you must install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

Overview

Commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are an important component of traffic safety. Each year, more than 7.8 million large trucks--vehicles with a gross weight greater than 10,000 pounds--travel more than 207 billion miles on U.S. roads. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), nearly 7 percent of the 6.3 million police reported motor vehicle crashes in 2002--or 434,000 crashes--involved large trucks. A total of 4,897 people died in crashes involving large trucks in 2002--11 percent of all traffic fatalities--and an additional 130,000 people were injured. One out of nine traffic fatalities in 2002 resulted from a collision involving a large truck.

Because of their size, large trucks can be a threat to other vehicles and pedestrians. Trucks can weigh 20 to 30 times more than a passenger vehicle, and have a 20 percent to 40 percent longer stopping distance. Eighty-two percent of all fatal truck crashes involved at least one other vehicle, usually a passenger vehicle. In such collisions, the occupants of the passenger vehicle usually are most vulnerable. Of the fatalities that resulted from large truck crashes in 2002, 79 percent were occupants of another vehicle, 7 percent were not in any vehicle and 14 percent were occupants of the truck. Similarly, occupants of other vehicles suffered 77 percent of the injuries in large truck crashes, while 20 percent of injuries occurred to truck occupants.

Single-unit trucks were involved in 27 percent of large truck fatal crashes in 2002, while tractor-trailers were involved in 74 percent. Approximately 5 percent of fatal crashes and 4 percent of nonfatal crashes involving large trucks occurred in construction or maintenance work zones. However, 22 percent of all fatal crashes that occurred in a work zone involved a large truck. Four percent of trucks involved in fatal crashes and 2 percent of trucks involved in nonfatal crashes in 2001 were carrying hazardous materials. Hazardous materials were released from the cargo compartment 16 percent of the time in those crashes.

During the last two decades, the total number of people killed in large truck crashes has declined. In 1979, more than 6,500 people died in large truck crashes, an all-time high. Since then, overall fatalities in large truck crashes have dropped by 27 percent. Among truck occupants, fatality rates dropped 51 percent, compared to a 15 percent decline in fatality rates among passenger vehicle occupants.

Since the events of September 11, 2001, commercial vehicle safety has assumed an additional significance. Large trucks carrying explosives or toxic materials now are viewed as not only a traffic safety concern, but also as a potential terrorist threat.

Because of the significance of commercial vehicles for traffic safety and transportation security, it is important that people who drive such vehicles meet certain standards. More than 11 million drivers currently possess commercial driver’s license (CDL) endorsements. Both federal and state laws govern licensing procedures and traffic violations for those drivers. Federal laws generally regulate interstate CMV transportation, while states implement federal regulations and also determine standards for commercial vehicles that are used strictly in intrastate commerce.

During the last five years, new CMV laws at both the federal and state levels have changed requirements for states, motor carriers and CDL holders. At the federal level, the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) and the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001 placed new rules on states for issuing CDLs. These include new standards for maintaining and checking records of violations by commercial drivers, enhanced penalties for traffic violations by commercial drivers, and enhanced requirements for endorsements to transport hazardous materials by commercial vehicles. At the state level, lawmakers adopted a variety of measures to comply with federal law and passed other measures that are intended to improve commercial vehicle safety.

graph

Since 1999, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has partnered with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to examine state CMV and CDL procedures and practices, track changes in state CMV laws, and provide information to state legislatures about changes in federal regulations. Under a cooperative agreement with FMCSA, NCSL has published several reports and publications about state CMV laws, tracked state CMV legislation through a legislative tracking database and coordinated sessions on critical CMV issues for key state legislators and staff. Highlights of NCSL’s five-year relationship with FMCSA include:

NCSL’s 2001 report, Driver History Records: State Practices for Commercial and Noncommercial Drivers, included information about the type of information collected by states on driver records, the processes used to transfer information about convictions for CMV violations to the driving record, state and local diversion and deferral programs, and the use of records in CDL applications.

NCSL’s 2001 Transportation Review on driver history records for commercial drivers focused on specific issues related to driver records for commercial drivers and summarized findings of NCSL’s 2001 survey on the subject.
NCSL’s 2001 Legisbrief on states’ use of diversion and deferral programs for violations by CDL holders.
Sessions for key state legislators and staff at NCSL meetings. During the last three years, NCSL has conducted six briefing sessions on CMV and CDL issues for its standing transportation committee. These sessions have given NCSL and FMCSA staff an opportunity to discuss changes in federal laws and requirements for states with the legislators most responsible for implementing revisions. In December 2003, a session on CMV safety was held at a special transportation leaders seminar that included chairs and vice-chairs of state legislative transportation committees and other transportation leaders.
Tracking state CMV and CDL legislation. NCSL monitors developments in state commercial vehicle legislation through its Commercial Vehicle Database. The database tracks state efforts to implement MCSIA and the commercial driver aspects of the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001. The database also includes information about legislation related to CDLs, alcohol and drug use by commercial drivers, safety inspections for CMVs, speed limits for trucks, and other commercial vehicle issues. The database includes bill numbers, bill summaries, sponsor names, bill status information, and a link to the full text of the legislation when available. Information contained in the database is public and is available for viewing by all interested parties.
Annual and quarterly reports of state legislation. Each quarter, NCSL provides quarterly reports of state legislative activity related to the implementation of MCSIA and the U.S.A Patriot Act and other CMV legislation.

This annual report outlines the new federal requirements for state CMV programs and summarizes the legislative activity tracked in the Commercial Vehicle Database from January 2003 to December 2003. Appendix A summarizes all commercial vehicle related bills introduced in 2003. Other appendices summarize existing laws for several commercial vehicle issues.

Federal CDL Program Legislation

The federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 created the commercial driver’s license (CDL) program that governs drivers, motor carriers and states. The act made the regulation of interstate CMV travel more uniform by requiring states to meet certain standards for CDL testing and licensing, defining specific traffic offenses for commercial drivers, and requiring states to adopt minimum penalties and sanctions for drivers who violate those provisions.

The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) added new requirements for the CDL program. MCSIA created new traffic violations for CDL holders, modified penalties for convictions, amended licensing procedures, and enhanced requirements for keeping records of driver’s convictions. FMCSA published the final rules implementing MCSIA in July 2002; they became effective in September 2002. States must implement the new rules by September 30, 2005, or risk losing a portion of their Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds. In addition, under certain circumstances, FMCSA may prohibit a state that is not in substantial compliance from issuing, renewing, transferring and upgrading CDLs in their state until the state is in substantial compliance. The final rule implements the following provisions of MCSIA that affect drivers, motor carriers and states:

Two new major disqualifying offenses. Under 49 CFR §383.51(b), two new major violations are: 1) driving a CMV while the driver’s CDL is revoked, suspended or canceled, or while the driver is disqualified; and 2) causing a fatality through negligent or criminal operation of a CMV. MCSIA requires states to disqualify drivers who commit these violations.
Three new serious traffic violations. Under 49 CFR §383.51(c), states must include three new serious violations: 1) driving a CMV without obtaining a CDL; 2) driving a CMV without a CDL in possession; and 3) driving without a required endorsement. States must disqualify commercial drivers who are convicted of serious violations two or more times during a three-year period. Disqualification is for 60 to 120 days.
New school bus endorsement. Under 49 CFR §§384.206, 383.71 and 383.71, applicants to operate a school bus must pass new school bus knowledge and skills tests in addition to the general knowledge and passenger endorsement tests. At the state’s discretion, until September 2005, currently licensed school bus drivers may be grandfathered from the skills test if they meet certain criteria.
Ten-year driver record check for license. Under 49 CFR §§384.206, 383.71 and 383.73, a driver applying for an initial issuance, renewal or transfer of a CDL must provide a list of all the states during the past 10 years where the driver was licensed to operate any type of motor vehicle. Before issuing, renewing or transferring a CDL, a state must request the driving record from each state listed by the driver. A state receiving the request must respond within 30 days.
Notification of the driver’s licensing state of a disqualification and underlying violation. Under 49 CFR §384.208, a state must notify the CDL holder’s licensing state no later than 10 days after removing the driver’s privilege to operate a CMV for at least 60 days. The notification must include both the disqualification and the underlying violation that caused the disqualification. The state of record must record the information on the driver’s record.
Time period for reporting convictions to licensing state. Under 49 CFR §384.209, out-of-state convictions related to traffic violations committed in either a commercial vehicle or a noncommercial vehicle by a CDL holder must be sent to the licensing state within 30 days of conviction, beginning September 30, 2005. After September 30, 2008, such convictions must be reported to the state of licensure within 10 days.
No hardship license for CDL holders. Under 49 CFR §384.210, a state may not issue a special license or permit to operate a CMV when a CDL holder’s CMV or non-CMV driving privileges have been suspended, revoked or canceled.
Convictions in noncommercial vehicles. Under 49 CFR §§384.224 and 383.51(b) and (c), major traffic offenses involving drugs, alcohol or felonies and serious traffic violations will count the same in determining driver disqualification, whether they occur in a CDL holder’s commercial vehicle or noncommercial vehicle.
Retention periods for disqualifications and convictions on the driver record. Under 49 CFR §384.225, a state must record and maintain for three years all convictions and disqualifications for violations that occurred in any vehicle by a CDL holder and all CMV convictions and disqualifications for any person required to have a CDL.
No masking or deferrals. Under 49 CFR §384.226, a state may not mask or defer imposition of judgement or allow an individual to enter into a diversion program that would prevent a conviction in any type of vehicle from appearing on the CDL driver’s record.
Railroad-highway grade crossing violations. Under 49 CFR §384.223, states are required to have and enforce laws or regulations applicable to CMV drivers and their employers for disqualifications for railroad-highway grade crossing violations. Under 49 CFR §383.51(d), six disqualification offenses at railroad-highway grade crossings. These include:
- Failing to slow down and check that tracks are clear of an approaching train,

- Failing to stop before reaching a crossing if the tracks are not clear,

- Failing to stop before driving onto a crossing,

- Failing to have sufficient space to drive completely through the crossing without stopping,

- Failing to obey a traffic control device or the directions of an enforcement official at the crossing, and

- Failing to negotiate a crossing because of insufficient undercarriage clearance.
Out-of-service orders. Federal regulations provide new responsibilities for states with regard to the violation of out-of-service orders by commercial drivers. Under 49 CFR §384.222, states must have laws or regulations applicable to CMV drivers and their employers for disqualifications for violating out-of-service orders that meet the minimum requirements in 49 CFR §§383.37(c) and 383.51. Under 49 CFR §383.37(b), employers are prohibited from allowing commercial drivers to operate a CMV during any period in which the driver, the commercial vehicle he or she is driving, or the motor carrier operation is subject to an out-of-service violation. Contained in 49 CFR §383.51 is a list of periods for which a driver must be disqualified when the driver violates an out-of-service order for transporting either hazardous or non-hazardous materials.

The U.S.A Patriot Act of 2001 also added new requirements for states that issue endorsements to CDL holders for hazardous materials transportation. Under rules from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and FMCSA, states are prohibited from issuing, renewing, transferring or upgrading a CDL with a hazardous materials endorsement without a security background check of the applicant and proof of U.S. citizenship or immigration status. The security background check must comply with TSA requirements in 49 CFR §1572 and must performed at least every five years. States that fail to remain in substantial compliance with federal regulations risk losing MCSAP funds and could lose the authority to issue CDLs until the state is recertified by the FMCSA.

State Commercial Vehicle Legislation

Although federal law controls interstate travel by commercial vehicles, states play a key role in CMV safety. States must implement federal requirements for interstate commercial vehicles, state police help enforce CMV laws, and states regulate intrastate travel by CMVs. States also address a variety of additional safety issues that are not covered by federal law.

NCSL tracks changes in state commercial vehicle safety legislation through its State CMV Legislation Database. In 2003, more states considered CMV safety legislation than in 2002. NCSL tracked 141 bills in 42 states related to CMV safety in 2003; 26 states passed legislation. In comparison, NCSL tracked 83 CMV safety bills in 31 states in 2002; 19 of those states passed legislation.

Some of the growth in CMV safety legislation can be attributed to changes in federal law. FMCSA issued its final rule to implement MCSIA in July 2002, and it became effective September 30, 2002. The first opportunity for most states to respond to the new regulations was during the 2003 session. Consequently, the quantity of state MCSIA-related legislation increased from 2002 to 2003. In 2002, 19 states considered 24 MCSIA-related bills, compared to 23 states that considered 44 bills in 2003. Fifteen states passed 20 bills in 2003, compared to 14 states that passed 14 MCSIA bills in 2002.

State legislatures also considered various other CMV safety bills. These included measures related to compliance with the U.S.A. Patriot Act, alcohol and drug use by commercial drivers, CDL issues not included in MCSIA, hours-of-service requirements, safety inspections, truck speed limits, and truck lane requirements or other road rules.

State MCSIA Legislation

State MCSIA bills in 2003 covered a range of issues. In some states--such as Alaska, Kentucky, Maryland, Oklahoma and Rhode Island--legislators focused on a single topic such as school bus endorsements or rail-highway grade crossings. Other states considered broader measures that addressed multiple issues. Comprehensive legislation passed in Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico and North Dakota.

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings

The most common MCSIA provision addressed through legislation in 2003 was violations by commercial vehicles at railroad-highway grade crossings. Thirteen states considered 18 bills with provisions related to CMV violations at railroad-highway crossings. Nine of those states--Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico and Rhode Island--revised railroad-highway crossing laws. Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, New Mexico and Rhode Island added all six offenses for commercial drivers at railroad-highway grade crossings required under MCSIA, as well as the provisions related to employer responsibility. Georgia’s new law added the new MCSIA offenses but did not differentiate between commercial and noncommercial drivers. So, under the new provision, “ … whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing,” the driver must stop and obey the new requirements.

Alaska changed its law regarding CMVs at railroad-highway crossings. However, it added sections only to prohibit the employer from allowing, permitting, requiring, authorizing or assigning a driver to operate a CMV in violation of state or federal railroad-highway crossing laws. Kentucky addressed school buses at railroad-highway crossings by increasing the stopping distance requirements from a range of 10 feet to 30 feet, to a range of 15 feet to 50 feet from a railroad track.

Disqualification Offenses and Serious Offenses

In 2003, 12 states considered legislation to add the new disqualification offenses or serious traffic violations from MCSIA. Arkansas, Kansas and Nebraska passed both new disqualification offenses and the three new serious offenses for commercial drivers. In all three states, the language used to enact the new provisions was nearly identical to the language used in the new federal regulations.

Georgia, Louisiana and North Dakota passed only the three new serious offenses for commercial drivers in 2003. Montana added a major disqualification offense for driving a CMV while a CDL is revoked, suspended or cancelled. However, Montana legislators did not include a disqualification offense for causing a fatality through the negligent operation of a CMV.

School Bus Endorsements

Legislatures in nine states considered legislation to enhance school bus endorsement provisions in 2003. Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana and Nebraska added requirements for knowledge and skills tests and verification that the driver holds a valid CDL.

Arkansas’ bill provides a good example of state school bus endorsement legislation. Its new law, enacted in HB 2343, states that an applicant for a school bus endorsement must satisfy three requirements. First, the applicant must qualify for a passenger vehicle endorsement and pass the knowledge and skills test for such an endorsement. Second, the applicant must pass a knowledge and skills test. The test must demonstrate the applicant’s knowledge of loading and unloading children, including the safe operation of stop signal devices, external mirror systems, flashing lights and other warning and passenger devices required for school buses by state and federal regulations. The test also must elicit knowledge of emergency exits and procedures as well as state and federal regulations related to traversing highway rail crossings. Third, the applicant must take a driving skills test. At the discretion of the Arkansas State Police, the skills test maybe be waived if certain conditions are met.

Legislatures in Missouri, New York and North Carolina also examined school bus endorsement measures in 2003. However, none of these states passed new requirements.

Driver Records

MCSIA and its subsequent regulations added driver record check requirements for CDL applications and notification and record retention requirements for convictions. In 2003, no state passed legislation that included all the new federal driver record rules. Eight states, however, considered legislation related to parts of the new regulations. Arkansas, Georgia, Montana and Nebraska passed bills that included record checks for CDL applications. Arkansas HB 2343 requires applicants to certify that they are not subject to any disqualification under 49 C.F.R. part 383.51, or any license suspension, revocation or cancellation under state law, and that the applicant does not hold a driver’s license from more than one jurisdiction. The bill also compels applicants to provide the names of all states where the applicant has previously been licensed to drive any type of motor vehicle during the previous 10 years.

HB 185, enacted in Montana in 2003, requires CDL applicants to name each jurisdiction where they have been licensed to drive any motor vehicle in the 10-year period immediately proceeding the date of application. Applicants now also must certify that they are not currently subject to a suspension, revocation, disqualification or withdrawal of a previously issued driver’s license or other driving privileges for any vehicle, and that the applicant does not have a driver’s license from another jurisdiction. Under the new law, the licensing department must check the driving record for the applicant from each jurisdiction listed by the applicant. In addition, the department responsible for licensing now must check both the National Driver Register (NDR) and the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) for each applicant, rather than NDR or CDLIS.

Nebraska LB 562 added a section that allows the issuing agency to summarily cancel a driver’s CDL or stop the CDL application if the agency determines that the applicant falsified information. The bill also requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to immediately begin checking the complete driving record of the applicant maintained by the state or by any state of licensure. After September 30, 2005, the law requires the department to check CDLIS to determine whether an applicant possesses any valid CDL issued by any other state; whether such license or the applicant’s privilege to operate a CMV has been suspended, revoked or canceled; or whether the applicant has been disqualified from operating a CMV. The bill also compels the department, beginning September 30, 2005 to contact NDR to determine if the applicant has been disqualified from operating any motor vehicle or has had a driver’s license suspended, revoked or canceled.

Nebraska LB 562 also specified new record and notification requirements to comply with MCSIA. Under the new law, beginning September 30, 2005 any federal disqualification of a Nebraska licensed operator imposed in accordance with 49 C.F.R 383.52 and transmitted by FMCSA to the Nebraska DMV shall become part of the driver’s record. In addition, under the new provisions, the DMV must notify the driver licensing authority for a non-resident within 10-days of receiving information about a disqualification, cancellation, revocation and suspension of a CDL and the underlying violation. The DMV also must notify the licensing state within 10 days of receiving an abstract of conviction for a non-resident CDL holder for a violation and a non-CDL holder who commits a traffic violation in a CMV.

Louisiana passed a measure that provides that the disqualification of commercial driving privileges becomes part of an individual’s operating record. Tennessee considered several bills related to notification requirements; however, none of the bills passed.

Out-of-Service Orders

Seven states considered legislation in 2003 to enhance penalties for violations of out-service orders by commercial drivers. Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas and Nebraska enacted out-of-service sections in their comprehensive CMV bills. The new laws in these states provide stiffer penalties for drivers who violate out-of-service orders while operating a regular CMV or operating vehicles that are transporting hazardous materials. Although the language differs slightly, Arkansas, Georgia and Kansas enacted provisions to disqualify drivers for the following periods: 1) 90 days to one year if the driver is convicted of a first violation of an out-of-service order; 2) one to five years if, during any 10-year period the driver is convicted of two violations of out-of-service orders in separate incidents; and, 3) three years to five years if, during any 10-year period, the driver is convicted of three or more violations of out-of-service orders in separate incidents.

New Mexico passed the disqualification periods required for out-of-service violations prior to 2003. Its 2003 legislation enhanced civil monetary penalties for drivers who violate out-of-service orders and employers that allow or require drivers to operate in violation of an out-of-service order. Under HB 250, drivers who are convicted of violating an out-of-service order are subject to a civil penalty ranging from $1,100 to $2,750. Employers are subject to civil penalties ranging from $2,750 to $11,000.

For violations of out-of-service orders during hazardous materials transportation or transportation of 16 or more passengers, Arkansas and Kansas also added new penalty provisions. These disqualify drivers for 180 days to two years for a first violation, and for three years to five years for a second or subsequent violation during a 10-year period.

Alabama and Missouri considered out-of-service legislation in 2003, but neither state passed its bill.

Noncommercial Violations

Six states considered legislation in 2003 that included provisions related to violations committed by CDL holders in a noncommercial vehicle. Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Montana and North Dakota passed measures that require convictions for disqualifying offenses and serious offenses committed in non-CMVs to be included in the driving record for the commercial driver. Generally, the new laws in these states define noncommercial vehicles and make CDL holders equally responsible for violations committed in both commercial and noncommercial vehicles. North Dakota SB 2150, for example, defines “noncommercial motor vehicle” as “ … a motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles not defined by the term commercial motor vehicle.” The bill also adds nine new disqualification offenses for CDL holders who are operating noncommercial vehicles.

Missouri considered legislation regarding violations by CDL holders in noncommercial vehicles; however, it did not pass.

Masking Convictions

Four states--Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana and Kansas--considered legislation related to masking or deferral of convictions for commercial drivers in 2003. Arkansas HB 2343, enacted in 2003, prohibits courts from deferring a sentence for defendants who hold a CDL and who are charged with violating any state or local traffic law.

Indiana Senate Bill 474, enacted in May 2003, prohibits CDL holders from using certain deferral programs. The bill bars commercial drivers charged with alcohol and drug offenses while operating a motor vehicle from using conditional deferment of judicial proceedings available to non-CDL holders after the commission of a misdemeanor or other infraction. The bill also prohibits circuit courts from allowing CDL holders to use an alcohol deterrent program that contained a deferral component.

Kansas HB 2220, enacted in April 2003, prohibits masking for violations by drivers in both commercial and noncommercial vehicles. According to the bill, “ … a driver may not enter into a diversion agreement in lieu of further criminal proceedings that would prevent such driver’s conviction for any violation, in any type of motor vehicle, of a state or local traffic control law, except a parking violation, from appearing on the driver’s record, whether the driver was convicted for an offense committed in the state where the driver is licensed or another state.”

Alabama House Bill 554 would have generally prohibited CDL holders from deferring prosecution for any offense. The bill provided that “ … no person charged with a violation of the commercial driver license laws of this state shall be eligible for any deferred prosecution program, diversion program, or any deferred imposition of judgement program.” The bill was indefinitely postponed in committee.

Hardship Licenses

Several states considered legislation in 2003 concerning the use of hardship licenses by commercial drivers. Montana passed a bill that specifically prohibits hardship licenses. Montana HB 185 states that a person whose commercial driver’s license or commercial motor vehicle operating privilege is suspended is not eligible for a restricted probationary license that would permit operation of a CMV during the period of suspension and may not operate a CMV until the period of suspension is completed and is otherwise eligible to have the CDL restored.

West Virginia legislators considered a bill in 2003 that would have allowed hardship licenses. If passed, SB 102 would have authorized the motor vehicles commissioner to grant limited driving privileges to CDL holders during a period of suspension, provided the CDL holder met certain conditions. However, the session adjourned in March with no action on the bill.

State Hazardous Materials Legislation

Nine states considered legislation in 2003 related to hazardous materials transportation by commercial vehicles. Of those, Nevada and Virginia passed legislation to conform to the U.S.A. Patriot Act background check requirements for hazardous materials endorsement applicants. Nevada’s SB 483 stipulates specific background check procedures and general requires compliance with the U.S.A. Patriot Act. It states that an applicant must, “ … for the issuance of a commercial driver’s license with an endorsement for hazardous materials, submit a complete set of fingerprints and written permission authorizing the Department to forward the fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History and all applicable federal agencies to process the fingerprints for a background check of the applicant in accordance with Section 1012 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (U.S.A. PATRIOT ACT) of 2001, 49 U.S.C. §5103a.”

Virginia’s new law specifically brings the state into compliance with federal law. It provides that “ … no endorsement authorizing the driver to operate a vehicle transporting hazardous materials as defined in the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001 (49 U.S.C. §5103a) shall be issued, renewed, or reissued by the department unless the endorsement is issued, renewed, or reissued in conformance with the requirements of §1012 of the U.S.A. Patriot Act of 2001, including all amendments thereto, and the federal regulation promulgated thereunder, for the issuance by the states of licenses to operate motor vehicles transporting hazardous materials.”

Minnesota considered legislation to bring it into compliance with the federal hazardous materials background check regulations. However, its bill, HF 1, had not passed at the time of publication.

Several states passed legislation with hazardous materials provisions that were unrelated to the U.S.A. Patriot Act. Arkansas enacted new disqualification provisions for disqualification offenses committed by drivers who are transporting hazardous materials. If the CDL holder operates a CMV transporting hazardous materials and is convicted of being intoxicated by drugs or alcohol or refusing to submit to chemical testing, the law requires the CDL holder to be disqualified from operating a CMV for three years for a first offense. For a second offense committed in either a CMV or a non-CMV, regardless of whether the vehicle is carrying hazardous materials, the CDL holder must be disqualified from operating a CMV for life. The same penalty provisions apply for operating CMVs carrying hazardous materials if the driver is convicted of five other offenses that include:

Violating allowable BAC levels;
Leaving the scene of an accident;
Using a vehicle to commit a felony;
Driving a CMV while the operator’s license is revoked, suspended, or canceled, or disqualified; and
Causing a fatality through the negligent operation of a CMV.

South Dakota SB 42, signed in February 2003, adopted by reference some federal commercial vehicle regulations related to hazardous materials transportation. The bill specifically adopted 49 CFR Parts 107 F&G, 171 to 180 and 390 to 397 as amended through January 2003. The bill did not adopt the new background check regulations in 49 CFR 383 and 384.

Iowa SF 97, signed by the governor in March 2003, creates some exemptions for hazardous materials transportation by farmers.

Other State CMV Safety Legislation

Driving under the Influence

Eight states considered legislation in 2003 related to the use of alcohol or drugs by commercial drivers. Six states enacted new restrictions. Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, New Mexico and Oklahoma lowered the BAC standard for an alcohol offense in a CMV to .04, so that drivers testing at that level or above can be convicted for driving under the influence. Kansas, which previously dropped its BAC standard to .04, modified its law slightly to agree with amendments made to its testing procedures. Missouri and North Carolina considered bills to lower their BAC standards for commercial drivers but did not pass legislation.

General CDL Requirements

In 2003, many states considered CDL legislation that was unrelated to MCSIA. At least 33 states considered more than 60 bills on CDL topics ranging from the information on the license and driver training curriculum to selective service registration and drug testing. Several states considered legislation related to social security numbers on the CDL. Hawaii eliminated a requirement that a driver’s social security number appear on the CDL. Alabama and Wyoming lawmakers considered similar proposals, but legislation in those states died in committee. A bill introduced in Utah in December 2003 to eliminate the social security number from the CDL will be considered in 2004.

Kansas and Kentucky enacted new laws that require all males between the ages of 18 and 26, to register with the Federal Selective Service at application for an operator’s license, a CDL or an identification card. Legislators introduced a similar bill in Massachusetts in 2003 that was carried over to 2004. Virginia legislators left a Selective Service bill in the Senate Transportation Committee.

Indiana granted medical waivers for certain CDL holders who operate vehicles only in intrastate commerce. SB 508 permits the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to give an intrastate medical waiver for an insulin dependent diabetic who furnishes certain medical certification, who holds a CDL, and who is employed by a private motor carrier that operates only in intrastate commerce or who is employed in construction-related service.

Delaware enacted legislation that allows more educational institutions to train commercial drivers. HB 25 enables state colleges, universities, high schools and schools under contract with the state Department of Education to conduct driver education classes without obtaining a commercial driver training school license if the curriculum is approved by the state and administered by certified teachers. The new law also requires the Division of Motor Vehicles to test the knowledge and skills of course graduates.

Other state CDL legislation in 2003 covered a variety of topics. A new Washington law allows CDL holders to delay physical examinations. A failed bill in Connecticut would have required applicants to undergo urinalysis drug testing as a condition for receiving a CDL. North Carolina legislators considered a proposal to require school bus drivers to meet the same medical evaluation requirements as CDL holders.

Speed Limits

Nine states considered measures in 2003 to revise truck speed limits. Only Colorado passed speed limit legislation. Its bill, SB 46, was narrowly focused on specific trucks engaged in trash transportation. A Missouri bill that was pre-filed in 2003, HB 909, will be considered by lawmakers in 2004. It would establish a speed limit at 10 miles per hour less than the posted maximum speed limit for commercial vehicles that weigh more than 18,000 pounds.

Truck Lanes

Six states considered legislation in 2003 to require prohibit commercial vehicles from traveling in the left lane or to require trucks to use the far right lane. Hawaii’s bill, HB 624, was carried over to the 2004 session. Truck lane legislation in Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada and Tennessee failed in committee.

Other Legislation

States considered various other commercial vehicle safety bills in 2003. West Virginia passed new hours-of-service regulations for intrastate carriers. Colorado lawmakers approved a measure that requires enforcement officials who perform CMV safety inspections to be certified by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. Florida lawmakers approved legislation that requires driving records of nonpublic sector bus drivers to be checked for suspended or revoked licenses.

Prospects for 2004

With the deadlines for MCSIA looming in September 2005, it is likely that state legislators will continue to introduce measures in 2004 that are intended to comply with the law. Already, NCSL’s tracking of pre-filed bills and introduced legislation indicates that several states will address MCSIA and the USA Patriot Act. State legislatures also are likely to consider other CMV safety legislation in 2004.

Notes

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2002 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 2001 Large Truck Crash Stats at-a-Glance (Washington, D.C.: FMCSA 2002).
These provisions come from a summary of new federal safety regulations prepared by FMCSA in December 2003.

References

Sundeen, Matt, James B. Reed and Irene Taylor Kawanabe. Driver History Records: State Practices for Commercial and Noncommercial Drivers. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2001.