65564 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

The rule does not impose any 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

on any small entities. 

There are no known alternative 

approaches that would accomplish the 

stated objectives. 

VII. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The rule does not contain any 

information collection requirements that 

require the approval of the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

chapter 35). 

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 252 

Government procurement. 

Jennifer Lee Hawes, 

Regulatory Control Officer, Defense 

Acquisition Regulations System. 

Therefore, 48 CFR part 252 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 252—SOLICITATION 

PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT 

CLAUSES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 252 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR 

chapter 1. 

■ 2. Amend section 252.219–7003 by— 

■ a. Removing the clause date of ‘‘(APR 

2018)’’ and adding ‘‘(DEC 2018)’’ in its 

place; 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), 

(f)(1)(ii), and (f)(2)(ii); 

■ c. Removing paragraph (f)(2)(iii); and 

■ d. In Alternate I— 

■ i. Removing the clause date of ‘‘(APR 

2018)’’ and adding ‘‘(DEC 2018)’’ in its 

place; and 

■ ii. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), 

(f)(1)(ii), and (f)(2). 

The revisions reads as follows: 

252.219–7003 Small Business 

Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts). 

* * * * * 

(a) Definitions. Summary Subcontract 

Report (SSR) Coordinator, as used in 

this clause, means the individual who is 

registered in the Electronic 

Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) 

at the Department of Defense level and 

is responsible for acknowledging receipt 

or rejecting SSRs submitted under an 

individual subcontracting plan in eSRS 

for the Department of Defense. 

(b) Subcontracts awarded to qualified 

nonprofit agencies designated by the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (41 

U.S.C. 8502–8504), may be counted 

toward the Contractor’s small business 

subcontracting goal. 

* * * * * 

(f)(1) * * * 

(ii) Submit the consolidated SSR for 

an individual subcontracting plan to the 

‘‘Department of Defense.’’ 

(2) * * * 

(ii) The authority to acknowledge 

receipt of or reject SSRs submitted 

under an individual subcontracting plan 

resides with the SSR Coordinator. 

* * * * * 

Alternate I. * * * 

(a) Definitions. Summary Subcontract 

Report (SSR) Coordinator, as used in 

this clause, means the individual who is 

registered in the Electronic 

Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) 

at the Department of Defense level and 

is responsible for acknowledging receipt 

or rejecting SSRs submitted under an 

individual subcontracting plan in eSRS 

for the Department of Defense. 

(b) Subcontracts awarded to qualified 

nonprofit agencies designated by the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (41 

U.S.C. 8502–8504), may be counted 

toward the Contractor’s small business 

subcontracting goal. 

* * * * * 

(f)(1) * * * 

(ii) Submit the consolidated SSR to 

the ‘‘Department of Defense.’’ 

(2) For DoD, the authority to 

acknowledge receipt of or reject SSRs 

submitted under an individual 

subcontracting plan in eSRS resides 

with the SSR Coordinator. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–27556 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 383 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2016–0346] 

RIN 2126–AB98 

Commercial Learner’s Permit Validity 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs) to allow States the option of 

issuing a commercial learner’s permit 

(CLP) with an expiration date of up to 

one year from the date of initial 

issuance. The CLP must be valid for no 

more than one year from the initial date 

of issuance without requiring the CLP 

holder to retake the general and 

endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs 

issued for a period of less than one year 

may be renewed provided the CLP is not 

valid for more than one year from the 

date of initial issuance. This rule does 

not require a State to revise its current 

CLP issuance practices, unless it 

chooses to do so. This rule is a 

deregulatory action as defined by 

Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, 

‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs.’’ 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

February 19, 2019. 

Petitions for Reconsideration of this 

final rule must be submitted to the 

FMCSA Administrator no later than 

January 22, 2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Selden Fritschner, CDL Division, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, by email at Selden.Fritschner@

dot.gov, or by telephone at 202–366– 

0677. If you have questions on viewing 

or submitting material to the docket, 

contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 

366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Rulemaking Documents 

A. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

For access to docket FMCSA–2016– 

0346 to read background documents and 

comments received, go to http://

www.regulations.gov at any time, or to 

Docket Services at U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 

20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

B. Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

II. Executive Summary 

Purpose and Summary of the Major 

Provisions 

This final rule allows States the 

option of issuing a CLP valid for up to 

one year from the date of initial 

issuance. Within that one year period, 

the CLP may be renewed at the State’s 

discretion, but if it is renewed, the CLP 

may not be valid for more than a total 

of one year from the date of initial 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65565 

1ODOT’s application for exemption is available 

in the docket for this rulemaking. 

issuance. After one year from the date 

of initial issuance, a CLP, or renewed 

CLP, will no longer be valid. Therefore, 

if an applicant does not obtain a CDL 

within one year from the date the CLP, 

he/she must reapply for a CLP by retaking the applicable knowledge test(s). 

This approach provides an alternative to 

the existing requirements in § 383.25(c). 

Costs and Benefits 

The primary entities affected by this 

final rule are State Driver Licensing 

Agencies (SDLAs) and CLP holders. 

Under the final rule, the decision by an 

SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid for up 

to one year is discretionary, and FMCSA 

is therefore unable to predict how many 

of the 51 SDLAs may choose to issue a 

CLP that is valid for up to one year. 

Accordingly, FMCSA is also unable to 

estimate the number of CLP holders that 

will be affected by the final rule. 

Nonetheless, there are certain types of 

cost savings, costs, benefits, and transfer 

payments that may occur as a result of 

this rule. 

