[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 198 (Thursday, October 13, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70634-70646]
[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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

    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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 119 (Monday, June 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 35691]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15374]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[ File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of BioCoral, Inc., GC China Turbine Corp., Race
World International, Inc., and Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical Co.;
Order of Suspension of Trading

June 18, 2015.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
BioCoral, Inc. (CIK No. 919605), a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business listed as La Garenne-Colombes, France, with
stock quoted on OTC Link (previously, ``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC
Markets Group, Inc. (``OTC Link'') under the ticker symbol BCRA,
because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended
September 30, 2012. On February 27, 2014, the Division of Corporation
Finance sent BioCoral a delinquency letter requesting compliance with
its periodic filing obligations, but the letter was returned because of
BioCoral's failure to maintain a valid address on file with the
Commission.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
GC China Turbine Corp. (CIK No. 1380528), a revoked Nevada corporation
with its principal place of business listed as Wuhan, China, with stock
quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol GCHT, because it has not
filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30, 2011.
On or about October 15, 2013, GC China Turbine received a delinquency
letter sent by the Division of Corporation Finance requesting
compliance with their periodic filing obligations.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Race World International, Inc. (CIK No. 1415736), a revoked Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business listed as Weifang,
China, with stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol RCWR,
because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended
June 30, 2011. On July 22, 2013, Race World International received a
delinquency letter sent by the Division of Corporation Finance
requesting compliance with their periodic filing obligations.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Worldwide Biotech & Pharmaceutical Co. (CIK No. 95302), a forfeited
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business listed as
Xi'an, China, with stock quoted on OTC Link under the ticker symbol
WWBP, because it has not filed any periodic reports since the period
ended March 31, 2011. On May 10, 2012, the Division of Corporation
Finance sent Worldwide Biotech a delinquency letter requesting
compliance with their periodic filing obligations, but the letter was
returned because of Worldwide Biotech's failure to maintain a valid
address on file with the Commission.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on June 18, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 1, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15374 Filed 6-18-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P