Commercial Learner's Permit Validity |
|---|
|
Raymond P. Martinez
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
21 December 2018
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 245 (Friday, December 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65564-65571]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27779]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to allow States the option of issuing a commercial learner's
permit (CLP) with an expiration date of up to one year from the date of
initial issuance. The CLP must be valid for no more than one year from
the initial 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 provided the CLP is not valid for
more than one year from the date of initial issuance. This rule does
not require a State to revise its current CLP issuance practices,
unless it chooses to do so. This rule is a deregulatory action as
defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs.''
DATES: This final rule is effective February 19, 2019.
Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than January 22, 2019.
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. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
For access to docket FMCSA-2016-0346 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
B. 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.
II. Executive Summary
Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions
This final rule allows States the option of issuing a CLP valid for
up to one year from the date of initial issuance. Within that one year
period, the CLP may be renewed at the State's discretion, but if it is
renewed, the CLP may not be valid for more than a total of one year
from the date of initial
[[Page 65565]]
issuance. After one year from the date of initial issuance, a CLP, or
renewed CLP, will no longer be valid. Therefore, if an applicant does
not obtain a CDL within one year from the date the CLP, he/she must
reapply for a CLP by re-taking the applicable knowledge test(s). This
approach provides an alternative to the existing requirements in Sec.
383.25(c).
Costs and Benefits
The primary entities affected by this final rule are State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) and CLP holders. Under the final rule, the
decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year is
discretionary, and FMCSA is therefore unable to predict how many of the
51 SDLAs may choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year.
Accordingly, FMCSA is also unable to estimate the number of CLP holders
that will be affected by the final rule. Nonetheless, there are certain
types of cost savings, costs, benefits, and transfer payments that may
occur as a result of this rule.
FMCSA does not expect there to be any costs imposed upon CLP
holders due to this final rule. CLP holders may realize cost savings
resulting from reductions in the opportunity cost of time that, in the
absence of this final rule, would be spent by CLP holders traveling to
and from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office, to renew a CLP that is
initially valid for no more than 180 days.
SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year
may incur some information technology (IT) system upgrade costs. Such
IT system upgrades may include software programming changes necessary
to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year. However, under the
final rule, the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid for up
to one year is 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 cost reductions associated
with no longer having to process renewals of CLPs, thus resulting in a
net cost savings to the SDLAs exercising this choice.
In addition to the potential impacts upon cost savings, costs, and
benefits 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. 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.
The FMCSA anticipates no change in safety benefits as a result of
this final rule. In the Agency's judgement, this rule will provide
SDLAs the choice to implement more efficient licensing operations while
maintaining a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety
achieved without the rule.
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This final rule 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
Regulatory History
On September 1, 2015, the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) applied for an exemption from existing CLP requirements in Sec.
382.25(c) to allow ODOT to initially issue the CLP for one year (with
no renewal period).\1\ ODOT's application for exemption cited
efficiency in CLP processing as the primary basis for the requested
regulatory relief, noting that a CLP issued for one year will relieve
the CLP holder of the need to visit the DMV in order to renew the CLP
for an additional 180 days. Further, ODOT asserted that ``a one-year
CLP that simply eliminates the one-year renewal would not lessen
safety.'' The Agency published notice of ODOT's application for
exemption on November 27, 2015, and requested comment (80 FR 74199).
FMCSA granted ODOT's application for exemption for the period April 5,
2016, through April 5, 2018, and also permitted all SDLAs to extend to
one year the 180-day timeline (81 FR 19703 (Apr. 5, 2016)). The Agency
determined that the exemption would permit ODOT and other SDLAs to
implement more efficient operations while maintaining a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety achieved without
the exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ODOT's application for exemption is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 12, 2017, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) titled ``Commercial Learner's Permit Validity'' (82 FR 26888),
which proposed to allow States to issue a CLP with an expiration date
of up to one year from the date of initial issuance. Under this
proposal, CLPs could also be issued for periods shorter than one year
and could be renewed, as long as the total period of time between the
date of initial issuance and the date of expiration, with or without
renewal, does not exceed one year.
V. Discussion of Comments Received on the Proposed Rule
FMCSA received 13 comments on the NPRM. Four commenters disagreed
with the NPRM, including an SDLA (Georgia), two industry trade
associations (the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) and
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. (OOIDA)), and
one individual. Nine commenters, including one individual, four SDLAs
(Arizona, Virginia, Oregon, Michigan), three industry trade
associations (the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the National
School Transportation Association (NSTA), the American Bus Association
(ABA)), and a passenger motor carrier (Burlington Trailways) all
supported the NPRM. The comments addressed the NPRM's potential impact
on safety, the costs and benefits of the proposal, and related
implementation issues.
As discussed below, some of the comments appear to be based on the
assumption that the NPRM proposed to replace the existing CLP issuance
requirement in Sec. 383.25(c). In fact, FMCSA intended to provide an
alternative to that requirement, thereby giving States a choice to
continue issuing CLPs in accordance with existing Sec. 383.25(c), or
to proceed under the optional procedure outlined in the NPRM. The
Agency clarifies this point in the final rule.
A. Safety Impacts
Three commenters believed that the rule would not impact safety.
Two commenters believed that this rule could negatively impact safety.
Comments: ODOT stated that it implemented a streamlined CLP
issuance process that improves the customer's experience without
impacting highway safety. The NSTA also believed that FMCSA's proposal
would save time and money for both States and CLP applicants, without
affecting safety. ATA commented that, for States that do not require
drivers to retake the knowledge exam when renewing an initial CLP that
is currently issued for no more than 180 days, the requirement that the
CLP be renewed only necessitates that drivers spend
[[Page 65566]]
additional time away from work. ATA further noted that the rule can
reduce the burden on SDLAs and the trucking industry without
compromising safety.
OOIDA believed that, under the NPRM, carriers would be able to keep
drivers with CLPs behind the wheel longer, instead of using drivers
with commercial driver's licenses (CDLs), negatively impacting safety.
OOIDA provided the example of C.R. England, currently operating under
an exemption that allows CLP permit holders to drive commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) without a CDL holder present in the front seat.
The Georgia Department of Driver Services (Georgia DDS) requested
that FMCSA consider keeping the current 180 day CLP limit due to
highway safety concerns. Georgia DDS stated ``(t)his mandated six (6)
month term now helps to ensure that the applicants are testing while
their knowledge and training are still fresh and they have not
developed bad habits.''
FMCSA Response: Although OOIDA and Georgia DDS both cited safety
concerns, neither commenter provided any data to support their view
that the NPRM would negatively impact highway safety.
OOIDA commented that ``(u)nder the NPRM, carriers can use CLP
drivers longer and keep them behind the wheel instead of CDL drivers.''
In response, the Agency understands that, currently, some States
issuing a CLP initially valid for 180 days may provide a grace period
of more than five days between the initial CLP issuance period of 180
days and the renewal period allowed under Sec. 383.25(c) thus
resulting in a CLP valid for more than one year. Accordingly, the NPRM,
by proposing a maximum period of CLP validity of one year, did not
represent a significant departure from the current regulations. States
choosing the one-year option, as set forth in this final rule, would
maintain a shorter maximum period of CLP validity than States that may
currently allow a grace period of more than five days between the
initial validity period of 180-days and the 180-day renewal. Further,
FMCSA notes that the exemption granted to C.R. England, referenced by
OOIDA, applies to CLP holders who have already passed the CDL skills
test after receiving training in a non-domiciled State, and are driving
a CMV back to their State of domicile to obtain the CDL. The C.R.
England exemption is, therefore, not relevant to this rule.
Georgia DDS did not elaborate on the basis for its highway safety
concerns when requesting that FMCSA consider retaining the current 180-
day limit, other than to suggest that CLP holders should take the CDL
skills test while ``their knowledge and training are still fresh and
they have not developed bad habits.'' In response, the Agency notes
that the period of CLP validity is an outer limit, by which the
applicant must obtain a CDL without having to retake the knowledge
test. However, there is no requirement that applicant wait until the
end of the CLP validity period to take their skills test. As discussed
further below, the CLP holder may take the skills test any time after
14 days have passed since initial issuance of the CLP. In addition,
FMCSA did not propose changing any of the protections already in place
to ensure CLP-holders do not decrease safety on the highways, including
the requirement, in Sec. 383.25(a)(1), that CLP-holders may operate a
CMV only when accompanied by a CDL holder physically present in the
front seat of the vehicle.
Finally, as noted above, ODOT, in its comments to the NPRM, noted
that its adoption of the one-year CLP resulted in streamlined
processing ``without impacting highway safety.'' The ODOT also observed
that ``[t]he logic of this change is supported by current regulation,
since a knowledge test is not required to renew a CLP.'' In addition,
FMCSA recently contacted state licensing officials in Iowa, which, like
Oregon, is issuing one-year CLPs under the current exemption. Iowa
officials stated that no safety issues have arisen as a result of the
one-year CLP. For these reasons, FMCSA believes this rule will not
diminish highway safety.
