82 FR 26888 - Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 111 (June 12, 2017)

Page Range		26888-26894
FR Document		2017-12080

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.

Federal Register, Volume 82 Issue 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 111 (Monday, June 12, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26888-26894]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 26889

Internet, you may view the docket if the applicant does not obtain a CDL CLP holders who would have renewed
online by visiting the Docket within one year from the date the CLP their CLP.
Management Facility in Room W12–140 was first issued, he/she must reapply for
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
on the ground floor of the DOT West a CLP. This approach would replace the
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., current requirements of §§ 383.25(c) and This rulemaking is based on the broad
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 383.73(a)(2)(iii), under which a CLP is authority of the Commercial Motor
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, valid for no more than 180 days from Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as
except Federal holidays. the date of issuance, with an option for amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter
the State to renew the CLP for an 313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts
C. Privacy Act 383 and 384. The CMVSA provides that
additional 180 days without requiring
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the general and endorsement knowledge ‘‘[a]fter consultation with the States, the
DOT solicits comments from the public tests, as applicable. The proposed Secretary of Transportation shall
to better inform its rulemaking process. change provides an improved process prescribe regulations on minimum
DOT posts these comments, without for CLP issuance that FMCSA believes uniform standards for the issuance of
edit, including any personal information will save time and money for both commercial drivers’ licenses and
the commenter provides, to States and CLP applicants, as discussed learner’s permits by the States . . .’’ (49
www.regulations.gov, as described in below, without affecting safety. U.S.C. 31308).
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL–
Benefits and Costs IV. Background
14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy. The primary entities affected by this On September 1, 2015, the Oregon
proposed rule would be State Driver Department of Transportation (ODOT)
D. Waiver of Advance Notice of requested an exemption from § 383.25(c)
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) and CLP
Proposed Rulemaking to allow a CLP to be issued for one year.
holders. FMCSA is unable to estimate
Under the Fixing America’s Surface the number of SDLAs that may choose Currently the regulation provides that
Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. to issue a CLP that is valid for up to one the CLP must be valid for no more than
114–94), FMCSA is required to publish year or the number of CLP holders that 180 days from the date of issuance.
an advance notice of proposed would be affected. Nonetheless, However, under §§ 383.25(c) and
rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a potential benefits of this proposed rule 383.73(a)(2)(iii), the State may renew
negotiated rulemaking ‘‘if a proposed would include reduced costs to CLP the CLP for an additional 180 days
rule is likely to lead to the promulgation holders, including reductions in the without requiring the CLP holder to
of a major rule’’ (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). opportunity cost of time that, in the retake the general and endorsement
As this proposed rule is not likely to absence of this proposed rule, would be knowledge tests. In its request for the
result in the promulgation of a major spent by CLP holders traveling to and exemption, ODOT stated that ‘‘[a]dding
rule, the Agency is not required to issue from an SDLA office and at an SDLA the bureaucratic requirement for a CLP
an ANPRM or to proceed with a office, renewing a CLP that is valid for holder to visit a DMV office and pay a
negotiated rulemaking. no more than 180 days. SDLAs that fee in order to get a second six months
E. Comments on the Collection of choose under this proposed rule to issue of CLP validity will add unnecessary
Information a CLP that is valid for up to one year workload to offices already stretched to
may benefit from the elimination of the limit.’’
If you have comments on the costs associated with processing On November 27, 2015, FMCSA
collection of information discussed in renewals of CLPs. FMCSA does not published notice of ODOT’s application
this NPRM, you must send those expect there would be any costs for exemption and requested public
comments to the Office of Information imposed upon CLP holders as a result comments (80 FR 74199). The Agency
and Regulatory Affairs at OMB. To of this rule. Under this proposed rule received 10 comments in response to
ensure that your comments are received SDLAs that choose to offer a CLP that the proposed exemption. The Alabama
on time, the preferred methods of is valid for up to one year may incur Law Enforcement Agency; Colorado
submission are by email to oira_ costs related to information technology Department of Revenue CDL Unit; New
submissions@omb.eop.gov (include (IT) system upgrades that may be York Department of Motor Vehicles;
docket number ‘‘FMCSA–2016–0346’’ necessary. Oregon Trucking Associations, Inc.; and
and ‘‘Attention: Desk Officer for Although potential reductions in CLP two individuals supported the
FMCSA, DOT’’ in the subject line of the renewal fees collected by SDLAs may exemption. The Commercial Vehicle
email) or fax at 202–395–6566. An appear to be a cost of this proposed rule Training Association (CVTA) and three
alternative, though slower, method is by to SDLAs, and the commensurate individuals opposed the exemption.
U.S. Mail to the Office of Information potential savings to CLP holders of CLP In a notice published on April 5, 2016
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of renewal fees may appear to be a benefit (81 FR 19703), FMCSA stated that the
Management and Budget, 725 17th to CLP holders, any such changes in exemption requested by the ODOT
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, renewal fee amounts are best classified would maintain a level of safety
ATTN: Desk Officer, FMCSA, DOT. as transfer payments and not as a cost equivalent to or greater than the level of
II. Executive Summary to SDLAs (in the form of forgone fee safety that would be achieved without
revenue) or as a benefit to CLP holders the exemption, as required by 49 CFR
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS

Purpose and Summary of the Major (in the form of CLP renewal fees no 381.305(a). The Agency therefore
Provisions longer expended). If an SDLA were to approved ODOT’s application for
This NPRM would allow States to increase its fee for the issuance of a CLP exemption and allowed all SDLAs
issue a CLP for no more than one year in order to offset any reduction in nationwide to use the exemption at their
from the date of initial issuance, with or revenue resulting from the elimination discretion. However, the exemption did
without renewal within that one-year of CLP renewals and associated fees, a not change the language of § 383.25(c)
period. After one year from the date of transfer would occur from those CLP and the exemption remains effective for
initial issuance, a CLP, or renewed CLP, holders who, in the absence of the rule, 2 years from the date of approval,
would no longer be valid. Accordingly, would not have renewed their CLP to expiring on April 5, 2018. Subsequent to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1

26892 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules

effective alternatives that minimize the decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP their discretionary regulatory actions. In
small entity impacts, and make their that is valid for up to one year is particular, the Act addresses actions
analyses available for public comment. discretionary, the Agency expects that that may result in the expenditure by
The term ‘‘small entities’’ means small SDLAs will choose to make this change State, local, or tribal governments, in the
businesses and not-for-profit only to the extent that there is a net aggregate, or by the private sector, of
organizations that are independently benefit to the SDLA. Furthermore, $156 million (which is the value
owned and operated and are not though there may be some transfer equivalent of $100 million in 1995,
dominant in their fields, and payment effects between certain types of adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or
governmental jurisdictions with CLP holders, these effects will not be more in any one year. This proposed
populations under 50,000.6 significant. The Agency does not believe rule, which is a discretionary regulatory
Accordingly, DOT policy requires an that there will be any costs imposed action, would not result in such an
analysis of the impact of all regulations upon CLP holders as a result of this expenditure. Nevertheless, the Agency
on small entities, and mandates that rule, and CLP holders would benefit discusses the potential effects of this
agencies strive to lessen any adverse from reductions in the opportunity cost proposed rule elsewhere in this
effects on these entities. of time that in the absence of this preamble.
When an agency issues a rulemaking proposed rule would be spent by CLP
holders traveling to and from an SDLA E. Paperwork Reduction Act
proposal, the RFA requires the agency to
‘‘prepare and make available for public office and at an SDLA office renewing This proposed rule would call for no
comment an initial regulatory flexibility a CLP. Accordingly, I hereby certify that new collection of information under the
analysis’’ which will ‘‘describe the this proposed rule, if promulgated, will Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
impact of the proposed rule on small not have a significant economic impact U.S.C. 3501–3520).
entities’’ (5 U.S.C. 603(a)). Section 605 on a substantial number of small
F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
of the RFA allows an agency to certify entities. FMCSA invites comment from
a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, anyone who believes there will be a A rule has implications for
if the proposed rulemaking is not significant impact on small entities from Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O.
expected to have a significant economic this action. 13132 if it has ‘‘substantial direct effects
impact on a substantial number of small on the States, on the relationship
C. Assistance for Small Entities between the national government and
entities.
The primary entities affected by this In accordance with section 213(a) of the States, or on the distribution of
proposed rule would be SDLAs and CLP the Small Business Regulatory power and responsibilities among the
holders. Under the standards of the Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, various levels of government.’’
RFA, as amended by the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in FMCSA determined that this proposal
neither SDLAs nor CLP holders are understanding this proposed rule so that would not have substantial direct costs
small entities. SDLAs are not considered they can better evaluate its effects on on or for States, nor would it limit the
small entities because they do not meet themselves and participate in the policymaking discretion of States. This
the definition of a small entity in rulemaking initiative. If the proposed proposed rule does not preempt any
Section 601 of the RFA. Specifically, rule would affect your small business, State law or regulation. Therefore, this
States are not considered small organization, or governmental proposed rule does not have sufficient
governmental jurisdictions under jurisdiction and you have questions Federalism implications to warrant the
Section 601(5) of the RFA, both because concerning its provisions or options for preparation of a Federalism Impact
State government is not included among compliance, please consult the FMCSA Statement.
the various levels of government listed point of contact, Selden Fritschner,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
in Section 601(5), and because, even if
CONTACT section of this proposed rule. This proposed rule meets applicable
this were the case, no State nor the
Small businesses may send comments standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
District of Columbia has a population of
on the actions of Federal employees E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
less than 50,000, which is the criterion
who enforce or otherwise determine minimize litigation, eliminate
by which a governmental jurisdiction is
compliance with Federal regulations to ambiguity, and reduce burden.
considered small under Section 601(5)
the Small Business Administration’s
of the RFA. CLP holders are not H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
Small Business and Agriculture
considered small entities because they E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
too do not meet the definition of a small from Environmental Health Risks and
and the Regional Small Business
entity in Section 601 of the RFA. Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Specifically, CLP holders are considered 1997), requires agencies issuing
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
neither a small business under Section ‘‘economically significant’’ rules, if the
annually and rates each agency’s
601(3) of the RFA, nor are they regulation also concerns an
responsiveness to small business. If you
considered a small organization under environmental health or safety risk that
wish to comment on actions by
Section 601(4) of the RFA. Therefore, an agency has reason to believe may
employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG–
this proposed rule will not have an disproportionately affect children, to
FAIR (1–888–734–3247). DOT has a
impact on a substantial number of small include an evaluation of the regulation’s
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS

policy regarding the rights of small
entities. environmental health and safety effects
In any case, this rule provides SDLAs entities to regulatory enforcement
fairness and an explicit policy against on children. The Agency determined
the flexibility to choose whether to this proposed rule is not economically
adopt the one-year CLP validity. As retaliation for exercising these rights.
significant. Therefore, no analysis of the
described in more detail earlier, because D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of impacts on children is required. In any
1995 event, this regulatory action does not in
6 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Available at: https://www.sba.gov/advocacy/
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act any respect present an environmental
regulatory-flexibility-act (accessed February 13, of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires health or safety risk that could
2017). Federal agencies to assess the effects of disproportionately affect children.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 111 / Monday, June 12, 2017 / Proposed Rules 26893

