Home Page About Us Contribute




Escort, Inc.



Tweets by @CrittendenAuto






By accessing/using The Crittenden Automotive Library/CarsAndRacingStuff.com, you signify your agreement with the Terms of Use on our Legal Information page. Our Privacy Policy is also available there.

Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

American Government Special Collections Reference Desk

American Government

Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

Daphne Y. Jefferson
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
12 June 2017


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26888-26894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12080]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0346]
RIN 2126-AB98


Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) to allow States to issue a commercial learner's 
permit (CLP) with an expiration date of up to one year from the date of 
initial issuance. CLPs issued for shorter periods may be renewed but 
the total period of time between the date of initial issuance and the 
expiration of the renewed CLP could not exceed one year. This proposed 
amendment would replace the current regulations, which require the 
States to issue CLPs initially for no more than 180 days, with the 
possibility of an additional 180-day renewal at the State's discretion.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 11, 
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2016-0346 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.
     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.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. 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-2016-0346), indicate the specific section of 
this document to which each section 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-2016-0346, 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.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the 
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your 
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of 
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial 
information that is customarily not made available to the general 
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is 
eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is 
relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly 
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each 
page of your submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions 
designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be 
placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 
should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Any commentary that 
FMCSA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be 
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2016-0346, 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

[[Page 26889]]

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., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these 
comments, without edit, including any personal information the 
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system 
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) 
(Pub. L. 114-94), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a negotiated rulemaking ``if a 
proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule'' 
(49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). As this proposed rule is not likely to result 
in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to 
issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

E. Comments on the Collection of Information

    If you have comments on the collection of information discussed in 
this NPRM, you must send those comments to the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. To ensure that your comments are 
received on time, the preferred methods of submission are by email to 
oira_submissions@omb.eop.gov (include docket number ``FMCSA-2016-0346'' 
and ``Attention: Desk Officer for FMCSA, DOT'' in the subject line of 
the email) or fax at 202-395-6566. An alternative, though slower, 
method is by U.S. Mail to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT.

II. Executive Summary

Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    This NPRM would allow States to issue a CLP for no more than one 
year from the date of initial issuance, with or without renewal within 
that one-year period. After one year from the date of initial issuance, 
a CLP, or renewed CLP, would no longer be valid. Accordingly, if the 
applicant does not obtain a CDL within one year from the date the CLP 
was first issued, he/she must reapply for a CLP. This approach would 
replace the current requirements of Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and 
383.73(a)(2)(iii), under which a CLP is valid for no more than 180 days 
from the date of issuance, with an option for the State to renew the 
CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the general and 
endorsement knowledge tests, as applicable. The proposed change 
provides an improved process for CLP issuance that FMCSA believes will 
save time and money for both States and CLP applicants, as discussed 
below, without affecting safety.

Benefits and Costs

    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be State 
Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) and CLP holders. FMCSA is unable to 
estimate the number of SDLAs that may choose to issue a CLP that is 
valid for up to one year or the number of CLP holders that would be 
affected. Nonetheless, potential benefits of this proposed rule would 
include reduced costs to CLP holders, including reductions in the 
opportunity cost of time that, in the absence of this proposed rule, 
would be spent by CLP holders traveling to and from an SDLA office and 
at an SDLA office, renewing a CLP that is valid for no more than 180 
days. SDLAs that choose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is 
valid for up to one year may benefit from the elimination of costs 
associated with processing renewals of CLPs. FMCSA does not expect 
there would be any costs imposed upon CLP holders as a result of this 
rule. Under this proposed rule SDLAs that choose to offer a CLP that is 
valid for up to one year may incur costs related to information 
technology (IT) system upgrades that may be necessary.
    Although potential reductions in CLP renewal fees collected by 
SDLAs may appear to be a cost of this proposed rule to SDLAs, and the 
commensurate potential savings to CLP holders of CLP renewal fees may 
appear to be a benefit to CLP holders, any such changes in renewal fee 
amounts are best classified as transfer payments and not as a cost to 
SDLAs (in the form of forgone fee revenue) or as a benefit to CLP 
holders (in the form of CLP renewal fees no longer expended). If an 
SDLA were to increase its fee for the issuance of a CLP in order to 
offset any reduction in revenue resulting from the elimination of CLP 
renewals and associated fees, a transfer would occur from those CLP 
holders who, in the absence of the rule, would not have renewed their 
CLP to CLP holders who would have renewed their CLP.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the broad 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 383 and 384. The 
CMVSA provides that ``[a]fter consultation with the States, the 
Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum 
uniform standards for the issuance of commercial drivers' licenses and 
learner's permits by the States . . .'' (49 U.S.C. 31308).

