Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012
Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012
T.F. Scott Darling, III
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
16 March 2016
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05913]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 383 and 384
[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0051]
Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Military Commercial Driver's
License Act of 2012
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.
SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes amendments to its Commercial Driver's License
(CDL) regulations that would ease the transition of military personnel
into civilian careers in the truck and bus industry by simplifying the
process of getting a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or CDL. This
rulemaking would extend the time period for applying for a skills test
waiver from 90 days to 1 year after leaving a military position
requiring the operation of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV). This
rulemaking also would allow States to accept applications and
administer the written and skills tests for a CLP or CDL from active
duty military personnel who are stationed in that State. States that
choose to accept such applications would be required to transmit the
test results electronically to the State of domicile of the military
personnel. The State of domicile would be required to issue the CDL or
CLP on the basis of those results.
DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before May 16,
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2016-0051 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Selden Fritschner, CDL Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at Selden.firstname.lastname@example.org,
or by telephone at 202-366-0677. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
I. Executive Summary
Section 32308 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, July 6, 2012] required
FMCSA to undertake a study to assess Federal and State regulatory,
economic, and administrative challenges in obtaining CDLs faced by
members and former members of the Armed Forces, who operated qualifying
motor vehicles during their service. As a result of this study, FMCSA
provided a report to Congress titled ``Program to Assist Veterans to
Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses'' (November 2013) (available in
the docket for this rulemaking). The report contained six recommended
actions, and elements of this report comprise the main parts of this
rulemaking. These actions are:
(1) Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) governing the Military Skills
Test Waiver to extend the time period to apply for a waiver from 90
days to 1 year following separation from military service
(2) Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(3) to add the option to qualify for
a CDL based on training and experience in an MOC [Military
Occupational Specialty] dedicated to military CMV operation
(3) Revise the definitions of CDL and CLP in 49 CFR 383.5 and 49
CFR 384.212 and related provisions governing the domicile
requirement, in order to implement the statutory waiver enacted by
The Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 . . .
This NPRM would ease the current burdens on military personnel
applying for CLPs and CDLs issued by a State Driver Licensing Agency
(SDLA) in accordance with 49 CFR parts 383 and
384 in two ways. First, it would extend the time in which former
military personnel are allowed to apply for a skills test waiver from
the 90 days currently allowed by 49 CFR 383.77 to 1 year. On July 8,
2014, FMCSA issued a temporary exemption under 49 CFR part 381 that
extended the skills test waiver to 1 year [79 FR 38659].\1\ The change
proposed by this rulemaking would make the 1-year waiver period
permanent. Second, this NPRM would allow States to accept applications
and administer all necessary tests for a CLP or CDL from active duty
service members stationed in that State who are operating in a Military
Occupational Specialty as full-time CMV drivers. States that choose to
exercise this option would be required to transmit the application and
test results electronically to the service member's State of domicile.
This would enable service members to complete their licensing
requirements without incurring the time and expense of returning home.
The State of domicile would be required to issue the CLP or CDL in
accordance with otherwise applicable procedures.
\1\ Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
II. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0051), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2016-0051, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this rule based on your comments. FMCSA
may issue a final rule at any time after the close of the comment
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2016-0051, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
C. Privacy Act
All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you
provide. Anyone may search the electronic form of comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or of the person signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register (FR) notice
published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316) or you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
III. Legal Basis
This rulemaking rests on the authority of the Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended, codified at 49 U.S.C.
chapter 313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts 382, 383, and 384. It
responds to section 5104(b) of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, December 4,
2015], which requires FMCSA to implement the recommendations included
in the report submitted pursuant to section 32308 of MAP-21, discussed
above. Section 5104(c) of the FAST Act also requires FMCSA to implement
the Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012 [49 U.S.C.
31311(a)(12)(C)]. As explained later in the preamble, this proposed
rule would give military personnel all of the benefits of the Military
CDL Act, while avoiding certain adverse implications of that statute.
The CMVSA provides broadly that ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation
shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and
ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor
vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). Those regulations shall ensure that
``(1) an individual issued a commercial driver's license [CDL] [must]
pass written and driving tests for the operation of a commercial motor
vehicle [CMV] that comply with the minimum standards prescribed by the
Secretary under section 31305(a) of this title'' (49 U.S.C. 31308(1)).
To avoid the withholding of certain Federal-aid funds, States must
adopt a testing program ``consistent with the minimum standards
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 31305(a) of
this title'' (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(1)).
