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, 14052-14058 [2016-05913]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14052-14058]
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]
RIN 2126-AB68


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, 
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2016-0051 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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.
     Fax: 202-493-2251.
    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.fritschner@dot.gov, 
or by telephone at 202-366-0677. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone 
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

[[Page 14053]]

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 https://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 
period.

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 https://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 
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    All comments received will be posted without change to https://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 https://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. 
Because

[[Page 14054]]

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 
problematical procedure.

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 
Personnel

    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 
safety.
    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 
and CDLs.
    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

[[Page 14055]]

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 
tests.
    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 
rulemaking.
    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 
thereof.
    (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.
Section 383.77
    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 
employment opportunities.
Section 383.79(b)
    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

[[Page 14056]]

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 
each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
CDL testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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. https://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/.
    \6\ U.S. General Services Administration. Privately Owned 
Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates, as of January 1, 2015. 
https://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 14057]]

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 
entities.

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 
Rights.

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 
proposed rule.

I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    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 
environmental impact.

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 
information.

[[Page 14058]]

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 
PENALTIES

0
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.

0
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.
* * * * *
0
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;
* * * * *
0
4. Revise Sec.  383.79 to read as follows:


Sec.  383.79  Testing of out-of-State applicants and military 
personnel.

    (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

0
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.

0
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, 
2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-05913 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P