B. Impacts to SDLAs
Allowing States to issue CLPs for a term of up to one year is
intended to increase efficiency in the commercial driver licensing
system, thereby reducing the administrative burdens on SDLAs while
maintaining a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety that
would exist in the absence of the final rule. The NPRM requested that
States and other interested parties identify potential costs (e.g.,
necessary changes in CLP-related IT systems), cost savings, process
efficiencies, and other benefits that may result from the proposed
change, along with any supporting data.
Benefits
Comments: Some commenters noted that the rulemaking would reduce
the burden on SDLAs. ATA believed the rulemaking would benefit the
SDLAs by increasing their flexibility and reducing the burden
associated with renewing CLPs. NSTA wrote that the proposed change
provides an improved process for CLP issuance and would save time and
money for States. Burlington Trailways wrote that the rule would save
time for those issuing the permits. While it opposed the NPRM, OOIDA
agreed it would reduce administrative costs for SLDAs.
Some commenters believed that the rule would benefit SDLAs by
providing consistency. ABA supported the uniformity among the SDLAs
that the rulemaking would ensure, rather than requiring each State to
request a similar exemption individually. CVTA agreed that consistency
is a benefit, but asked why FMCSA wanted to amend its regulations when
only one jurisdiction had applied for an exemption.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with commenters noting that the rule
could reduce the burden on SDLAs and, as described below, identifies
the potential cost savings to SDLAs that could result from this
regulatory change. Neither the NPRM, nor this final rule, was intended
to ensure consistency among the SDLAs. Today's rule simply provides an
option for SDLAs wishing to issue CLPs valid for up to one year, with
or without renewal. Thus, the final rule gives States the flexibility
to choose which CLP issuance approach is best suited to their
particular needs. FMCSA notes that the original exemption granted to
ODOT and other SDLAs, originally valid through April 5, 2018, was
renewed and is currently valid to April 5, 2019 (83 FR 14545 (April 4,
2018)). The Agency believes that amending the FMCSRs to permit CLP
issuance in accordance with the exemption is more efficient than
granting extensions of the exemption, and also provides greater
regulatory certainty to SDLAs that opt to implement a one-year CLP.
Costs
Comments: A number of commenters indicated that there are costs
associated with the NPRM. Four SDLAs, including the Arizona Department
of Transportation (Arizona DOT), the Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles (Virginia DMV), the Michigan Department of State (Michigan
DOS) and the Georgia DDS, believed the proposed change would require a
change in State laws. The SDLAs also commented that other changes
associated with the NPRM, including programming and outreach, would
create costs for the States. The Michigan DOS commented that this
proposal would require a significant amount of programming effort;
based on the low number of CLP drivers anticipated to utilize this
extended CLP validity period, the efforts for programming and
legislation changes would exceed any
[[Page 65567]]
benefit. The Virginia DMV commented that it will evaluate the impact of
returning to a process of issuing CLPs valid for one year to determine
if it would create cost savings and reduce administrative burdens on
the DMV, but the change would require DMV resources to revert to the
previous process. The Georgia DDS commented that, conservatively, it
had invested $300,000 to comply with the existing rule, including
providing training for State and third-party examiners, holding a forum
for industry stakeholders, and establishing a communications campaign.
The Georgia DDS, having also revamped its business process and updated
its 2015 CDL Manual, objected to having to re-invest money and
resources to make another change in its licensing process.
FMCSA Response: Today's rule simply provides an additional option
for SDLAs wishing to issue CLPs valid for up to one year. Thus, the
final rule gives States the flexibility to choose which CLP issuance
option is best suited to their needs. The four SDLAs that expressed
concerns over costs need not incur any costs because SDLA adoption of
the final rule is discretionary.
C. Costs and Benefits to CLP Holders and Motor Carriers
FMCSA anticipates that this change will reduce costs for CLP
holders, including reductions in the opportunity cost of time that, in
the absence of this final rule, would be spent traveling to and from an
SDLA office, plus time spent at an SDLA to renew a CLP initially valid
for no more than 180 days.\2\ FMCSA does not expect there will be any
costs imposed upon CLP holders as a result of this final rule. In
addition, the Agency does not expect the rule to impose any direct
costs on motor carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Some SDLAs may allow renewal of CLPs via the internet, thus
allowing CLP holders to avoid travel costs. The Agency lacks the
data necessary to quantify transportation costs CLP holders may
incur to renew their CLP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits
Comments: NTSA believed that the proposed rule would save time and
money for CLP applicants. ODOT commented that its streamlined CLP
issuance process, implemented under the exemption, improved the
customer's experience, and believed this proposal would help continue
that improvement. The Virginia DMV anticipated that issuing a one-year
CLP would positively impact commercial drivers if they are not forced
to return to the DMV to renew their CLP. ATA stated that the proposed
rule would provide costs savings to new commercial drivers entering the
industry.