Potential CMV drivers often obtain CDL training outside of their
State of domicile. Driver training schools typically provide their
students with a ``representative'' vehicle to use for the required
skills test (see 49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(2)), as well as a valid CDL holder
to accompany the applicant to the test site. Until 2012, however, the
CMVSA provided that a CDL could be issued only by the driver's State of
domicile (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(A)). The cost to out-of-State
applicants returning to their home State, renting a ``representative''
vehicle, and finding a CDL holder to accompany the applicant could be
substantial in terms of both personal time and financial expense.
Therefore, on the basis of the authority cited in the previous
paragraph, FMCSA's final rule on ``Commercial Driver's License Testing
and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' (76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011)
required States where a driver is domiciled to accept the result of
skills tests administered by a different State (49 CFR 383.79).
For military personnel, their legal residence or ``domicile'' is
the State they consider their permanent home, where they pay taxes,
vote, and get a driver's license. Military personnel are often
stationed in a different State. The Military CDL Act allows a State to
issue CDLs to certain military personnel not domiciled in the State, if
their temporary or permanent duty stations are located in that State
(49 U.S.C. 31312(a)(12)(C)). However, this procedure creates problems
for service members trying to maintain legal domicile in another State.
drivers' licenses are often treated as proof of domicile, obtaining a
CDL from the State where they are stationed could result in the loss of
domicile and corresponding benefits (e.g., tax breaks) in what they
consider their ``home'' State. FMCSA, therefore, proposes to utilize
the CMVSA's broader authority to allow the State where military
personnel are stationed to accept CLP or CDL applications and to
administer written and skills tests for the CDL. The proposed rule
would require a State that adopted this procedure to transmit the
application and test results electronically to the State of domicile,
which in turn would be required to issue the CLP or CDL. This would
maintain the link between the issuing State and the driver's State of
domicile which is mandated by the CMVSA [49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)] and
was observed until the Military CDL Act authorized a different but
IV. Discussion of Proposal
A. Section 383.5: New Definition of ``Military Services''
FMCSA would amend Sec. 383.5 by adding a definition of ``military
services'' to the list of definitions in that section. A definition for
``military services'' is needed in order to interpret the new
requirements in part 383 in this rulemaking.
B. Section 383.77: Allowing States To Extend Their Acceptance of the
Skills Test Waiver From 90 days to 1 year For separated Military
This NPRM would amend Sec. 383.77(b)(1) to allow States to accept
Skills Test Waiver applications from military personnel for up to 1
year after they were regularly employed as military CMV drivers. FMCSA
believes that this would give former military personnel a better
opportunity to obtain a CDL in a way that will not negatively affect
Currently, former military personnel who were regularly employed in
the preceding 90 days in a military position requiring the operation of
a CMV may apply for a skills test waiver if they meet certain
conditions. To date, more than 10,000 separated military personnel have
taken advantage of the Skills Test Waiver. In the November 2013 report
to Congress, ``Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire Commercial
Driver's Licenses,'' FMCSA concluded that lengthening that period would
ease the transition of service members and veterans \2\ to civilian
life. FMCSA recommended a revision to the Military Skills Test Waiver
in 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) to extend the period of availability from 90
days to 1 year.
\2\ Veteran: A person who served on active duty in the Army,
Navy, Air Force, or Coast Guard and who was discharged or released
therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently
requested an exemption from Sec. 383.77(b)(1) to allow a 1-year waiver
period for military personnel (available in docket FMCSA-2014-0096). On
April 7, 2014, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice announcing the
request (79 FR 19170). Five comments were received; all supported the
application. In addition, another SDLA, The State of New York,
Department of Motor Vehicles, supported ``broader application of this
exemption to all jurisdictions.'' All commenters supported the Virginia
request, saying that extending the period to apply for a waiver from 90
days to 1 year would enable more military personnel to obtain CDLs.
Additionally, in a letter to FMCSA dated April 10, 2014, the America
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, which represents the State
and Provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer
and enforce motor vehicle laws, requested that FMCSA consider a blanket
exemption for all U.S. jurisdictions.
In a notice published on July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38645), FMCSA
determined that the exemption requested by the Virginia DMV would
maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved without the exemption, as required by 49 CFR
381.305(a). The Agency, therefore, approved the exemption and made it
available to all SDLAs. However, the exemption did not change the
language of Sec. 383.77(b)(1) and the exemption remains effective for
only 2 years. The current exemption expires July 7, 2016.
C. Section 383.79: Allow the State Where the Person Is Stationed and
the State of Domicile To Coordinate CLP/CDL Testing and CDL Issuance
This proposal makes existing paragraphs (a) and (b) into paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) and adds new paragraphs (b)(1) and (2). New paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) re-codify but do not add new material to those sections
currently in the CFR. New paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) add new provisions
that outline the provisions for active-duty personnel to obtain CLPs
Many active-duty military personnel would like to obtain CDLs while
still in the military services, but are often stationed outside their
State of domicile. This NPRM would allow a State to accept applications
and administer CDL knowledge and skills tests for military personnel
stationed there. That State would then be required to transmit the
application and test results to the driver's State of domicile, which
would be required to accept these documents and issue the CLP or CDL.
For example, an airman might be stationed at Andrews Air Force Base in
Maryland and live in Alexandria, Virginia. He currently holds a base
driver's license in his home state of record: Kentucky. His application
for a CLP would be made through the Maryland Motor Vehicle
Administration (Maryland SDLA), because that is the State where he is
stationed. Assuming the Maryland SDLA agreed to accept an application
from a non-domiciled driver, it would forward the appropriate paperwork
and test results to the Kentucky Department of Transportation (Kentucky
SDLA), which would issue him a CLP or CDL.
FMCSA believes this NPRM would simplify the task of obtaining a CDL
without jeopardizing (1) any benefits associated with a service
member's official State of domicile, or (2) the single-domicile/single
issuer concept that has been essential to the CDL program since the
beginning. Additionally, it would reduce travel time and other costs
associated with traveling to the State of domicile for testing. The
motor carrier industry would also benefit from a larger supply of
licensed CMV drivers.
A recent FMCSA rulemaking required the standardization of CLP and
CDL testing and issuance: Commercial Driver's License Testing and
Commercial Learner's Permit Standards (May 9, 2011, 76 FR 26854, and
amended March 25, 2013, 78 FR 17875). This proposal uses existing
procedures to make it easier for active duty military personnel to get
both CLPs and CDLs. Military personnel would apply for a CLP in the
State where they are stationed. After the driver passes the knowledge
test, the local SDLA would electronically transmit the driver's test
score to the State of domicile for issuance of a CLP. After the driver
passes the skills test where he or she is stationed, the same SDLA
would electronically transmit his/her test score to the State of
domicile for issuance of a CDL. FMCSA believes this approach is an
appropriate alternative to literal application of the Military CDL Act
of 2012. That Act allowed a State where military personnel are
stationed to issue CDLs, thus creating ambiguity about the driver's
actual State of domicile: The State that issued the CDL or the State
where the driver wished to maintain
his/her permanent residence. The Military CDL Act was designed to
reduce unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on active-duty military
personnel and veterans, and this rulemaking addresses that requirement.
This NPRM also permits CMV drivers in the armed forces to apply for
CLPs and CDLs without running the risk of inadvertently changing their
State of domicile--an unavoidable problem with the Military CDL Act.
Because CLP and CDL test requirements are uniform nationally, the
State where an applicant is stationed and the State of domicile
administer the same knowledge and skills tests. A State of domicile,
therefore, can accept knowledge and skills test results from another
State and issue the CLP and then the CDL without concern that different
States may have different licensing standards.
The procedure for transmitting skills test results among States is
already in place as a result of the May 2011 final rule on Commercial
Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards.
This new provision would not require a major technological change for
the States to send and receive test result information. Some minor
software modifications and updates would be required to allow
transmission of the knowledge test results (as only skills test results
are presently transmitted via these systems).
FMCSA analyzed this proposal and believes that it is safety-
neutral. Because the CDL provisions are now standardized across all
SDLAs, all drivers will be subject to the same knowledge and skills
Section 5401(a) of the FAST Act added to 49 U.S.C. 31305 a new
paragraph (d), which requires FMCSA to (1) exempt certain ex-military
personnel from the CDL skills test if they had military experience
driving CMV-like vehicles; (2) extend the skills test waiver to one
year; and (3) credit the CMV training military drivers receive in the
armed forces toward applicable CDL training and knowledge requirements.
This rule would address the first and second of these requirements in
considerable detail; the third, however, will require subsequent
Section 5302 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to give priority to
statutorily required rules before beginning other rulemakings, unless
it determines that there is a significant need for the other rulemaking
and so notifies Congress. This NPRM is required by the provisions of
section 5401. Even in the absence of those mandates, however, FMCSA
believes the need to improve opportunities for military personnel
returning to civilian life justifies the publication of this NPRM.
D. Section 384.301: Compliance Date for SDLAs
FMCSA would amend 49 CFR 384.301 by adding a new paragraph (j),
specifying a 3-year compliance date for States. FMCSA has always given
the States 3 years after the effective date of any new CDL rule to come
into substantial compliance with its requirements. This allows the
States time to pass necessary legislation and modify information
systems, including the Commercial Driver's License Information System
(CDLIS), to comply with the new requirements.
V. Regulatory Analyses
A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) as supplemented by
E.O. 13563 and DOT policies and procedures, FMCSA must determine
whether a regulatory action is ``significant,'' and therefore subject
to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive order. The order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal government or communities.
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another Agency.
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive order.
FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866 or significant
within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies
and procedures. This rulemaking would not result in an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, lead to a major increase in costs
or prices, or have significant adverse effects on the United States
economy. This NPRM would amend existing procedures and practices
governing administrative licensing actions.
Costs and Benefits
FMCSA evaluated potential costs and benefits associated with this
rulemaking and the Agency does not expect the proposed changes to
impose any new or increased costs. However, FMCSA estimates that these
changes could result in a cost savings between $462,000 and $1,062,600
per year. The following sections provide an overview of this analysis.
The rulemaking would extend the time to apply for a skills test
waiver from 90 days to 1 year for former service members. This action
would codify an existing exemption published on July 8, 2014 (79 FR
38645). That notice granted immediate relief from 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1)
to military service members separating from active duty. The exemption
did not change the CFR language and is effective for only 2 years,
although it could be extended.
As the rulemaking would codify an existing practice, FMCSA does not
expect this revision to have any economic impact. However, the Agency
believes that permanently granting military personnel more time to
apply for a CDL after separation from service would be beneficial to
both service members and prospective employers by creating more
This proposal would allow States to submit the results of both the
skills and knowledge tests of military applicants to the driver's State
of domicile for issuance of the CLP and CDL. This information would be
transmitted using the same electronic system that was previously
established for the skills test. The proposed rule would require all
States to use either the CSTIMS--Commercial Skills Test Information
Management System--or ROOSTR--Report Out-Of-State Test Results,
however, both of these systems are currently managed by the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) at no cost to the
States. While some software modifications and updates may be required
to allow transmission of the knowledge test results (as only skills
test results are presently transmitted via these systems), FMCSA
expects that the cost of any updates to allow for the transmission of
this additional information would be very minor. In addition, FMCSA has
determined that three States are not currently using either one of
these systems. However, FMCSA does not expect those States
would incur costs to adopt one of these systems, as the costs for
adoption are currently covered under an FMCSA grant program. There may
be future costs associated with the management and maintenance of these
systems, but FMCSA does not have an estimate of these costs and
specifically requests comment on potential costs that may be incurred
by the operation or adoption of either of these systems.
FMCSA expects this provision to result in a cost savings for
drivers. Specifically, this provision would allow States where active-
duty military personnel are stationed to accept CLP or CDL applications
and administer knowledge and skills tests for those personnel. The rule
would require any such State to transmit electronic copies of the
application and test results for military personnel to the driver's
State of domicile, which in turn would be required to issue a CLP or
CDL on the basis of that information. This would save military
personnel the travel costs to return to their State of domicile. For
example, if the driver were stationed in Virginia but his/her State of
domicile was Texas, the rule would allow Texas to issue the driver a
CLP and CDL based on successful testing conducted in Virginia. The
driver would be saved the travel costs of returning to Texas, renting
or borrowing a CMV for the test drive, and finding CDL holder to
accompany the applicant to the testing site.
To estimate how many drivers might take advantage of this
provision, FMCSA started with the number who have used the military
skills test waiver. Between May 2011 and February 2015, more than
10,100 skills test waivers were granted for military drivers, or an
average of approximately 2,460 per year.\3\ For purposes of this
analysis, FMCSA assumed that number would remain constant in future
years. To estimate the number of drivers who may be stationed in a
State other than their State of domicile and who, thus, could
potentially take advantage of this provision, FMCSA used an estimate of
the number of drivers who attend training outside their State of
domicile from the Regulatory Evaluation conducted for the 2011
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit
Standards'' Final Rule.\4\ According to this evaluation, approximately
25 percent of drivers obtained training outside their State of
domicile. It is likely that more than 25 percent of military personnel
are stationed outside their State of domicile. However, for purposes of
this analysis FMCSA used the 25 percent estimate to calculate the
population of drivers who may take advantage of this provision. Based
on these assumptions, this provision affects approximately 660 drivers
\3\ Estimated based on information from an assessment of SDLAs,
conducted by FMCSA in February 2015.
\4\ Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation. Commercial Driver's
License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards. 76 FR
26853. May 9, 2011. Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/09/2011-10510/commercial-drivers-license-testing-and-commercial-learners-permit-standards.
FMCSA does not have information on the States where these drivers
are domiciled or stationed. To estimate the potential costs savings,
FMCSA used the scenario of a driver who is stationed in Virginia but
domiciled in Texas. To present a low- and high-end estimate of the
potential cost savings, FMCSA evaluated two scenarios in which the
driver travels between Norfolk, Virginia, and Houston, Texas. In the
first scenario, the driver takes a commercial flight. FMCSA estimates
that a typical roundtrip flight between Norfolk and Houston costs
approximately $700.\5\ In the second scenario, the driver drives a
private vehicle between these locations. The current private vehicle
mileage rate from the General Services Administration (GSA) is $0.575
per mile \6\ and the distance between Norfolk and Houston is
approximately 2800 miles, roundtrip. FMCSA estimates that it would cost
the driver approximately $1,610 to drive between Virginia and Texas for
\5\ The flight price $700 was estimated using the General
Service Administration Airline City Pairs Search Tool for flights
between Norfolk, Virginia and Houston, Texas. http://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/.
\6\ U.S. General Services Administration. Privately Owned
Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates, as of January 1, 2015.
To estimate the potential cost savings, FMCSA multiplied the round
trip flight price by the annual affected driver population to calculate
the lower-bound estimate, and multiplied the mileage cost by the annual
affected driver population to calculate the upper-bound estimate. Table
1 provides an overview of the expected annual cost savings, as well as
the discounted total over the next 10 years. Based on the estimated
participation rates, the total savings would be between $462,000 and
$1,062,600 per year. In addition, the driver might incur lodging and
rental costs depending on the location of the testing; however, these
potential cost savings were not included in this analysis.
Table 1--Estimated Annual and 10-Year Cost Savings for Out of State Drivers
10-year total 10-year total
Scenario Population per Cost savings Total savings (3% discount (7% discount
year per driver per year rate) rate)
Lower-Bound (flight)............ 660 drivers $700 $462,000 $4,059,182 $3,472,037
Upper-Bound (car travel)....... 660 drivers 1,610 1,062,600 9,336,119 7,985,686
In addition to the cost savings described above, there may be other
non-quantified benefits associated with these provisions. For example,
this proposal also allows military personnel to enter the job market
more quickly and ease the transition after separation from service.
This rulemaking may also increase the availability of drivers qualified
to work for motor carriers, since military personnel would be able to
complete their testing and licensing during their separation process.
Finally, reducing unemployment for former military personnel may also
reduce the amount of unemployment compensation paid by the Department
of Defense to former service members.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires
Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on
small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant
economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses
and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and
operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT
policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small
entities, and mandates that
agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.
Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat.
857) (SBREFA), this proposed rule would not impose a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the
revisions would either codify an existing practice or allow States to
provide more flexibility for military personnel seeking to obtain a
CDL. FMCSA does not expect the changes to impose any new or increased
costs on small entities. Consequently, I certify that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government,
taken together, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the
value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation to 2014
dollars) in any 1 year, and if so, to take steps to minimize these
unfunded mandates. This rulemaking would not result in an additional
net expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate or by the private sector, of $155 million or more in any 1
year, nor would it affect small governments.
D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
E. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies, when
issuing ``economically significant'' rules the agency has reason to
believe concern an environmental health or safety risk that may
disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the
regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. As
discussed previously, this proposed rule is economically insignificant.
Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required.
F. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rulemaking does not preempt or modify any provision of State
law, impose substantial direct unreimbursed compliance costs on any
State, or diminish the power of any State to enforce its own laws.
Accordingly, this rulemaking does not have Federalism implications
warranting the application of E.O. 13132.
H. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. FMCSA determined that
this proposed rule would not result in changes to the current
information collection requirements.
K. National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act
FMCSA analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.b. The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph
6.b. covers regulations which are editorial or procedural, such as
those updating addresses or establishing application procedures, and
procedures for acting on petitions for waivers, exemptions and
reconsiderations, including technical or other minor amendments to
existing FMCSA regulations.
FMCSA also analyzed this proposed rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general
conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect
emissions of criteria pollutants.
L. Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)
Under E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), each Federal
agency must identify and address, as appropriate, ``disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations'' in the United States, its possessions, and territories.
FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule would have no
environmental justice effects, nor would it have any collective
M. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
FMCSA determined that the proposed rule would not significantly
affect energy supply, distribution, or use. Therefore, no Statement of
Energy Effects is required. FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O.
13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA determined that it would not be a
``significant energy action'' under that E.O. because this rulemaking
is economically insignificant and it is not likely to have an adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
N. E-Government Act of 2002
The E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-347, sec. 208, 116 Stat.
2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a
privacy impact assessment for new or substantially changed technology
that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an
identifiable form. This rulemaking would not collect any personal
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) requires Federal agencies adopting Government technical standards
to consider whether voluntary consensus standards are available. This
Act also requires Agencies to ``use technical standards that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies'' to carry
out policy objectives determined by the agencies, unless the standards
are ``inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.'' If
the Agency chooses to adopt its own standards in place of existing
voluntary consensus standards, it must explain its decision in a
separate statement to OMB. This proposed rule would not involve the
adoption of any technical standards.
P. Privacy Impact Assessment
Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. In accordance with this Act, a
privacy impact analysis is warranted to address any privacy
implications contemplated in the rulemaking. The Agency submitted a
Privacy Threshold Assessment analyzing the privacy implications to the
Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary's Privacy Office
to determine whether a PIA is required.
The DOT Chief Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks and effects
that this rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing PII
and has examined protections and alternative information handling
processes in order to mitigate potential privacy risks. There are no
privacy risks and effects associated with this proposed rule.
List of Subjects
49 CFR 383
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 384
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter 3, parts 383 and 384 to read as follows:
PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
1. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and
31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766,
1767; sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140
of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-
141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.
2. Amend Sec. 383.5 by adding the definition of ``Military services''
in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 383.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Military services means the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force, and Coast Guard, and their associated reserve, National
Guard, and Auxiliary units.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 383.77 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 383.77 Substitute for driving skills tests for drivers with
military CMV experience.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Is regularly employed or was regularly employed within the last
year in a military position requiring operation of a CMV;
* * * * *
4. Revise Sec. 383.79 to read as follows:
Sec. 383.79 Testing of out-of-State applicants and military
(a) Applicant. (1) A State may administer its skills test, in
accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, to a person who has
taken training in that State and is to be licensed in another U.S.
jurisdiction (i.e., his/her State of domicile). A State that
administers such a test must transmit the test result electronically
directly from the testing State to the licensing State in an efficient
and secure manner.
(2) The State of domicile of a CDL applicant must accept the
results of a skills test administered to the applicant by any other
State, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part, in
fulfillment of the applicant's testing requirements under Sec. 383.71,
and the State's test administration requirements under Sec. 383.73.
(b) Military personnel. (1) A State where active duty military
personnel who are operating in a Military Occupational Specialty as
full-time commercial motor vehicle drivers are stationed, but not
domiciled, may accept an application for a CLP or CDL from such
personnel and administer to them its knowledge and skills tests, in
accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this part. Such completed
application and test results must be transmitted electronically
directly from the testing State to the State of domicile of such
personnel in an efficient and secure manner.
(2) The State of domicile of a CLP or CDL applicant on active
military duty must accept the completed application form and results of
knowledge and skills tests administered to the applicant by the State
where he or she is currently stationed, as authorized by paragraph
(b)(1) of this section, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this
part, in fulfillment of the applicant's application and testing
requirements under Sec. 383.71, and the State's test administration
requirements under Sec. 383.73, and issue the applicant a CLP or CDL.
PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM
5. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 103
and 215 of Pub. L. 106-59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.87.
6. Amend Sec. 384.301 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 384.301 Substantial compliance general requirements.
* * * * *
(j) A State must come into substantial compliance with the
requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in
effect as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] as soon as practical, but,
unless otherwise specifically provided in this part, not later than [3
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 9,
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
[FR Doc. 2016-05913 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P