IV. Background

    On September 1, 2015, the Oregon Department of Transportation 
(ODOT) requested an exemption from Sec.  383.25(c) to allow a CLP to be 
issued for one year. Currently the regulation provides that the CLP 
must be valid for no more than 180 days from the date of issuance. 
However, under Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and 383.73(a)(2)(iii), the State 
may renew the CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the CLP 
holder to retake the general and endorsement knowledge tests. In its 
request for the exemption, ODOT stated that ``[a]dding the bureaucratic 
requirement for a CLP holder to visit a DMV office and pay a fee in 
order to get a second six months of CLP validity will add unnecessary 
workload to offices already stretched to the limit.''
    On November 27, 2015, FMCSA published notice of ODOT's application 
for exemption and requested public comments (80 FR 74199). The Agency 
received 10 comments in response to the proposed exemption. The Alabama 
Law Enforcement Agency; Colorado Department of Revenue CDL Unit; New 
York Department of Motor Vehicles; Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc.; 
and two individuals supported the exemption. The Commercial Vehicle 
Training Association (CVTA) and three individuals opposed the 
exemption.
    In a notice published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703), FMCSA stated 
that the exemption requested by the ODOT would maintain a level of 
safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be 
achieved without the exemption, as required by 49 CFR 381.305(a). The 
Agency therefore approved ODOT's application for exemption and allowed 
all SDLAs nationwide to use the exemption at their discretion. However, 
the exemption did not change the language of Sec.  383.25(c) and the 
exemption remains effective for 2 years from the date of approval, 
expiring on April 5, 2018. Subsequent to

[[Page 26890]]

FMCSA's approval of ODOT's application, the Agency amended its Notice 
of Final Disposition to also include exemption from the parallel 
requirements of Sec.  373.73(a)(2)(iii) (81 FR 86067 (November 29, 
2016)).

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking

Requiring States To Issue a CLP for No More Than One Year, With or 
Without Renewal

    This proposed rule would amend Sec. Sec.  383.25 (c) and 
383.73(a)(2)(iii) to allow States to issue a CLP for no more than one 
year, without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and 
endorsement knowledge tests. The Agency proposes a maximum period of 
CLP validity of one year, rather than the 360-day maximum currently 
permitted under Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) and 383.73(a)(2)(iii). The 
principal reason for this proposed change, as noted above and discussed 
further below, is to increase efficiency in the licensing system and to 
reduce costs to drivers and administrative burdens to SDLAs. FMCSA is 
also proposing the rule, however, in order to account for the fact 
that, in practice, some States allow a ``grace period'' between the 
initial CLP issuance period of 180 days and the 180-day renewal period 
currently allowed, thus resulting in a total period of time which may 
exceed 360 days from the time of initial issuance of the CLP. States 
that choose to issue a CLP for an initial period of less than one year 
may provide for renewal, as long as the renewed CLP is not valid for 
more than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original 
CLP. For example, under the proposed change, a State could issue a CLP 
that is valid for nine months. If that State chose to allow the CLP 
holder to renew the CLP, the renewal could not be valid for longer than 
three months, up to a total period of one year from the date of initial 
issuance.
    The Agency invites States and other interested parties to identify 
potential costs (e.g., necessary changes in CLP-related IT systems), 
savings and process efficiencies that may result from the proposed 
change, along with any supporting data.

