H.R. 1396 to Require CDL's for 9 to 15 Passenger Vans Operating Interstate

H.R. 1396 to Require CDL's for 9 to 15 Passenger Vans Operating Interstate - Your Urgent Action Required! Senate Bill Changed in Mark-up

The Senate mark-up of S. 554 changed the definition of Commercial Motor Vehicle in ways that appear to limit the requirement for CDL's to commercial motor vehicles that transport 16 passengers or more, including the driver, across state lines. . The change is a slight one - a reference to a different definition of commercial motor vehicle. We are still trying to determine if this is an intentional change or a technical error. However, it appears that as currently written, the new Senate version of the Motor Coach Enhanced Safety Act would not require CDL's for 9 to 15 passenger vans.

However, you still need to contact members of the House of Representatives about the provisions in House version of H.R. 1396, which contains the CDL requirement. We are working on a suggested change to this unwarranted regulation and there are still some unanswered questions. It is still not clear from the change in the Senate bill if 9 to 15 passenger vans towing trailers across state lines will be required to have CDL's.

To find your U.S. Representative go to Congress.org . Type your zip code in the Get Involved window on the home page. Also, see the letter from the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) for a detailed analysis of this legislation.

See the model letter below.

The Honorable (Your Representatives Name)
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative ________________:

I am writing to express concerns about provisions in H.R. 1396 which will require increased regulation and impose new and more "stringent" Commercial Driver's Licenses (CDL) requirements for drivers of 9 to 15 passenger vans that cross state lines in the course of their business. The proposed legislation requires a CDL, electronic monitoring equipment and vehicle inspection even if transportation is incidental to the purpose of the business, as it is in my outfitting business. This new regulatory requirement will make it very difficult for small, seasonal businesses in rural areas to find drivers with CDL's. Many outfitters travel short distances but operate along state borders and cross state lines, so they would also be required to install expensive driver monitoring equipment and submit to federally mandated inspections. Ironically, a business providing similar services in competition with mine whose vans do not cross state lines will not be required to obtain CDL's for van drivers.

We believe many outfitting businesses such as ours are being caught in a regulatory net cast for other transportation providers, where transportation is the primary purpose of the business. The CDL requirement with its increased requirements may force some outfitters and guides providing seasonal recreation services out of businesses. This unnecessary regulation will destroy jobs in an already fragile economy.

Therefore, I am urging you to support provisions that exempt businesses from the CDL requirement, installation of monitoring devices and federal inspection requirements where transportation is not the primary purpose of the business. For example, our primary service is providing outfitting and recreation services. We transport our customers to an area where the services are provided and cross state lines to do so.

Sections 106, 109 and 108 of H.R. 1396 need language inserted to relieve this unwarranted regulation. You may also consider changing the definition of commercial motor vehicle similar to the language in the Senate bill.

SEC. 106. IMPROVED COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE TESTING
In Sec. 106 (b) at the end of the paragraph insert: In establishing such regulations, the Secretary shall not require a driver to have such an endorsement where the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle for compensation is not the principal line of business of the motor carrier providing the transportation service.

SEC. 109. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY INSPECTION PROGRAMS
In Sec. 109 (a) (1) at the end of the paragraph insert: In establishing such regulations, the Secretary shall not require a motor carrier to have such an inspection where the transportation of passengers by motor vehicle for compensation is not the principal line of business of the motor carrier.

Most states have inspection programs. Sec. 109 would require a new federal standard for state inspections.

Sec. 108. Please insert similar language in Sec. 108 to prevent our vehicles from having to be retrofitted with event recorders, monitors and other devices.

Thank you for your support for small business. I look forward to hearing from you about this matter.

Sincerely,