FMCSA does not expect there to be 

any costs imposed upon CLP holders 

due to this final rule. CLP holders may 

realize cost savings resulting from 

reductions in the opportunity cost of 

time that, in the absence of this final 

rule, would be spent by CLP holders 

traveling to and from an SDLA office 

and at an SDLA office, to renew a CLP 

that is initially valid for no more than 

180 days. 

SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP that 

is valid for up to one year may incur 

some information technology (IT) 

system upgrade costs. Such IT system 

upgrades may include software 

programming changes necessary to issue 

a CLP that is valid for up to one year. 

However, under the final rule, the 

decision by an SDLA to issue a CLP that 

is valid for up to one year is 

discretionary. Accordingly, the Agency 

expects that SDLAs will choose to make 

this change only to the extent that such 

IT system upgrade costs would be less 

than the cost reductions associated with 

no longer having to process renewals of 

CLPs, thus resulting in a net cost 

savings to the SDLAs exercising this 

choice. 

In addition to the potential impacts 

upon cost savings, costs, and benefits 

discussed above, there are also certain 

transfer payment effects that may occur 

as a result of this rule. Transfer 

payments are monetary payments from 

one group to another that do not affect 

total resources available to society, and 

therefore do not represent actual costs 

or benefits to society. These potential 

transfer effects include a transfer of CLP 

renewal fee amounts from SDLAs to 

CLP holders, and a transfer of CLP 

renewal fee amounts from one set of 

CLP holders to another set of CLP 

holders. 

The FMCSA anticipates no change in 

safety benefits as a result of this final 

rule. In the Agency’s judgement, this 

rule will provide SDLAs the choice to 

implement more efficient licensing 

operations while maintaining a level of 

safety equivalent to the level of safety 

achieved without the rule. 

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

This final rule is based on the broad 

authority of the Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as 

amended, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 

313 and implemented by 49 CFR parts 

383 and 384. The CMVSA provides that 

‘‘[a]fter consultation with the States, the 

Secretary of Transportation shall 

prescribe regulations on minimum 

uniform standards for the issuance of 

commercial drivers’ licenses and 

learner’s permits by the States . . .’’ (49 

U.S.C. 31308). 

IV. Background 

Regulatory History 

On September 1, 2015, the Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT) 

applied for an exemption from existing 

CLP requirements in § 382.25(c) to allow 

ODOT to initially issue the CLP for one 

year (with no renewal period).1 ODOT’s 

application for exemption cited 

efficiency in CLP processing as the 

primary basis for the requested 

regulatory relief, noting that a CLP 

issued for one year will relieve the CLP 

holder of the need to visit the DMV in 

order to renew the CLP for an additional 

180 days. Further, ODOT asserted that 

‘‘a one-year CLP that simply eliminates 

the one-year renewal would not lessen 

safety.’’ The Agency published notice of 

ODOT’s application for exemption on 

November 27, 2015, and requested 

comment (80 FR 74199). FMCSA 

granted ODOT’s application for 

exemption for the period April 5, 2016, 

through April 5, 2018, and also 

permitted all SDLAs to extend to one 

year the 180-day timeline (81 FR 19703 

(Apr. 5, 2016)). The Agency determined 

that the exemption would permit ODOT 

and other SDLAs to implement more 

efficient operations while maintaining a 

level of safety equivalent to, or greater 

than, the level of safety achieved 

without the exemption. 

On June 12, 2017, FMCSA published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) titled ‘‘Commercial Learner’s 

Permit Validity’’ (82 FR 26888), which 

proposed to allow States to issue a CLP 

with an expiration date of up to one 

year from the date of initial issuance. 

Under this proposal, CLPs could also be 

issued for periods shorter than one year 

and could be renewed, as long as the 

total period of time between the date of 

initial issuance and the date of 

expiration, with or without renewal, 

does not exceed one year. 

V. Discussion of Comments Received on 

the Proposed Rule 

FMCSA received 13 comments on the 

NPRM. Four commenters disagreed with 

the NPRM, including an SDLA 

(Georgia), two industry trade 

associations (the Commercial Vehicle 

Training Association (CVTA) and the 

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 

Association, Inc. (OOIDA)), and one 

individual. Nine commenters, including 

one individual, four SDLAs (Arizona, 

Virginia, Oregon, Michigan), three 

industry trade associations (the 

American Trucking Associations (ATA), 

the National School Transportation 

Association (NSTA), the American Bus 

Association (ABA)), and a passenger 

motor carrier (Burlington Trailways) all 

supported the NPRM. The comments 

addressed the NPRM’s potential impact 

on safety, the costs and benefits of the 

proposal, and related implementation 

issues. 

As discussed below, some of the 

comments appear to be based on the 

assumption that the NPRM proposed to 

replace the existing CLP issuance 

requirement in § 383.25(c). In fact, 

FMCSA intended to provide an 

alternative to that requirement, thereby 

giving States a choice to continue 

issuing CLPs in accordance with 

existing § 383.25(c), or to proceed under 

the optional procedure outlined in the 

NPRM. The Agency clarifies this point 

in the final rule. 

A. Safety Impacts 

Three commenters believed that the 

rule would not impact safety. Two 

commenters believed that this rule 

could negatively impact safety. 

Comments: ODOT stated that it 

implemented a streamlined CLP 

issuance process that improves the 

customer’s experience without 

impacting highway safety. The NSTA 

also believed that FMCSA’s proposal 

would save time and money for both 

States and CLP applicants, without 

affecting safety. ATA commented that, 

for States that do not require drivers to 

retake the knowledge exam when 

renewing an initial CLP that is currently 

issued for no more than 180 days, the 

requirement that the CLP be renewed 

only necessitates that drivers spend 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65566 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

additional time away from work. ATA 

further noted that the rule can reduce 

the burden on SDLAs and the trucking 

industry without compromising safety. 

