
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70634-70646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24749]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 383 and 384

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0051]
RIN 2126-AB68


Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Military Commercial 
Driver's License Act of 2012

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its commercial driver's license (CDL) regulations 
to ease the transition of military personnel into civilian careers 
driving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) by simplifying the process of 
obtaining a commercial learner's permit (CLP) or CDL. This final rule 
extends the period of time for applying for a skills test waiver from 
90 days to 1 year after leaving a military position requiring the 
operation of a CMV. This final rule also allows a State to accept 
applications from active duty military personnel who are stationed in 
that State as well as administer the written and skills tests for a CLP 
or CDL. States that choose to accept such applications are required to 
transmit the test results electronically to the State of domicile of 
the military personnel. The State of domicile may issue the CLP or CDL 
on the basis of those results.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Petitions for reconsideration this final rule must be 
submitted in accordance with 49 CFR 389.35 to: FMCSA Administrator, 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590- 0001 no later than November 14, 2016.

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: This Final Rule is organized as follows:

I. Rulemaking Documents
    A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
    B. Privacy Act
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis
IV. Background
V. Proposed Rule
VI. Discussion of Comments and Responses
VII. Changes from the NPRM
VIII. Today's Final Rule
IX. International Impacts
X. Section-by-Section
XI. Regulatory Analyses
    A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563, DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Assistance for Small Entities
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    J. Privacy
    K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovermental Review)
    L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical 
Standards)
    O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice)

I. Rulemaking Documents

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2016-0051 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

    Section 32308 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 
Act (MAP-21) [Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 794, July 6, 2012] 
required FMCSA to undertake a study to assess Federal and State 
regulatory, economic, and administrative challenges faced by current 
and former members of the armed forces, who operated qualifying motor 
vehicles during their service, in obtaining CDLs. As a result of this 
study, FMCSA provided a report to Congress titled ``Program to Assist 
Veterans to Acquire Commercial Driver's Licenses'' (November 2013) 
(available in the docket for this

[[Page 70635]]

rulemaking). The report contained six recommended actions, and two 
elements of the report comprise the main parts of this rulemaking. 
These actions are: (1) Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) governing the 
military skills test waiver to extend the time period to apply for a 
waiver from 90 days to 1 year within which service members were 
regularly employed in a position requiring operation of a CMV; and (2) 
Revise the definitions of CLP and CDL in 49 CFR 383.5 and 384.301 and 
related provisions governing the domicile requirement, in order to 
implement the statutory waiver enacted by the Military Commercial 
Driver's License Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-196, 126 Stat. 1459, Oct. 19, 
2012).
    This rule eases the current burdens on military personnel applying 
for CLPs and CDLs issued by a State Driver Licensing Agency (SDLA) in 
two ways. First, it extends the time in which States are allowed (but 
not required) by 49 CFR 383.77 to waive the skills test for certain 
military personnel from 90 days to 1 year. On July 8, 2014, FMCSA 
issued a temporary exemption under 49 CFR part 381 that extended the 
skills test waiver to 1 year [79 FR 38659].\1\ On June 29, 2016, FMCSA 
extended the temporary exemption for another two years, through July 8, 
2018 (81 FR 42391). This final rule makes the waiver extension 
permanent. Second, this rule allows States to accept applications and 
administer all necessary tests for a CLP or CDL from active duty 
service members stationed in that State who are operating in a Military 
Occupational Specialty as full-time CMV drivers. States that choose to 
exercise this option are required to transmit the application and test 
results electronically to the SDLA in the service member's State of 
domicile, which would then issue the CLP or CDL. This enables service 
members to complete their licensing requirements without incurring the 
time and expense of returning to their State of domicile. FMCSA 
encourages, but does not require, the State of domicile to issue the 
CLP or CDL on the basis of this information in accordance with 
otherwise applicable procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA evaluated potential costs and benefits associated with this 
rulemaking and estimates that these changes could result in net 
benefits between $3.2 million and $7.7 million over 10 years, 
discounted at 7%.

III. Legal Basis

    This rulemaking rests on the authority of the Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. 
chapter 313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts 382, 383, and 384. It 
responds to section 5401(b) of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST Act) [Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1547, 
December 4, 2015], which requires FMCSA to implement the 
recommendations included in the report submitted pursuant to section 
32308 of MAP-21, discussed above. Section 5401(c) of the FAST Act also 
requires FMCSA to implement the Military Commercial Driver's License 
Act of 2012 [49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(C)]. As explained later in the 
preamble, this rule will give military personnel all of the benefits of 
the Military CDL Act, while providing options.
    The CMVSA provides broadly that ``[t]he Secretary of Transportation 
shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and 
ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor 
vehicle'' (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). Those regulations shall ensure that 
``(1) an individual issued a commercial driver's license [must] pass 
written and driving tests for the operation of a commercial motor 
vehicle that comply with the minimum standards prescribed by the 
Secretary under section 31305(a) of this title'' (49 U.S.C. 31308(1)). 
To avoid the withholding of certain Federal-aid funds, States must 
adopt a testing program ``consistent with the minimum standards 
prescribed by the Secretary of Transportation under section 31305(a) of 
this title'' (49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(1)).
    Potential CMV drivers often obtain CDL training outside their State 
of domicile. Driver training schools typically provide their students 
with a ``representative'' vehicle to use for the required skills test 
(see 49 U.S.C. 31305(a)(2)), as well as a CDL holder to accompany the 
applicant to the test site. Until 2012, however, the CMVSA provided 
that a CDL could be issued only by the driver's State of domicile (49 
U.S.C. 31311(a)(12)(A)). The cost to applicants trained out-of-State of 
traveling to their State of domicile to be skills tested can be 
substantial in terms of both personal time and financial expense. 
Therefore, on the basis of the authority cited in the previous 
paragraph, FMCSA's final rule on ``Commercial Driver's License Testing 
and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards'' (76 FR 26854, May 9, 2011) 
required States where a driver is domiciled to accept the result of 
skills tests administered by a different State where the driver 
completed training (49 CFR 383.79).
    Legal residence or ``domicile'' is the State that individuals 
consider their permanent home, where they pay taxes, vote, and get a 
driver's license. Military personnel are frequently stationed outside 
their State of domicile. The Military CDL Act allows a State to issue 
CDLs to certain military personnel not domiciled in the State, if their 
temporary or permanent duty stations are located in that State (49 
U.S.C. 31312(a)(12)(C)). However, this procedure creates problems for 
service members trying to maintain legal domicile in another State. 
Because drivers' licenses are often treated as proof of domicile, 
obtaining a CDL from the State where they are stationed could result in 
the loss of domicile and corresponding benefits (e.g., tax breaks) in 
what they consider their ``home'' State.
    This final rule therefore utilizes the CMVSA's broader authority to 
allow the State where military personnel are stationed to accept CLP or 
CDL applications and to administer written and skills tests for the 
CDL. The rule requires a State that utilizes this procedure to transmit 
the application and test results electronically to the State of 
domicile, which is permitted, but is not required, to issue the CLP or 
CDL. This maintains the link between the issuing State and the driver's 
State of domicile that was mandated by the CMVSA [49 U.S.C. 
31311(a)(12)] until the Military CDL Act authorized an exception (with 
problematical implications) for military personnel.
    Section 5401(a) of the FAST Act added to 49 U.S.C. 31305 a new 
paragraph (d), which requires FMCSA to (1) exempt certain ex-military 
personnel from the CDL skills test if they had military experience 
driving heavy military vehicles; (2) extend the skills test waiver to 
one year; and (3) credit the CMV training military drivers receive in 
the armed forces toward applicable CDL training and knowledge 
requirements. This rule addresses the first and second of these 
requirements in considerable detail; the third, however, will require 
subsequent rulemaking.
    Section 5302 of the FAST Act requires FMCSA to give priority to 
statutorily required rules before beginning other rulemakings, unless 
it determines that there is a significant need for the other rulemaking 
and so notifies Congress. This rule is required by the provisions of 
section 5401. Even in the absence of those mandates, however, FMCSA 
believes the need to improve employment opportunities for military 
personnel returning to civilian life justifies the publication of this 
rule.

[[Page 70636]]

IV. Background

    States are allowed to waive the skills test for current or former 
military personnel who meet certain conditions and are or were 
regularly employed in the preceding 90 days in a military position 
requiring the operation of a CMV (49 CFR 383.77(b)(1)). Between May 
2011 and February 2015, more than 10,100 separated military personnel 
took advantage of the skills test waiver. In the November 2013 Report 
to Congress titled, ``Program to Assist Veterans to Acquire Commercial 
Driver's Licenses,'' FMCSA concluded that lengthening that 90-day 
period would ease the transition of service members and veterans \2\ to 
civilian life with no impact to safety. FMCSA recommended an extension 
of the period of availability to 1 year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Veteran: A person who served on active duty in the Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard and who was discharged 
or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) subsequently 
requested an exemption from Sec.  383.77(b)(1) to allow a 1-year waiver 
period for military personnel (available in docket FMCSA-2014-0096). On 
April 7, 2014, FMCSA published a Federal Register notice announcing the 
request (79 FR 19170). Five comments were received; all supported the 
application, agreeing that extending the waiver period to 1 year would 
enable more military personnel to obtain CDLs. In addition, the New 
York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) suggested ``broader application 
of this exemption to all jurisdictions.'' The American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), which represents State and 
Provincial officials in the United States and Canada who administer and 
enforce motor vehicle laws, also requested that FMCSA consider a 
blanket exemption for all U.S. jurisdictions.
    FMCSA determined that the exemption requested by the Virginia DMV 
would maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the 
level that would be achieved without the exemption, as required by 49 
CFR 381.305(a). The Agency, therefore, approved the exemption and made 
it available to all SDLAs (79 FR 38645, July 8, 2014). That nationwide 
exemption was extended for an additional 2 years by a notice published 
June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42391). However, neither exemption changed the 
language of Sec.  383.77(b)(1) and the current exemption remains 
effective only until July 8, 2018.

V. Proposed Rule

    On March 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) titled ``Commercial Driver's License Requirements of the Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act and the Military Commercial 
Driver's License Act of 2012'' (81 FR 14052). The proposed changes in 
49 CFR parts 383 and 384 were intended to ease the process of getting a 
CLP or CDL for both active duty and recently separated military 
personnel.

VI. Discussion of Comments and Responses

General Comments on the Rule
    The NPRM elicited 16 comments, the majority from SDLAs. Several 
SDLAs and individuals suggested changes to the proposal, but no 
commenters opposed the rule.

A. Section 383.5: New Definition of ``Military Services''

    Issue: The NPRM proposed adding a definition in Sec.  383.5 of 
``military services'' to the list of definitions in that section. A 
definition for ``military services'' is needed in order to interpret 
the new requirements in part 383 in this rulemaking.
    Comments: The Virginia DMV requested guidance on the meaning of the 
term ``auxiliary units,'' and suggested mirroring United States Code 
language.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA has removed the reference to ``auxiliary 
units.'' It was used to cover the Coast Guard Auxiliary, but should not 
have been included because the Auxiliary is a non-military organization 
[see 14 U.S.C. 821(a)] and its members are civilians. The definition of 
``military services'' proposed in the NPRM follows the relevant 
definitions in the Armed Forces title of the United States Code (10 
U.S.C. 101). Those definitions do not use the term ``auxiliary units.''

B. Section 383.77: Allowing States To Extend Their Waiver of the Skills 
Test for Separated Military Personnel From 90 Days to 1 Year

    Issue: The NPRM would have amended Sec.  383.77(b)(1) to allow 
States to accept skills test waiver applications from military 
personnel for up to 1 year after they were regularly employed in a 
military position requiring operation of a CMV.
    Comments: The Virginia DMV and AAMVA reaffirmed their support for 
the proposal. The American Bus Association (ABA) stated that the 
proposal would ``ease the administrative burden on state licensing 
agencies in no longer having to periodically apply for these 
extensions, but it would have a practical benefit to transitioning 
military CMV drivers looking for a new civilian CMV driving career.'' 
The New York DMV favored the extension because it would alleviate some 
of the problems identified by FMCSA in its 2013 Report to Congress. The 
Montana Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division (DOJ/MVD), 
supported codifying the regulatory exemption. The Minnesota Department 
of Public Safety, Driver and Vehicles (DPS/DV), favored the extension, 
as it mirrors Minnesota law. The Michigan Department of State (DOS), 
the Arizona Department of Transportation (DOT), and the American 
Trucking Associations (ATA) supported the proposal.
    One individual commenter agreed with the concept but suggested an 
eight month timeframe instead of one year.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA adopts the proposal as drafted. FMCSA will 
extend the 90-day skills test waiver period to 1 year from the date the 
driver was last employed in a military position regularly requiring the 
operation of a CMV. This does not otherwise change the eligibility 
criteria for the exemption.
Training for Military Drivers, How the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule 
Would Affect These Drivers (Sec.  383.77)
    Issue: Section 383.77 implies that a military or ex-military 
applicant would need a certain level of experience, but the proposal 
did not mandate any training.
    Comments: One individual commenter stated that, although she 
supported the rulemaking and easing the transition for returning 
veterans, CDL schools have a value. She stated that many veterans 
currently use the GI Bill to attend a CDL school. She also stated that 
the CDL curriculum is only 20 days.
    The New York DMV asked if proof of CMV driving would replace the 
Entry-Level Driver Training requirements, and if it could, how much 
would be required.
    ATA favored allowing non-military drivers, in addition to military 
personnel, to take the written and skills tests outside their State of 
domicile, and requested that FMCSA issue a supplemental NPRM on that 
subject.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that driver training is important, and 
recently published an NPRM that would require training for entry-level 
drivers (81 FR 11944, March 7, 2016). Under that proposal, entry-level 
driver training would not be required for ``Veterans with military CMV 
experience who

[[Page 70637]]

meet all the requirements and conditions of Sec.  383.77 of this 
chapter'' (49 CFR 380.603(a)(3)). Today's final rule extends the waiver 
period allowed by Sec.  383.77, but does not address substantive 
training issues. Giving non-military drivers the same testing 
flexibility granted to military personnel is beyond the scope of this 
rule, and FMCSA declines to consider the ATA request at this time.

C. Section 383.79: Allow the State Where the Person Is Stationed and 
the State of Domicile To Coordinate CLP and CDL Testing and CDL 
Issuance

    The NPRM would have allowed a State where active-duty military 
personnel are stationed to accept applications and administer CLP 
knowledge and CDL skills tests. That State would then have been 
required to transmit the application and test results to the driver's 
State of domicile, which would have been required to accept these 
documents and issue the CLP or CDL.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Licensing Variations
    Issue: The proposal did not account for licensing variations among 
the States, relying on the 2011 CDL rulemaking that standardized the 
elements of a license.
    Comments: Several commenters pointed out that States have different 
procedures for issuing CLPs and CDLs. AAMVA requested a list of data 
elements that needed to be transferred, as many States have variations. 
The Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) asked which SDLA (the State 
where the driver is stationed or the State of domicile) would handle 
the verification processes. The California DMV asked how to convert a 
CLP to a CDL under Sec. Sec.  383.25 and 383.153, and did not address a 
non-domiciled variation. ATA supported allowing jurisdictions to test 
on behalf of each other, and stated that the knowledge and skills test 
should be standardized, per FMCSA's statements in the NPRM. Because of 
the standardization, ATA did not believe there would be any change or 
reduction in safety, and pointed out that costs for service members who 
want to obtain a CLP or CDL would likely decrease.
    FMCSA Response: The 2011 CLP/CDL rule (89 FR 26853) required States 
to adopt new minimum Federal standards for the CDL knowledge and skills 
tests and established new minimum procedures for States to issue the 
CLP. FMCSA has confirmed that all States meet those minimum standards. 
In addition, some States have adopted more stringent standards. While 
that is allowed by part 383, it does create variations among States.
    As proposed in the NPRM, the State of domicile will issue the CLP 
or CDL; this has always been a fundamental principle of the program. 
However, in response to comments, the NPRM requirement that the State 
of domicile must accept and act on information transmitted by the State 
where the driver is stationed has been removed. The final rule is 
entirely permissive. In other words, the State where the military 
driver is stationed may (but is not required to) administer the written 
and skills tests for the CLP and CDL--as proposed in the NPRM--and the 
State of domicile may (but is not required to) accept the testing 
information and documentation provided by the State where the driver is 
stationed and issue the CLP or CDL on that basis. This permissive 
approach will require coordination between two States, and among many 
pairs of States. At a minimum, the State where the driver is stationed 
will have to use administrative procedures, forms, etc., that are 
acceptable to the State of domicile, since that State would ultimately 
issue (or refuse to issue) the CLP or CDL. The Agency recognizes that 
States will have to harmonize different practices. If two SDLAs find 
that their licensing standards are incompatible, they will not reach 
agreement and military drivers will not be able to use the application 
and testing alternatives allowed by this rule. However, we are 
confident that most States will work out their mutual differences in 
order to help military personnel transition to civilian careers in the 
motor carrier industry.
    This final rule does not change the requirements for converting a 
CLP to a CDL. If eligible military CLP holders want to apply for a CDL, 
they could do so where they are stationed (assuming that State uses the 
option granted by this rule), but the CDL itself must still be issued 
by the State of domicile.
    Participating States have a 3 year period to adopt the framework of 
the rule. FMCSA, AAMVA, and the States will work together to reach 
agreement to implement the procedures after this time.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Fees
    Issue: The proposal was silent on the topic of fees charged by 
SDLAs for services rendered under proposed Sec.  383.79.
    Comments: The New York DMV asked how the State of domicile will 
collect fees if the process is entirely electronic. The Oregon DMV 
voiced concern that drivers might be forced to pay both the State where 
the driver's application is filed and processed and the State of 
domicile, and stated that it was required by statute to collect fees 
before issuing CLPs and CDLs. The Michigan DOS asked for clarify 
concerning fees, and said there was an assumption of shared cost 
between the State of domicile and State of station. North Dakota stated 
that its fee has to be paid in person. The Minnesota DPS/DV wanted the 
issue of fees to be addressed explicitly. The California DMV stated 
that fees were not addressed in the proposal.
    FMCSA Response: Driver licensing fees are left to the discretion of 
the States, and FMCSA believes that States are best equipped to 
determine such fees. Some SDLAs currently waive fees for active-duty 
military personnel and may well continue to do so while utilizing this 
rule. On the other hand, it is possible that both States involved in 
the new testing and licensing procedures allowed by this rule may 
charge for their services. Even in that worst-case scenario, however, 
the driver is likely to find the new procedures cheaper than returning 
to his/her State of domicile to complete the necessary applications and 
tests. In cases where one State has to transmit all or part of a fee to 
another State, FMCSA is confident that current financial systems will 
be able to provide solutions. The reciprocal transfers among States 
required by the International Registration Plan and the International 
Fuel Tax Agreement suggest that options may be readily available.
    As discussed below in connection with Executive Order 12866, 
military drivers will retain the options: (1) To return to their State 
of domicile to apply for a CLP or CDL; and (2) to change their State of 
domicile to the State where they are stationed. If the distance between 
two States is small enough, and cost of returning to the State of 
domicile is cheaper than the fees charged, then the military driver may 
wish to apply for the CLP or CDL in person in the State of domicile. 
This rulemaking does not alter that ability.
    FMCSA believes the rule offers significant flexibility that will 
reduce the cost to most military drivers of obtaining a CDL. 
Nonetheless, each driver will have to balance application fees versus 
travel costs, and the advantages of maintaining and switching State of 
domicile.
Procedural Inconsistences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Forms and Applications
    Issue: The NPRM was silent on which State (State of domicile or 
State of

[[Page 70638]]

station) would supply the application for a CLP or a CDL.
    Comments: Several SDLAs had concerns about issuing or processing 
CLPs and CDLs on behalf of another State. Several mentioned that 
different States require different information.
    The Arizona DOT said that it could not enforce another State's 
standard. The Oregon DMV stated that CLP and CDL applications are not 
uniform, and neither are the skills and knowledge tests. The Oregon DMV 
is prohibited by statute from using another State's application to 
issue an Oregon license. Oregon also stated that any expectation of 
enforcing another State's applications and forms is unreasonable. The 
New York DMV stated that the applications are too varied, and requested 
guidelines to ensure each State receives the data it needs. The Arizona 
DOT argued that requiring States to handle other States' applications 
infringes upon State laws, and it is not realistic for personnel to 
handle forms from other SDLAs, as they would require different 
information. Arizona also noted that States might require legislative 
changes in order to implement the regulatory revisions adopted here. 
Minnesota DPS/DV pointed out that each SDLA has a different form; 
Minnesota does not use an electronic form. The Michigan DOS and 
Virginia DMV suggested national forms and applications as possible 
solutions for consistency. The Michigan DOS also asked how the State 
where the driver is stationed would verify a credential in the State of 
domicile. Virginia requested AAMVA's involvement in developing a 
national application, if one were to be developed. AAMVA asked for 
clarification about which elements needed standardization.
    The Nebraska DMV requested clarification of what parts of the 
application would be mandatory for transmission. North Dakota said that 
the process in the NPRM did not provide enough information for a State 
of station to adequately maintain records and process records for the 
State of domicile. North Dakota said that its own application must be 
used.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency agrees that clarification would be 
needed if FMCSA were adopting forms, applications, and procedures. 
However, FMCSA is not adopting national forms that States must use when 
implementing this final rule. The outlines of a national standard are 
already specified in considerable detail in Sec. Sec.  383.25 
Commercial learner's permit (CLP) and 383.71 Driver application and 
certification procedures. As indicated above, the Agency is allowing 
any two States involved in the issuance of a CLP or CDL to military 
personnel stationed outside their State of domicile to work out between 
themselves any remaining differences in their respective procedures and 
requirements. The most obvious solution would be for the State where 
the driver is stationed to use the forms and follow the procedures 
required by the State of domicile. FMCSA will work with the SDLAs and 
AAMVA during the implementation period to assist in determining common 
data points that meet the needs of the States that wish to participate.
    Some States may decide not to process or accept CLP and/or CDL 
applications transmitted by another State. The rule does not require 
any State to enforce another State's standard. The State of station 
will collect applications on behalf of the State of domicile. It will 
be the applicant's responsibility to ensure both that the State where 
he/she is stationed will entertain an application and that his/her 
State of domicile will accept and process the application and test 
results provided by the former and issue a CLP or CDL.
    Again, the final rule is entirely permissive. Each pair of States 
potentially involved in the licensing procedures allowed by this rule 
can opt out if the involved States are unable to reach agreement. The 
Agency believes that many States will find ways to harmonize their 
forms, procedures, and other requirements--but we recognize that some 
States will not be able to do so. FMCSA has expanded the description of 
the requirements in today's final rule, including making it clear that 
States have the option--but are not required--to process applications 
and test results on behalf of other States and to accept those 
applications and test results collected by other States.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): License Used for Non-Driving Purposes
    Issue: The NPRM was silent on the topic of licenses being used for 
purposes other than driving.
    Comments: The Montana DOJ/MVD asked how this proposed rule would 
impact voting. The New York DMV asked if there would be an impact on 
drivers who no longer have current addresses within the State of 
domicile. The Oregon DMV stated that each SDLA has its own standards 
for domicile, and it will be impossible for another State's SDLA to 
verify them.
    FMCSA Response: The Agency notes the concerns about voting rights, 
as well as the domicile status and addresses of applicants, but 
believes that most States will be able to resolve such questions in 
cooperation with other States. Drivers who obtain a CLP or CDL through 
this process will retain their State of domicile, and will therefore 
never be entered into the pool of voters in the State where they are 
stationed, or need to update their addresses. From the perspective of 
the SDLA in the driver's State of domicile, nothing has changed.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): In-Person Requirements
    Issue: FMCSA did not address photo or other in-person licensing 
requirements.
    Comments: Several SDLAs pointed to inconsistencies in procedures 
between States for parts of the license that must be done in person, 
such as facial recognition and signature.
    AAMVA asked for clarification on which jurisdiction would be 
responsible for the photography element; it also mentioned the REAL ID 
Act provision that requires digital pictures on a driver's license, as 
well as tracking of denied REAL ID applications. AAMVA said that all 
SDLAs are not following the REAL ID requirements, and that if the 
driver's picture is taken in the State where he/she is stationed, this 
could have an additional cost. When a license is issued, the Oregon DMV 
takes a photograph which is digitized and compared to a database with 
facial recognition software. The New York DMV mentioned other in-person 
requirements in addition to a photograph, including a Social Security 
Number and other State-specific identity confirmation.
    The Virginia DMV stated its concern about a driver using the new 
provisions of Sec.  383.79 if he or she did not have an existing 
license; Virginia mentioned that this might be a concern for issuing a 
photograph of the driver on the license. The Montana DOJ/MVD mentioned 
that the initial issuance of a license can only take place in person; 
an in-person signature may also be required from those drivers who are 
domiciled in Montana, but have not provided a digital signature 
recently, and this would require a data base modification.
    North Dakota stated that many of its requirements, like digital 
photo processing, eye exams, and fees, must be done in person; not 
allowing the State of domicile to insist on these requirements is 
``unacceptable.'' The Michigan DOS mentioned that facial recognition, 
fingerprinting, and retinal scanning often occur in the State of 
domicile when a new CLP or CDL is

[[Page 70639]]

issued. The California DMV asked whether a State that requires facial 
recognition would process a CLP or CDL application without the 
applicant appearing in person. The Arizona DOT listed a number of in-
person-only requirements. These included facial recognition, original 
documents for citizenship verification, and digital signatures.
    FMCSA Response: As explained above, this final rule is permissive, 
not mandatory. If a State of domicile concludes that another SDLA 
cannot properly administer its processing procedures, it can decline to 
issue CLPs/CDLs to military personnel stationed in that State. And a 
State that knows its processing standards are inconsistent with those 
of another State can decline even to accept CLP/CDL applications from 
military personnel domiciled in that State.
    It is worth noting, however, that there is no Federal requirement 
on where a photograph is taken. That factor alone should not impede a 
State of domicile from accepting a CLP/CDL application from a State 
where a military driver is stationed.
    FMCSA disagrees with the Virginia DMV's comment concerning drivers 
who do not have existing licenses; only drivers who have an existing 
license are eligible for relief under Sec.  383.79. As for Montana's 
comment, today's final rule applies only to a driver with an existing 
license from his/her State of domicile. An initial license would never 
be issued by the State where the individual is stationed.
    Other in-person procedures would be left to the discretion of the 
two SDLAs; they could determine whether it would be possible to meet 
criteria for facial recognition, digital signatures, REAL ID Act 
requirements, and other processes normally done in-person. The Agency 
declines to add these provisions to a final rule, as it believes that 
the best practices will be implemented at the State level. If our 
assistance is sought, FMCSA will work with AAMVA to create best 
practices.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Verification of Military Station or Military Status
    Issue: The proposed rule did not address how to verify the military 
station or status of applicants.
    Comments: AAMVA pointed out that proof of State of station should 
be provided, and asked FMCSA to issue guidance on this topic. The New 
York DMV and the Nebraska DMV asked for clarification on how to prove 
the State of station.
    FMCSA Response: The applicant must provide proof of his or her 
active duty status in the form of a valid active duty military 
identification card. In addition, the applicant must show the driver 
licensing agency either a copy of his or her current orders or a 
current Military Leave and Earning Statement (Jan 2002) to prove where 
he or she is stationed.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Credentialing, License Issuance
    Issue: Due to the issuance of the 2011 CDL and CLP rule referenced 
previously, FMCSA believed that all States met the same minimum 
standard when issuing CLPs and CDLs.
    Comments: Several SDLAs mentioned credentialing concerns. The 
California DMV asked how to destroy another State's license in 
accordance with Sec.  383.73(c)(6). AAMVA stated that it was concerned 
there was no mechanism to issue a new CLP or CDL. AAMVA stated that 
some SDLAs mail licenses to the applicants, but there is no 
standardized process. AAMVA also expressed concerns about multiple-
document retention, and gave an example where an applicant ended up 
with several licenses at the same time; AAMVA said that the rule should 
address the surrendering of licenses. The Minnesota DPS/DV wanted a 
clear explanation of which State should destroy the old credentials. 
The Arizona DOT pointed to Sec.  384.211 and stated that it requires 
the destruction of old credentials before the issuance of new 
credentials; that process would leave drivers not present in that State 
without a license in the interim.
    ATA stated that if there was a lag time in issuing new credentials, 
the driver should be given an alternate document (coordinated by the 
two States involved) for proof of licensure during that time. ATA 
suggested allowing the State where the driver is stationed to issue 
CLPs and CDLs on behalf of the State of domicile.
    FMCSA Response: The application and testing procedures allowed by 
this rule are available only to military drivers who already have a 
non-CDL license from their State of domicile. That State is responsible 
for issuing the new CLP or CDL. Although this rule leaves the 
repossession of the previous license (usually a standard automobile 
license) to the discretion of the States involved, there would seem to 
be two basic alternatives. Either the State of domicile would send the 
CDL document to the State where the driver is stationed, which in turn 
would demand and destroy the previous license when it delivered the CDL 
to the driver; or the State of domicile would require the driver to 
mail his/her previous license to that SDLA, which would destroy it and 
then mail the CDL back to the driver. The second procedure would leave 
the driver without a driver's license for a few days. FMCSA believes 
that participating States will be able to utilize these or other 
agreed-upon procedures without incurring any serious risk that a driver 
could hold multiple driving credentials or would be without any 
credentials for an interim period.
Procedural Differences Among States Issuing CLPs and CDLs (Sec.  
383.79): Citizenship
    Issue: The proposed rule did not address citizenship.
    Comments: The Montana DOJ/MVD and the New York DMV asked which 
State would verify citizenship or lawful permanent residency, since not 
all holders of automobile licenses will be United States citizens. New 
York asked how a processing State would send citizenship information to 
a domicile State, if that was the procedure chosen. New York DMV 
pointed out that checking this information is required under Sec. Sec.  
383.71 and 383.73. The Virginia DMV asked for clarification of ``legal 
presence'' as well. Referring to Sec.  383.71, the Arizona DOT said 
that its policy was to require original documents to verify 
citizenship, and that this could not be done through the mail.
    FMCSA Response: Proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency 
will necessarily be included in the application process. Ultimately, 
the responsibility for verifying the driver's status rests with the 
State of domicile, since it will issue the CLP or CDL, but the State 
where the applicant is stationed can verify these matters on behalf of 
the State of domicile. The two States involved will have to work out 
the necessary administrative steps between themselves. It must be noted 
that Sec.  383.71(a)(2)(v) and Sec.  383.73(a)(2)(vi) both require 
proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency. This rule does not 
change either of these requirements, and the CLP/CDL remains available 
only to citizens and lawful permanent residents.
Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (Sec.  383.79): Mandatory Use of 
Systems
    Issue: The results of the completed knowledge and skills test would 
be transmitted the same way the skills test scores are transmitted 
today for out of state testers--electronically. Only passing results 
would be transmitted.

[[Page 70640]]

    Comments: Several SDLAs voiced concern about variances in data 
between States and asked the Agency to identify the system to be used 
for data transfer. The California DMV mentioned that the system used 
would have to protect personally identifiable information (PII), and 
should have standardized data elements. AAMVA stated that the systems 
developed to transmit skills test results pursuant to the 2011 CLP/CDL 
rule would have to be modified to accommodate the knowledge test 
results and the application itself. The New York DMV echoed this point 
and asked what format would be used to transfer applications and test 
results, as the current systems do not do this. The Virginia DMV stated 
that transmittal must be done electronically for security, and 
requested the enhancement and explicit requirement for use of the 
Commercial Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS) and the 
Report Out-Of-State Test Results (ROOSTR) system. The Nebraska DMV also 
requested an explicit CSTIMS and ROOSTR transmission requirement.
    The Montana DOJ/MVD stated that current information transmission 
systems were inadequate and that there would be technical, procedural, 
and legal issues. It referred to several AAMVA-run systems, and stated 
that digital image access would need to be added, as would a method of 
transferring knowledge test scores. The Missouri DOR mentioned that it 
did not use REAL ID, or any of the AAMVA systems. ABA supports the use 
of data systems to speed up the licensing process, but has concerns 
about the systems' infrastructure.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA will not require the use of any specific 
system for transferring licensing information between States. However, 
the AAMVA-maintained CSTIMS and ROOSTR systems could be appropriate 
methods of electronic transfer. FMCSA agrees with the need to protect 
PII, but does not establish any new procedures for doing so. In any 
case, no Federal records are created by this rule. The information 
transferred by the State where the military driver is stationed to his 
or her State of domicile will be entered into the Commercial Driver's 
License Information System (CDLIS). That system, however, involves 
records created and maintained by the States. This rule does not result 
in a new or revised Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.
Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (Sec.  383.79): Cost of Systems
    Issue: The NPRM concluded that there would be a cost for using 
AAMVA-run systems, but that the cost would be included in the existing 
arrangements for States to maintain and use these systems.
    Comments: Both the Missouri DOR and AAMVA stated that using AAMVA 
systems to transfer skills tests electronically would involve a cost. 
AAMVA also mentioned that the CLP/CDL application and the electronic-
transfer requirement would have a cost as well. The Missouri DOR stated 
that several SDLAs have opted not to use an electronic system; 
reversing that policy would generate costs, including training for the 
system. The Montana DOJ/MVD mentioned that the cost to upgrade the 
systems would be substantial.
    FMCSA Response: Today's final rule requires electronic transfer of 
test results, but does not specify the methods of that transfer. There 
is no requirement to procure and use a data system not already in 
place. States are currently required to transmit the results of skills 
test electronically, and FMCSA assumes that the States will use the 
same method of transfer for the knowledge test results. Forty-seven 
SDLAs use the AAMVA-owned and -operated CSTIMs and/or ROOSTR systems to 
transfer skills test results. FMCSA anticipates that AAMVA will update 
these systems to allow for transmission of knowledge test results 
during a routine IT upgrade cycle, with minimal additional cost. In the 
regulatory analyses section below, FMCSA estimates that drivers 
affected by this rule will pay a processing fee to their State of 
station that will cover the costs of information transfer between the 
State of station and the State of domicile.
Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (Sec.  383.79): Fraud
    Issue: FMCSA did not discuss fraud in the NPRM, as the proposal 
relied upon existing systems that have built-in protection against 
fraud.
    Comments: Several SDLAs thought that the proposal did not 
adequately address concerns over fraud. Oregon took issue with the fact 
that it would have to rely upon other SDLAs to verify information. The 
Montana DOJ/MVD thought the NPRM downplayed the risk of fraud, 
especially due to the photography and documentation requirements, and 
argued that the rule would need fine-tuning.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that States will take appropriate 
steps to protect against attempted fraud by applicants. FMCSA takes 
fraudulent behaviors seriously, has conducted yearly audits of all 
States for the past three years, and will continue to be vigilant in 
this regard.
Electronic Transfer of the Skills Test (Sec.  383.79): Other Forms
    Issue: The proposal did not address the transfer of additional 
certifications between States.
    Comments: The New York DMV asked how the processing State would 
collect a driver's medical certification and self-certification and 
submit it to the State of domicile.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA expects SDLAs to coordinate the transfer of 
certifications, presumably in the same way that they transfer the CLP/
CDL applications and test results.

D. Legal Concerns

    Issues: The Oregon DMV suggested that the proposal overstepped the 
requirements of the Military CDL Act, which should be followed instead. 
Oregon felt that the NPRM was unnecessarily complex and should more 
closely track with the statutory language.
    The New York DMV believes that the proposal contradicted the recent 
CDL rulemaking, and undermined the work States have done to meet its 
requirements.
    The Minnesota DPS/DV raised a concern that the requirement to 
accept applications on behalf of other States violated State laws. The 
Montana DOJ/MVD referenced a Montana State law that requires 
``verification through the Federal Systematic Alien Verification for 
Entitlements program (SAVE).''
    FMCSA Response: The Military CDL Act of 2012 does indeed allow 
States to issue CDLs to military personnel who are stationed, but not 
domiciled, there. As discussed in this rule, however, obtaining a CDL 
where he or she is stationed may void the driver's domicile in his/her 
``home'' State and with it certain benefits, e.g., lower taxes, in-
State tuition, etc. The Agency determined in the 2011 final rule that 
the general CDL statute--the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1986, as amended--is sufficiently broad to authorize a rule requiring 
States to accept the results of skills tests administered outside the 
driver's State of domicile. The NPRM in this rulemaking expanded that 
analysis and conclusion to require States of domicile to accept the 
results of CDL written and skills tests administered to military 
personnel by States where these personnel are stationed but not 
domiciled. That approach allowed the State of domicile to issue the CLP 
and CDL, thus eliminating any inadvertent transfer of domicile that 
might occur if

[[Page 70641]]

a military driver received a CDL from the State where he/she was 
stationed. However, in view of the comments submitted to the docket, 
the Agency has decided--as described above--not to require the State of 
domicile to accept the test results recorded by another State, but 
rather to allow the State of domicile to do so. With this change, the 
argument that the NPRM requires the violation of certain State laws 
simply disappears. The success of this final rule will depend on the 
willingness and ability of the State of domicile and the State where 
the driver is stationed to work out mutual differences in their forms, 
procedures, and other requirements. We are confident that most States 
will manage that task effectively. This final rule provides relief for 
a very limited population of military service members who want to 
become commercial drivers. Additionally, the rule relies heavily on the 
standardization of licensing and other requirements put into place by 
the 2011 CDL rule.

E. Other

Alternative Processes Suggested
    Issue: FMCSA did not suggest any regulatory alternatives to this 
proposal.
    Comments: The New York DMV suggested an FMCSA-Department of Defense 
(DOD) partnership using an AAMVA CDL test model, or allowing transfer 
of current, non-CDL licenses to their State of station as a non-
domiciled driver. The second alternative process suggested would allow 
military drivers to transfer domicile to any State after leaving the 
service. New York thought that these would provide sufficient relief as 
well as not impose additional burdens on the SDLAs.
    FMCSA Response: New York's suggestions are beyond the scope of the 
NPRM. The Agency believes the relief provided by this final rule will 
be substantial. FMCSA, AAMVA, and the States will work together to 
reach agreement to implement the procedures during the implementation 
period.
Military Occupational Codes Eligible
    Issue: The executive summary in the NPRM included the following 
proposal: ``Revise 49 CFR 383.77(b)(3) to add the option to qualify for 
a CDL based on training and experience in an MOC [Military Occupational 
Specialty] dedicated to military CMV operation.'' However, this 
proposal was not in the regulatory language or discussed at any level 
in the preamble. Additionally, the MOC was incorrectly referenced in 
proposed Sec.  383.79.
    Comments: ABA requested either guidance or a list of which MOCs 
would be able to take advantage of relief from the regulation, 
referring to a proposal in Sec.  383.77(b)(3).
    The Virginia DMV asked for clarification on how to confirm the MOC 
of the applicants under Sec.  383.79. The New York DMV also asked why 
proof of a military CMV status would be necessary for the provisions of 
Sec.  383.79. The Michigan DOS/MVD stated that if military testing 
meets or exceeds CDL requirements, a CDL should be issued without 
testing. The California DMV understood the Sec.  383.79 proposal to 
include a requirement that drivers wishing to seek a CDL in their State 
of domicile via a State where they are stationed would need to be 
operating in a CMV-driving MOC, and asked for clarification of which 
MOCs would be included.
    FMCSA Response: The Sec.  383.77(b)(3) proposal was inadvertently 
left in the executive summary for the NPRM; it was not intended to be a 
part of this rulemaking, was not in the proposed regulatory language, 
and is not included in today's final rule. FMCSA will consider this as 
a potential topic for a future rulemaking.
    The provisions under Sec.  383.79 pertain to anyone in the 
military; they do not waive any of the requirements for obtaining a CLP 
or CDL. This section simply allows drivers to seek CDLs in the State of 
station rather than the State of domicile.
Procedural Concerns
    Comments: The ATA requested an extension of the proposal in Sec.  
383.79 to non-military personnel as well, and requested that CDL 
schools outside the State of licensure be allowed to teach drivers.
    The Nebraska DMV asked several questions about service members who 
pass the knowledge test in their States of station returning to their 
State of domicile, and about passing the knowledge tests in other 
States. AAMVA asked a similar question, about applicants who begin the 
testing process in one State and then are transferred to another State.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA declines ATA's request for a Supplemental 
NPRM. The comments to this rulemaking docket identified challenges to 
out-of-State testing which persuaded the Agency to adopt a more modest, 
permissive approach. ATA's request would significantly exacerbate the 
difficulties outlined by State commenters. Training schools routinely 
enroll students from other States, but allowing large numbers of 
civilian students to be knowledge-tested outside their State of 
domicile is well beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Military drivers 
are a special class being accommodated in this rule because of the 
Military CDL Act of 2012, which was intended to ease their transition 
to civilian life.
    The rulemaking did not discuss the knowledge test requirements. 
FMCSA's intent was to make the licensing process easier for service 
members. Ultimately, however, the SDLAs control their own processes. 
While it is possible, though not likely, that a service member may be 
transferred from one duty station to another between the time he/she 
applies for the CLP and wants to take the skills test, the national 
uniformity of skills test procedures should make no difference to the 
acceptability of the results to the State of domicile.

VII. Changes From the NRPM

    Section 383.5. Definitions. A new definition of ``military service 
member'' was added, along with a revised definition of ``military 
services,'' where the phrase ``auxiliary units'' was removed.
    Section 383.77 Substitute for driving skills tests for drivers with 
military CMV experience, is adopted as proposed in the NPRM.
    Section 383.79 Skills testing of out-of-State students; Knowledge 
and skills testing of military personnel. The title of this section has 
been revised to differentiate the two concepts addressed within it. The 
discussion of electronic transmission of documents has been somewhat 
expanded.
    Section 384.301 Substantial compliance general requirements. This 
section is adopted as proposed.

VIII. Today's Final Rule

Section 383.77: Extension of the Skills Test Waiver

    Eligible Military Personnel. The first part of the rule addresses 
military personnel recently separated from active duty. These veterans 
must have been operating in a position where they regularly drove a 
military CMV.
    Current Procedures. Currently, the standard at Sec.  383.77 
authorizes States to allow these drivers up to 90 days following 
separation from a military position requiring operation of a CMV to 
apply to waive the skills test. In 2015 the Agency granted relief 
through an exemption that allowed a 1-year waiver period, without 
changing the regulation.
    Changes today. Today's regulation would codify that extension, 
meaning that States would be authorized to accept applications for a 
skills test

[[Page 70642]]

waiver for up to 1 year rather than 90 days.
    Requirements for States. All States currently waive the skills test 
for this population of applicants; this rule changes neither the 
eligible population nor State procedures. Only the duration of the 
allowable waiver period is changed.

Section 383.79: CLP and CDL

    Eligible military personnel. The second part of the rule addresses 
active duty military service members who are stationed in a State 
different from the State in which they claim domicile. These members 
would need to verify with the State of station and the State of 
domicile that both States plan to participate in the licensing 
procedures allowed by this rule.
    Current procedures. Currently, if active duty service members wish 
to obtain a CLP or CDL, they must either (1) apply for a CLP or CDL in 
person in their State of domicile, or (2) transfer their existing 
license, and thereby State of domicile, to the State where they now 
live or are stationed.
    Changes today. Today's final rule enables States to allow eligible 
military personnel to apply and be tested for a CLP or CDL in the State 
where they are stationed, without having to travel to or change their 
State of domicile.
    Requirements for States. Today's final rule is permissive. SDLAs 
are permitted (but not required) to accept CLP/CDL applications from 
eligible military personnel stationed there. However, the information, 
forms, and procedures used by the State where the driver is stationed 
would have to be acceptable to the State of domicile. If either State 
in this pair decided not to cooperate with the other State, the 
licensing alternative allowed by this rule would not be possible with 
respect to those two States.
    Description of the procedure for exchanging a CLP or CDL. As noted 
elsewhere in this rule, FMCSA is allowing flexibility for individual 
States to reach agreements on the most efficient means of allowing a 
military member stationed outside his or her domicile State to obtain a 
CDL without physically returning to that State. FMCSA recognizes that 
States might have unique CDL licensing requirements or processes and is 
therefore not establishing a single process that all States must 
follow. One possible scenario for how this could work is presented 
below, but other alternatives may also work. FMCSA encourages the 
States to find the most efficient process that minimizes variations in 
their individual licensing procedures to support the affected military 
members.
    Example: An active duty member of the armed forces is stationed at 
State 1 (State of station) but domiciled in State 2 (State of domicile 
or home State). The driver has a current non-CDL driver's license in 
the State of domicile, and wants to get a CDL while maintaining his or 
her current State of domicile.
    Step One: The service member contacts both State 1 and State 2 
SDLAs to determine if State 1 will give the knowledge and skills tests, 
and if State 2 will accept the results of those tests administered by 
State 1 and issue a CDL.
    If both States do not agree to the process, then the service member 
cannot use this exemption, and must either change his or her State of 
domicile, or return to the State of domicile for issuance of a CLP or 
CDL.
    Step Two: If both SDLAs agree to the licensing alternative allowed 
by this rule, the service member fills out State 2's CLP application 
which can be on line or hard copy, whichever is State 2's preference.
    If State 2 charges a fee, the service member pays State 2.
    Step Three: The service member goes to State 1's SDLA with his/her 
military ID and proof of being stationed in State 1 and shows either 
his/her paper application from State 2 or proof of filling out State 
2's application electronically.
    If State 1 charges a fee, the service member pays State 1.
    If the service member seeks a CDL, State 1 validates his/her 
identity at the counter, as well as proof of citizenship or lawful 
permanent residency; valid CDL medical certification; and expected 
interstate or intrastate operation.
    Step Four: For a CLP, State 1 gives the knowledge test, and 
transmits passing results to State 2 electronically.
    Step Five (a): State 2 sends a CLP document to State 1; or Step 
Five (b): State 2 sends a CLP document directly to the service member.
    Step Six: If following Step Five (a), the service member goes to 
State 1's SDLA where he or she took the knowledge test and receives the 
CLP document.
    Step Seven: The service member trains and practices driving, and 
presents himself/herself to State 1 to take the skills test, where his/
her identity and citizenship are again verified by the State 1 SDLA. If 
the driver passes the skills test, the result is transmitted to State 2 
electronically.
    Step Eight: Either
    a. State 2 SDLA sends a CDL to State 1's SDLA. or
    b. The service member mails his/her CLP and non-CDL license issued 
by State 2, to State 2, and State 2 sends the new State 2-issued CDL by 
mail to the applicant.
    Step Nine: If option a. is followed, the service member goes to the 
State 1 SDLA where he or she took the skills test, and surrenders his/
her CLP and non-CDL license issued by State 2 (which State 1 then 
destroys), and receives the State 2-issued CDL.

IX. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the 
United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor 
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the 
countries that they operate in, unless an international agreement 
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the 
regulatory differences amongst nations.

X. Section-by-Section

    Section 383.5 adds definitions of ``military service member'' and 
``military services'' in alphabetical order.
    Section 383.77 extends the period during which States may waive the 
skills test of certain former military drivers from 90 days to 1 year 
in Sec.  383.77(b)(1).
    Section 383.79 is slightly revised. The title of this section is 
changed to reflect the expanded content: ``Skills testing of out-of-
State students; Knowledge and skills testing of military personnel.''
    Section 383.79(a)(1) and (2) contain the material previously 
designated as Sec.  383.79(a) and (b), concerning CDL applicants 
trained out-of-State.
    New Sec.  383.79(b), Military service member applicants for a CLP 
or CDL, includes the licensing options described above. Paragraph 
(b)(1), State of duty station, along with its three subparagraphs, 
authorize (but do not require) States where active-duty military 
personnel are stationed, but not domiciled, to accept and process CLP 
and CDL applications from such personnel, to administer the required 
tests for these licenses, and to destroy existing licenses. Paragraph 
(b)(2), Electronic transmission of the application and test results, 
details the process for the State where these military personnel are 
stationed to transmit the necessary forms and test results to the 
applicant's State of domicile. Paragraph (b)(3), State of domicile, 
along with its two subparagraphs, explains that the State of domicile 
may (but is not required to) accept such forms and test results; if it

[[Page 70643]]

does so, it will issue the appropriate CLP or CDL.
    Section 384.301 is amended by adding new paragraph (j) to require 
substantial compliance by States three years from the effective date of 
the final rule.

XI. Regulatory Analyses

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

    FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 or significant 
within the meaning of Department of Transportation regulatory policies 
and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, 
February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential 
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. However, FMCSA 
did evaluate the costs and benefits of this rulemaking. This rulemaking 
will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more, lead to a major increase in costs or prices, or have significant 
adverse effects on the United States economy. This rule amends existing 
procedures and practices governing administrative licensing actions.
Costs and Benefits
    FMCSA evaluated potential costs and benefits associated with this 
rulemaking and estimates that these changes could result in net 
benefits between $3.2 million and $7.7 million over 10 years, 
discounted at 7%. The following sections provide an overview of this 
analysis.
Section 383.77
    The final rule will extend the time States are allowed to accept 
applications for a skills test waiver from certain former service 
members from 90 days to 1 year. This action codifies an existing 
exemption published on July 8, 2014 (79 FR 38645). That notice granted 
immediate relief from 49 CFR 383.77(b)(1) to certain military service 
members separating from active duty. The exemption did not change the 
CFR language and is effective for only 2 years, although it could be 
extended.
    As the final rule will codify an existing practice, FMCSA does not 
expect this revision to have any significant economic impact. However, 
the Agency believes that permanently granting military personnel with 
CMV driving experience more time to apply for a CDL after separation 
from service will be beneficial to both service members and prospective 
employers by creating more employment opportunities.
Section 383.79(b)
    This rule will allow States to accept CLP and CDL applications from 
certain military drivers stationed in that State; to test their 
knowledge and skills; and to submit the results of both tests to the 
drivers' State of domicile for issuance of the CLP and CDL. This 
information can be transmitted using the same electronic system that 
was previously established for the skills test. The rule will not 
require States to use either the CSTIMS or ROOSTR. Both of these 
systems are currently managed by AAMVA, and States that are already 
using them would incur minimal costs to use them to transmit CLP/CDL 
test results. While some software modifications and updates may be 
required to allow transmission of the knowledge test results (as only 
skills test results are presently transmitted via these systems), FMCSA 
anticipates that AAMVA will update CSTIMS and ROOSTR to allow for 
transmission of knowledge test results during a routine IT upgrade 
cycle, with minimal additional cost. However, the final rule does not 
require use of either of these systems. States may incur costs for 
working out the details of application transmission between States. 
FMCSA expects that States will take advantage of the flexibilities 
allowed in the final rule, and participate when it is cost effective to 
do so. Additionally, the State of station can charge a processing fee 
to recoup the cost of providing this service.
    FMCSA expects that this rule will ultimately result in a cost 
savings for drivers, but some of the cost savings will be offset by the 
additional processing fee. Based on comments received on the NPRM, 
FMCSA anticipates that drivers will continue to pay the CDL licensing 
and application fee to their State of domicile, and will pay an 
additional processing fee to the State of station. FMCSA estimates that 
the processing fee will be similar to the State CDL application fee. 
Many States do not publish their application fee separately, but bundle 
it with the license fees. The average CDL application and license fee 
for all 50 States and the District of Columbia is $50. However, the CDL 
term for States ranges from 4 to 8 years. On an annual basis, the cost 
of the average CDL application for all 50 States and the District of 
Columbia is $10. Therefore, FMCSA estimates that the one-time 
processing fee will range from $10 to $50 per driver, and 
conservatively estimates a fee of $50 for the purposes of this 
analysis. Both States utilizing the alternative licensing procedures 
allowed by this rule might charge fees, but some currently waive their 
normal fees for veterans or active-duty military personnel and may 
continue to do so. Because FMCSA cannot predict the number of military 
drivers who would have their additional processing fee waived by the 
State of Station, we have based our calculations on each military 
driver paying an extra fee.
    To estimate how many drivers might take advantage of this 
provision, FMCSA started with the number of drivers who have used the 
military skills test waiver. Between May 2011 and February 2015, more 
than 10,100 skills test waivers were granted for military drivers, or 
an average of approximately 2,460 per year.\3\ For purposes of this 
analysis, FMCSA assumed that number would remain constant in future 
years. To estimate the number of drivers who may be stationed in a 
State other than their State of domicile and who, thus, could 
potentially take advantage of this provision, FMCSA used an estimate of 
the number of drivers who attend training outside their State of 
domicile from the Regulatory Evaluation conducted for the 2011 
``Commercial Driver's License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit 
Standards'' final rule.\4\ According to this evaluation, approximately 
25 percent of drivers obtained training outside their State of 
domicile. It is likely that more than 25 percent of military personnel 
are stationed outside their State of domicile. However, for purposes of 
this analysis FMCSA used the 25 percent estimate to calculate the 
population of drivers who may apply for a CLP/CDL outside their State 
of domicile. Based on these assumptions, this provision affects 
approximately 660 drivers each year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Estimated based on information from an assessment of SDLAs, 
conducted by FMCSA in February 2015.
    \4\ Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation. Commercial Driver's 
License Testing and Commercial Learner's Permit Standards. 76 FR 
26853. May 9, 2011. Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27659. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/05/09/2011-10510/commercial-drivers-license-testing-and-commercial-learners-permit-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA estimated the processing fee by multiplying the 660 drivers 
by the per-driver processing fee of $50. The 10-year costs for the 
additional processing fee total $330,000 undiscounted, $290,000 
discounted at 3%, and $248,000 discounted at 7%.
    This rule will also result in cost savings, or benefits, for 
drivers in the

[[Page 70644]]

form of reduced travel costs. The rule will allow States where active-
duty military personnel are stationed to accept CLP or CDL applications 
and administer knowledge and skills tests for those personnel. The rule 
will allow any such State to transmit copies of the application and 
test results for military personnel to the driver's State of domicile, 
which in turn may--but is not required to--issue a CLP or CDL on the 
basis of that information. Absent this rule, drivers would be required 
to travel to the State of domicile in order to apply for a CLP or CDL. 
For example, if the driver is stationed in Virginia but his/her State 
of domicile is Texas (and both States use the licensing alternative 
allowed by this rule), Texas will be able to issue the driver a CLP and 
CDL based on an application and successful testing conducted in 
Virginia. The driver would be spared the travel costs of returning to 
Texas in order to file an application for a CLP or CDL.
    FMCSA does not have information on the States where these drivers 
are domiciled or stationed. To estimate the potential costs savings, 
FMCSA used the scenario of a driver who is stationed in Virginia but 
domiciled in Texas. To present an upper and lower bound estimate of the 
potential cost savings, FMCSA evaluated two scenarios in which the 
driver travels between Norfolk, Virginia, and Houston, Texas. In the 
first scenario, the driver takes a commercial flight. FMCSA estimates 
that a typical roundtrip flight between Norfolk and Houston costs 
approximately $700.\5\ In the second scenario, the driver drives a 
private vehicle between these locations. The current private vehicle 
mileage rate from the General Services Administration (GSA) is $0.575 
per mile \6\ and the distance between Norfolk and Houston is 
approximately 2,800 miles, roundtrip. FMCSA estimates that it would 
cost the driver approximately $1,610 to drive between Virginia and 
Texas for CDL testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The flight price $700 was estimated using the General 
Service Administration Airline City Pairs Search Tool for flights 
between Norfolk, Virginia and Houston, Texas. http://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/.
    \6\ U.S. General Services Administration. Privately Owned 
Vehicle (POV) Mileage Reimbursement Rates, as of January 1, 2015. 
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/100715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the potential cost savings, FMCSA multiplied the round 
trip flight price by the annual affected driver population to calculate 
the lower-bound estimate, and multiplied the mileage cost by the annual 
affected driver population to calculate the upper-bound estimate. Based 
on the estimated participation rates, the total savings would be 
between $4.6 million and $10.6 million undiscounted, $4.1 million and 
$9.3 million discounted at 3%, $3.5 million and $8.0 million discounted 
at 7%. In addition, the driver might incur lodging costs and other 
expenses depending on the location of the testing; however, these 
potential cost savings were not included in this analysis.
    FMCSA calculated the net benefits of this rule by subtracting the 
processing fee cost from the travel cost savings. As shown in Table 1, 
the per driver benefits range from $650 to $1,560. The total 10-year 
net benefits range from $3.2 million to $7.7 million, discounted at 7%.

                   Table 1--Estimated Annual and 10-Year Net Benefits for Out of State Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Total net     10-year total   10-year total
            Scenario                Drivers per    Net benefits    benefits per    (3% discount    (7% discount
                                       year         per driver         year            rate)           rate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower-Bound (flight)............             660            $650        $429,000      $3,769,241      $3,224,035
Upper-Bound (car travel)........             660           1,560       1,029,600       9,046,178       7,737,683
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the cost savings described above, there may be other 
non-quantified benefits associated with these provisions. For example, 
this proposal also allows military personnel to enter the job market 
more quickly after separation from service. This rulemaking may also 
increase the availability of drivers qualified to work for motor 
carriers, since military personnel would be able to complete their 
testing and licensing during their separation process. Finally, 
reducing unemployment for former military personnel may also reduce the 
amount of unemployment compensation paid by the Department of Defense 
to former service members.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires 
Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory action on 
small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant 
economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses 
and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and 
operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, DOT 
policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small 
entities, and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse 
effects on these businesses.
    Under the standards of the RFA, as amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 
857) (SBREFA), this rule will not impose a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities because the revisions would 
either codify an existing practice or allow States to provide more 
flexibility for military personnel seeking to obtain a CDL. FMCSA does 
not expect the changes to impose any new or increased costs on small 
entities. Consequently, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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 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

[[Page 70645]]

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 a State, local, or tribal government, 
taken together, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the 
value of $100 million in 1995 after adjusting for inflation to 2014 
levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result 
in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this 
rule elsewhere in this preamble.

E. 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).

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 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.

G. 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, 
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 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 present an environmental or safety risk that 
could disproportionately affect children.

I. 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.

J. Privacy

    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 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. All 
records associated with this rulemaking are State, not Federal, 
records.
    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, 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. As a result, FMCSA 
has not conducted a privacy impact assessment.

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 
rule.

L. 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. The Administrator 
of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated 
it a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a 
Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

M. 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.

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 rule does not use 
technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of 
voluntary consensus standards.

O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule 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

[[Page 70646]]

6.s.(6). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.s.(6) covers a 
requirement for States to give knowledge and skills tests to all 
qualified applicants for commercial drivers' licenses which meet the 
Federal standard. The content in this rule is covered by this CE 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 Web site listed under I. Rulemaking 
Documents.
    FMCSA also analyzed this 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 final rule in accordance with the E.O., and has 
determined that it has no environmental justice implications, nor is 
there any collective environmental impact that will result from its 
promulgation.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, 
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

49 CFR Part 384

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, 
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, 
parts 383 and 384 to read as follows:

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

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

    Authority: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 
31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 
1767; sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297, sec. 4140 
of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-
141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 
1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Amend Sec.  383.5 by adding definitions of ``military service 
member'' and ``military services'' in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  383.5  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Military service member means a member of the United States Army, 
Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and their associated 
reserve, and National Guard units.
    Military services means the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
Air Force, and Coast Guard, and their associated reserve and National 
Guard units.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  383.77 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  383.77  Substitute for driving skills tests for drivers with 
military CMV experience.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Is regularly employed or was regularly employed within the last 
year in a military position requiring operation of a CMV;
* * * * *

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


Sec.  383.79  Skills testing of out-of-State students; Knowledge and 
skills testing of military personnel.

    (a) CDL applicants trained out-of-State--(1) State that administers 
the skills test. A State may administer its skills test, in accordance 
with subparts F, G, and H of this part, to a person who has taken 
training in that State and is to be licensed in another United States 
jurisdiction (i.e., his or her State of domicile). Such test results 
must be transmitted electronically directly from the testing State to 
the licensing State in an efficient and secure manner.
    (2) The State of domicile. The State of domicile of a CDL applicant 
must accept the results of a skills test administered to the applicant 
by any other State, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H of this 
part, in fulfillment of the applicant's testing requirements under 
Sec.  383.71, and the State's test administration requirements under 
Sec.  383.73.
    (b) Military service member applicants for a CLP or CDL--(1) State 
of duty station. A State where active duty military service members are 
stationed, but not domiciled, may:
    (i) Accept an application for a CLP or CDL from such a military 
service member who has
    (A) A valid driver's license from his or her State of domicile,
    (B) A valid active duty military identification card, and
    (C) A current copy of either the service member's military leave 
and earnings statement or his or her orders;
    (ii) Administer the knowledge and skills tests to the military 
service member, as appropriate, in accordance with subparts F, G, and H 
of this part, or waive the skills test in accordance with Sec.  383.77; 
and
    (iii) Destroy a driver's license on behalf of the State of 
domicile, unless the latter requires the license to be surrendered to 
its own driver licensing agency.
    (2) Electronic transmission of the application and test results. 
The State of duty station must transmit the completed application, the 
results of knowledge and skills tests, and any supporting documents, by 
a direct, secure, and efficient electronic system.
    (3) State of domicile. Upon completion of the applicant's 
application and testing requirements under Sec.  383.71, and the 
State's test administration requirements under Sec.  383.73, the State 
of domicile of the military service member applying for a CLP or CDL 
may
    (i) Accept the completed application; the results of knowledge and 
skills tests administered to the applicant by the State where he or she 
is currently stationed, or the notice of the waiver of the skills test, 
as authorized by paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section; and any 
supporting documents; and
    (ii) Issue the applicant a CLP or CDL.

PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

0
5. The authority citation for part 384 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 103 
and 215 of Pub. L. 106-59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; and 49 CFR 1.87.


0
6. Add paragraph (j) to Sec.  384.301 to read as follows:


Sec.  384.301  Substantial compliance general requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) A State must come into substantial compliance with the 
requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in 
effect as of December 12, 2016 as soon as practicable, but, unless 
otherwise specifically provided in this part, not later than December 
12, 2019.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: October 4, 
2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-24749 Filed 10-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