VI. Section-By-Section Analysis

    FMCSA proposes to amend part 383 in the following ways:

Section 383.25 Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP)

    In Sec.  383.25(c) FMCSA makes minor changes to the text and 
replaces ``180 days'' with ``one year'' to reflect the proposed 
extended period of time that a CLP can be valid before a CLP holder 
would have to re-test. FMCSA also provides for renewal of CLPs that 
have been issued for a period of less than a year.

Section 383.73 State Procedures

    In Sec.  383.73(a)(2)(iii) FMCSA makes minor changes to the text 
and replaces ``180 days'' with ``one year'' to clarify in the 
instructions to States the proposed extended period of time that a CLP 
can be valid before a CLP holder would have to re-test. FMCSA also 
provides for renewal of CLPs that have been issued for a period of less 
than a year.

VII. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and 
Procedures

    This NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) 
of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, 
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits 
under section 6(a)(4) of that Order. It is also not significant within 
the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 
dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). Accordingly, the 
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under these Orders. 
This proposed rule would amend existing procedures and practices 
governing the issuance of commercial learner's permits.
Costs and Benefits
    This proposed rule allows States to issue a CLP that is valid for 
no more than one year from the date of initial issuance, with or 
without renewal during that one-year period. This approach would 
replace the current requirements, as set forth in Sec. Sec.  383.25(c) 
and 383.73(a)(2)(iii), which require that a CLP must be valid for no 
more than 180 days from the date of issuance, with an additional 180-
day renewal possible at the State's discretion.
    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be SDLAs 
and CLP holders. FMCSA is unable to estimate how many of the 51 SDLAs 
may choose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid for up 
to one year. The number of SDLAs that have thus far chosen to issue a 
CLP that is valid for one year from the date of issuance without 
renewal, consistent with the exemption to Sec.  383.25(c) issued on 
April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703), is unknown.\1\ FMCSA seeks any information 
available in this regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Driver and Motor Vehicle Services Division (DMV) of the 
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) currently offers a CLP 
that is valid for one year and cannot be renewed. See https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/cdlget.aspx (accessed 
February 9, 2017). ODOT requested the limited exemption from the CLP 
requirements in 49 CFR 383.25(c), which FMCSA issued on April 5, 
2016, and which is applicable to all SDLAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA estimates that approximately 476,000 CLPs are issued annually 
nationwide. This estimate is based primarily on information from the 
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide 
computer system that enables SDLAs to ensure that each commercial 
driver has only one driver's license and one complete driver record. 
Data provided by the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators (AAMVA) for the three calendar years 2013 through 2015 
indicate that approximately 476,000 new Master Pointer Records (MPRs) 
were added annually to CDLIS during that time.\2\ An MPR is typically 
added to CDLIS within 10 days of issuing a CLP to a driver who is 
believed to have never held one previously, or when a non-commercial 
driver is convicted of a violation in a commercial motor vehicle (CMV). 
FMCSA believes that the number of MPRs added to CDLIS for drivers 
without a CLP or CDL but that were convicted of a violation while 
driving a CMV is very small. To the extent this may occur, the 476,000 
value noted above may slightly overestimate the actual number of CLPs 
issued annually. Conversely, due to certain record retention 
requirements of CDLIS, it may be possible that a CLP applicant already 
could have an MPR present in CDLIS (from a previous CDL or CLP that was 
held by that applicant and for which the MPR created remains in CDLIS 
for some time after the CLP or CDL has expired or otherwise is no 
longer in force). To the extent this occurs, the 476,000 value noted 
above may slightly underestimate the actual number of CLPs issued 
annually. Despite these potential sources of minor uncertainty, FMCSA 
believes that the estimate of approximately 476,000 CLPs currently 
issued annually nationwide is

[[Page 26891]]

a reasonable one. The Agency specifically invites comment on the 
accuracy of this estimate. Of the estimated 476,000 CLPs issued 
annually, there is no readily available source of information regarding 
how many are renewed. We therefore seek comment and supporting 
information regarding the number of CLPs issued annually nationwide 
that are currently renewed. Because the Agency cannot currently 
quantify the number of CLPs issued annually that are renewed, nor the 
number of SDLAs that would choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up 
to one year from the date of issuance, FMCSA is unable to quantify the 
number of CLP holders who would be affected by this proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate excludes data for the month of October 2015, 
which appeared to be an anomalous outlier figure of about twice the 
typical monthly figure for the 35 other months during the three year 
time period of 2013 through 2015 for which data was obtained. It is 
believed that this may be due in part to the requirement under MAP-
21 Section 32305 (Commercial Driver's License Program) that States 
must be in compliance with all CDL requirements by September 30, 
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although FMCSA is unable to quantify the number of SDLAs that may 
choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year or the number of 
CLP holders that would be affected by this proposed rule, there are 
certain types of benefits, costs, and transfers that may occur as a 
result of this rule.
    The potential benefits of this proposed rule would include reduced 
costs to CLP holders, including reductions in the opportunity cost of 
time that in the absence of this proposed rule would be spent by CLP 
holders traveling to and from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office, 
renewing a CLP that is valid for no more than 180 days. Though 
potential savings to CLP holders of CLP renewal fees may also appear to 
be a benefit of this proposed rule, any such changes in renewal fee 
amounts are best classified as a transfer, which is discussed further 
below. SDLAs may also realize potential benefits. For example, for 
SDLAs that chose under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid 
for up to one year, costs associated with processing renewals of CLPs 
would be eliminated. However, there may be transfer payments as 
discussed below. FMCSA seeks comment and any supporting information 
regarding the potential benefits of this proposed rule.
    FMCSA does not expect there to be any costs imposed upon CLP 
holders as a result of this proposed rule. However, there may be 
transfer payments as discussed below. The potential costs of this 
proposed rule to SDLAs include information technology (IT) system 
upgrade costs for those SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP that is valid 
for up to one year. Such IT system upgrades may include software 
programming changes necessary to reflect a change from a CLP that is 
valid for up to 180 days to a CLP that is valid for up to one year. The 
State of Colorado noted the potential for such IT system costs to SDLAs 
in its comments to the November 27, 2015, notice of ODOT's application 
for exemption (80 FR 74199), as discussed in the Agency's grant of 
application for exemption published on April 5, 2016 (81 FR 19703). 
Under the proposed rule, the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is 
valid for up to one year would be discretionary. Accordingly, the 
Agency expects that SDLAs will choose to make this change only to the 
extent that such IT system upgrade costs would be less than the reduced 
costs associated with no longer having to process renewals of CLPs, 
thus resulting in a net benefit to the SDLA.
    Finally, though potential reductions in CLP renewal fees collected 
by SDLAs may appear to be a cost of this proposed rule to SDLAs, any 
such changes in renewal fee amounts are best classified as a transfer, 
which is discussed further below. FMCSA seeks comment on supporting 
information regarding the potential costs of this proposed rule.
    In addition to the potential benefits and costs of the rule 
discussed above, there are also certain transfer payment effects that 
may occur as a result of this rule. Transfer payments are monetary 
payments from one group to another that do not affect total resources 
available to society, and therefore do not represent actual costs or 
benefits to society. Because of the potential elimination of CLP 
renewal fees, and the potential for changes to CLP issuance fees, there 
are transfer effects that may result from this rule. These potential 
transfer effects include a transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts from 
SDLAs to CLP holders, and a transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts from 
one set of CLP holders to another set of CLP holders. In cases where an 
SDLA maintains the same fee for issuance of a CLP, a transfer would 
occur from SDLAs to CLP holders. This transfer represents the total 
amount of CLP renewal fees that in the absence of this proposed rule 
CLP holders renewing their CLP would have paid SDLAs.\3\ Such 
reductions in CLP renewal fee amounts to SDLAs are properly classified 
as a transfer, rather than as a cost to SDLAs (in the form of forgone 
fee revenue) or as a benefit to CLP holders (in the form of CLP renewal 
fees no longer expended). There is no aggregate change in social 
welfare resulting from this impact, as it is a simple transfer of value 
from one set of entities to another. Alternatively, in cases where an 
SDLA were to increase its fee for the issuance of a CLP in order to 
offset any reduction in revenue resulting from the elimination of CLP 
renewals and associated fees, a transfer would occur from those CLP 
holders who in the baseline would not have renewed their CLP to CLP 
holders who in the baseline would have renewed their CLP.\4\ Here too 
there is no aggregate change in social welfare resulting from this 
impact, as again it is a simple transfer of value from one set of 
entities to another. In any case, the extent to which SDLAs that choose 
under this proposed rule to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one 
year may increase their fee for issuance of a CLP is unknown.\5\ The 
incentive for an SDLA to do so, however, is likely low due in part to 
the fact that CLP renewal fees are expected to be a relatively small 
proportion of the overall fee revenue collected by any given SDLA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In some States, no fee is charged for CLP renewal, and 
therefore this type of transfer would not occur if CLP renewals were 
eliminated.
    \4\ As an example of this type of transfer effect, consider a 
scenario in which in the baseline 10,000 CLPs are issued annually by 
a State. Of these 10,000 CLP holders, assume half (5,000) renew 
their CLP, and the remaining half do not. Finally, assume the fee 
for initial issuance of a CLP in this State is $25, and that the fee 
for renewal of a CLP in this State is $20. Under this scenario, the 
total fee revenue collected by the SDLA would be $350,000 in the 
baseline (calculated as 10,000 CLPs issued at $25 each, plus 5,000 
renewals at $20 each). Under the rule, with CLP renewal fee revenue 
now eliminated, for the SDLA to receive the same $350,000 of fee 
revenue as before the rule, the fee for CLP issuance would need to 
increase from $25 to $35. Therefore, the 5,000 drivers who in the 
baseline would not have renewed their CLP would incur an increase in 
their fees from $25 to $35. However, the other 5,000 drivers who in 
the baseline would have had to renew their CLP would realize a 
reduction in their total fees from $45 (for CLP issuance plus CLP 
renewal) to $35. This would amount to a transfer from the former set 
of drivers (who in the baseline would not have renewed their CLPs) 
to the latter set of drivers (who in the baseline would have renewed 
their CLPs).
    \5\ Under the limited exemption from the CLP requirements in 49 
CFR 383.25(c) that was issued on April 5, 2016, the Driver and Motor 
Vehicle Services Division (DMV) of the Oregon Department of 
Transportation (ODOT) did subsequently choose to offer a CLP that is 
valid for one year and cannot be renewed. See https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/pages/driverid/cdlget.aspx (accessed October 
13, 2016). Based on a review of both the 2016-2017 Oregon Commercial 
Driver Manual (pg. 1-6, available at http://www.odot.state.or.us/forms/dmv/36.pdf), and the 2012-2013 Oregon Commercial Driver Manual 
(pg. 1-5, available at http://www.e-gears.com/manuals/or_cdl_manual.pdf), it appears that the fee charged by ODOT for 
issuance of a CLP was not changed when ODOT chose to offer a CLP 
that is valid for one year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), requires Federal 
agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small 
entities, analyze