OOIDA believed that, under the 

NPRM, carriers would be able to keep 

drivers with CLPs behind the wheel 

longer, instead of using drivers with 

commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs), 

negatively impacting safety. OOIDA 

provided the example of C.R. England, 

currently operating under an exemption 

that allows CLP permit holders to drive 

commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) 

without a CDL holder present in the 

front seat. 

The Georgia Department of Driver 

Services (Georgia DDS) requested that 

FMCSA consider keeping the current 

180 day CLP limit due to highway safety 

concerns. Georgia DDS stated ‘‘(t)his 

mandated six (6) month term now helps 

to ensure that the applicants are testing 

while their knowledge and training are 

still fresh and they have not developed 

bad habits.’’ 

FMCSA Response: Although OOIDA 

and Georgia DDS both cited safety 

concerns, neither commenter provided 

any data to support their view that the 

NPRM would negatively impact 

highway safety. 

OOIDA commented that ‘‘(u)nder the 

NPRM, carriers can use CLP drivers 

longer and keep them behind the wheel 

instead of CDL drivers.’’ In response, the 

Agency understands that, currently, 

some States issuing a CLP initially valid 

for 180 days may provide a grace period 

of more than five days between the 

initial CLP issuance period of 180 days 

and the renewal period allowed under 

§ 383.25(c) thus resulting in a CLP valid 

for more than one year. Accordingly, the 

NPRM, by proposing a maximum period 

of CLP validity of one year, did not 

represent a significant departure from 

the current regulations. States choosing 

the one-year option, as set forth in this 

final rule, would maintain a shorter 

maximum period of CLP validity than 

States that may currently allow a grace 

period of more than five days between 

the initial validity period of 180-days 

and the 180-day renewal. Further, 

FMCSA notes that the exemption 

granted to C.R. England, referenced by 

OOIDA, applies to CLP holders who 

have already passed the CDL skills test 

after receiving training in a nondomiciled State, and are driving a CMV 

back to their State of domicile to obtain 

the CDL. The C.R. England exemption 

is, therefore, not relevant to this rule. 

Georgia DDS did not elaborate on the 

basis for its highway safety concerns 

when requesting that FMCSA consider 

retaining the current 180-day limit, 

other than to suggest that CLP holders 

should take the CDL skills test while 

‘‘their knowledge and training are still 

fresh and they have not developed bad 

habits.’’ In response, the Agency notes 

that the period of CLP validity is an 

outer limit, by which the applicant must 

obtain a CDL without having to retake 

the knowledge test. However, there is no 

requirement that applicant wait until 

the end of the CLP validity period to 

take their skills test. As discussed 

further below, the CLP holder may take 

the skills test any time after 14 days 

have passed since initial issuance of the 

CLP. In addition, FMCSA did not 

propose changing any of the protections 

already in place to ensure CLP-holders 

do not decrease safety on the highways, 

including the requirement, in 

§ 383.25(a)(1), that CLP-holders may 

operate a CMV only when accompanied 

by a CDL holder physically present in 

the front seat of the vehicle. 

Finally, as noted above, ODOT, in its 

comments to the NPRM, noted that its 

adoption of the one-year CLP resulted in 

streamlined processing ‘‘without 

impacting highway safety.’’ The ODOT 

also observed that ‘‘[t]he logic of this 

change is supported by current 

regulation, since a knowledge test is not 

required to renew a CLP.’’ In addition, 

FMCSA recently contacted state 

licensing officials in Iowa, which, like 

Oregon, is issuing one-year CLPs under 

the current exemption. Iowa officials 

stated that no safety issues have arisen 

as a result of the one-year CLP. For these 

reasons, FMCSA believes this rule will 

not diminish highway safety. 

B. Impacts to SDLAs 

Allowing States to issue CLPs for a 

term of up to one year is intended to 

increase efficiency in the commercial 

driver licensing system, thereby 

reducing the administrative burdens on 

SDLAs while maintaining a level of 

safety equivalent to the level of safety 

that would exist in the absence of the 

final rule. The NPRM requested that 

States and other interested parties 

identify potential costs (e.g., necessary 

changes in CLP-related IT systems), cost 

savings, process efficiencies, and other 

benefits that may result from the 

proposed change, along with any 

supporting data. 

Benefits 

Comments: Some commenters noted 

that the rulemaking would reduce the 

burden on SDLAs. ATA believed the 

rulemaking would benefit the SDLAs by 

increasing their flexibility and reducing 

the burden associated with renewing 

CLPs. NSTA wrote that the proposed 

change provides an improved process 

for CLP issuance and would save time 

and money for States. Burlington 

Trailways wrote that the rule would 

save time for those issuing the permits. 

While it opposed the NPRM, OOIDA 

agreed it would reduce administrative 

costs for SLDAs. 

Some commenters believed that the 

rule would benefit SDLAs by providing 

consistency. ABA supported the 

uniformity among the SDLAs that the 

rulemaking would ensure, rather than 

requiring each State to request a similar 

exemption individually. CVTA agreed 

that consistency is a benefit, but asked 

why FMCSA wanted to amend its 

regulations when only one jurisdiction 

had applied for an exemption. 

FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees 

with commenters noting that the rule 

could reduce the burden on SDLAs and, 

as described below, identifies the 

potential cost savings to SDLAs that 

could result from this regulatory change. 