Burlington Trailways stated that the proposed regulation will save
time for prospective driving students and potential employers. The
proposed regulation would especially benefit CLP holders thinking about
driver training because it would give students more time to be
comfortable with classroom work and behind-the-wheel experience before
needing to renew a permit if training is interrupted. ABA believed that
the proposed rule would help ease the driver shortage currently facing
the industry by providing entry-level commercial drivers additional
flexibility in completing driver training programs at a reasonable
pace. The Michigan DOS also believed that this rule may benefit CLP
holders by reducing repeat trips to the branch offices for renewal of
the CLP.
FMCSA Response: As noted above FMCSA agrees with the commenters
noting that, in States choosing to adopt the one-year CLP validity
period, the rule would reduce costs for CLP holders.
Costs
Comments: OOIDA believed that the proposal could limit CLP holders'
earnings because it would prevent them from receiving their CDL for up
to six additional months, thus, limiting their wages. OOIDA stated that
the Agency's analysis of the potential benefits of this proposal did
not consider lost wages for drivers who will not be granted a CDL after
holding a CLP for 180 days. OOIDA wanted FMCSA to fully examine the
``bottom line'' costs for drivers rather than just the administrative
costs associated with the proposal.
Two commenters believed the rulemaking might increase costs if
States did not adequately fund the CDL process. ABA believed the
rulemaking had the potential to disincentive States to address resource
issues to decrease CDL testing delays, and wanted FMCSA to consider
this concern when finalizing the proposal. CVTA noted that, if FMCSA
changes the duration of the CLP to up to one year, it would increase
costs for CLP holders who are seeking their CDL and are experiencing
skills testing delays. CVTA commented that skills testing delays cost
our economy a great deal of money, including the costs to drivers'
wages, schools, and employers who are unable to hire employees to move
additional freight. CVTA would support granting an exemption from the
existing timeframe of 180-days, but only if an SDLA exhibited
efficiency in operations.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes some commenters misinterpreted the
proposal to provide SDLAs the choice to extend the period of CLP
validity from no more than 180 days to up to one year. Under current
regulations, a CLP holder is not eligible to take the CDL skills test
in the first 14 days after initial issuance of the CLP. The driver is
not, however, required to hold a CLP for 180 days before taking the
skills test. The final rule does not prevent a driver from taking their
skills test and obtaining a CDL at any time after 14 days have elapsed
since CLP issuance, regardless of whether the SDLA has chosen to issue
a CLP that is valid for up to one year, or if the SDLA continues to
offer a CLP that is valid for up to 180 days. Issuing a CLP that is
valid for up to one year simply provides greater flexibility to CLP
holders to train for and schedule the CDL skills test, without having
to incur opportunity costs associated with the renewal of the CLP.
OOIDA did not offer any data to support its claim that extending
the term of a CLP up to one year will facilitate a carrier's ability to
prevent CLP holders from receiving their CDL for six months in order to
intentionally limit CLP holders' wages. OOIDA did not explain why CLP
holders would continue to accept a lower wage if they have sufficient
behind-the wheel training to pass the skills test and seek employment
with a carrier willing to pay a CDL wage. Finally, OOIDA failed to
explain why a carrier would commit a CDL holder to accompany a (CDL-
capable) CLP holder on a revenue-producing trip for the sole purpose of
limiting the wages of a CLP holder.
Neither ABA nor CVTA provided data to suggest that eliminating the
need for a CLP holder to drive to an SDLA to renew their CLP would
significantly impact the demand for CLPs, the number of skills tests
performed annually, or the supply of skills testers. The Agency is not
aware of any negative impact on CDL skills testing delays resulting
from ODOT's issuance of CLPs that are valid for one year under the
exemption. FMCSA recently contacted state licensing officials in Iowa,
which is currently operating under the exemption, and Iowa officials
stated that no safety issues have arisen as result of the one-year CLP.
D. Other Comments
Comments: The Agency received several comments not specifically
related to the proposal. An individual asked FMCSA to work on the
hours-of-service rules, including removing the 14-hour rule. A second
individual commented on an NPRM titled,
[[Page 65568]]
``Military Licensing and State Commercial Driver's License
Reciprocity'' (FMCSA-2017-0047).
FMCSA Response: The agency does not address these comments as they
are outside the scope of this rulemaking.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis
FMCSA revises sections 383.25 and 383.73 to allow CLPs to be issued
for a period of one year or less from the date of issuance without
requiring a CLP holder to retake the general and endorsement knowledge
tests. CLPs issued for periods of less than a year may be renewed, but
the CLP can only be valid for no longer than one year from the date of
issuance of the original CLP.
VII. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving R
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures
FMCSA performed an analysis of the impacts of this final rule and
determined it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of 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. Accordingly, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under 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)).
The primary entities that will be affected by this final rule are
SDLAs and CLP holders. Due to the voluntary nature of the change
proposed by the NPRM, the Agency was not able to quantify costs or
benefits and sought information on the effects of the proposed rule.
FMCSA did not receive sufficient data to quantify the costs or benefits
of this final rule, nor can the Agency predict how many of the 51 SDLAs
would choose to issue a CLP valid for up to one year. The Agency is
aware that as of December 2017, at least two SDLAs (Oregon and Iowa)
have chosen to issue a CLP that is valid for one year without renewal,
consistent with the limited exemption granted in response to ODOT's
application for exemption.
In the NPRM, the Agency described the methodology it used to
estimate that the SDLAs issue approximately 476,000 CLPs per year. The
Agency requested commenters to provide their assessment of the accuracy
of this estimate along with supporting information on how many CLPs are
renewed. CVTA was the only commenter that responded to the Agency's
data request. CVTA stated that the Agency's estimate was accurate and
consistent with similar numbers reported in other rulemakings for CDLs
issued. CVTA further stated that, absent access to all 51 SDLA's data,
it was not able to confirm how many CLP renewals are issued. For the
same reason, the Agency is unable to quantify the impact of the rule on
CLP holders.
Cost Savings and Costs
FMCSA does not expect there to be any costs imposed upon CLP
holders because of this final rule. CLP holders may realize cost
savings under the final rule, including reductions in the opportunity
cost of time that, in the absence of this final rule, would be spent by
CLP holders traveling to and from an SDLA office, plus the time at an
SDLA office to renew a CLP that is valid for no more than 180 days. As
discussed below, if SDLAs increase their fee for the initial issuance
of a CLP, there may be minimal transfer payment effects among different
types of CLP holders. Also, although the potential elimination of CLP
renewal fees might appear to be a cost savings for CLP holders, changes
in renewal fees are classified as transfers, as discussed below.
SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP valid for up to one year under
this final rule may incur some information technology (IT) system
upgrade costs to accommodate the change in the CLP business process
from issuing a CLP that is valid for up to 180 days (and may be
renewable for an additional 180 days) to the alternative of issuing a
CLP that is valid for up to one year with no renewal. SDLAs that choose
to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year may also realize cost
savings associated with no longer having to process CLP renewals. The
Agency expects that SDLAs will make this change only if cost savings
from the elimination of the renewal process exceed IT system upgrade
costs and ongoing operating costs. Lastly, any reduction in CLP renewal
fees collected by SDLAs may appear to be a cost. However, any changes
in the amount of renewal fees collected is a transfer, as discussed
below.
Benefits
The Agency anticipates no change in safety benefits because of this
final rule. The discretionary implementation of the final rule will
provide SDLAs the choice to implement more efficient operations while
maintaining a level of safety equivalent to the level of safety
achieved without the rule.
As discussed earlier, although OOIDA and Georgia DDS both expressed
concerns in their comments regarding potential impacts to highway
safety, neither commenter provided any data to support their view that
the rule would negatively impact highway safety. Currently, a CLP may
be valid for a total of 360 days, and in States allowing a ``grace
period'' of more than five days between the initial CLP issuance period
of 180 days and the renewal period allowed under Sec. 383.25(c), the
CLP may be valid for more than one year. Furthermore, the current
regulations do not require that the knowledge test be retaken when
renewing the initial CLP which is valid for no more than 180 days from
the date of issuance. Accordingly, the final rule, by allowing a
maximum CLP validity period of one year, does not represent a
significant departure from the current regulations. Under this final
rule, SDLAs that have concerns regarding potential impacts to highway
safety from issuing a CLP valid for up to one year from the date of
initial issuance are free to continue issuing CLPs which are valid for
no more than 180 days. Finally, the Agency is not aware of any negative
impact on safety resulting from ODOT's issuance of CLPs that are valid
for one year under the exemption. FMCSA recently contacted state
licensing officials in Iowa, which is currently operating under the
exemption, and Iowa officials stated that no safety issues have arisen
as result of the one-year CLP.
Transfers
In addition to the potential impacts upon costs and benefits
discussed above, there are also certain transfer payment effects that
may occur because 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 final 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 will occur from SDLAs to
CLP holders. This transfer represents the total amount of CLP renewal
fees that, in the absence of this final rule, CLP holders renewing
[[Page 65569]]
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. It
is just a 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 to offset any reduction in revenue resulting from the
elimination of CLP renewals and associated fees, a transfer will 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.
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. The extent to which SDLAs that choose under this
final rule to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year may increase
their fee for issuance of a CLP is unknown. 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 will not occur if CLP renewals were
eliminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, overall, the final rule is expected to provide
regulatory relief to both SDLAs and CLP holders. Under the final rule,
the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one year
is discretionary, and the Agency expects that SDLAs will choose to make
this change only to the extent that cost savings associated with no
longer having to process renewals of CLPs would exceed any IT system
upgrade costs, thus resulting in a net cost savings to the SDLA.
Furthermore, FMCSA does not expect there to be any costs imposed upon
CLP holders because of this final rule. CLP holders domiciled in those
States choosing to issue a CLP valid for up to one year may realize
cost savings under the final rule, including reductions in the
opportunity cost of time that, in the absence of this final rule, would
be spent by CLP holders traveling to and from an SDLA office and at an
SDLA office, renewing a CLP valid for no more than 180 days. Finally,
any transfer payment effects that may occur because of this rule, as
described earlier, are expected to be small, to the extent that they
occur at all.
B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)
This final rule is considered an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.
The Agency cannot estimate the cost savings of the final rule; however,
the cost savings are discussed qualitatively in the rule's economic
analysis.
C. 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) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires Federal agencies
to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small businesses
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 (5 U.S.C. 601(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.
In the NPRM (82 FR 26888), in lieu of preparing an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis under section 603(a) of the RFA to
assess the impact of the rule, FMCSA performed a certification analysis
under section 605(b) of the RFA and certified that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The Agency did not receive any comments from the public or
from the Small Business Administration regarding impact of the proposed
rule on small entities. Moreover, the factual basis upon which the
Agency found the proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on small entities is unchanged. The primary entities affected by
the final rule are 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. The 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. 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 rule will not have an
impact on a substantial number of small entities. CLP holders will
benefit from reductions in the opportunity cost of time that in the
absence of this rule would be spent by CLP holders traveling to and
from an SDLA office and at an SDLA office renewing a CLP.
No small entities will be affected by this rule. Accordingly, I
hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
D. 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 final rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If
the final rule will 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 final 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
[[Page 65570]]
fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising
these rights.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ``The Rights of
Small Entities to Enforcement Fairness and Policy Against
Retaliation.'' Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed April 20, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. 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, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $156 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2015 levels) or more in any one year. This final rule is a
discretionary regulatory action, and does not result in such an
expenditure.
F. Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule calls for no new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for Federalism under section 1(a) of
Executive Order 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 has determined that this rule
will not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor will it
limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not
have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a
Federalism Impact Statement.
H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.
I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks, 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 final rule is not economically significant.
Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any
event, the Agency does not anticipate that this regulatory action could
in any respect present an environmental or safety risk that could
disproportionately affect children.
J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
FMCSA reviewed this final 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.
K. 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. This rule does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII).
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies
and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system
of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, Sec. 208, 116
Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct
PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects,
maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form. No new
or substantially changed technology will collect, maintain, or
disseminate information as a result of this rule. Therefore, FMCSA has
not conducted a PIA.
L. 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.
M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it 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.
N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does 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.
O. 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 rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.
P. Environment (NEPA)
FMCSA analyzed this rule consistent with 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 content in this rule
is covered by this CE, there are no extraordinary circumstances
present, and the final action does not have any effect on the quality
of the environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or
copying in the Regulations.gov website listed under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor Carriers.
[[Page 65571]]
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III,
part 383 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 by revising 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
initial 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 provided the CLP is not valid for no
more than one year from the date of initial issuance.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 383.73 by revising 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 provided the CLP is not valid for more than one
year from the date of initial issuance.
* * * * *
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2018-27779 Filed 12-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P