[[Page 26892]]

effective alternatives that minimize small entity impacts, and make 
their analyses available for public comment. The term ``small 
entities'' means 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 under 
50,000.\6\ 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 entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Available 
at: https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/regulatory-flexibility-act 
(accessed February 13, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the 
agency to ``prepare and make available for public comment an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis'' which will ``describe the impact of 
the proposed rule on small entities'' (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 of 
the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an 
analysis, if the proposed rulemaking is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The primary entities affected by this proposed rule would be SDLAs 
and CLP holders. Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the 
SBREFA, neither SDLAs nor CLP holders are small entities. SDLAs are not 
considered small entities because they do not meet the definition of a 
small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, States are not 
considered small governmental jurisdictions under Section 601(5) of the 
RFA, both because State government is not included among the various 
levels of government listed in Section 601(5), and because, even if 
this were the case, no State nor the District of Columbia has a 
population of less than 50,000, which is the criterion by which a 
governmental jurisdiction is considered small under Section 601(5) of 
the RFA. CLP holders are not considered small entities because they too 
do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the RFA. 
Specifically, CLP holders are considered neither a small business under 
Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a small organization 
under Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, this proposed rule will not 
have an impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    In any case, this rule provides SDLAs the flexibility to choose 
whether to adopt the one-year CLP validity. As described in more detail 
earlier, because the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid 
for up to one year is discretionary, the Agency expects that SDLAs will 
choose to make this change only to the extent that there is a net 
benefit to the SDLA. Furthermore, though there may be some transfer 
payment effects between certain types of CLP holders, these effects 
will not be significant. The Agency does not believe that there will be 
any costs imposed upon CLP holders as a result of this rule, and CLP 
holders would benefit from reductions in the opportunity cost of time 
that in the absence of this proposed rule would be spent by CLP holders 
traveling to and from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office renewing a 
CLP. Accordingly, I hereby certify that this proposed rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comment from anyone 
who believes there will be a significant impact on small entities from 
this action.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities 
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate 
its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. 
If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or 
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of 
contact, Selden Fritschner, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal 
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal 
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and 
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small 
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these 
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small 
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call 
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights 
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit 
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

D. 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 State, local, or tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $156 million (which is the 
value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 
2015 levels) or more in any one year. This proposed rule, which is a 
discretionary regulatory action, would not result in such an 
expenditure. Nevertheless, the Agency discusses the potential effects 
of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 
13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.''
    FMCSA determined that this proposal would not have substantial 
direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking 
discretion of States. This proposed rule does not preempt any State law 
or regulation. Therefore, this proposed rule does not have sufficient 
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Impact Statement.

G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule 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.

H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies 
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also 
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an 
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects 
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not 
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on 
children is required. In any event, this regulatory action does not in 
any respect present an environmental health or safety risk that could 
disproportionately affect children.

[[Page 26893]]

I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, 
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected 
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

J. Privacy

    The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, (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. Because this proposed rule does not require the 
collection of personally identifiable information (PII), the Agency is 
not required to conduct a PIA.
    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Sec.  208, 116 
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct 
a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, 
maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new 
or substantially changed technology would collect, maintain, or 
disseminate information as a result of this rule. Accordingly, FMCSA 
has not conducted a PIA.

K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this 
program.

L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that the rule is not a 
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it 
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

M. E.O. 13175 (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.

N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards 
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, 
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be 
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, 
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related 
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or 
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule 
does not use technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the 
use of voluntary consensus standards.

O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM 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.t.(2). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in 
paragraph 6.t.(2) includes regulations to ensure that the States comply 
with the provisions of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. 
The requirements in this proposed rule are covered by this CE and the 
proposed action does not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment. The CE determination is available for inspection 
or copying in the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    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.
    Under E.O. 12898, 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 evaluated the environmental 
justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O., and 
has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with 
this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact 
that would result from its promulgation.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR 383

    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, part 383 to read as follows:

PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND 
PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 383 continues to read as follows:

    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; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 
1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.25 to revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  383.25  Commercial learner's permit (CLP).

* * * * *
    (c) The CLP must be valid for no more than one year from the date 
of issuance without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and 
endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a period of less than one 
year may be renewed as long as the renewed CLP is valid for no more 
than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original CLP.
0
3. Amend Sec.  383.73 to revise paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  383.73  State procedures.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Make the CLP valid for no more than one year from the date of 
issuance without requiring the CLP holder to retake the general and 
endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a period of less than one 
year may be renewed as long as the renewed CLP is valid for no more 
than one year from the date of initial issuance of the original CLP.
* * * * *


[[Page 26894]]


    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 6, 
2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-12080 Filed 6-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P

Connect with The Crittenden Automotive Library

The Crittenden Automotive Library at Google+ The Crittenden Automotive Library on Facebook The Crittenden Automotive Library on Instagram The Crittenden Automotive Library at The Internet Archive The Crittenden Automotive Library on Pinterest The Crittenden Automotive Library on Twitter The Crittenden Automotive Library on Tumblr
 


The Crittenden Automotive Library

Home Page    About Us    Contribute