Neither the NPRM, nor this final rule, 

was intended to ensure consistency 

among the SDLAs. Today’s rule simply 

provides an option for SDLAs wishing 

to issue CLPs valid for up to one year, 

with or without renewal. Thus, the final 

rule gives States the flexibility to choose 

which CLP issuance approach is best 

suited to their particular needs. FMCSA 

notes that the original exemption 

granted to ODOT and other SDLAs, 

originally valid through April 5, 2018, 

was renewed and is currently valid to 

April 5, 2019 (83 FR 14545 (April 4, 

2018)). The Agency believes that 

amending the FMCSRs to permit CLP 

issuance in accordance with the 

exemption is more efficient than 

granting extensions of the exemption, 

and also provides greater regulatory 

certainty to SDLAs that opt to 

implement a one-year CLP. 

Costs 

Comments: A number of commenters 

indicated that there are costs associated 

with the NPRM. Four SDLAs, including 

the Arizona Department of 

Transportation (Arizona DOT), the 

Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles 

(Virginia DMV), the Michigan 

Department of State (Michigan DOS) 

and the Georgia DDS, believed the 

proposed change would require a 

change in State laws. The SDLAs also 

commented that other changes 

associated with the NPRM, including 

programming and outreach, would 

create costs for the States. The Michigan 

DOS commented that this proposal 

would require a significant amount of 

programming effort; based on the low 

number of CLP drivers anticipated to 

utilize this extended CLP validity 

period, the efforts for programming and 

legislation changes would exceed any 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65567 

2Some SDLAs may allow renewal of CLPs via the 

internet, thus allowing CLP holders to avoid travel 

costs. The Agency lacks the data necessary to 

quantify transportation costs CLP holders may incur 

to renew their CLP. 

benefit. The Virginia DMV commented 

that it will evaluate the impact of 

returning to a process of issuing CLPs 

valid for one year to determine if it 

would create cost savings and reduce 

administrative burdens on the DMV, but 

the change would require DMV 

resources to revert to the previous 

process. The Georgia DDS commented 

that, conservatively, it had invested 

$300,000 to comply with the existing 

rule, including providing training for 

State and third-party examiners, holding 

a forum for industry stakeholders, and 

establishing a communications 

campaign. The Georgia DDS, having also 

revamped its business process and 

updated its 2015 CDL Manual, objected 

to having to re-invest money and 

resources to make another change in its 

licensing process. 

FMCSA Response: Today’s rule 

simply provides an additional option for 

SDLAs wishing to issue CLPs valid for 

up to one year. Thus, the final rule gives 

States the flexibility to choose which 

CLP issuance option is best suited to 

their needs. The four SDLAs that 

expressed concerns over costs need not 

incur any costs because SDLA adoption 

of the final rule is discretionary. 

C. Costs and Benefits to CLP Holders 

and Motor Carriers 

FMCSA anticipates that this change 

will reduce costs for CLP holders, 

including reductions in the opportunity 

cost of time that, in the absence of this 

final rule, would be spent traveling to 

and from an SDLA office, plus time 

spent at an SDLA to renew a CLP 

initially valid for no more than 180 

days.2 FMCSA does not expect there 

will be any costs imposed upon CLP 

holders as a result of this final rule. In 

addition, the Agency does not expect 

the rule to impose any direct costs on 

motor carriers. 

Benefits 

Comments: NTSA believed that the 

proposed rule would save time and 

money for CLP applicants. ODOT 

commented that its streamlined CLP 

issuance process, implemented under 

the exemption, improved the customer’s 

experience, and believed this proposal 

would help continue that improvement. 

The Virginia DMV anticipated that 

issuing a one-year CLP would positively 

impact commercial drivers if they are 

not forced to return to the DMV to 

renew their CLP. ATA stated that the 

proposed rule would provide costs 

savings to new commercial drivers 

entering the industry. 

Burlington Trailways stated that the 

proposed regulation will save time for 

prospective driving students and 

potential employers. The proposed 

regulation would especially benefit CLP 

holders thinking about driver training 

because it would give students more 

time to be comfortable with classroom 

work and behind-the-wheel experience 

before needing to renew a permit if 

training is interrupted. ABA believed 

that the proposed rule would help ease 

the driver shortage currently facing the 

industry by providing entry-level 

commercial drivers additional flexibility 

in completing driver training programs 

at a reasonable pace. The Michigan DOS 

also believed that this rule may benefit 

CLP holders by reducing repeat trips to 

the branch offices for renewal of the 

CLP. 

FMCSA Response: As noted above 

FMCSA agrees with the commenters 

noting that, in States choosing to adopt 

the one-year CLP validity period, the 

rule would reduce costs for CLP 

holders. 

Costs 

Comments: OOIDA believed that the 

proposal could limit CLP holders’ 

earnings because it would prevent them 

from receiving their CDL for up to six 

additional months, thus, limiting their 

wages. OOIDA stated that the Agency’s 

analysis of the potential benefits of this 

proposal did not consider lost wages for 

drivers who will not be granted a CDL 

after holding a CLP for 180 days. OOIDA 

wanted FMCSA to fully examine the 

‘‘bottom line’’ costs for drivers rather 

than just the administrative costs 

associated with the proposal. 

Two commenters believed the 

rulemaking might increase costs if 

States did not adequately fund the CDL 

process. ABA believed the rulemaking 

had the potential to disincentive States 

to address resource issues to decrease 

CDL testing delays, and wanted FMCSA 

to consider this concern when finalizing 

the proposal. CVTA noted that, if 

FMCSA changes the duration of the CLP 

to up to one year, it would increase 

costs for CLP holders who are seeking 

their CDL and are experiencing skills 

testing delays. CVTA commented that 

skills testing delays cost our economy a 

great deal of money, including the costs 

to drivers’ wages, schools, and 

employers who are unable to hire 

employees to move additional freight. 