I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private responsibilities between the Federal populations and low-income
Property) Government and Indian tribes. populations’’ in the United States, its
FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule possessions, and territories. FMCSA
N. National Technology Transfer and
in accordance with E.O. 12630, evaluated the environmental justice
Advancement Act (Technical
Governmental Actions and Interference effects of this proposed rule in
Standards)
with Constitutionally Protected Property accordance with the E.O., and has
The National Technology Transfer determined that no environmental
Rights, and has determined it will not
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 justice issue is associated with this
effect a taking of private property or
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use proposed rule, nor is there any
otherwise have taking implications.
voluntary consensus standards in their collective environmental impact that
J. Privacy regulatory activities unless the agency would result from its promulgation.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, provides Congress, through OMB, with
an explanation of why using these List of Subjects in 49 CFR 383
2005, (Pub. L. 108–447, 118 Stat. 2809,
3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note) requires the standards would be inconsistent with Administrative practice and
Agency to conduct a privacy impact applicable law or otherwise impractical. procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
assessment (PIA) of a regulation that Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., Highway safety, Motor carriers.
will affect the privacy of individuals. specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; In consideration of the foregoing,
Because this proposed rule does not
sampling procedures; and related FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
require the collection of personally
management systems practices) are chapter 3, part 383 to read as follows:
identifiable information (PII), the
Agency is not required to conduct a PIA. standards that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S
The E-Government Act of 2002, LICENSE STANDARDS;
Public Law 107–347, § 208, 116 Stat. bodies. This proposed rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES
2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires
Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for did not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 383
new or substantially changed
continues to read as follows:
technology that collects, maintains, or O. Environment (NEPA, CAA,
disseminates information in an Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et
Environmental Justice)
identifiable form. No new or seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L.
substantially changed technology would FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the 106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec.
collect, maintain, or disseminate purpose of the National Environmental 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272, 297;
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144,
information as a result of this rule. 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat.
Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted seq.) and determined this action is
categorically excluded from further 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114–94, 129
a PIA. Stat. 1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.
analysis and documentation in an
K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental environmental assessment or ■ 2. Amend § 383.25 to revise paragraph
Review) environmental impact statement under (c) to read as follows:
The regulations implementing E.O. FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680,
March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph § 383.25 Commercial learner’s permit
12372 regarding intergovernmental (CLP).
consultation on Federal programs and 6.t.(2). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in
activities do not apply to this program. paragraph 6.t.(2) includes regulations to * * * * *
ensure that the States comply with the (c) The CLP must be valid for no more
L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, provisions of the Commercial Motor than one year from the date of issuance
Distribution, or Use) Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The without requiring the CLP holder to
FMCSA has analyzed this proposed requirements in this proposed rule are retake the general and endorsement
rule under E.O. 13211, Actions covered by this CE and the proposed knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a
Concerning Regulations That action does not have a significant effect period of less than one year may be
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, on the quality of the human renewed as long as the renewed CLP is
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has environment. The CE determination is valid for no more than one year from the
determined that the rule is not a available for inspection or copying in date of initial issuance of the original
‘‘significant energy action’’ under that the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// CLP.
order because it is not a ‘‘significant www.regulations.gov. ■ 3. Amend § 383.73 to revise paragraph
regulatory action’’ likely to have a FMCSA also analyzed this proposed (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows:
significant adverse effect on the supply, rule under the Clean Air Act, as
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 § 383.73 State procedures.
it does not require a Statement of Energy U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing (a) * * *
Effects under E.O. 13211. regulations promulgated by the
(2) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Approval of this action is exempt from (iii) Make the CLP valid for no more
Governments) the CAA’s general conformity than one year from the date of issuance
asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with PROPOSALS

This proposed rule does not have requirement since it does not affect without requiring the CLP holder to
tribal implications under E.O. 13175, direct or indirect emissions of criteria retake the general and endorsement
Consultation and Coordination with pollutants. knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a
Indian Tribal Governments, because it Under E.O. 12898, each Federal period of less than one year may be
would not have a substantial direct agency must identify and address, as renewed as long as the renewed CLP is
effect on one or more Indian tribes, on appropriate, ‘‘disproportionately high valid for no more than one year from the
the relationship between the Federal and adverse human health or date of initial issuance of the original
Government and Indian tribes, or on the environmental effects of its programs, CLP.
distribution of power and policies, and activities on minority * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:49 Jun 09, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\12JNP1.SGM 12JNP1

Document Created: 2017-06-10 01:40:45
Document Modified: 2017-06-10 01:40:45

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), request for comments.
Dates		Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 11, 2017.
Contact		Mr. Selden Fritschner, CDL Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 202-366-0677.
FR Citation		82 FR 26888
RIN Number		2126-AB98

82 FR 26888 - Commercial Learner's Permit Validity

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 111 (June 12, 2017)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration