oversight

FMCSA Has Gaps and Challenges in Its Oversight of CDL Disqualification Regulations

Published by the Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General on 2021-07-14.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                FMCSA Has Gaps and Challenges
                     in Its Oversight of CDL
                  Disqualification Regulations




Report No. ST2021030
July 14, 2021
FMCSA Has Gaps and Challenges in Its Oversight of
CDL Disqualification Regulations
Self-Initiated

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration | ST2021030 | July 14, 2021




What We Looked At
The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is to reduce crashes,
injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses. To that end, FMCSA regulates commercial
driver’s license (CDL) holders involved in interstate commerce and the transportation of hazardous
materials. In the last 5 years, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks or buses increased by
12.4 percent, from 4,505 in 2014 to 5,064 in 2019. Federal regulations describe the minimum standards
States must meet to comply with the Federal CDL program and permits FMCSA to review each State
CDL program to determine compliance. Accordingly, the objective for this self-initiated audit was to
assess FMCSA’s oversight of States’ actions to disqualify commercial drivers when warranted.

What We Found
States did not timely transmit electronic conviction notifications 17 percent of the time. Specifically,
we estimate that States of Conviction did not timely transmit 18 percent of 2,182 major offenses and
17 percent of 23,628 serious traffic violations in our universe. We also estimate that 11 percent of
2,182 major offenses were not timely posted and 2 percent of 23,628 serious traffic violations in our
universe were not posted to driver records at all. While States did take action to disqualify CDLs when
appropriate, with exceptions, FMCSA’s evaluation of paper conviction notifications is limited by States’
processes for recording and tracking convictions sent by mail. Furthermore, FMCSA's Annual Program
Review process lacks adequate quality control measures for verifying that State CDL programs meet
Federal requirements. Finally, State noncompliance with Federal CDL disqualification requirements
and other State actions pose challenges for FMCSA’s oversight. For example, some States offered
administrative appeals to out-of-State drivers, overturned disqualifications, and backdated CDL
disqualification periods. As a result, some drivers served shorter disqualification time periods than
Federal law requires.

Our Recommendations
We made seven recommendations to strengthen FMCSA’s oversight of States’ actions to comply with
Federal CDL disqualification requirements. FMCSA concurred with all seven recommendations, which
we consider resolved but open pending completion of the planned actions.


All OIG audit reports are available on our website at www.oig.dot.gov.
For inquiries about this report, please contact our Office of Government and Public Affairs at (202) 366-8751.
Contents
     Memorandum                                                                    1

     Background                                                                    3

     Results in Brief                                                              4

     States Did Not Timely Transmit Electronic Conviction Notifications
         17 Percent of the Time                                                    7

     FMCSA’s Evaluation of Paper Conviction Notifications Is Limited by States’
       Processes for Recording and Tracking Mailed Convictions and
       Maintaining Paper Conviction Logs                                          13

     FMCSA's APR Process Lacks Adequate Standard Operating Procedures
       and Other Quality Control Measures for Verifying That State CDL
       Programs Meet Federal Requirements                                         18

     State Noncompliance With Federal CDL Disqualification Requirements
         and Other State Actions Pose Challenges for FMCSA’s Oversight            23

     Conclusion                                                                   29

     Recommendations                                                              30

     Agency Comments and OIG Response                                             31

     Actions Required                                                             31

     Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology                                             32

     Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted                                35

     Exhibit C. List of Acronyms                                                  38

     Exhibit D. How SDLAs Use CDLIS                                               39

     Exhibit E. Disqualifications for Major Offenses                              40

     Exhibit F1. Disqualifications for Serious Traffic Violations                 42

     Exhibit F2. Disqualifications for Railroad Highway Grade Crossing
        Offenses                                                                  44

     Exhibit F3. Disqualifications for Out-of-Service Orders                      45


ST2021030
     Exhibit G. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State—Major
        Offenses                                                                 46

     Exhibit H. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State—Serious
        Traffic Violations                                                       47

     Exhibit I. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting Findings by State—Major
        Offenses                                                                 49

     Exhibit J. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting Findings by State—
        Serious Traffic Violations                                               50

     Exhibit K. Major Contributors to This Report                                52

     Appendix. Agency Comments                                                   53




ST2021030
           U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
           OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL




Memorandum
Date:            July 14, 2021

Subject:         ACTION: FMCSA Has Gaps and Challenges in Its Oversight of CDL Disqualification
                 Regulations | Report No. ST2021030

From:            David Pouliott
                 Assistant Inspector General for Surface Transportation Audits

To:              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator


                 The primary mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
                 is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving large trucks and buses.
                 FMCSA regulates drivers operating commercial motor vehicles in interstate
                 commerce and transporting hazardous materials. In 2018, there were
                 approximately 4.9 million commercial driver’s license (CDL) holders in the United
                 States. 1 In the last 5 years, fatalities in crashes involving large trucks or buses
                 increased by 12.4 percent, from 4,505 in 2014 to 5,064 in 2019. 2

                 On June 21, 2019, a commercial driver licensed in Massachusetts killed seven
                 motorcyclists in New Hampshire, less than 6 weeks after the State of Connecticut
                 suspended his driving privileges for refusing to take a chemical drug test. A
                 subsequent internal investigation conducted by the Massachusetts Registry of
                 Motor Vehicles (RMV) concluded the driver’s CDL would have been revoked
                 before the crash if RMV had followed its own procedures for processing out-of-
                 State driver notifications. 3 Furthermore, RMV was not systematically processing
                 paper notifications it received from other States. This tragic incident illustrates
                 the importance of timeliness in processing driver convictions.

                 Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 384, subpart B, describes
                 minimum standards States must meet to be in substantial compliance with the
                 Federal CDL program. For example, States must notify other States about
                 convictions within 10 days. 4 States risk losing up to 4 percent of Federal-aid


1 FMCSA, 2020 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics, October 29, 2020.
2
  FMCSA data as of December 31, 2020. States are expected to report crash data to FMCSA within 90 days of the
crash. Data are considered preliminary for 22 months to allow for changes.
3 Grant Thornton LLP, Final Report on Commonwealth of Massachusetts—Registry of Motor Vehicles, October 4, 2019

4 Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 384.209(c).




ST2021030                                                                                                     1
                  highway funds following the first year of noncompliance with CDL program
                  requirements and up to 8 percent in subsequent years. 5 Part 384.307(a) permits
                  FMCSA to conduct a review of each State CDL program to determine whether it
                  substantially complies with Federal regulations. 6

                  Accordingly, the objective for this self-initiated audit was to assess FMCSA’s
                  oversight of States’ actions to disqualify commercial drivers when warranted.
                  Specifically, we identified risks and challenges associated with (1) States’
                  timeliness in processing electronic notifications of driver convictions, (2) State’s
                  processing of paper-based CDL conviction notifications transmitted by mail,
                  (3) FMCSA’s processes for reviewing State CDL programs, and (4) States’ actions
                  affecting FMCSA’s oversight.

                  We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government
                  auditing standards. Exhibit A details our scope and methodology, exhibit B lists
                  the entities we visited or contacted, and exhibit C lists the acronyms used in this
                  report.

                  We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of Department of Transportation
                  (DOT) representatives during this audit. If you have any questions concerning this
                  report, please call me at (202) 366-1844 or Kerry R. Barras, Program Director, at
                  (817) 978-3318.

                  cc:      The Secretary
                           DOT Audit Liaison, M-1
                           FMCSA Audit Liaison, MCPRS




5 49 CFR § 384.401(a) and (b).
6 49 CFR § 384.301(a) states that to be in substantial compliance with Title 49 of the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) § 31311(a), a
State must meet each and every standard of subpart B by means of the demonstrable combined effect of its statutes,
regulations, administrative procedures and practices, organizational structures, internal control mechanisms, resource
assignments, and enforcement practices.


ST2021030                                                                                                             2
Background
                  To operate a commercial vehicle in the United States, drivers are required to have
                  a CDL or commercial learner’s permit (CLP) in good standing issued by the State
                  driver licensing agency (SDLA) where the individual is licensed. The Commercial
                  Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 7 establishes a framework for disqualifying the
                  CDLs of unsafe drivers. Since a commercial driver over the age of 21 may operate
                  a commercial vehicle throughout the United States, this law requires States to
                  exchange traffic conviction information on commercial drivers through a
                  nationwide system and establishes mandatory penalties for disqualifying traffic
                  convictions.

                  The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 8 maintains
                  the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide
                  computer system that enables SDLAs to ensure that each commercial driver has
                  only one driver’s license and one complete driver record. CDLIS is composed of
                  (1) a distributed database that stores information about commercial drivers and
                  (2) the associated hardware and software used to manage commercial driver
                  information, including unique Master Pointer Records for each driver. Each SDLA
                  houses a detailed driver record on each driver it licenses, such as identification
                  and license information and a history of convictions and disqualifications. States
                  use CDLIS to electronically report traffic convictions of holders of CDLs and CLPs.
                  The State issuing the traffic conviction (State of Conviction) uses CDLIS to notify
                  the State where the driver is licensed (State of Record). States may also mail
                  paper notifications of convictions. In either case, under Federal requirements,
                  States of Conviction have 10 days to send a traffic conviction notification to the
                  State of Record, which in turn has 10 days to process the conviction and post it to
                  the driver’s record. Exhibit D presents the process of transmitting an electronic
                  conviction from the State of Conviction to the State of Record.

                   States must disqualify 9 the CDLs of drivers convicted of major offenses and
                   serious traffic violations and other offenses as expeditiously as possible. 10
                   Major offenses warranting disqualification include convictions for driving under
                   the influence of alcohol or committing a felony with a motor vehicle. Serious
                   traffic violations, such as excessive speeding or reckless driving, require


7 Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570 (1986) (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 31301 et seq.).
8 AAMVA is a nonprofit organization that represents the State, provincial, and territorial officials in the United States
and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws.
9
  AAMVA’s CDLIS State Procedures Manual uses the term withdrawal to describe the act of taking away a CDL
holder’s driving privileges. According to FMCSA, the terms disqualification and withdrawal can be used
interchangeably. Since disqualification is cited in Federal law, we primarily use that term in this report.
10 49 CFR § 384.231(c).




ST2021030                                                                                                                   3
                     disqualification if the second offense occurs within 3 years of the first. In addition,
                     drivers must be disqualified the first time they are convicted of violating out-of-
                     service orders 11 or railroad grade crossing regulations while operating a
                     commercial vehicle. Tables of potential disqualification offenses and periods for
                     drivers required to have CDLs or CLPs are listed in 49 CFR § 383.51, as shown in
                     exhibits E and F1–F3.

                     FMCSA maintains the Federal Convictions and Withdrawal Database (FCWD) of
                     U.S. conviction histories of drivers who hold foreign CDLs. States transmit
                     convictions for offenses covered by 49 CFR § 383.51 to the FCWD.

                     As part of its oversight, FMCSA established its Annual Program Review (APR)
                     process to verify that State CDL programs meet Federal requirements for
                     substantial compliance. 12 This process includes a review of compliance with
                     49 CFR Part 384; validation of a State’s annual CDL certification; completion of a
                     CDL skills testing review; and evaluation and update of a State’s corrective action
                     plan, if appropriate. FMCSA evaluators use a checklist to guide completion of the
                     APRs. According to FMCSA officials, the Agency’s State Compliance Records
                     Enterprise (SCORE) system tracks APR-identified compliance issues and State
                     corrective action plans and also stores related documents.




Results in Brief
                     States did not timely transmit electronic conviction
                     notifications 17 percent of the time.

                     In fiscal year 2019, States of Conviction frequently transmitted electronic
                     notifications of driver convictions to States of Record within the 10-day Federal
                     requirement. However, based on our nationwide sample findings, we estimate
                     that States of Conviction did not timely transmit 18 percent of 2,182 major
                     offenses and 17 percent of 23,628 serious traffic violations in our universe. Once a
                     notification was received, States of Record frequently posted CDLIS-transmitted
                     convictions to individual driver records within the 10-day Federal requirement.
                     However, based on our nationwide sample findings, we estimate that 11 percent
                     of 2,182 major offenses were not timely posted and 2 percent of 23,628 serious
                     traffic violations in our universe were not posted to driver records at all. We also
                     found that States took action to disqualify CDLs when appropriate, with
                     exceptions. Based on our sample findings, we estimate that 2 percent of the
                     2,182 CDL holders in our universe of major offenses were not disqualified for the



11   As defined in 49 CFR § 383.5.
12   49 CFR Part 384, subpart C.


ST2021030                                                                                                 4
                  correct time period. Even small gaps in timeliness can increase the potential
                  safety risks to the driving public.

                  FMCSA’s evaluation of paper conviction notifications is
                  limited by States’ processes for recording and tracking
                  mailed convictions and maintaining paper conviction logs.

                  SDLA responses to our questionnaire indicated that 34 SDLAs received paper
                  conviction notifications by mail, and 3 SDLAs received paper notifications
                  50 percent or more of the time. We attempted to evaluate States’ timeliness in
                  processing fiscal year 2019 paper notifications, but only 17 of 50 States provided
                  us with the FMCSA-required paper logs, a key control in tracking paper
                  notifications, and 7 States and the District of Columbia reported they did not
                  maintain the logs. 13 The incomplete paper logs limited our evaluation on how
                  well States processed paper notifications and, likewise, may limit FMCSA’s ability
                  to evaluate State CDL program performance. Additionally, based on our limited
                  evaluation of conviction notifications transmitted by mail, 14 States of Conviction
                  transmitted data on 5 of 11 major offenses and 2 of 5 serious traffic violations
                  after the 10-day requirement. States of Record posted 6 of 11 major offenses and
                  1 of 5 serious traffic violations to driver records after the 10-day requirement.
                  Two separate convictions transmitted by mail, one major offense and one serious
                  traffic violation, were never posted to the driver records, and one State did not
                  apply a CDL disqualification related to a paper conviction notification. These gaps
                  in paper-based conviction oversight increase the safety risks to the driving public.
                  Furthermore, States are sending duplicate records of previous electronic
                  transmissions of conviction data, contrary to requirements to only send either
                  electronically via CDLIS or by mail. Our analysis of 66 paper records found that
                  36 were duplicate records. Processing duplicate records increases the likelihood
                  of errors, as well as the potential that duplicate convictions may be added to
                  driver records.




13 FMCSA’s Exclusive Electronic Exchange Final Rule, when complete, will eliminate States’ transmission of paper-
based convictions by mail. FMCSA was noncommittal on the completion date for the rulemaking.
14 We used the State-provided logs of conviction notifications mailed in fiscal year 2019 to compile a universe of

convictions transmitted by mail. From that universe, we generated a statistical sample of 58 major offenses and
8 serious traffic violation notifications, which included non-CDL holder convictions, duplicate electronic transmissions,
and items sent in error. Railroad Grade Crossing and Out-of-Service Orders convictions were also included in the
major convictions population as first convictions for these violations also require disqualification from operating a
commercial motor vehicle. We limited our evaluation to convictions neither duplicated nor sent in error—11 major
offenses and 5 serious traffic violations. Because of these challenges, we are reporting sample results without
projection to the universe.


ST2021030                                                                                                               5
                     FMCSA's APR process lacks adequate standard operating
                     procedures and other quality control measures for
                     verifying that State CDL programs meet Federal
                     requirements.

                     FMCSA’s APR process did not include key quality control measures, such as an
                     adequate standard operating procedure, for conducting the reviews. Additionally,
                     FMCSA did not ensure that its evaluators consistently used the current Agency-
                     provided checklist, which neither included the quality control issues we identified
                     nor prompted evaluators to review key factors that impact CDL disqualification.
                     For example, although the checklist instructed reviewers to determine if a State
                     sent paper notifications of convictions to other States timely, it did not ask
                     reviewers to evaluate or test the State’s processing of paper notifications received
                     from other States. Additionally, the checklist instructed reviewers to assert
                     whether or not the State was posting in-State convictions to driver records within
                     10 days but did not ask reviewers to test any part of the State’s processing of in-
                     State convictions. While FMCSA updated the checklist for 2020 APRs to expand
                     the review for certain evaluation areas and required its use, the 2020 checklist did
                     not require a FMCSA official to sign the review, a key quality control measure for
                     acknowledging accountability. Furthermore, FMCSA did not have an adequate
                     standard operating procedure to ensure that States timely address specific
                     compliance issues, and its information system for tracking these issues was not
                     user-friendly. These gaps in controls increase the risk that States may not
                     adequately address a compliance issue for multiple years. In addition, FMCSA’s
                     information system, SCORE, makes it difficult for States to track compliance
                     issues and limits FMCSA’s ability to communicate related information on those
                     issues to the States. As a result, FMCSA may not always ensure that States are
                     taking timely actions to mitigate the compliance issues.

                     State noncompliance with Federal CDL disqualification
                     requirements and other State actions pose challenges for
                     FMCSA’s oversight.

                     Federal regulations 15 require States to disqualify CDL holders convicted of
                     specific violations, such as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or
                     using a vehicle to commit a felony. While FMCSA considers processes adjudicated
                     by the States to be final, States of Record offered administrative appeals to out-
                     of-State drivers, overturned disqualifications, and backdated CDL disqualification
                     periods. As a result, some drivers served shorter disqualification time periods
                     than Federal law requires. FMCSA’s oversight of States’ compliance with Federal
                     CDL regulations is weakened by these State actions, as well as transmissions of
                     non-CDL convictions via CDLIS and conviction-masking actions. FMCSA may face



15   49 CFR § 383.51, table 1.


ST2021030                                                                                              6
                     an additional challenge when States implement new software systems to manage
                     driver records and other CDL data. Finally, States could encounter delays in
                     complying with Federal CDL requirements due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
                     (COVID-19) global pandemic. Based on these observations, FMCSA may face
                     challenges verifying that States are complying with these requirements.

                     We are making recommendations to strengthen FMCSA’s oversight of States’
                     actions to comply with Federal CDL disqualification requirements.




States Did Not Timely Transmit Electronic
Conviction Notifications 17 Percent of the Time
                     States of Conviction did not timely transmit electronic conviction notifications
                     17 percent of the time. States of Record timely updated driver records and
                     applied CDL disqualifications when warranted, except for 2 percent of the time.



                 States Timely Transmitted and Posted
                 Electronic Notifications of Convictions,
                 With Exceptions
                     States of Conviction met Federal requirements for sending electronic notifications
                     of traffic convictions, but delays occurred about 17 percent of the time. States of
                     Record timely posted those convictions to driver records, with delays occurring
                     only 7 percent of the time.

                     States Promptly Transmitted Most Electronic Notifications
                     of CDL Convictions, With Exceptions

                     In fiscal year 2019, States of Conviction transmitted most electronic notifications
                     to States of Record in a timely manner via CDLIS. However, we estimate about
                     17 percent of these notifications were transmitted after the 10-day requirement.
                     Federal regulations 16 state that whenever a CDL holder from another State is
                     convicted of violating any State or local traffic control law, in any type of vehicle,
                     the licensing entity of the State in which the conviction occurs must notify the
                     licensing entity in the State where the driver is licensed within 10 days of the
                     conviction. Figure 1 shows the entire process for CDLIS-transmitted convictions
                     from citation through disqualification.




16   49 CFR § 384.209(a), (c).


ST2021030                                                                                                     7
Figure 1. Disqualification Process for Conviction Notifications Transmitted
Electronically Through CDLIS




Note: Federal regulations require States of Conviction to transmit the conviction within 10 days and States of
Record to post the conviction within 10 days. Other timeframes are presented for information purposes only.
DHR = driver history record.
*Average total days to disqualification excludes sample items with an effective disqualification start date
recorded prior to the date the notification was received by the State of Record.
Source: OIG analysis
                  We analyzed a nationwide statistical sample of 103 CDLIS-transmitted
                  convictions, 17 including 44 major offenses. We found 8 (18 percent) of the
                  44 convictions were not transmitted within the 10-day requirement. The
                  8 convictions represent 6 of 21 States in our sample (see exhibit G).

                  Table 1 shows the eight major offenses in our sample with delays in electronic
                  notifications to States of Record. These delays ranged from 1 to 565 days. The
                  most egregious example involved a driver who was convicted, on
                  December 18, 2017, of driving under the influence of alcohol. The State of
                  Conviction did not notify the State of Record until July 16, 2019—565 days
                  beyond the 10-day requirement. According to State officials, the delay was due to
                  a backlog in processing paper conviction notifications by State courts, and they
                  have created an electronic interface with the courts to speed up the process.




17Our original sample of 134 electronic convictions included 103 convictions of CDL or CLP holders. The remaining
31 traffic convictions applied to non-CDL/CLP holders.




ST2021030                                                                                                           8
                  Based on our sample findings, we estimate that 397 18 of the approximately
                  2,182 major offenses in our nationwide universe were not transmitted to the
                  driver‘s State of Record in a timely manner during fiscal year 2019.


Table 1. Delays in Transmitting Major Offense Notifications Via CDLIS
 State of      Major Offense ACD/Description                      Conviction           Date        Days in Excess
 Conviction                                                            Date       Conviction           of 10-Day
                                                                                        Sent        Requirement

 NH            A20/Driving or operating a motor vehicle          12/18/2017        7/16/2019                  565
               under influence of alcohol or drugs

 NH            B26/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while       4/5/2018       1/11/2019                  271
               license suspended

 CA            A08/Driving or operating a motor vehicle          11/16/2018         2/7/2019                   73
               under the influence of alcohol at or over .08
               blood alcohol content

 TX            B20/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while    11/12/2018       12/20/2018                   28
               license withdrawn

 NH            B26/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while     5/23/2019         6/6/2019                    4
               license suspended

 MN            A98/Administrative Per Se for Blood Alcohol       10/28/2018        11/8/2018                    1
               Content at or over .08

 PA            B24/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while     5/13/2019        5/24/2019                    1
               license disqualified

 IN            A12/Refused to submit to test for alcohol—         9/13/2019        9/24/2019                    1
               Implied Consent Law

Note: ACD stands for AAMVA Code Dictionary, which is a set of codes used nationwide to identify
either (1) the type of conviction or (2) the reason for a disqualification in messages sent over
AAMVA’s secure computer network.

Source: OIG analysis; some descriptions truncated due to space limitations

                  In addition to major offenses, our nationwide statistical sample of 103 CDLIS-
                  transmitted convictions included 59 serious traffic violations. We found that
                  States did not send electronic notifications for 10 (17 percent) of the 59 serious
                  traffic violations within the 10-day requirement. These 10 convictions represent
                  10 of 32 States in our sample (see exhibit H).

                  Table 2 lists the 10 serious traffic violations in our sample with delays in electronic
                  notifications to States of Record. Delays in serious traffic violation notifications



18Our 397 estimate has a precision of+/- 216 (+/-9.9 percent) of the estimated 2,182 major offenses of CDL holders in
our universe at the 90-percent confidence level so that our confidence limits range from 181 to 613 (8.3 to 28.1
percent).


ST2021030                                                                                                           9
                  ranged from 3 to 379 days. One example involved a driver who was convicted, on
                  May 22, 2019, for speeding 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. The State of
                  Conviction did not notify the State of Record until June 14, 2019—13 days
                  beyond the 10-day requirement. According to State officials, this occurred due to
                  a delay in receiving the conviction from a court.

                  Based on our sample findings, we estimate that notifications for 4,005 19 of the
                  approximately 23,628 serious traffic violations in our nationwide universe were
                  not timely transmitted in fiscal year 2019.


Table 2. Delays in Transmitting Serious Traffic Violation Notifications Via CDLIS
 State of      Serious Traffic Violation                           Conviction             Date        Days in Excess
 Conviction    ACD/Description                                          Date         Conviction           of 10-Day
                                                                                           Sent        Requirement

 WY            M42/Improper or erratic lane changes                06/25/2018        07/19/2019                   379

 TN            M85/Texting while operating or driving a            06/18/2018        03/05/2019                   250
               commercial motor vehicle (CMV)

 CA            B57/Driving or operating a CMV without a CLP        03/28/2019        07/30/2019                   114
               or CDL in the driver’s possession

 GA            M86/Using a hand-held mobile device while           11/08/2018        12/20/2018                    32
               driving or operating a motor vehicle

 WA            S16/Speeding 16–20 mph over the limit               09/13/2018        10/21/2018                    28

 MN            M86/Using a hand-held mobile device while           06/05/2019        07/03/2019                    18
               driving or operating a motor vehicle

 NV            S92/Speeding                                        05/22/2019         6/14/2019                    13

 LA            S92/Speeding                                        08/05/2019        08/20/2019                     5

 NM            S92/Speeding                                        02/22/2019        03/08/2019                     4

 PA            M42/Improper or erratic lane changes                10/10/2018        10/23/2018                     3

Source: OIG analysis; some descriptions truncated due to space limitations.

                  According to some State officials, delays in notifying States of Record were
                  caused by either extended SDLA processing times or court processing delays.
                  Without timely notifications, States of Record cannot timely disqualify the CDLs




19Our 4,005 estimate has a precision of+/- 1,933 (+/-8.2 percent) of the estimated 23,628 serious traffic violations of
CDL holders in our universe at the 90-percent confidence level so that our confidence limits range from 2,071 to
5,938 (8.8 to 25.1 percent).


ST2021030                                                                                                            10
                  of unsafe drivers, who will remain on the road and pose an increased danger to
                  the public.

                  States Posted Most Driver Records With CDLIS-Transmitted
                  Conviction Data in a Timely Manner, With Exceptions

                  States timely posted most CDLIS-transmitted conviction data to driver records,
                  but significant delays did occur for about 7 percent of the convictions. Federal
                  regulations 20 require States to make conviction information available by posting
                  it to driver records. The posting must occur no more than 10 days after States
                  receive information about convictions or disqualifications from another
                  jurisdiction.

                  We found 38 (86 percent) of 44 major offenses in our sample were posted within
                  the 10-day requirement. We identified one major offense that was never posted
                  to the driver’s record and five major offenses posted after the 10-day
                  requirement. These 6 convictions represent 5 of 27 States in our sample of major
                  offenses (see exhibit I). Based on our sample findings, we estimate that 248 21 of
                  the approximately 2,182 major offenses in our nationwide universe in fiscal year
                  2019 were not timely posted to driver records, and we estimate that 50 22 were
                  never posted. For example, a driver was convicted of refusing to submit to an
                  alcohol test on August 11, 2019. The conviction notification was sent on
                  August 12, 2019, but the State did not update the driver record until
                  September 12, 2019—21 days beyond the requirement.

                  We found 58 (98 percent) of 59 serious traffic violations in our sample were
                  posted to driver records timely (see exhibit J). The other conviction, which
                  represents 2 percent of our sample, was never recorded. Based on our sample
                  findings, we estimate that electronic notifications of 400 23 serious traffic
                  violations in fiscal year 2019 were not recorded on driver records. Even small
                  gaps in timeliness can increase the potential safety risks to the driving public.




20 49 CFR § 384.225(a) & (c)(1).
21 Our 248 estimate has a precision of +/- 175 (+/-8.0 percent) of the estimated 2,182 major offenses of CDL holders
in our universe at the 90-percent confidence level so that our confidence limits range from 73 to 423 (3.3 to
19.4 percent).
22 Our 50 estimate has a 100-percent lower confidence level of -49 (-2.2 percent) and a 90-percent upper confidence

level of 80 (+3.7 percent) of the estimated 2,182 major offenses of CDL holders in our universe so that our confidence
limits range from 1 to 130 (0.00046 to 6 percent).
23 Our 400 estimate has a 100-percent lower confidence level of -399 (-1.7 percent) and a 90-percent upper

confidence level of 1,057 (+4.5 percent) of the estimated 23,628 serious traffic violations of CDL holders in our
universe so that our confidence limits range from 1 to 1,058 (0.000042 to 4.5 percent).




ST2021030                                                                                                          11
                  With Limited Exceptions, States Applied Disqualifications
                  When Warranted

                  Our sample analysis of 2019 electronically transmitted convictions found that
                  States disqualified CDLs when appropriate, with exceptions. Federal regulations 24
                  state that a CDL holder with a major offense must be disqualified from operating
                  a commercial vehicle for at least 1 year.

                  One State did not impose the appropriate disqualification period for a CDLIS-
                  transmitted major offense in our sample. Specifically, Minnesota convicted an
                  individual from Oklahoma of driving under the influence of alcohol. Oklahoma
                  updated the driver record, but a data-entry error reduced the disqualification
                  period from 1 year to about 5.5 months. This example represents 2 percent of our
                  sample of 44 major offenses. Based on our sample findings, we estimate that
                  50 25 of the approximately 2,182 CDL holders in our nationwide universe of major
                  offenses were not disqualified for the appropriate time period. If drivers are not
                  disqualified when warranted, the risk to the driving public is increased.




24 49 CFR § 383.51(b). Please see exhibit F for the full table of penalties for disqualifying offenses.
25 Our 50 estimate has a 100-percent lower confidence level of -49 (-2.2 percent) and a 90-percent upper confidence
level of 80 (+3.7 percent) of the estimated 2,182 major offenses of CDL holders in our universe so that our confidence
limits range from 1 to 130 (0.00042 to 6 percent).


ST2021030                                                                                                          12
FMCSA’s Evaluation of Paper Conviction
Notifications Is Limited by States’ Processes for
Recording and Tracking Mailed Convictions and
Maintaining Paper Conviction Logs
                  Incomplete State logs of mailed conviction notifications limit FMCSA’s oversight,
                  and States are duplicating conviction notifications. States also did not always
                  timely transmit or post paper-based conviction notifications sent by mail.



             Incomplete State Logs of Mailed
             Conviction Notifications Limit FMCSA’s
             Oversight, and States Are Duplicating
             Conviction Notifications
                  States did not maintain complete logs of conviction notifications transmitted by
                  mail. In addition, paper notifications we examined were associated with records
                  that duplicated those States previously sent electronically.

                  Federal regulations require States to comply with the CDLIS State Procedures
                  Manual. 26 The manual requires States to maintain the driver records in CDLIS,
                  including identification data FMCSA needs to implement and enforce the CDL
                  disqualification provisions. It requires States of Conviction to transmit conviction
                  data to States of Record either electronically via CDLIS or by mail, but not both.

                  FMCSA and AAMVA strongly encourage jurisdictions to send and receive all
                  conviction transactions and withdrawal transactions via CDLIS. However, if a
                  jurisdiction cannot transmit a conviction or withdrawal report electronically or the
                  State of Record cannot receive, post, or confirm the conviction, it must mail the
                  information to the State of Record. Furthermore, the jurisdiction sending paper
                  conviction reports must permanently retain a log of the mailed information that
                  is equivalent to the CDLIS log.




26 The State Procedures Manual (Rel. 5.3.2.1) is incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 384.107(b) (1) but only for 49 CFR
§ 384.225(f) and 49 CFR § 384.231(d).




ST2021030                                                                                                           13
                    Only 17 of 50 States provided us with the required paper logs. Seven States and
                    the District of Columbia responded on our questionnaire that they do not
                    maintain logs of the paper notifications they send to other States.

                    Based on the 37 responses to our questionnaire, SDLAs received an estimated
                    total of 47,625 paper notifications during fiscal year 2019. 27 Additionally,
                    32 SDLAs provided estimates of the percentage of out-of-State convictions they
                    received on paper (see table 3). The responses demonstrate that SDLAs still send
                    records via mail, and for some SDLAs, paper-based records represent a large
                    percentage of their CDL conviction notifications.

                    Table 3. SDLA Estimate of Percent of Conviction Notifications
                    Received on Paper
                                                      Number of SDLA
                            Percentages                 Responses

                              0 percent                       1

                            1–10 percent                     14

                           10–25 percent                      6

                           25–50 percent                      8

                           50–100 percent                     3

                                Total                        32

                    Source: OIG analysis of SDLA questionnaire responses

                    According to FMCSA, and supported by the results from our questionnaire, some
                    States are not maintaining logs of paper notifications as required. FMCSA officials
                    added that the Agency cannot adequately track paper notifications unless States
                    record the transactions in such logs. Due to the lack of quality recordkeeping
                    associated with paper logs, notifications by mail present a higher risk that States
                    may fail to hold drivers accountable for disqualifying convictions and limit
                    FMCSA’s ability to verify that States are properly disqualifying drivers.

                    Furthermore, our analysis of 66 paper records associated with conviction
                    notifications found 36 (55 percent) were duplicate records of conviction data
                    previously transmitted electronically. In these cases, the paper notifications
                    arrived after the State of Record had posted the data from the electronic
                    transmission. States that send both paper and electronic notifications increase




27   Only includes questionnaire responses that provided whole number estimates, with the exception of one State.




ST2021030                                                                                                           14
                  the likelihood of errors, as well as the potential that duplicate convictions will be
                  added to driver records.

                  FMCSA’s Exclusive Electronic Exchange Final Rule, when complete, will eliminate
                  States’ transmission of paper-based convictions by mail. 28 In the interim, FMCSA
                  established a supplemental process for its 2019 APRs to analyze States’
                  processing of paper-based conviction notifications. The supplemental process
                  resulted in 25 paper-processing-related findings from 20 States during the 2019
                  APR period. Although this process was not mandatory during the 2019 APR
                  review process, FMCSA made it a requirement in the 2020 APR policy memo.



             Conviction Notifications Transmitted by
             Mail Were Not Always Timely
                  States did not always transmit or post paper-based conviction notifications sent
                  via mail in a timely manner. Due to the challenges associated with incomplete
                  paper logs and duplicate transmissions described above, our analysis of a sample
                  of paper-based transactions was limited, and we are reporting the results of our
                  analysis without projection to the universe.

                  States of Conviction Did Not Always Timely Transmit Paper
                  Notifications of CDL Convictions to States of Record

                  In fiscal year 2019, States of Conviction did not always timely transmit paper-
                  based notifications to States of Record. Federal regulations 29 state that when a
                  CDL holder from another State is convicted of violating a traffic control law, in
                  any type of vehicle, the State of Conviction must notify the State of Record within
                  10 days of the conviction.

                  Based on the sample of paper-based notifications we reviewed, 30 States
                  transmitted data on 5 of 11 major offenses and 2 of 5 serious traffic violations
                  after 10 days. For example, a driver was convicted for making improper or erratic



28 This final rule, when complete, will align the CDL regulations with §§ 32305(a)(1) and 32305(b)(1)(B) of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Pub. L. No. 112–141 (2012), which mandates that States
implement a system and practices for the exclusive electronic exchange of driver history record information through
CDLIS. FMCSA was noncommittal on the completion date for the rulemaking.
29 49 CFR 384.209(a), (c).

30 We generated an incomplete universe of paper-based transactions in fiscal year 2019 using State-provided logs of

conviction notifications. Some States did not provide logs. From that universe, we generated a sample of 58 major
offense and 8 serious traffic violation notifications, which included non-CDL holders, duplicate electronic
transmissions, and items sent in error. Railroad Grade Crossing and Out-of-Service Orders convictions were also
included in the major offense population as first convictions for these violations also require disqualification from
operating a commercial motor vehicle. Removal of these items left a sample of only 11 major offenses and 5 serious
traffic violations.


ST2021030                                                                                                           15
                     lane changes on February 26, 2018. However, the State of Conviction did not
                     notify the State of Record until June 18, 2019—467 days beyond the 10-day
                     requirement. Table 4 lists major offenses and serious traffic violations in our
                     sample with delayed paper-based notifications.


Table 4. Delays in Transmitting Paper-Based Notifications
                                                                                    Date       Days in Excess
     State of      Major Offense or Serious Traffic Violation        Conviction   Conviction     of 10-Day
     Conviction    ACD/Description                                     Date         Sent       Requirement

     IL            M42/Improper or erratic lane changes (serious)
                                                                     2/26/2018    6/18/2019         467

     MN            B27/Driving or operating a CMV in violation of
                   driver or vehicle out-of-service order (out-of-
                   service-order-major)                              10/25/2018   12/28/2018        54

     OR            A20/ Driving or operating a motor vehicle under
                   influence of alcohol or drugs (major)              6/7/2019     8/6/2019         50

     OR            B26/ Driving or operating a motor vehicle while
                   license suspended (major)                         7/17/2019     8/8/2019         12

     WV            M86/Using a hand-held mobile device while
                   driving or operating a motor vehicle (serious)    6/26/2019    7/12/2019          6

     IL            M21/Failure to stop before reaching tracks at a
                   railroad-highway grade crossing when the tracks
                   are not clear (railroad grade crossing-major)     6/27/2019     7/9/2019          2

     IL            B26/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while
                   license suspended (major)                          8/1/2019    8/12/2019          1

Source: OIG analysis; some descriptions truncated due to space limitations

                     States Did Not Always Post Driver Records from Paper-
                     Based Notifications in a Timely Manner

                     Based on our review, States of Record did not timely post paper-based
                     notifications listing major offenses and serious traffic violations to driver records.
                     Federal regulations require States to make such information available—by
                     posting convictions and disqualifications to driver records—within 10 days of
                     receiving notification from another State. 31

                     Six of 11 major offenses we reviewed were posted to the driver’s record after
                     10 days; 1 record was never posted. One of five serious traffic violations we
                     reviewed was posted following the 10-day period; one record was never posted.
                     For example, a driver was convicted of refusing to submit to an alcohol test on
                     June 28, 2019. The State of Conviction notified the State of Record on



31   49 CFR § 384.225(c)(1).


ST2021030                                                                                                   16
                       July 8, 2019. The State of Record did not post the conviction to the driver’s record
                       until September 2, 2020—422 days after the paper notification was sent.

                       According to one State official, the conviction was placed in the wrong batch
                       because the notification was received in the mail. Officials in another State stated
                       they did not have a record of when they received the paper notification and only
                       updated the driver record after they received the electronic notification. State
                       delays in posting driver conviction records pose an increased risk to public safety
                       because unsafe drivers will continue to operate commercial vehicles. Table 5 lists
                       the delays in conviction postings we identified in our sample.


Table 5. Delays in Conviction Postings Following Paper-Based Notifications
                                                                             Date           Date          Days in Excess
  State of    Major Offense or Serious Traffic Violation                  Notification    Conviction        of 10-Day
  Record      ACD/Description                                            Sent/Received     Posted         Requirement
  LA          A12/Refused to submit to test for alcohol—Implied              7/8/2019
              Consent Law (major)                                              (sent)      9/2/2020             412
  IL          A91/ Administrative Per Se (major)                             8/9/2019
                                                                               (sent)      10/1/2019            43
  WA          B26/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while license      2/22/2019
              suspended (major)                                                (sent)      4/10/2019            37
  FL          A20/Driving or operating a motor vehicle under influence       8/6/2019
              of alcohol or drugs (major)                                      (sent)      9/6/2019             21
  PA          M86/Using a hand-held mobile device while driving or        7/12/2019
              operating a motor vehicle (serious)                              (sent)      8/7/2019             16
  TN          B26/Driving or operating a motor vehicle while license      8/23/2019
              suspended (major)                                              (received)    9/16/2019            14
  TX          B27/Driving or operating a CMV in violation of a driver or 12/28/2018
              vehicle out-of-service order (out-of-service-order-major)     (sent)         1/13/2019             6

Note: To calculate delays in conviction postings following paper-based notifications, we used date notification sent for
sample items where the date the notification was received by the State of Record is unknown. We used the date
notification was received when the State of Record provided us with evidence of the date the State received the notification
from the State of Conviction.

Source: OIG analysis; some descriptions truncated due to space limitations

                       One State Did Not Apply a CDL Disqualification

                       One State, Louisiana, did not impose the appropriate disqualification for a paper-
                       based traffic conviction until we inquired about it. In this example, an individual
                       was eventually disqualified from driving commercial vehicles for life. However,
                       Louisiana took 432 days—from conviction to update of the driver record—to
                       disqualify the driver. According to a State official, a former employee received the
                       mailed notification but did not update the driver record, and another official


       ST2021030                                                                                                        17
                     corrected the record later. As a result, the driver spent over a year holding a CDL
                     before being disqualified. Disqualifications that are not applied correctly or timely
                     pose an increased risk to public safety as unsafe drivers remain on the road.




FMCSA's APR Process Lacks Adequate Standard
Operating Procedures and Other Quality Control
Measures for Verifying That State CDL Programs
Meet Federal Requirements
                     FMCSA’s APR process did not include quality control measures and did not
                     address key factors that impact CDL disqualifications. The Agency also did not
                     have an adequate process or criteria for ensuring that States’ timely mitigate
                     compliance issues, and its information system for tracking State compliance
                     issues was not user-friendly.



                 FMCSA’s Annual Program Reviews Did
                 Not Include Quality Control Measures
                     FMCSA’s APR process did not include quality control measures for conducting
                     the reviews—a key control for helping to ensure their effectiveness. FMCSA is
                     developing, but has not yet completed, detailed procedures for conducting APRs.
                     Additionally, the Agency provided a checklist to assist with calendar year 2019
                     APRs but did not require its evaluators to use the checklist. Because of the
                     voluntary nature of the checklist, 11 of 51 APRs completed in calendar year 2019
                     did not document completion of key checklist items; in some cases, evaluators
                     skipped or deleted items.

                     Additionally, APR evaluators did not always elevate discrepancies they identified
                     to a reported finding. For example, Federal regulations 32 state that States of
                     Conviction must notify States of Record within 10 days of convictions. Although
                     the regulations are silent on how to enforce the 10-day requirement, FMCSA’s
                     internal standard provides that States will be in compliance if they transmit
                     90 percent of convictions and disqualifications within the required timeframe. We
                     found that 16  of 51 APRs in calendar year 2019 concluded that States sent
                     convictions timely when the timeliness rate was less than 100 percent, and 3 of
                     the 16 concluded that States were timely when the timeliness rate was less than
                     90 percent. Table 6 presents calendar year 2019 APR quality control weaknesses.




32   49 CFR § 384.209(a), (c).


ST2021030                                                                                              18
Table 6. Quality Control Weaknesses in 2019 Annual Program Reviews
                      Quality Control Weakness                                                                     APRs
                      Evaluators did not review paper-based conviction logs sent to the FCWD.                       24

                      Evaluators did not document review of State paper-based conviction logs.                      22
                      Evaluators accepted an electronic transmission timeliness rate of less than 100
                      percent. See note below.                                                                      16
                      APR report did not have FMCSA signatures.                                                     12
                      Evaluators skipped and/or deleted checklist items.                                            12
                      Evaluators accepted a timeliness rate of less than 100 percent for in-State posting of
                      convictions to driver records. See note below.                                                 4

                      Evaluators used an outdated APR checklist and did not address key items.                       4

                      Evaluators noted a discrepancy in sample items and did not record finding.                     3

                     Note: Since regulations are silent on how to enforce the 10-day requirement, we used a 100-
                     percent threshold for our analysis. FMCSA’s internal standard uses a 90 percent threshold.
                     Source: OIG analysis of FMCSA APRs conducted in 2019

                     We noted that FMCSA issued an updated APR checklist for calendar year 2020
                     that expanded the guidelines for certain evaluation areas and required that its
                     evaluators use the checklist. However, the Agency removed a requirement to
                     verify the APR was conducted by a FMCSA official and did not apply a supervisory
                     quality control review, an essential control element. FMCSA officials stated that
                     Agency supervisors reviewed the APR findings but did not review APR checklists
                     for accuracy and compliance.

                     Without complete quality control measures, FMCSA has less visibility on the
                     quality and effectiveness of its APRs, which increases the risk that the Agency will
                     not identify States’ noncompliance with requirements.



                FMCSA’s Annual Program Review
                Checklist Did Not Address Key Factors
                That Impact CDL Disqualification
                     FMCSA’s APR evaluation process, based on FMCSA’s 2016 policy memo, lacked
                     key controls to verify that States meet CDL program requirements. FMCSA
                     provided a voluntary checklist to help its evaluators conduct the APRs. Our review
                     of 51 33 APRs conducted in calendar year 2019 found that while most evaluators
                     used it, the checklist did not address key disqualification factors.




33   50 States and the District of Columbia.


ST2021030                                                                                                            19
                 First, the APR checklist prompted FMCSA’s evaluators to review a sample of
                 electronic out-of-State convictions received by a State. However, the checklist did
                 not explicitly direct the evaluators to use this sample to determine if these
                 electronic out-of-State convictions were posted on driver records within the
                 required 10 days. According to FMCSA, the Agency provides training to its
                 evaluators to identify issues such as failing to post convictions within the required
                 10 days. While training is an essential component in making sure that evaluators
                 follow established controls, the control itself in this case was not included in the
                 tool used to carry out the review process.

                 Additionally, although the Agency-provided checklist instructed reviewers to
                 determine if a State sent paper notifications of convictions to other States timely,
                 it did not ask the reviewer to evaluate or test the State’s processing of paper
                 notifications it received from other States.

                 Likewise, the checklist instructed reviewers to assert whether or not the State was
                 posting in-State convictions to driver’s records within 10 days but did not ask
                 reviewers to test the State’s processing of in-State convictions.

                 Furthermore, FMCSA’s 2016 policy memo required evaluators to conduct
                 minimum sample testing of either 2 percent of all CDLIS transactions in a month
                 or a total of five transactions, whichever amount was greater. Although the
                 checklist established a minimum standard of 10 transactions, it did not direct
                 evaluators to conduct testing of 2 percent of the total transactions for the month
                 if that amount was greater than the established minimum.

                 Finally, the APR checklist did not prompt evaluators to determine whether States
                 transmitted conviction notifications both electronically and by mail. The CDLIS
                 State Procedure Manual states that convictions must be transmitted either
                 electronically or via mail. Despite this, some States sent notifications using both
                 methods. For instance, Idaho SDLA officials stated they mailed paper copies as
                 backups for electronic conviction notifications.

                 Each year, FMCSA revises its APR checklist to incorporate risk factors based on
                 areas of focus and information the Agency identified during the prior year. In
                 September 2020, FMCSA issued a policy memo that included an updated APR
                 checklist, expanded guidelines for certain evaluation areas and required use of
                 the checklist for its 2020 reviews. 34 However, the updated 2020 APR checklist did
                 not address the control weaknesses we noted above. FMCSA has planned
                 improvements for the 2021 APR checklist that will incorporate these issues and
                 others, including transmission of foreign driver convictions to the FCWD.




34According to Agency officials, due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns for the safety of FMCSA and SDLA employees,
they did not require onsite APRs in 2020 and conducted virtual reviews instead.


ST2021030                                                                                                   20
                 Without a strong set of guidelines to govern the conduct of its APR process,
                 FMCSA has less assurance that its evaluators will be able to determine whether
                 States are fully complying with the CDL regulations.



             FMCSA Did Not Have an Adequate Process
             for Ensuring that States Timely Mitigate
             Compliance Issues and Identifying When
             To Impose Sanctions
                 FMCSA’s oversight process did not adequately address recurring findings of
                 noncompliance among the States. We found that 22 of 51 APRs conducted in
                 2019 listed repeat findings. As shown in table 7, our examination of APRs and
                 FMCSA-provided SCORE data documented that, as of January 6, 2020, 128 of 210
                 open findings had been identified in previous years. Of these, 54 findings were at
                 least 2  years old, and some findings had been identified as far back as 2010. 35 For
                 example, a finding in 2010 indicated that the State of Massachusetts did not
                 identify all disqualifiable offenses and thus did not take the required
                 disqualification actions.

                 Table 7. Outstanding Findings as of January 6, 2020
                    Age of Open                    Number of
                    Findings             Outstanding Findings

                    0–1 years                              156

                    2–4 years                               38

                    5–7 years                                6

                    8–10 years                              10

                    Total                                  210

                 Source: OIG analysis of APRs and SCORE data extracted by FMCSA

                 Federal regulations 36 require that to be in substantial compliance, States must
                 meet every standard through the combined effect of their statutes, regulations,
                 administrative procedures and practices, organizational structures, internal
                 control mechanisms, facilities, equipment, and personnel, and enforcement
                 practices. FMCSA’s 2016 policy memo defines substantial compliance as a




35 FMCSA indicated that reviews conducted prior to 2013 were not APRs. Prior to institution of the APR process,
contractors conducted comprehensive reviews. A FMCSA official stated that older findings were migrated into SCORE.
36 49 CFR § 384.301(a).




ST2021030                                                                                                      21
                  “designation by FMCSA that a State has no finding(s) of noncompliance or that a
                  State is making a good faith effort to address the finding(s).”

                  Federal regulations 37 also require FMCSA to inform a State of its preliminary
                  determination that the State does not meet the minimum standards for
                  substantial compliance. If, after reviewing a timely response by the State to the
                  preliminary determination, FMCSA determines that the State still is not in
                  compliance, the Agency will notify the State about its final determination. 38 Up to
                  4 percent of Federal-aid highway funds shall be withheld on the first day of the
                  fiscal year following the first year of noncompliance and up to 8 percent
                  following the second and subsequent years of noncompliance. 39 Agency officials
                  told us that a Letter of Noncompliance initiates the process for withholding
                  funds. The CDL disqualification process is only one part of the comprehensive
                  APR, and none of the 15 Letters of Noncompliance sent to States during the last
                  12 years were related to CDL disqualifications.

                  According to FMCSA, the Agency follows the workflow in SCORE to track the
                  mitigation of a State’s noncompliance with CDL requirements, starting with citing
                  a finding and the State submitting an action plan to correct the deficiencies.
                  Additionally, FMCSA officials stated they are developing a formal process for
                  determining when a State is not making a good faith effort to correct identified
                  noncompliance with CDL regulations. The draft process is in internal FMCSA
                  review and concurrence. FMCSA further clarified that its formal process would
                  include guidelines on determining whether the noncompliance is substantial.



              FMCSA’s SCORE Information System for
              Managing State Compliance Issues Is Not
              User-Friendly
                  SCORE tracks compliance issues identified in APRs and State corrective action
                  plans and stores related documents. However, FMCSA Division Office staff and
                  State officials have voiced dissatisfaction with SCORE. Twelve of the 37 SDLAs
                  that responded to our questionnaire indicated they experienced challenges when
                  using SCORE to track and update APR findings.

                  During our site visit to one State, SDLA officials stated SCORE was not user-
                  friendly. SDLA officials explained there are data that officials at FMCSA—but not
                  SDLAs—can see, that SCORE limitations inhibit their ability to report corrective
                  actions efficiently, FMCSA-provided training on SCORE applies specifically to
                  Federal employees, and States have not received training specific to their needs.



37 49 CFR § 384.307(b).
38 49 CFR § 384.307(d).
39 49 CFR § 384.401(a) and (b).




ST2021030                                                                                          22
                     According to FMCSA, the Agency has made several SCORE training resources
                     available to the States.

                     FMCSA officials acknowledged that SCORE needs to be more dynamic and that a
                     better platform is needed. The Agency is reviewing the need for system updates
                     to increase SCORE’s robustness, such as producing reports in mission-critical
                     areas, including trend analysis. The current SCORE platform limits FMCSA’s ability
                     to effectively manage States’ corrective action plans.




State Noncompliance With Federal CDL
Disqualification Requirements and Other State
Actions Pose Challenges for FMCSA’s Oversight
                     FMCSA considers driver convictions adjudicated by States of Conviction to be
                     final. However, some States of Record gave drivers an opportunity to initiate
                     administrative appeals of their out-of-State convictions, overturned
                     disqualifications, or backdated the start of CDL disqualification periods. In
                     addition, certain State actions—including transmission of non-CDL convictions
                     through CDLIS and masking of driver convictions—may affect FMCSA’s ability to
                     oversee State performance. Finally, States’ implementation of new software
                     systems and the COVID-19 pandemic may present increased risks to State
                     compliance with Federal CDL disqualification requirements.



                States Offered Administrative Appeals to
                Out-of-State Convictions and Overturned
                Disqualifications
                     FMCSA considers driver convictions adjudicated by States of Conviction to be
                     final. However, State officials permitted drivers to appeal federally required
                     disqualifications outside of the judicial process even after the driver was
                     convicted of a disqualifying offense in another State.

                     According to Federal regulations, 40 a CDL holder is subject to disqualification if
                     convicted of specific violations, such as driving under the influence of drugs or
                     alcohol, leaving the scene of an accident, or using a vehicle to commit a felony.

                     Eighteen of the 37 SDLAs that responded to our questionnaire indicated they
                     offer administrative appeals outside the judicial process. Twelve of the 18 SDLAs


40   49 CFR § 383.51(a)(3). See exhibits E and F1–F3 for a complete list of disqualification-warranting offenses.



ST2021030                                                                                                           23
                  said they offer these appeals to both in-State and out-of-State drivers. 41
                  According to SDLA officials in Idaho and Ohio, State law permits administrative
                  appeals of federally required disqualifications. Drivers can initiate an
                  administrative appeal after conviction by a judicial court. An Idaho official stated
                  that disqualifications are rarely overturned during the appeal process, but officials
                  in Ohio indicated they overturn disqualifications when the situation warrants it.

                  For example, FMCSA found that Pennsylvania convicted an Ohio-licensed driver
                  for a hit-and-run violation. Ohio conducted an administrative hearing about
                  disputed aspects of the conviction. As a result, Ohio did not disqualify the driver
                  despite Pennsylvania’s completed judicial process, which FMCSA found was in
                  violation of Federal regulations.

                  According to FMCSA, States of Record should consider the process to be
                  adjudicated by States of Conviction and proceed with the disqualification. The
                  Agency emphasized that, to comply with FMCSA’s regulations, States of Record
                  should give “full faith and credit” to adjudications that occur in the States of
                  Conviction. However, States’ responses to our questionnaire indicated that States
                  of Record continue to offer administrative appeals to drivers convicted in other
                  States. In such cases, States have not complied with the Federal regulations that
                  require drivers to be disqualified as expeditiously as possible, posing an increased
                  risk to highway safety.



             Some States Backdated CDL
             Disqualification Periods, Reducing
             Penalties for Convicted Drivers
                  Some States backdated the disqualification period to a date prior to the
                  notification by the State of Conviction. The CDLIS ACD Manual defines the
                  disqualification start date as the date the license is disqualified, after the driver is
                  notified. According to FMCSA officials, a disqualification should begin on or after
                  the day the State of Record receives the notification from the State of Conviction;
                  they added that backdating is not permissible.

                  Four SDLAs that responded to our questionnaire took this action. Based on our
                  analysis of CDLIS data, some drivers served a shorter disqualification time period
                  than Federal law requires. Specifically, 2 (5 percent) of 44 major offenses in our
                  sample—representing Colorado and Kentucky—had retroactive disqualification
                  start dates that effectively reduced the federally mandated driver disqualification



41In its response to our draft report, FMCSA stated that it followed up with these SDLAs and determined that in most
cases the SDLA did not offer appeals to drivers but had not understood OIG’s survey question. However, since we
could not confirm this FMCSA-provided information, we relied on the data in the questionnaire responses.



ST2021030                                                                                                        24
                  period. Based on our findings, we estimate that 99 42 of the approximately
                  2,182 CDL holders in our universe of major offenses transmitted in fiscal year
                  2019 had backdated disqualifications.

                  One State recorded an effective disqualification start date of November 16,
                  2018—for an individual convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol—
                  although the State received notification on February 28, 2019. Since this was a
                  first-time major offense, Federal regulations 43 require a minimum 1-year
                  disqualification. By backdating the disqualification period, the State effectively
                  reduced the penalty by at least 104 days. States that backdate disqualification
                  start dates weaken FMCSA’s enforcement of Federal CDL regulations.



             States’ Transmission of Non-CDL Holder
             Convictions via CDLIS Impacts FMCSA’s
             Oversight of State Performance
                  States transmitted convictions for drivers not holding a CDL or CLP (non-CDL
                  holder) at the time of the citation to States of Record significantly less timely than
                  they sent convictions of CDL holders. However, States of Record posted non-CDL
                  convictions to driver records significantly faster than they posted CDL
                  convictions. Transmissions of non-CDL holder data through CDLIS impact
                  FMCSA’s ability to evaluate State performance.

                  Of the 134 drivers in our sample of electronic CDLIS transactions, 31 were
                  recorded as non-CDL holders at the time of citation. Twenty-three of the 31 were
                  convicted of major offenses, while the remaining 8 were convicted of serious
                  traffic violations. Only one driver committed the violation in a commercial vehicle.
                  We determined that States of Conviction transmitted 8 (34 percent) of the
                  23 major offenses and 3 (37 percent) of the 8 serious traffic violations after the
                  10-day requirement. Based on our findings, we estimate that States were late in
                  sending 397 44 of 1,140 major offenses and 1,201 45 of 3,204 serious traffic
                  violations electronically during fiscal year 2019. These results indicate States
                  transmitted non-CDL convictions significantly less timely than CDL convictions.



42 Our 99 estimate has a 100-percent lower confidence level of -97 (-4.4 percent) and a 90-percent upper confidence
level of 113 (+5.2 percent) of the estimated 2,182 major offenses of CDL holders in our universe so that our
confidence limits range from 2 to 212 (0.00092 to 9.8 percent).
43 49 CFR § 383.51(b)
44 Our 397 estimate has a precision of+/- 216 (+/-18.9 percent) of the estimated 1,140 major offenses of non-CDL

holders in our universe at the 90-percent confidence level so that our confidence limits range from 181 to 613 (15.9 to
53.8 percent).
45 Our 1,201 estimate has a precision of+/- 1,122 (+/-35.0 percent) of the estimated 3,204 serious traffic violations of

non-CDL holders in our universe at the 90-percent confidence level so that our confidence limits range from 79 to
2,324 (2.5 to 72.5 percent).



ST2021030                                                                                                           25
                 We also determined that States of Record posted 1 (4 percent) of 23 non-CDL
                 major offenses to the driver’s record after the 10-day requirement. Based on our
                 findings, we estimate that 50 46 non-CDL major offenses were not posted timely in
                 fiscal year 2019. These results indicate that States of Record posted non-CDL data
                 to driver records significantly faster than they posted CDL data. States timely
                 posted all non-CDL serious traffic violations we reviewed to driver records.

                 CDLIS does not identify whether or not a driver holds a CDL, and States are not
                 prohibited from sending non-CDL holder information electronically. The CDLIS
                 State Procedure Manual defines a “CDLIS conviction” as an ACD conviction of a
                 CDL holder or an individual who drove a commercial vehicle despite the lack of a
                 CDL. The State Procedure Manual requires States to report and record all CDLIS
                 convictions but does not require States to query CDLIS to determine if a CDL
                 driver has been convicted for non-CDL violations. 47 Furthermore, FMCSA uses
                 various reports produced by AAMVA to evaluate portions of State compliance
                 with Federal CDL requirements. For example, FMCSA’s 2016 policy memo
                 instructs reviewers to perform an assessment of State compliance with the
                 requirements to report convictions and withdrawals. The memo also instructs the
                 reviewers to use the latest monthly timeliness and accuracy reports to conduct
                 the assessment.

                 FMCSA stated that current CDLIS documentation does not require States to
                 delete Master Pointer Records. However, FMCSA relies on reports that include all
                 CDLIS convictions, including those involving non-CDL holders. Therefore, FMCSA
                 is using data that include more than CDL holder convictions to evaluate State
                 performance. As a result, FMCSA may be using information that includes non-
                 CDL drivers to determine whether a State is in compliance with CDL
                 disqualification regulations.



             FMCSA May Face Oversight Challenges as
             States Implement New Software Systems
                 States use a variety of software systems to manage driver records and other data.
                 FMCSA, in coordination with States, conducts periodic data-quality validation and
                 verification tests to assess record completeness and accuracy. FMCSA records the
                 test results on the APR checklist.

                 According to the 37 SDLAs that responded to our questionnaire, 22 currently use
                 a software system that is over 10  years old, and 10 plan to upgrade their system
                 within the next 2 years. These software upgrades may pose challenges for FMCSA



46 Our 50 estimate has a 100-percent lower confidence level of -49 (-4.3 percent) and a 90-percent upper confidence
level of 80 (+7.0 percent) of the estimated 1,140 major offenses of non-CDL holders in our universe so that our
confidence limits range from 1 to 130 (0.00088 to 11.4 percent).
47 Determination of CDL privileges is a State responsibility.




ST2021030                                                                                                        26
            and AAMVA to ensure that State systems meet requirements for coordination
            with CDLIS and to provide for FMCSA’s continued data validation and verification
            testing. Table 8 provides the age and status of SDLA software systems.

            Table 8. Age and Status of SDLA Software Systems
             SDLA System                Number of SDLA             SDLAs Planning Upgrades Within
             Manufacture Date             Responses                            2 years

             1979 or earlier                    1                                0

             1980 to 1989                       7                                5

             1990 to 1999                       7                                1

             2000 to 2009                       7                                3

             2010 to present                   14                                1

             Unknown                            1                                0

             Total                              37                               10

            Source: OIG analysis of SDLA questionnaire responses

            For example, State officials in both Idaho and Ohio indicated they experienced
            data-quality issues when transitioning from old to new software systems in 2018
            and 2019 respectively. Implementation of the system in Idaho led to
            nonresponsive ACD codes, inconsistent application of lifetime CDL bans for the
            same offense, and production issues with driver records.

            Ohio subjected its software system to testing, but the system experienced
            problems during implementation. For example, it did not pick up some ACD
            codes. Ohio officials told us that the system has been a massive undertaking and
            that at least 30 things still need to be addressed.

            Our questionnaire asked the SDLAs when their software systems had been
            implemented; 1 of the 37 SDLAs that responded did not answer this question.
            Fourteen of the 37 SDLAs use a system that was implemented within the last
            10 years, and 5 of those 14 SDLAs indicated that software issues were creating
            problems for the CDL disqualification process. For example:

                •    One SDLA was unable to submit disqualifications electronically because its
                     software system linked convictions to a disqualification that did not apply
                     to the convicted driver.

                •    The software system in another SDLA sometimes did not disqualify drivers
                     when warranted or transmit disqualifications to other States.

                •    In a third SDLA, a new software system created work-item queues, but
                     employees were not sufficiently trained to use and locate items in those
                     queues. The system did not recognize disqualifications set to begin on a
                     future date and sent them to an unassigned queue for manual review.


ST2021030                                                                                           27
                    Two of these three SDLAs indicated the issues have since been addressed. Still,
                    these experiences show the challenges and risks that arise when entities
                    implement new software systems. According to FMCSA officials, there are risks
                    associated with implementing new software, and the APR is intended to address
                    unique circumstances that may affect compliance with CDL regulations.

                    While aware of these risks, FMCSA has not developed a process for coordinating
                    with AAMVA to mitigate them. Furthermore, State officials indicated they turn to
                    AAMVA for assistance when they encounter software problems. Ensuring a
                    smooth transition to new State software systems limits the risks that FMCSA will
                    overlook data-quality issues and that States will be unable to send and receive
                    electronic notifications associated with out-of-State CDL convictions.



                States’ Conviction-Masking Actions
                Undermine Federal Safety Regulations
                    Federal regulations 48 prohibit States from masking, deferring imposition of a
                    judgment, or allowing a CDL or CLP holder to enter into a diversion program that
                    would prevent a conviction for any violation of a State or local traffic law (other
                    than parking, vehicle weight, or vehicle defect violations) from appearing on the
                    driver’s record. FMCSA seeks to mitigate masking through grants to the National
                    Traffic Law Center, which provides training on masking for State officials, as well
                    as educational materials and resources on its website.

                    FMCSA documented findings related to masking in 7 of 51 APRs conducted in
                    calendar year 2019. Furthermore, 9 of the 37 SDLAs that responded to our
                    questionnaire indicated they face challenges related to masking or other
                    conviction-diversion programs, while 9 others indicated they did not know.
                    According to officials from the National Center for State Courts, the largest
                    volume of masking cases occur at the prosecutor level because courts generally
                    accept prosecutor recommendations.

                    SDLA officials in Idaho and Ohio, the two States we visited, indicated that
                    masking may occur. An Idaho FMCSA official stated the State is working to
                    change a law that permits masking of CDL convictions. An Ohio official stated
                    that masking has not arisen from specific court cases, but it is possible. The Ohio
                    SDLA procedure is to inform the court in writing about masking and explain how
                    to avoid it.

                    Masking undermines Federal safety regulations and limits FMCSA’s efforts to
                    ensure that States take disqualification actions against unsafe drivers.




48   49 CFR § 384.226.


ST2021030                                                                                            28
             States May Face Challenges in Complying
             With Federal CDL Requirements Due to
             the Coronavirus Pandemic
                 FMCSA responded to COVID-19 by issuing a notice 49 stating the Agency will not
                 make a finding or determination of substantial noncompliance for SDLAs unable
                 to, within 10 days:

                      •   Post disqualification or conviction data on a driver record;
                      •   Transmit notification of a disqualification or conviction to a State of
                          Record; or
                      •   Report a driver’s conviction to the FCWD.

                 This notice also applies to SDLAs unable to disqualify drivers as expeditiously as
                 possible. It remained in effect until June 30, 2020. According to the notice, the
                 Agency will not permit noncompliance to continue more than 90 days after the
                 end of the notice’s effective period.

                 Ten SDLAs informed us they have encountered delays in the adjudication process
                 due to COVID-19, citing the closing of courts and limited staffing. As States
                 continue to experience these challenges, FMCSA may face increased risks in
                 ensuring that States are complying with disqualification laws as it completes its
                 APR process.




Conclusion
                 FMCSA’s oversight of State CDL programs is key to prevention of large truck and
                 bus crashes and disqualification of unsafe drivers from operating commercial
                 vehicles. While FMCSA has established annual program reviews to monitor State
                 compliance, those reviews have gaps in the oversight of CDL disqualifications.
                 These weaknesses may limit FMCSA’s ability to keep unsafe CDL drivers off the
                 road and enhance public safety.




49FMCSA, Notice of Enforcement Discretion Concerning Certain Requirements for 10-Day State Notification and Other
Actions on Driver License Records, April 17, 2020.


ST2021030                                                                                                      29
Recommendations
            To strengthen FMCSA’s oversight of States’ actions to disqualify commercial
            drivers, we recommend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator:

               1. Improve current requirements for States to record, track, and maintain
                  paper-based convictions sent and received via mail by incorporating its
                  standardized method for States to aggregate paper-based convictions to
                  facilitate FMCSA’s evaluation of State performance.

               2. Finalize and implement standardized operating procedures for
                  conducting annual program reviews and for supervisory quality control
                  reviews of completed annual program reviews.

               3. Modify the annual program review checklist to require reviewers to
                  address key factors and determine whether:

                       a. sampled out-of-State convictions were posted to driver records
                          within the required 10 days;

                       b. results from a review of in-State convictions and paper
                          notifications of out-of-State convictions were documented;

                       c. sample testing was conducted of the greater of 2 percent of
                          electronic transactions in a month or a total of five transactions, in
                          accordance with FMCSA’s 2016 policy memorandum;

                       d. States are sending convictions either electronically or via mail but
                          not using both methods;

                       e. States begin disqualification periods on or after the date the out-
                          of-State conviction is received; and

                       f.   States that offer administrative appeals for out-of-State
                            disqualifications and permit them to be overturned are identified.

               4. Finalize and implement a standard operating procedure for determining
                  when a State is not making a good faith effort to timely mitigate
                  compliance issues and when to impose sanctions on noncompliant States.

               5. Complete the Agency’s review of the State Compliance Records Enterprise
                  system and implement identified improvements for managing States’
                  compliance issues.

               6. Develop and implement a process to segregate non-CDL holder
                  convictions from all Commercial Driver’s License Information System
                  reports and workbooks utilized to evaluate State’s compliance with CDL
                  regulations.


ST2021030                                                                                     30
               7. Develop and implement a plan for coordinating with the American
                  Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators to mitigate risks when States
                  transition to new software systems.




Agency Comments and OIG Response
            We provided FMCSA with our draft report on May 26, 2021, and received
            its response on June 25, 2021, which is included as an appendix to this
            report. FMCSA concurred with all seven of our recommendations and
            proposed appropriate actions and completion dates. Accordingly, we
            consider all recommendations as resolved but open pending completion of
            the planned actions.




Actions Required
            We consider recommendations 1 through 7 resolved but open pending
            completion of planned actions.




ST2021030                                                                                31
Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology
                  We conducted this performance audit between November 2019 and May 2021 in
                  accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards as
                  prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. These standards
                  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
                  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
                  our audit objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
                  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

                  The objective of this self-initiated audit was to assess FMCSA’s oversight of
                  States’ actions to disqualify commercial drivers when warranted. Specifically, we
                  identified risks and challenges associated with (1) States’ timeliness in processing
                  electronic notifications of driver convictions, (2) State’s processing of paper-
                  based CDL conviction notifications transmitted by mail, (3) FMCSA’s processes for
                  reviewing State CDL programs, and (4) States’ actions affecting FMCSA’s
                  oversight.

                  To identify risks and challenges associated with States’ timeliness in processing
                  electronic convictions, we selected statistical samples of convictions transmitted
                  electronically in fiscal year 2019. Specifically, we relied on data in CDLIS CD90.4.3
                  Disqualifying Convictions Received reports provided by FMCSA for all 50 States
                  and the District of Columbia. We tested the data from the report and concluded
                  that the data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of this audit. These reports
                  provide information on all potentially disqualifying convictions (those with major
                  offense, railroad-highway grade crossing offense, out of service orders, and
                  serious traffic violation ACD codes) received electronically by a State in the
                  selected timeframe.

                  We combined all individual State reports into a single file to select our sample.
                  We selected a statistical sample of electronically submitted convictions from
                  these data sets for two populations, 50 including drivers with major offenses and
                  drivers with serious traffic violations. We requested the driver history record for
                  each sample item from the State of Record to verify whether it was timely and
                  appropriately recorded. Specifically, we calculated the number of days from traffic


50For the sample size computations for each of the two populations, we used an estimated noncompliance rate of
50 percent, a confidence level of 90 percent, and a precision no greater than +/- 10 percent. The final sample sizes
were 67 sampled from a population of 3,322 convictions for drivers with major offenses sent electronically and
67 sampled from a population of 26,832 convictions for drivers with serious traffic violations only sent electronically.
Railroad-highway grade crossing offenses and Out-of-Service Orders were also included in the major offense
population as first convictions for these violations also require disqualification from operating a commercial motor
vehicle.


Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology                                                                                      32
                  citation to conviction, from conviction to transmission of the conviction to the
                  State of Record, from receipt of the conviction by the State of Record to the
                  posting of conviction to the driver’s records, and from posting the conviction to
                  the effective start date of the disqualification period. We also determined
                  whether the State posted the conviction correctly in the driver’s record and
                  applied the appropriate disqualification period.

                  To identify risks and challenges associated with the States’ timeliness in
                  processing paper-based notifications, we requested logs of convictions sent via
                  mail from all 50 States and the District of Columbia. However, only 17 of
                  50 States provided us with the required paper logs, and only 14 of these
                  17 States provided the logs in time to be used in our sample analysis. We
                  combined these logs into a single file, from which we selected our mailed
                  conviction sample. 51 During the review of our mailed conviction sample, we
                  determined most convictions were either sent in error, duplicates of previous
                  electronic transmissions, or were not related to a driver holding a CDL/CLP. As a
                  result, we limited our reporting to only the 11 major offenses and 5 serious traffic
                  violations sampled paper convictions of drivers’ holding CDLs or CLPs and that
                  were not duplicates of previously sent electronic transmissions or sent in error.
                  Similar to our electronic conviction methodology, we requested the driver history
                  record for each sample item from the State of Record to verify whether it was
                  timely and appropriately recorded. Specifically, we calculated the number of days
                  from traffic citation to conviction, from conviction to transmission of the
                  conviction to the State of Record, from transmission of the conviction (or, if
                  provided, the date received by the State of Record) to the posting of conviction
                  to the driver’s records, and from posting the conviction to the effective start date
                  of the disqualification period. We also determined whether the State posted the
                  conviction correctly in the driver’s record and applied the appropriate
                  disqualification period.

                  In addition to our sample analysis, we interviewed SDLA officials during site visits
                  to two States—Idaho and Ohio. We selected these two States based on an
                  analysis of information available on a range of risk factors, including timeliness of
                  conviction transmissions, data quality, and previous APR findings, among others.
                  In these interviews we asked the State officials to provide information on and
                  walkthroughs of their processes for transmitting and receiving convictions, as well




51 For the sample size computations of the paper-based population, we used an estimated noncompliance rate of
50 percent, a confidence level of 90 percent, and a precision no greater than +/- 10 percent. The final sample size was
58 sampled from a population of sampled from a population of 364 convictions for drivers with major offenses sent
via paper copy. Railroad Grade Crossing and Out-of-Service Orders convictions were also included in the major
offenses population as first convictions for these violations also require disqualification from operating a commercial
motor vehicle. An additional 8 convictions were randomly sampled for drivers with serious convictions only sent via
paper copy and were not intended for projection purposes.


Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology                                                                                    33
            as any challenges they have encountered related to CDL disqualifications and
            how those were overcome.

            To identify risks and challenges associated with FMCSA’s processes for reviewing
            State CDL programs, we interviewed FMCSA Headquarters officials, as well as
            Division officials during our site visits to Idaho and Ohio. During these interviews
            we gained an understanding of the APR requirements and procedures used in the
            performance of the APRs. With this understanding, we examined documentation
            provided by FMCSA for APRs performed in calendar year 2019 for all 50 States
            and the District of Columbia—noting inconsistencies in the templates used for
            examination and in the APR steps performed. In addition, we requested extracts
            of open APR findings from the SCORE system and information about any
            enforcement actions FMCSA took in response to outstanding findings.

            Finally, to identify risks and challenges associated with States’ actions affecting
            FMCSA’s oversight, we developed a questionnaire and sent it to the SDLAs in all
            50 States and the District of Columbia. The questionnaire asked the States for
            information about their practices related to CDL conviction transmission and
            processing, such as estimates of the amount of paper convictions they receive
            and whether they offer administrative appeals of convictions and the categories
            of drivers those are offered to. In addition, we requested information about
            challenges States are facing related to computer systems, local courts, and other
            areas. Thirty-seven SDLAs responded to our questionnaire. We analyzed results in
            total to form conclusions about common practices and challenges. We also
            interviewed officials at the National Traffic Law Center and the National Center
            for State Courts to understand their role in supporting FMCSA’s oversight of the
            CDL program and to understand challenges caused by masking and citation-to-
            conviction timeliness.




Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology                                                             34
Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted

         Federal Motor Carrier Safety
         Administration
             Headquarters, Washington, DC

             Idaho Division, Boise, ID

             Ohio Division, Columbus, OH



         State Driver’s Licensing Agencies
             Alabama

             Alaska

             Arizona

             Arkansas

             California

             Colorado

             Connecticut

             District of Columbia

             Delaware

             Florida

             Georgia

             Hawaii

             Idaho

             Illinois

             Indiana

             Iowa

             Kansas


Exhibit B. Organizations Visited and Contacted   35
             Kentucky

             Louisiana

             Maine

             Maryland

             Massachusetts

             Michigan

             Minnesota

             Mississippi

             Missouri

             Montana

             Nebraska

             Nevada

             New Hampshire

             New Jersey

             New Mexico

             New York

             North Carolina

             North Dakota

             Ohio

             Oklahoma

             Oregon

             Pennsylvania

             Rhode Island

             South Carolina

             South Dakota

             Tennessee



Exhibit B. Organizations Visited and Contacted   36
             Texas

             Utah

             Vermont

             Virginia

             Washington

             West Virginia

             Wisconsin

             Wyoming



         Other Organizations
             American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators

             National Center for State Courts

             National Traffic Law Center




Exhibit B. Organizations Visited and Contacted                      37
Exhibit C. List of Acronyms
             AAMVA            American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
             ACD              AAMVA Code Dictionary
             APR              Annual Performance Review
             CDL              Commercial Driver’s License
             CFR              Code of Federal Regulations
             CDLIS            Commercial Driver’s License Information System
             CLP              Commercial Learner’s Permit
             COVID-19         Coronavirus Disease 2019
             DHR              Driver History Record
             DOT              Department of Transportation
             FCWD             Federal Convictions and Withdrawal Database
             FMCSA            Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
             MAP-21           Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
             OIG              Office of Inspector General
             RMV              Registry of Motor Vehicles
             SCORE            State Compliance Records Enterprise
             SDLA             State Driver Licensing Agency
             SOC              State of Conviction
             SOR              State of Record




Exhibit C. List of Acronyms                                                       38
Exhibit D. How SDLAs Use CDLIS




Source: OIG interpretation of a graphic from a FMCSA presentation on CDLIS

CDLIS is composed of (1) a distributed database that stores information about commercial
drivers and (2) the associated hardware and software used to manage commercial driver
information, including unique Master Pointer Records for each driver. Each SDLA houses a
detailed driver record on each driver it licenses, such as identification and license information
and a history of convictions and disqualifications. States use CDLIS to electronically report traffic
convictions of holders of CDLs and CLPs. The State of Conviction (SOC) uses CDLIS to notify the
State of Record (SOR) where the driver is licensed. States may also mail paper notifications of
convictions. In either case, under Federal requirements, States of Conviction have 10 days to
send a traffic conviction notification to the State of Record, which in turn has 10 days to process
the conviction and post it to the driver record.




Exhibit D. How SDLAs Use CDLIS                                                                    39
Exhibit E. Disqualifications for Major Offenses
                                                                                                                                                                        For a second conviction or refusal to
                                                                                                                              For a first conviction or refusal to be   be tested in a separate incident of     For a second conviction or refusal to
                                          For a first conviction or refusal to be                                             tested while operating a CMV              any combination of offenses in this     be tested in a separate incident of
                                          tested while operating a CMV, a           For a first conviction or refusal to be   transporting hazardous materials as       Table while operating a CMV, a          any combination of offenses in this
                                          person required to have a CLP or          tested while operating a non-CMV,         defined in §383.5, a person required      person required to have a CLP or        Table while operating a non-CMV, a
                                          CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must          a CLP or CDL holder must be               to have a CLP or CDL and a CLP or         CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must        CLP or CDL holder must be
 If a driver operates a motor             be disqualified from operating a          disqualified from operating a CMV         CDL holder must be disqualified           be disqualified from operating a        disqualified from operating a CMV
 vehicle and is convicted of:             CMV for * * *                             for * * *                                 from operating a CMV for * * *            CMV for * * *                           for * * *

 (1) Being under the influence of
 alcohol as prescribed by State law *     1 year                                    1 year                                    3 years                                   Life                                    Life.
 **

 (2) Being under the influence of a
                                          1 year                                    1 year                                    3 years                                   Life                                    Life.
 controlled substance * * *

 (3) Having an alcohol concentration
 of 0.04 or greater while operating a     1 year                                    Not applicable                            3 years                                   Life                                    Not applicable.
 CMV * * *

 (4) Refusing to take an alcohol test
 as required by a State or jurisdiction
 under its implied consent laws or        1 year                                    1 year                                    3 years                                   Life                                    Life.
 regulations as defined in §383.72 of
 this part * * *

 (5) Leaving the scene of an accident
                                          1 year                                    1 year                                    3 years                                   Life                                    Life.
 ***

 (6) Using the vehicle to commit a
 felony, other than a felony
                                          1 year                                    1 year                                    3 years                                   Life                                    Life.
 described in paragraph (b)(9) of this
 table * * *

 (7) Driving a CMV when, as a result
 of prior violations committed
 operating a CMV, the driver's CLP or
                                          1 year                                    Not applicable                            3 years                                   Life                                    Not applicable.
 CDL is revoked, suspended, or
 canceled, or the driver is
 disqualified from operating a CMV




Exhibit E. Disqualifications for Major Offenses                                                                                                                                                                                                    40
                                                                                                                                                                     For a second conviction or refusal to
                                                                                                                           For a first conviction or refusal to be   be tested in a separate incident of     For a second conviction or refusal to
                                       For a first conviction or refusal to be                                             tested while operating a CMV              any combination of offenses in this     be tested in a separate incident of
                                       tested while operating a CMV, a           For a first conviction or refusal to be   transporting hazardous materials as       Table while operating a CMV, a          any combination of offenses in this
                                       person required to have a CLP or          tested while operating a non-CMV,         defined in §383.5, a person required      person required to have a CLP or        Table while operating a non-CMV, a
                                       CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must          a CLP or CDL holder must be               to have a CLP or CDL and a CLP or         CDL and a CLP or CDL holder must        CLP or CDL holder must be
 If a driver operates a motor          be disqualified from operating a          disqualified from operating a CMV         CDL holder must be disqualified           be disqualified from operating a        disqualified from operating a CMV
 vehicle and is convicted of:          CMV for * * *                             for * * *                                 from operating a CMV for * * *            CMV for * * *                           for * * *

 (8) Causing a fatality through the
 negligent operation of a CMV,
 including but not limited to the
                                       1 year                                    Not applicable                            3 years                                   Life                                    Not applicable.
 crimes of motor vehicle
 manslaughter, homicide by motor
 vehicle and negligent homicide

 (9) Using the vehicle in the
 commission of a felony involving
                                       Life-not eligible for 10-year             Life-not eligible for 10-year             Life-not eligible for 10-year             Life-not eligible for 10-year           Life-not eligible for 10-year
 manufacturing, distributing, or
 dispensing a controlled substance *
                                       reinstatement                             reinstatement                             reinstatement                             reinstatement                           reinstatement
 **

 (10) Using a CMV in the commission
 of a felony involving an act or
                                       Life—not eligible for 10-year                                                       Life—not eligible for 10-year             Life—not eligible for 10-year
 practice of severe forms of                                                     Not applicable                                                                                                              Not applicable
 trafficking in persons, as defined
                                       reinstatement                                                                       reinstatement                             reinstatement
 and described in 22 U.S.C. 7102(11)

Source: 49 CFR § 383.51




Exhibit E. Disqualifications for Major Offenses                                                                                                                                                                                                 41
Exhibit F1. Disqualifications for Serious Traffic Violations
                                                                                                                                                   For a third or subsequent
                                                                         For a second conviction of any
                                                                                                                                                   conviction of any combination of
                                        For a second conviction of any   combination of offenses in this       For a third or subsequent
                                                                                                                                                   offenses in this Table in a
                                        combination of offenses in       Table in a separate incident within   conviction of any combination of
                                                                                                                                                   separate incident within a 3-year
                                        this Table in a separate         a 3-year period while operating a     offenses in this Table in a
                                                                                                                                                   period while operating a non-
                                        incident within a 3-year         non-CMV, a CLP or CDL holder          separate incident within a 3-year
 If the driver operates a motor                                                                                                                    CMV, a CLP or CDL holder must
                                        period while operating a CMV,    must be disqualified from             period while operating a CMV, a
 vehicle and is convicted of:                                                                                                                      be disqualified from operating a
                                        a person required to have a      operating a CMV, if the conviction    person required to have a CLP or
                                                                                                                                                   CMV, if the conviction results in
                                        CLP or CDL and a CLP or CDL      results in the revocation,            CDL and a CLP or CDL holder
                                                                                                                                                   the revocation, cancellation, or
                                        holder must be disqualified      cancellation, or suspension of the    must be disqualified from
                                                                                                                                                   suspension of the CLP or CDL
                                        from operating a CMV for * * *   CLP or CDL holder's license or non-   operating a CMV for * * *
                                                                                                                                                   holder's license or non-CMV
                                                                         CMV driving privileges, for * * *
                                                                                                                                                   driving privileges, for * * *
 (1) Speeding excessively, involving    60 days                          60 days                               120 days                            120 days.
 any speed of 24.1 kmph (15 mph)
 or more above the regulated or
 posted speed limit
 (2) Driving recklessly, as defined     60 days                          60 days                               120 days                            120 days.
 by State or local law or regulation,
 including but, not limited to,
 offenses of driving a motor
 vehicle in willful or wanton
 disregard for the safety of persons
 or property

 (3) Making improper or erratic         60 days                          60 days                               120 days                            120 days.
 traffic lane changes

 (4) Following the vehicle ahead        60 days                          60 days                               120 days                            120 days.
 too closely

 (5) Violating State or local law       60 days                          60 days                               120 days                            120 days.
 relating to motor vehicle traffic
 control (other than a parking
 violation) arising in connection
 with a fatal accident

 (6) Driving a CMV without              60 days                          Not applicable                        120 days                            Not applicable.
 obtaining a CLP or CDL


Exhibit F1. Disqualifications for Serious Traffic Violations                                                                                                                           42
                                                                                                                                                      For a third or subsequent
                                                                           For a second conviction of any
                                                                                                                                                      conviction of any combination of
                                          For a second conviction of any   combination of offenses in this       For a third or subsequent
                                                                                                                                                      offenses in this Table in a
                                          combination of offenses in       Table in a separate incident within   conviction of any combination of
                                                                                                                                                      separate incident within a 3-year
                                          this Table in a separate         a 3-year period while operating a     offenses in this Table in a
                                                                                                                                                      period while operating a non-
                                          incident within a 3-year         non-CMV, a CLP or CDL holder          separate incident within a 3-year
    If the driver operates a motor                                                                                                                    CMV, a CLP or CDL holder must
                                          period while operating a CMV,    must be disqualified from             period while operating a CMV, a
    vehicle and is convicted of:                                                                                                                      be disqualified from operating a
                                          a person required to have a      operating a CMV, if the conviction    person required to have a CLP or
                                                                                                                                                      CMV, if the conviction results in
                                          CLP or CDL and a CLP or CDL      results in the revocation,            CDL and a CLP or CDL holder
                                                                                                                                                      the revocation, cancellation, or
                                          holder must be disqualified      cancellation, or suspension of the    must be disqualified from
                                                                                                                                                      suspension of the CLP or CDL
                                          from operating a CMV for * * *   CLP or CDL holder's license or non-   operating a CMV for * * *
                                                                                                                                                      holder's license or non-CMV
                                                                           CMV driving privileges, for * * *
                                                                                                                                                      driving privileges, for * * *

    (7) Driving a CMV without a CLP       60 days                          Not applicable                        120 days                             Not applicable.
    or CDL in the driver's possession1

    (8) Driving a CMV without the         60 days                          Not applicable                        120 days                             Not applicable.
    proper class of CLP or CDL and/or
    endorsements for the specific
    vehicle group being operated or
    for the passengers or type of
    cargo being transported

    (9) Violating a State or local law    60 days                          Not applicable                        120 days                             Not applicable.
    or ordinance on motor vehicle
    traffic control prohibiting texting
    while driving a CMV.2

    (10) Violating a State or local law   60 days                          Not applicable                        120 days                             Not applicable.
    or ordinance on motor vehicle
    traffic control restricting or
    prohibiting the use of a hand-held
    mobile telephone while driving a
    CMV.2

1 Any individual who provides proof to the enforcement authority that issued the citation, by the date the individual must appear in court or pay any fine for such a violation, that the individual held a
valid CLP or CDL on the date the citation was issued, shall not be guilty of this offense. 2 Driving, for the purpose of this disqualification, means operating a commercial motor vehicle on a highway,
including while temporarily stationary because of traffic, a traffic control device, or other momentary delays. Driving does not include operating a commercial motor vehicle when the driver has moved
the vehicle to the side of, or off, a highway and has halted in a location where the vehicle can safely remain stationary.

Source: 49 CFR § 383.51




Exhibit F1. Disqualifications for Serious Traffic Violations                                                                                                                                                  43
Exhibit F2. Disqualifications for Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Offenses
                                                                                                               For a third or subsequent
                                                                                For a second conviction of
                                                                                                               conviction of any
                                                                                any combination of offenses
                                                  For a first conviction a                                     combination of offenses in
                                                                                in this Table in a separate
                                                  person required to have a                                    this Table in a separate
 If the driver is convicted of operating                                        incident within a 3-year
                                                  CLP or CDL and a CLP or                                      incident within a 3-year
 a CMV in violation of a Federal, State                                         period, a person required to
                                                  CDL holder must be                                           period, a person required to
 or local law because * * *.                                                    have a CLP or CDL and a CLP
                                                  disqualified from operating                                  have a CLP or CDL and a CLP
                                                                                or CDL holder must be
                                                  a CMV for * * *                                              or CDL holder must be
                                                                                disqualified from operating
                                                                                                               disqualified from operating
                                                                                a CMV for * * *
                                                                                                               a CMV for * * *
 (1) The driver is not required to always         No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year.
 stop, but fails to slow down and check
 that tracks are clear of an approaching
 train * * *
 (2) The driver is not required to always         No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year.
 stop, but fails to stop before reaching the
 crossing, if the tracks are not clear * * *
 (3) The driver is always required to stop,       No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year.
 but fails to stop before driving onto the
 crossing * * *
 (4) The driver fails to have sufficient space    No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year.
 to drive completely through the crossing
 without stopping * * *
 (5) The driver fails to obey a traffic control   No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year.
 device or the directions of an
 enforcement official at the crossing * * *
 (6) The driver fails to negotiate a crossing     No less than 60 days          No less than 120 days          No less than 1 year
 because of insufficient undercarriage
 clearance * * *

Source: 49 CFR § 383.51




Exhibit F2. Disqualifications for Railroad Highway Grade Crossing Offenses                                                                    44
Exhibit F3. Disqualifications for Out-of-Service
Orders
                                                                     For a second conviction in a   For a third or subsequent
                                                                     separate incident within a     conviction in a separate
                                     For a first conviction while    10-year period while           incident within a 10-year
                                     operating a CMV, a person       operating a CMV, a person      period while operating a
                                     required to have a CLP or       required to have a CLP or      CMV, a person required to
                                     CDL and a CLP or CDL            CDL and a CLP or CDL           have a CLP or CDL and a
 If the driver operates a            holder must be disqualified     holder must be disqualified    CLP or CDL holder must be
 CMV and is convicted of * *         from operating a CMV for *      from operating a CMV for *     disqualified from operating
 *                                   **                              **                             a CMV for * * *
 (1) Violating a driver or vehicle   No less than 180 days or more   No less than 2 years or more   No less than 3 years or more
 out-of-service order while          than 1 year                     than 5 years                   than 5 years.
 transporting nonhazardous
 materials
 (2) Violating a driver or           No less than 180 days or more   No less than 3 years or more   No less than 3 years or more
 vehicle out-of-service order        than 2 years                    than 5 years                   than 5 years.
 while transporting hazardous
 materials as defined in §383.5,
 or while operating a vehicle
 designed to transport 16 or
 more passengers, including
 the driver

Source: 49 CFR § 383.51




Exhibit F3. Disqualifications for Out-of-Service Orders                                                                   45
Exhibit G. Delays in Conviction Notification
Findings by State—Major Offenses
 State of              Number of Offenses in   Number of Offenses Sent After 10
 Conviction            Sample                  Days

 Minnesota                         8                           1

 Arkansas                          4

 Pennsylvania                      4                           1

 Massachusetts                     3

 New Hampshire                     3                           3

 Florida                           2

 Indiana                           2                           1

 Maine                             2

 Tennessee                         2

 Utah                              2

 West Virginia                     2

 California                        1                           1

 Iowa                              1

 Kentucky                          1

 Missouri                          1

 Nebraska                          1

 New Jersey                        1

 New York                          1

 Texas                             1                           1

 Washington                        1

 Wisconsin                         1

 Total                             44                          8

Source: OIG analysis




Exhibit G. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State—Major Offenses     46
Exhibit H. Delays in Conviction Notification
Findings by State—Serious Traffic Violations
 State of Conviction   Number of Traffic      Number of Violations Sent After 10
                       Violations in Sample   Days

 Indiana                          5

 Tennessee                        4                            1

 Arkansas                         3

 Massachusetts                    3

 Michigan                         3

 Pennsylvania                     3                            1

 Virginia                         3

 Wyoming                          3                            1

 Colorado                         2

 Georgia                          2                            1

 Illinois                         2

 Kansas                           2

 Kentucky                         2

 Ohio                             2

 Oklahoma                         2

 South Carolina                   2

 Arizona                          1

 California                       1                            1

 Connecticut                      1

 Iowa                             1

 Louisiana                        1                            1

 Maryland                         1

 Minnesota                        1                            1

 Missouri                         1

 Montana                          1

 New Hampshire                    1

 New Jersey                       1

 New Mexico                       1                            1


Exhibit H. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State—
Serious Traffic Violations                                                         47
 State of Conviction   Number of Traffic      Number of Violations Sent After 10
                       Violations in Sample   Days

 Nevada                           1                            1

 New York                         1

 Utah                             1

 Washington                       1                            1

 Total                           59                           10

Source: OIG analysis




Exhibit H. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State
—Serious Traffic Violations                                                        48
Exhibit I. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting
Findings by State—Major Offenses
 State of Record       Number of Offenses in   Number of Offenses Posted After 10   Number of Offenses Not
                            Sample                           Days                   Posted to Driver Records

 Arizona                        3

 Florida                        3

 Ohio                           3

 Connecticut                    2                             2

 Idaho                          2

 Indiana                        2

 Kentucky                       2

 Louisiana                      2

 Missouri                       2

 New Jersey                     2

 Oregon                         2

 Texas                          2                                                             1

 Vermont                        2

 Wisconsin                      2                             1

 Alabama                        1

 California                     1

 Colorado                       1                             1

 Georgia                        1

 Kansas                         1

 Maryland                       1

 Minnesota                      1

 North Dakota                   1

 New York                       1

 Oklahoma                       1

 South Carolina                 1

 Tennessee                      1

 Washington                     1                             1

 Total                         44                             5                               1

Source: OIG analysis


Exhibit I. Delays in Conviction Notification Findings by State—
Major Offenses                                                                                            49
Exhibit J. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting
Findings by State—Serious Traffic Violations
 State of Record   Number of Traffic   Number of Violations Posted After 10   Number of Violations
                   Violations in       Days                                   Not Posted to Driver
                   Sample                                                     Records

 Florida                   9

 Nevada                    4

 California                3

 Georgia                   3

 Illinois                  3                                                            1

 Michigan                  3

 Mississippi               3

 Texas                     3

 Missouri                  2

 North Carolina            2

 Nebraska                  2

 Ohio                      2

 Pennsylvania              2

 Rhode Island              2

 Vermont                   2

 Alabama                   1

 Arkansas                  1

 Arizona                   1

 Indiana                   1

 Louisiana                 1

 Maine                     1

 Minnesota                 1

 New Hampshire             1

 New Jersey                1

 Oklahoma                  1

 Oregon                    1

 South Carolina            1



Exhibit J. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting Findings by State—
Serious Traffic Violations                                                                           50
 State of Record       Number of Traffic   Number of Violations Posted After 10   Number of Violations
                       Violations in       Days                                   Not Posted to Driver
                       Sample                                                     Records

 Tennessee                     1

 Utah                          1

 Total                        59                                                            1

Source: OIG analysis




Exhibit J. Delays or Errors in Conviction Posting Findings by State—
Serious Traffic Violations                                                                               51
Exhibit K. Major Contributors to This Report
             KERRY R. BARRAS               PROGRAM DIRECTOR
             JULIAN PLATT                  PROJECT MANAGER
             ROBERT HINSON                 SENIOR AUDITOR
             JAMES MCGEE                   SENIOR ANALYST
             DEDRIC JACKSON                ANALYST
             CELESTE BORJAS                ATTORNEY ADVISOR
             JANE LUSAKA                   SENIOR WRITER-EDITOR
             GEORGE ZIPF                   SUPERVISORY MATHEMATICAL STATISTICIAN




Exhibit K. Major Contributors to This Report                                  52
Appendix. Agency Comments
INFORMATION: Management Response to the Office of
Inspector General’s Draft Report on FMCSA’s Oversight of
Commercial Driver’s Disqualifications

Meera Joshi          MEERA             Digitally signed by MEERA
Deputy Administrator CATHERINE         CATHERINE JOSHIDate:
                                       2021.06.24
                     JOSHI             16:33:09 -04'00'
David Pouliott

Assistant Inspector General for
Surface Transportation Audits

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is committed to ensuring that State
Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) disqualify unsafe commercial drivers when warranted.
FMCSA reviews SDLA compliance with the Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) requirements
in 49 CFR Parts 383 and 384 by conducting Annual Program Reviews (APRs), requiring
corrective action plans, and acting to withhold Federal-Aid Highway funds upon a finding of
substantial non-compliance. Effective oversight of States’ actions to disqualify unsafe
commercial drivers is critical to FMCSA achieving its mission to reduce crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving large trucks and buses.

FMCSA is taking the following actions to improve its oversight of the CDL program:

•   Conducting an in-depth review of data from the States’ processing of electronic and paper-
    based convictions to confirm that SDLAs are properly posting convictions and withdrawals
    to driver records and applying the appropriate disqualification.
•   Reviewing the State Compliance Records Enterprise system and associated business rules
    and system requirements to identify and implement needed improvements.
•   Working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) to
    develop and implement a process to segregate non-CDL holder convictions from
    Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS) reports. The Agency will
    continue to coordinate with AAMVA to develop and implement a plan to mitigate risks when
    States transition to a new software system.
•   Completing a rulemaking to implement 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(23), which requires SDLAs to
    exclusively use CDLIS to electronically exchange driver history record information,
    including convictions and withdrawals.
•   Requiring FMCSA supervisory quality control reviews of completed APRs each fiscal year.
•   Modifying the APR checklist to address the issues noted in recommendation three.
•   Issuing a non-compliance policy to improve FMCSA’s timeliness and consistency in
    addressing State compliance issues and imposing sanctions for substantial noncompliance.
Based on our review of the draft report, we concur with OIG’s seven recommendations as
written. We plan to complete actions to address recommendations 2, 3 and 4 by March 31, 2022,
and recommendations 1, 5, 6 and 7 by December 31, 2023.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the OIG draft report. Please contact Nicole McDavid,
Chief of the CDL Division, by email at nikki.mcdavid@dot.gov or at 202-366-0831.

Appendix. Agency Comments                                                                      53
                              Our Mission
                  OIG conducts audits and investigations on
                 behalf of the American public to improve the
                 performance and integrity of DOT’s programs
                    to ensure a safe, efficient, and effective
                        national transportation system.




Appendix. Agency Comments                                        54