CVTA would support granting an 

exemption from the existing timeframe 

of 180-days, but only if an SDLA 

exhibited efficiency in operations. 

FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes 

some commenters misinterpreted the 

proposal to provide SDLAs the choice to 

extend the period of CLP validity from 

no more than 180 days to up to one 

year. Under current regulations, a CLP 

holder is not eligible to take the CDL 

skills test in the first 14 days after initial 

issuance of the CLP. The driver is not, 

however, required to hold a CLP for 180 

days before taking the skills test. The 

final rule does not prevent a driver from 

taking their skills test and obtaining a 

CDL at any time after 14 days have 

elapsed since CLP issuance, regardless 

of whether the SDLA has chosen to 

issue a CLP that is valid for up to one 

year, or if the SDLA continues to offer 

a CLP that is valid for up to 180 days. 

Issuing a CLP that is valid for up to one 

year simply provides greater flexibility 

to CLP holders to train for and schedule 

the CDL skills test, without having to 

incur opportunity costs associated with 

the renewal of the CLP. 

OOIDA did not offer any data to 

support its claim that extending the 

term of a CLP up to one year will 

facilitate a carrier’s ability to prevent 

CLP holders from receiving their CDL 

for six months in order to intentionally 

limit CLP holders’ wages. OOIDA did 

not explain why CLP holders would 

continue to accept a lower wage if they 

have sufficient behind-the wheel 

training to pass the skills test and seek 

employment with a carrier willing to 

pay a CDL wage. Finally, OOIDA failed 

to explain why a carrier would commit 

a CDL holder to accompany a (CDLcapable) CLP holder on a revenueproducing trip for the sole purpose of 

limiting the wages of a CLP holder. 

Neither ABA nor CVTA provided data 

to suggest that eliminating the need for 

a CLP holder to drive to an SDLA to 

renew their CLP would significantly 

impact the demand for CLPs, the 

number of skills tests performed 

annually, or the supply of skills testers. 

The Agency is not aware of any negative 

impact on CDL skills testing delays 

resulting from ODOT’s issuance of CLPs 

that are valid for one year under the 

exemption. FMCSA recently contacted 

state licensing officials in Iowa, which 

is currently operating under the 

exemption, and Iowa officials stated that 

no safety issues have arisen as result of 

the one-year CLP. 

D. Other Comments 

Comments: The Agency received 

several comments not specifically 

related to the proposal. An individual 

asked FMCSA to work on the hours-ofservice rules, including removing the 

14-hour rule. A second individual 

commented on an NPRM titled, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65568 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

‘‘Military Licensing and State 

Commercial Driver’s License 

Reciprocity’’ (FMCSA–2017–0047). 

FMCSA Response: The agency does 

not address these comments as they are 

outside the scope of this rulemaking. 

VI. Section-by-Section Analysis 

FMCSA revises sections 383.25 and 

383.73 to allow CLPs to be issued for a 

period of one year or less from the date 

of issuance without requiring a CLP 

holder to retake the general and 

endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs 

issued for periods of less than a year 

may be renewed, but the CLP can only 

be valid for no longer than one year 

from the date of issuance of the original 

CLP. 

VII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving R 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

FMCSA performed an analysis of the 

impacts of this final rule and 

determined it is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, 

as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011), Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. 

Accordingly, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it 

under that Order. It is also not 

significant within the meaning of DOT 

regulatory policies and procedures 

(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 

44 FR 11034 (February 26, 1979)). 

The primary entities that will be 

affected by this final rule are SDLAs and 

CLP holders. Due to the voluntary 

nature of the change proposed by the 

NPRM, the Agency was not able to 

quantify costs or benefits and sought 

information on the effects of the 

proposed rule. FMCSA did not receive 

sufficient data to quantify the costs or 

benefits of this final rule, nor can the 

Agency predict how many of the 51 

SDLAs would choose to issue a CLP 

valid for up to one year. The Agency is 

aware that as of December 2017, at least 

two SDLAs (Oregon and Iowa) have 

chosen to issue a CLP that is valid for 

one year without renewal, consistent 

with the limited exemption granted in 

response to ODOT’s application for 

exemption. 

In the NPRM, the Agency described 

the methodology it used to estimate that 

the SDLAs issue approximately 476,000 

CLPs per year. The Agency requested 

commenters to provide their assessment 

of the accuracy of this estimate along 

with supporting information on how 

many CLPs are renewed. CVTA was the 

only commenter that responded to the 

Agency’s data request. CVTA stated that 

the Agency’s estimate was accurate and 

consistent with similar numbers 

reported in other rulemakings for CDLs 

issued. CVTA further stated that, absent 

access to all 51 SDLA’s data, it was not 

able to confirm how many CLP renewals 

are issued. For the same reason, the 

Agency is unable to quantify the impact 

of the rule on CLP holders. 

Cost Savings and Costs 

FMCSA does not expect there to be 

any costs imposed upon CLP holders 

because of this final rule. CLP holders 

may realize cost savings under the final 

rule, including reductions in the 

opportunity cost of time that, in the 

absence of this final rule, would be 

spent by CLP holders traveling to and 

from an SDLA office, plus the time at an 

SDLA office to renew a CLP that is valid 

for no more than 180 days. As discussed 

below, if SDLAs increase their fee for 

the initial issuance of a CLP, there may 

be minimal transfer payment effects 

among different types of CLP holders. 

Also, although the potential elimination 

of CLP renewal fees might appear to be 

a cost savings for CLP holders, changes 

in renewal fees are classified as 

transfers, as discussed below. 

SDLAs that choose to issue a CLP 

valid for up to one year under this final 

rule may incur some information 

technology (IT) system upgrade costs to 

accommodate the change in the CLP 

business process from issuing a CLP that 

is valid for up to 180 days (and may be 

renewable for an additional 180 days) to 

the alternative of issuing a CLP that is 

valid for up to one year with no 

renewal. SDLAs that choose to issue a 

CLP that is valid for up to one year may 

also realize cost savings associated with 

no longer having to process CLP 

renewals. The Agency expects that 

SDLAs will make this change only if 

cost savings from the elimination of the 

renewal process exceed IT system 

upgrade costs and ongoing operating 

costs. Lastly, any reduction in CLP 

renewal fees collected by SDLAs may 

appear to be a cost. However, any 

changes in the amount of renewal fees 

collected is a transfer, as discussed 

below. 

Benefits 

The Agency anticipates no change in 

safety benefits because of this final rule. 

The discretionary implementation of the 

final rule will provide SDLAs the choice 

to implement more efficient operations 

while maintaining a level of safety 

equivalent to the level of safety 

achieved without the rule. 

As discussed earlier, although OOIDA 

and Georgia DDS both expressed 

concerns in their comments regarding 

potential impacts to highway safety, 

neither commenter provided any data to 

support their view that the rule would 

negatively impact highway safety. 

Currently, a CLP may be valid for a total 

of 360 days, and in States allowing a 

‘‘grace period’’ of more than five days 

between the initial CLP issuance period 

of 180 days and the renewal period 

allowed under § 383.25(c), the CLP may 

be valid for more than one year. 

Furthermore, the current regulations do 

not require that the knowledge test be 

retaken when renewing the initial CLP 

which is valid for no more than 180 

days from the date of issuance. 

Accordingly, the final rule, by allowing 

a maximum CLP validity period of one 

year, does not represent a significant 

departure from the current regulations. 

Under this final rule, SDLAs that have 

concerns regarding potential impacts to 

highway safety from issuing a CLP valid 

for up to one year from the date of 

initial issuance are free to continue 

issuing CLPs which are valid for no 

more than 180 days. Finally, the Agency 

is not aware of any negative impact on 

safety resulting from ODOT’s issuance 

of CLPs that are valid for one year under 

the exemption. FMCSA recently 

contacted state licensing officials in 

Iowa, which is currently operating 

under the exemption, and Iowa officials 

stated that no safety issues have arisen 

as result of the one-year CLP. 

Transfers 

In addition to the potential impacts 

upon costs and benefits discussed 

above, there are also certain transfer 

payment effects that may occur because 

of this rule. Transfer payments are 

monetary payments from one group to 

another that do not affect total resources 

available to society, and therefore do not 

represent actual costs or benefits to 

society. Because of the potential 

elimination of CLP renewal fees, and the 

potential for changes to CLP issuance 

fees, there are transfer effects that may 

result from this final rule. These 

potential transfer effects include a 

transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts 

from SDLAs to CLP holders, and a 

transfer of CLP renewal fee amounts 

from one set of CLP holders to another 

set of CLP holders. In cases where an 

SDLA maintains the same fee for 

issuance of a CLP, a transfer will occur 

from SDLAs to CLP holders. This 

transfer represents the total amount of 

CLP renewal fees that, in the absence of 

this final rule, CLP holders renewing 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65569 

3 In some States, no fee is charged for CLP 

renewal, and therefore this type of transfer will not 

occur if CLP renewals were eliminated. 

their CLP would have paid SDLAs.3

Such reductions in CLP renewal fee 

amounts to SDLAs are properly 

classified as a transfer, rather than as a 

cost to SDLAs (in the form of forgone fee 

revenue) or as a benefit to CLP holders 

(in the form of CLP renewal fees no 

longer expended). There is no aggregate 

change in social welfare resulting from 

this impact. It is just a transfer of value 

from one set of entities to another. 

Alternatively, in cases where an SDLA 

were to increase its fee for the issuance 

of a CLP to offset any reduction in 

revenue resulting from the elimination 

of CLP renewals and associated fees, a 

transfer will occur from those CLP 

holders who in the baseline would not 

have renewed their CLP to CLP holders 

who in the baseline would have 

renewed their CLP. Here too there is no 

aggregate change in social welfare 

resulting from this impact, as again it is 

a simple transfer of value from one set 

of entities to another. The extent to 

which SDLAs that choose under this 

final rule to issue a CLP that is valid for 

up to one year may increase their fee for 

issuance of a CLP is unknown. The 

incentive for an SDLA to do so, 

however, is likely low due in part to the 

fact that CLP renewal fees are expected 

to be a relatively small proportion of the 

overall fee revenue collected by any 

given SDLA. 

In summary, overall, the final rule is 

expected to provide regulatory relief to 

both SDLAs and CLP holders. Under the 

final rule, the decision by an SDLA to 

issue a CLP that is valid for up to one 

year is discretionary, and the Agency 

expects that SDLAs will choose to make 

this change only to the extent that cost 

savings associated with no longer 

having to process renewals of CLPs 

would exceed any IT system upgrade 

costs, thus resulting in a net cost savings 

to the SDLA. Furthermore, FMCSA does 

not expect there to be any costs imposed 

upon CLP holders because of this final 

rule. CLP holders domiciled in those 

States choosing to issue a CLP valid for 

up to one year may realize cost savings 

under the final rule, including 

reductions in the opportunity cost of 

time that, in the absence of this final 

rule, would be spent by CLP holders 

traveling to and from an SDLA office 

and at an SDLA office, renewing a CLP 

valid for no more than 180 days. 

Finally, any transfer payment effects 

that may occur because of this rule, as 

described earlier, are expected to be 

small, to the extent that they occur at 

all. 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

This final rule is considered an E.O. 

13771 deregulatory action. The Agency 

cannot estimate the cost savings of the 

final rule; however, the cost savings are 

discussed qualitatively in the rule’s 

economic analysis. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), requires 

Federal agencies to consider the effects 

of their regulatory actions on small 

businesses and other small entities, and 

to minimize any significant economic 

impact. The term ‘‘small entities’’ 

comprises small businesses and not-forprofit organizations that are 

independently owned and operated and 

are not dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations of less than 50,000 (5 U.S.C. 

601(6)). Accordingly, DOT policy 

requires an analysis of the impact of all 

regulations on small entities, and 

mandates that agencies strive to lessen 

any adverse effects on these entities. 

In the NPRM (82 FR 26888), in lieu 

of preparing an Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis under section 

603(a) of the RFA to assess the impact 

of the rule, FMCSA performed a 

certification analysis under section 

605(b) of the RFA and certified that the 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The Agency 

did not receive any comments from the 

public or from the Small Business 

Administration regarding impact of the 

proposed rule on small entities. 

Moreover, the factual basis upon which 

the Agency found the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on small entities is unchanged. 

The primary entities affected by the 

final rule are SDLAs and CLP holders. 

Under the standards of the RFA, as 

amended by the SBREFA, neither 

SDLAs nor CLP holders are small 

entities. SDLAs are not considered small 

entities because they do not meet the 

definition of a small entity in Section 

601 of the RFA. Specifically, States are 

not considered small governmental 

jurisdictions under Section 601(5) of the 

RFA, both because State government is 

not included among the various levels 

of government listed in Section 601(5), 

and because, even if this were the case, 

no State nor the District of Columbia has 

a population of less than 50,000, which 

is the criterion by which a governmental 

jurisdiction is considered small under 

Section 601(5) of the RFA. The rule 

provides SDLAs the flexibility to choose 

whether to adopt the one-year CLP 

validity. As described in more detail 

earlier, because the decision by an 

SDLA to issue a CLP that is valid for up 

to one year is discretionary, the Agency 

expects that SDLAs will choose to make 

this change only to the extent that there 

is a net benefit to the SDLA. CLP 

holders are not considered small entities 

because they too do not meet the 

definition of a small entity in Section 

601 of the RFA. Specifically, CLP 

holders are considered neither a small 

business under Section 601(3) of the 

RFA, nor are they considered a small 

organization under Section 601(4) of the 

RFA. Therefore, this rule will not have 

an impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. CLP holders will benefit 

from reductions in the opportunity cost 

of time that in the absence of this rule 

would be spent by CLP holders traveling 

to and from an SDLA office and at an 

SDLA office renewing a CLP. 

No small entities will be affected by 

this rule. Accordingly, I hereby certify 

that this final rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

In accordance with section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this final rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

themselves and participate in the 

rulemaking initiative. If the final rule 

will affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult the FMCSA 

point of contact, Selden Fritschner, 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this final rule. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations to 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG– 

FAIR (1–888–734–3247). DOT has a 

policy regarding the rights of small 

entities to regulatory enforcement 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
65570 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

4U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ‘‘The 

Rights of Small Entities to Enforcement Fairness 

and Policy Against Retaliation.’’ Available at: 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/ 

docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed April 20, 2018). 

fairness and an explicit policy against 

retaliation for exercising these rights.4

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$156 million (which is the value 

equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, 

adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or 

more in any one year. This final rule is 

a discretionary regulatory action, and 

does not result in such an expenditure. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This final rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

A rule has implications for 

Federalism under section 1(a) of 

Executive Order 13132 if it has 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ FMCSA has 

determined that this rule will not have 

substantial direct costs on or for States, 

nor will it limit the policymaking 

discretion of States. Nothing in this 

document preempts any State law or 

regulation. Therefore, this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Impact Statement. 

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

This final rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminates 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

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

E.O. 13045, Protection of Children 

from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks, requires agencies issuing 

‘‘economically significant’’ rules, if the 

regulation also concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

an agency has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, to 

include an evaluation of the regulation’s 

environmental health and safety effects 

on children. The Agency determined 

this final rule is not economically 

significant. Therefore, no analysis of the 

impacts on children is required. In any 

event, the Agency does not anticipate 

that this regulatory action could in any 

respect present an environmental or 

safety risk that could disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private 

Property) 

FMCSA reviewed this final rule in 

accordance with E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, and has determined it will not 

effect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications. 

K. Privacy Impact Assessment 

Section 522 of title I of division H of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 

552a note), requires the Agency to 

conduct a privacy impact assessment 

(PIA) of a regulation that will affect the 

privacy of individuals. This rule does 

not require the collection of personally 

identifiable information (PII). 

The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) 

applies only to Federal agencies and any 

non-Federal agency which receives 

records contained in a system of records 

from a Federal agency for use in a 

matching program. 

The E-Government Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–347, § 208, 116 Stat. 

2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires 

Federal agencies to conduct PIA for new 

or substantially changed technology that 

collects, maintains, or disseminates 

information in an identifiable form. No 

new or substantially changed 

technology will collect, maintain, or 

disseminate information as a result of 

this rule. Therefore, FMCSA has not 

conducted a PIA. 

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental 

Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities do not apply to this program. 

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

FMCSA has analyzed this final rule 

under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. 

The Agency has determined that it is 

not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

that order because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

it does not require a Statement of Energy 

Effects under E.O. 13211. 

N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This rule does not have Tribal 

implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Technical 

Standards) 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through OMB, with 

an explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) are 

standards that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

P. Environment (NEPA) 

FMCSA analyzed this rule consistent 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

determined this action is categorically 

excluded from further analysis and 

documentation in an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 

(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 

2, paragraph 6.t.(2). The Categorical 

Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6.t.(2) 

includes regulations to ensure that the 

States comply with the provisions of the 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 

1986. The content in this rule is covered 

by this CE, there are no extraordinary 

circumstances present, and the final 

action does not have any effect on the 

quality of the environment. The CE 

determination is available for inspection 

or copying in the Regulations.gov 

website listed under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, 

Highway safety, Motor Carriers. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 245 / Friday, December 21, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 65571 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, part 

383 as follows: 

PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S 

LICENSE STANDARDS; 

REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 383 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et 

seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 

106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 

1012(b) of Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272, 297; 

sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 

1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112–141, 126 Stat. 

405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114–94, 129 

Stat. 1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Amend § 383.25 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 383.25 Commercial learner’s permit 

(CLP). 

* * * * * 

(c) The CLP must be valid for no more 

than one year from the initial date of 

issuance without requiring the CLP 

holder to retake the general and 

endorsement knowledge tests. CLPs 

issued for a period of less than one year 

may be renewed provided the CLP is not 

valid for no more than one year from the 

date of initial issuance. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 383.73 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2)(iii) to read as follows: 

§ 383.73 State procedures. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(iii) Make the CLP valid for no more 

than one year from the date of issuance 

without requiring the CLP holder to 

retake the general and endorsement 

knowledge tests. CLPs issued for a 

period of less than one year may be 

renewed provided the CLP is not valid 

for more than one year from the date of 

initial issuance. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Raymond P. Martinez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–27779 Filed 12–20–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 635 

[Docket No. 120627194–3657–02] 

RIN 0648–XG606 

Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; 

North Atlantic Swordfish Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is adjusting the 

Swordfish General Commercial permit 

retention limits for the Northwest 

Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and U.S. 

Caribbean regions for January through 

June of the 2019 fishing year, unless 

otherwise later noticed. The Swordfish 

General Commercial permit retention 

limits in each of these regions are 

increased from the regulatory default 

limits (either two or three fish) to six 

swordfish per vessel per trip. The 

Swordfish General Commercial permit 

retention limit in the Florida Swordfish 

Management Area will remain 

unchanged at the default limit of zero 

swordfish per vessel per trip, as 

discussed in more detail below. These 

adjustments apply to Swordfish General 

Commercial permitted vessels and to 

Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 

Charter/Headboat permitted vessels 

with a commercial endorsement when 

on a non-for-hire trip. This action is 

based upon consideration of the 

applicable inseason regional retention 

limit adjustment criteria. 

DATES: The adjusted Swordfish General 

Commercial permit retention limits in 

the Northwest Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, 

and U.S. Caribbean regions are effective 

from January 1, 2019, through June 31, 

2019. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick 

Pearson or Randy Blankinship, 727– 

824–5399. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Regulations implemented under the 

authority of the Atlantic Tunas 

Convention Act (ATCA; 16 U.S.C. 971 et 

seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq.) governing the harvest of North 

Atlantic swordfish by persons and 

vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are 

found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 

635.27 subdivides the U.S. North 

Atlantic swordfish quota recommended 

by the International Commission for the 

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 

and implemented by the United States 

into two equal semi-annual directed 

fishery quotas; an annual incidental 

catch quota for fishermen targeting other 

species or catching swordfish 

recreationally, and a reserve category, 

according to the allocations established 

in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic 

Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan (2006 Consolidated 

Atlantic HMS FMP) (71 FR 58058, 

October 2, 2006), as amended, and in 

accordance with implementing 

regulations. NMFS is required under 

ATCA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act to 

provide U.S. fishing vessels with a 

reasonable opportunity to harvest the 

ICCAT-recommended quota. 

In 2017, ICCAT Recommendation 17– 

02 specified that the overall North 

Atlantic swordfish total allowable catch 

(TAC) be set at 9,925 metric tons (mt) 

dressed weight (dw) (13,200 mt whole 

weight (ww)) through 2021. Consistent 

with scientific advice, this was a 

reduction of 500 mt ww (375.9 mt dw) 

from previous ICCAT-recommended 

TACs. However, the United States’ 

baseline quota remained at 2,937.6 mt 

dw (3,907 mt ww) per year. The 

Recommendation (17–02) also 

continued to limit underharvest 

carryover to 15 percent of a contracting 

party’s baseline quota. Thus, the United 

States may carry over a maximum of 

440.6 mt dw (586.0 mt ww) of 

underharvest. Absent adjustments, the 

codified baseline quota is 2,937.6 mt dw 

for 2019. At this time, given the extent 

of expected underharvest in 2018, 

NMFS anticipates carrying over the 

maximum allowable 15 percent (440.6 

mt dw), which would result in a final 

adjusted North Atlantic swordfish quota 

for the 2019 fishing year equal to 

3,378.2 mt dw (2,937.6 + 440.6 = 3,378.2 

mt dw). As in past years we anticipate 

allocating 50 mt dw from the adjusted 

quota to the Reserve category for 

inseason adjustments/research and 

allocating 300 mt dw to the Incidental 

category, which includes recreational 

landings and landings by incidental 

swordfish permit holders, consistent 

with § 635.27(c)(1)(i)(D) and (B). This 

would result in an adjusted quota of 

3,028.2 mt dw for the directed fishery, 

which would be split equally (1,514.1 

mt dw) between the two semi-annual 

periods in 2019 (January through June, 

and July through December). Landings 

attributable to the Swordfish General 

Commercial permit will count against 

the applicable semi-annual directed 

fishery quota. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES