96176 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

the Commission seeks specific comment 

on how it might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies in this document. Written 

public comments are requested on this 

IRFA. Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments provided 

in this document. The Commission will 

send a copy of the FNPRM, including 

this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on several issues pertaining to 

the implementation of the ACF. In doing 

so, the Commission continues to work 

towards its objectives of providing 

service to rural and high-cost areas of 

Alaska, which historically are some of 

the most difficult and costliest areas to 

serve in the country and where many 

residents continue to lack access to the 

high-quality, affordable broadband 

service enjoyed by other parts of our 

nation. Specifically, the Commission 

seeks comment on ACF Mobile Phase II 

service goals or requirements, as well as 

on a methodology to determine a single 

support amount for areas where more 

than one provider had been receiving 

support for overlapping service areas, as 

well as for use in determining support 

amounts for areas that the Commission 

deems ineligible in the concurrently 

adopted Order. Additionally, the 

Commission seeks comment on how to 

resolve duplicative funding so that only 

one provider would continue receiving 

support in the area, in particular 

proposing two possible mechanisms to 

address this issue. Further comment is 

also sought to update the record on how 

best to deploy service to unserved areas 

using the approximately $162 million 

collected from the Alaska Plan. Finally, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

additional issues, such as retail 

consumer conditions, Open RAN, and 

Tribal consent under the ACF. In further 

developing the record in this 

proceeding, the Commission relies on 

the experiences of carriers with 

operations in Alaska, many of which are 

small business entities, to build a record 

on how best to implement the ACF. 

The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to sections 4(i), 214, 254, 

303(r), and 403 of the Communications 

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 

154(i), 201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), 403, 

and §§ 1.1 and 1.421 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421. 

Small entities potentially affected by 

the rules herein include Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, LECs, 

Incumbent LECs, Competitive LECs, 

Interexchange Carriers (IXC’s), Local 

Resellers, Toll Resellers, Other Toll 

Carriers, Prepaid Calling Card Providers, 

Fixed Microwave Services, Cable and 

Other Subscription Programming, Cable 

Companies and Systems (Rate 

Regulation), Cable System Operators 

(Telecom Act Standard), Radio and 

Television Broadcasting and Wireless 

Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, Satellite 

Telecommunications, Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), All Other 

Telecommunications, Wired Broadband 

internet Access Service Providers 

(Wired ISPs), Wireless Broadband 

internet Access Service Providers 

(Wireless ISPs or WISPs), internet 

Service Providers (Non-Broadband), and 

All Other Information Services. 

Potential rules resulting from 

comments in the FNPRM, could impose 

new or additional recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for small and 

other entities, if adopted. Specifically, 

in the FNPRM, the Commission seeks 

comment on a number of issues related 

to the implementation of the ACF. For 

example, the FNPRM seeks comment on 

setting a minimum goal of deployment 

of 5G–NR 7/1 Mbps for all mobile 

providers participating in ACF Mobile 

Phase II, as well as whether any 

exemptions should be made for certain 

areas. Under the competitive 

mechanism, providers seeking to 

participate would submit proposals 

including coverage maps for the areas 

where more than one provider currently 

receives support, as well as the 

surrounding community where no 

provider or only a single provider may 

currently offer service. The coverage 

map would comply with BDC mobile 

coverage data requirements and would 

predict 5G–NR coverage in an outdoor 

stationary environment. An ETC may 

propose to cover a tract with 5G–NR 

7/1 Mbps service or 5G–NR 35/3 Mbps 

service, but separate coverage maps 

must be submitted for each proposed 

service. For the alternative mechanism, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

whether to set a minimum goal of 

deployment for support under ACF 

Mobile Phase II of 5G–NR 7/1 Mbps 

measured in an outdoor stationary 

environment. 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

could minimize impacts to small 

entities that it has considered in 

reaching its proposed approach, which 

may include the following four 

alternatives (among others): ‘‘(1) the 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance and 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; (3) the use of 

performance rather than design 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for such small entities.’’ 

The FNPRM also takes the step of 

outlining an alternative mechanism that 

would allow a provider to retain its 

funding if it provides comparable 

service in a nonduplicate-support area, 

as well as consider alternative 

approaches from small and other 

entities on how best to achieve an 

outcome that dovetails both the 

Commission’s policy goals and the 

minimization of substantial economic 

impact to small entities. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

It is further ordered that, pursuant to 

the authority contained in sections 4(i), 

201, 205, 214, 254, 303(r), and 403 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 201, 205, 

214, 254, 303(r), 403, and §§ 1.1 and 

1.421 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1, 1.421, the FNPRM is adopted. The 

FNPRM will be effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register, 

with comment dates indicated therein. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28170 Filed 12–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 383 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2024–0121] 

RIN 2126–AC59 

Transportation of Fuel for Agricultural 

Aircraft Operations 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 96177 

1Endorsement as defined in § 383.5 means an 

authorization to an individual’s commercial 

learner’s permit (CLP) or CDL required to permit the 

individual to operate certain types of commercial 

motor vehicles. 

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would 

amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations (FMCSRs) to allow States to 

waive the hazardous materials (HM) 

endorsement requirement for holders of 

Class A commercial driver’s licenses 

(CDL) who transport no more than 1,000 

gallons of aviation grade jet fuel in 

support of seasonal agricultural 

operations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA2024–0121 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2024-0121/document. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Dockets Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Dockets 

Operations, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Washington, DC 20590–0001, 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

To be sure someone is there to help you, 

please call (202) 366–9317 or (202) 366– 

9826 before visiting Dockets Operations. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Rebecca Rehberg, Transportation 

Specialist, CDL Division, Office of 

Safety Programs, FMCSA; (850)-728– 

2034; rebecca.rehberg@dot.gov. If you 

have questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Dockets 

Operations at (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FMCSA 

organizes this NPRM as follows: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of the Regulatory 

Action 

B. Costs and Benefits 

III. Abbreviations 

IV. Legal Basis 

V. Background 

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

VII. International Impacts 

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

IX. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), E.O. 

14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review), 

and DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures 

B. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

H. Privacy 

I. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) 

J. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

K. Rulemaking Summary 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

NPRM (FMCSA–2024–0121), indicate 

the specific section of this document to 

which your comment applies, and 

provide a reason for each suggestion or 

recommendation. You may submit your 

comments and material online or by fax, 

mail, or hand delivery, but please use 

only one of these means. FMCSA 

recommends that you include your 

name and a mailing address, an email 

address, or a phone number in the body 

of your document so FMCSA can 

contact you if there are questions 

regarding your submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2024-0121/document, click on 

this NPRM, click ‘‘Comment,’’ and type 

your comment into the text box on the 

following screen. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period. 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

CBI is commercial or financial 

information that is both customarily and 

actually treated as private by its owner. 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to the NPRM contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to the 

NPRM, it is important that you clearly 

designate the submitted comments as 

CBI.Please mark each page of your 

submission that constitutes CBI as 

‘‘PROPIN’’ to indicate it contains 

proprietary information. FMCSA will 

treat such marked submissions as 

confidential under the Freedom of 

Information Act, and they will not be 

placed in the public docket of the 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, 

Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office 

of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001 or via email at brian.g.dahlin@

dot.gov. At this time, you need not send 

a duplicate hardcopy of your electronic 

CBI submissions to FMCSA 

headquarters. Any comments FMCSA 

receives not specifically designated as 

CBI will be placed in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view any documents mentioned as 

being available in the docket, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

FMCSA-2024-0121/document and 

choose the document to review. To view 

comments, click this NPRM, then click 

‘‘Browse Comments.’’ If you do not have 

access to the internet, you may view the 

docket online by visiting Dockets 

Operations on the ground floor of the 

DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590– 

0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or 

(202) 366–9826 before visiting Dockets 

Operations. 

C. Privacy 

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

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its regulatory process. 

DOT posts these comments, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov as described in the 

system of records notice DOT/ALL 14 

(Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS)), which can be reviewed at 

https://www.transportation.gov/ 

individuals/privacy/privacy-act-systemrecords-notices. The comments are 

posted without edit and are searchable 

by the name of the submitter. 

II. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose and Summary of the 

Regulatory Action 

FMCSA proposes to amend the 

commercial driver’s license (CDL) 

regulations to allow States additional 

flexibility to waive the hazardous 

materials (HM) endorsement 1

requirement for certain drivers 

transporting aviation fuel in furtherance 

of agricultural aviation operations. 

Many farm operations rely on aircraft to 

apply pesticides or fertilizers to their 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
96178 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

2Title 49, United States Code, was recodified in 

1994, the waiver authority in 49 U.S.C. app. 2711 

was redesignated as 49 U.S.C. 31315 (Pub. L. 103– 

272, 108 Stat. 745, 1029, July 5, 1994), and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA–21) revised 49 U.S.C. 31315 as ‘‘Waivers, 

exemptions, and pilot programs’’ (Pub. L. 105–178, 

112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998). 

crops. Agricultural aviation companies 

often deliver aircraft fuel to staging 

areas some distance from their 

headquarters. These companies, 

particularly in remote, rural areas, have 

difficulty finding CDL holders with HM 

endorsements to complete these 

deliveries. Under the current 

regulations, most CDL holders must 

obtain an HM endorsement before 

transporting fuels. However, 49 CFR 

383.3(i) provides a limited exception to 

this requirement and allows States to 

waive the requirement of an HM 

endorsement if the holder of a Class A 

CDL is transporting diesel fuel in the 

CDL holder’s State of domicile as an 

employee of four specific agriculturerelated businesses. FMCSA proposes to 

give States authority to waive the HM 

endorsement requirement for Class A 

CDL holders who transport up to 1,000 

gallons of aviation grade jet fuel (often 

called Jet A, referred to as jet fuel for the 

purposes of this preamble) in the CDL 

holder’s State of domicile and in 

support of agricultural aircraft 

operations. 

B. Costs and Benefits 

This proposal could result in costs to 

States and their State driver licensing 

agencies (SDLAs) and may result in cost 

savings to drivers and to agricultural 

aviation operators. States and their 

SDLAs may incur costs for updating 

their websites and other informational 

materials to reflect the changes in 

requirements for Class A CDL holders 

transporting hazardous materials and for 

training roadside officers. The proposal 

would result in cost savings for 

agricultural aviation operators and the 

drivers these operators hire to mix, load, 

and transport jet fuel in quantities of 

1,000 gallons or less in participating 

States. Class A CDL holders would 

avoid approximately $261 in costs 

associated with each driver obtaining an 

HM endorsement, and agricultural 

aviation operators would be able to run 

their businesses more efficiently by 

making use of satellite airstrips. FMCSA 

does not expect that this proposed rule 

would negatively impact CMV safety. 

For various reasons, drivers who 

transport jet fuel operate in low-risk 

safety conditions and rarely experience 

crashes. More in depth discussion of the 

potential impacts resulting from this 

rule are found in the regulatory analyses 

section below. 

III. Abbreviations 

ANPRM Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDL Commercial driver’s license 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CE Categorical exclusion 

CLP Commercial learner’s permit 

CMV Commercial motor vehicle 

CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act 

DOT Department of Transportation 

ELOS Equivalent level of safety 

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations 

FR Federal Register 

HM Hazardous materials 

HMRs Hazardous materials regulations 

IRFA Initial regulatory flexibility analysis 

MCMIS Motor Carrier Management 

Information System 

NAAA National Agricultural Aviation 

Association 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

PIA Privacy impact assessment 

PTA Privacy threshold assessment 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

SDLA State driver’s licensing agency 

STA Security Threat Assessment 

TPR Training Provider Registry 

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C. United States Code 

IV. Legal Basis 

The CDL regulations are based on the 

authority of the Commercial Motor 

Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA). 

Section 12013 of the CMVSA allowed 

the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), FMCSA’s predecessor agency, 

to ‘‘waive, in whole or in part, 

application of any provision of this title 

or any regulation issued under this title 

with respect to class of persons or class 

of commercial motor vehicles if the 

Secretary of Transportation (the 

Secretary) determines that such waiver 

is not contrary to the public interest and 

does not diminish the safe operation of 

commercial motor vehicles’’ (Pub. L. 

99–570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207–170, 

3207–186, Oct. 27, 1986, codified at 49 

U.S.C. app. 2711). 

On the basis of section 12013, FHWA 

authorized the States to waive the 

knowledge and skills tests otherwise 

required to obtain a CDL for employees 

of custom harvesters, farm retail outlets 

and suppliers, agrichemical businesses, 

and livestock feeders (57 FR 13650, Apr. 

17, 1992). CDL applicants in States that 

exercised this waiver option were 

required to meet certain conditions, 

including a prohibition on carrying any 

placarded quantities of HM, except for 

diesel fuel in quantities of 1,000 gallons 

or less (57 FR 13650, 13654). The 1992 

CDL waiver option, with the 1,000- 

gallon restriction on the transportation 

of diesel fuel, was codified originally as 

49 CFR 383.3(f)(3)(v) (61 FR 9546, 

March 8, 1996). 

Following statutory amendments,2 the 

language of the CMVSA’s section 

12013—that a waiver must be ‘‘not 

contrary to the public interest’’ and ‘‘not 

diminish the safe operation of 

commercial motor vehicles’’—has been 

replaced by the standard that a waiver 

or exemption must ‘‘likely achieve a 

level of safety that is equivalent to, or 

greater than, the level that would be 

achieved in the absence of the waiver’’ 

(49 U.S.C. 31315(a)) or ‘‘absent such 

exemption’’ (49 U.S.C. 31315d(b)(1)). 

Section 7208 of the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act 

(Pub. L. 114–94, Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 

1312, 1593) allowed the States to waive 

the requirement that a holder of a Class 

A CDL obtain the HM endorsement 

required by 49 CFR 383.93(b)(4), 

provided the Class A CDL holder is an 

employee of one of the four categories 

of business specified in FHWA’s 1992 

waiver who transports diesel fuel in 

quantities of 1,000 gallons or less. As 

thus amended, the State waiver 

authority is now codified at 49 CFR 

383.3(i). 

FMCSA believes that the equivalentlevel-of-safety (ELOS) standard required 

by the waiver and exemption provisions 

in 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 49 CFR part 381 

is the appropriate standard for this 

NPRM. The 1992 rule required that the 

State waiver option not diminish the 

safe operation of CMVs, and all 

subsequent versions of the statute and 

regulation have retained that ELOS 

concept. Congress itself clearly 

embraced that standard when section 

7208 was explicitly limited to the same 

four agriculture-related businesses 

covered by the 1992 exemption. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31305(a), which 

sets forth the general standards for the 

CDL rules, also provides that FMCSA 

‘‘shall prescribe regulations on 

minimum standards for testing and 

ensuring the fitness of an individual 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 96179 

3Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, 

Public Law 99–570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207–170, 

49 U.S.C. chapter 313. 

4 Industry Facts, Environmental Benefits and 

FAQs—National Agricultural Aviation Association 

(agaviation.org) (accessed June 11, 2024). 

5The request for exemption and other associated 

documents may be found at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket/FMCSA-2007-28480. 

operating a commercial motor vehicle.’’ 

Implicit in that provision is the 

authority to decide whether certain CDL 

holders may meet the ‘‘fitness’’ 

requirement without complying with 

every part of the CDL regulations. 

FMCSA believes that exempting 

employees of agricultural aviation 

companies who hold Class A CDLs and 

transport jet fuel from the requirement 

to obtain an HM endorsement is 

consistent both with the standard of the 

CMVSA’s section 12013 and with the 

current ELOS and ‘‘fitness’’ standards 

enacted by Congress. A waiver granted 

by a State under this proposal, as under 

section 7208 of the FAST Act, would 

also exempt eligible drivers from the 

Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) background 

records check in 49 CFR part 1572, 

subpart B. 

V. Background 

A. Commercial Driver’s License 

Since April 1, 1992, drivers have been 

required to obtain and hold a CDL if 

they operate in interstate, intrastate, or 

foreign commerce and drive a vehicle 

that meets one or more of the 

classifications of a CMV in 49 U.S.C. 

31301(4).3 The physical requirements 

and knowledge and skills testing are 

intended to help to ensure safe 

operations of CMVs. FHWA and, since 

2000, FMCSA have developed and 

issued standards for State licensing and 

testing of CDL applicants. Under 

§ 383.133(c)(6) of the FMCSRs, States 

must administer a three-part CDL skills 

test to CDL applicants in the following 

order: (1) pre-trip inspection, (2) basic 

vehicle control skills, and (3) on-road 

skills. Drivers who operate special types 

of CMVs, such as school buses, vehicles 

carrying HM, double/triple trailers, tank 

vehicles, and combination vehicles, 

must pass additional tests to obtain the 

relevant endorsement for their CDLs. 

Endorsement testing requirements are 

found in § 383.93(c). The HM 

endorsement requires a knowledge test. 

B. National Agricultural Aviation 

Association Interactions With FMCSA 

The National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA) is a trade 

association that represents over 1,900 

members in 46 States. NAAA member 

operators/pilots are licensed as 

commercial applicators who use aircraft 

to enhance food and fiber production 

and control health-threatening pests. 

According to NAAA’s petition for 

rulemaking, aircraft operations are often 

the only, or the only economical, 

method to apply pesticides or fertilizers. 

Almost 28 percent of crop protection 

product applications to commercial 

farmland are made aerially. As a result, 

NAAA estimates that 127 million acres 

of cropland are treated via aerial 

application in the U.S. each year.4

While fueling, mixing, and loading of 

crop-protection products (e.g., 

fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, or 

herbicides) are normally conducted at a 

location where agriculture aviation 

operators have permanent fuel tanks 

and mixing and loading facilities, at 

times operators and pilots work so far 

from their permanent facility that it is 

cost-effective to use a satellite landing 

strip and an on-site fuel truck. In such 

scenarios, fuel is pumped from the 

fixed-base tanks into the fuel truck that 

transports it to the satellite landing 

strip. Additional trips are made to the 

satellite strip as needed, and the CMV 

returns to the fixed-base location at the 

end of the day. Some CMVs may also be 

loaded with crop-protection products 

(e.g., insecticides, fungicides, or 

herbicides). The driver may serve both 

as a ‘‘mixer loader’’ of the fertilizers or 

pesticides and of the aircraft fuel. 

2005 Exemption Request 

On June 17, 2005, NAAA requested an 

exemption 5 under 49 CFR 381.310 on 

behalf of its members. NAAA asked that 

CMV drivers supporting agricultural 

aircraft operations be exempted from the 

required knowledge and skills tests 

required for a CDL and that they be 

eligible to receive restricted CDLs 

allowed for certain drivers in farmrelated service industries, as described 

in § 383.3(f). In addition, NAAA sought 

an exemption from § 383.3(f)(3)(v) to 

allow these restricted CDL holders to 

transport fuel used to power cropsprayer aircraft, if transported in 

quantities of 1,000 gallons or less. 

NAAA argued that the exemptions 

would provide parity with the CDL 

regulations for other, nearly identical 

farm-related services. NAAA did not 

offer any countermeasures to ensure an 

ELOS, as required by 49 U.S.C. 

31315(b)(5)(D), but it argued that 

compliance with all other DOT 

requirements would ensure safe CMV 

operations. 

2007 Federal Register Notice 

On July 5, 2007, FMCSA issued a 

Federal Register notice (72 FR 36748) 

soliciting comments on the NAAA 

application. The Agency received a total 

of 17 comments, 9 supporting and 6 

opposing the exemption. Two 

comments were out of scope. All 

comments that supported the request 

were from agricultural entities. 

Opponents included a safety association 

and State safety agencies. 

Supporters of the request noted that 

they were experiencing the same 

shortage of qualified CDL drivers as 

NAAA members, creating a hardship for 

the industry. Commenters also 

mentioned CMVs transporting jet fuel 

and pesticides operate primarily in rural 

areas, where low population and traffic 

density reduced crash risk. These trips 

usually occur within a 50-mile radius or 

less of their permanent facilities. One 

farmer indicated that agriculture relies 

on crop spraying operations. 

The NAAA’s application was opposed 

by Advocates for Highway and Auto 

Safety and safety agencies of Missouri, 

Virginia, and Ohio. The commenters 

pointed out that, if this exemption were 

in place, NAAA drivers would be 

transporting HM more dangerous than 

that permitted by § 383.3(f)(3)(v) and 

would be doing so without 

demonstrating basic competency in 

CMV operations. The drivers would also 

avoid two requirements for the HM 

endorsement: successful completion of 

the written HM test required by 

§ 383.135, and a determination by the 

TSA pursuant to § 383.141(b) that the 

driver is ‘‘not a security threat.’’ The 

commenters also pointed out that 

NAAA failed to propose an alternative 

method of assessing the knowledge and 

skills of these CMV drivers, as required 

by § 381.415(c)(6) through (c)(8). 

2010 Denial 

After reviewing NAAA’s request for 

exemption and the public comments 

received, FMCSA concluded that NAAA 

had failed to demonstrate how it would 

ensure that the operations of its 

members under the exemption would 

achieve an ELOS. The Agency 

published the notice of denial in the 

Federal Register on June 10, 2010 (75 

FR 32983). 

FAST Act Implementation 

Section 7208 of the FAST Act 

directed the Secretary to allow a State, 

at its discretion, to waive the 

requirement that a Class A CDL holder 

obtain an HM endorsement when that 

individual is transporting 3,785 liters 

(1,000 gallons) or less of diesel fuel, 

marked ‘‘flammable’’ or ‘‘combustible,’’ 

as appropriate, as an employee of a 

custom harvester operation, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
96180 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

6The grant letter and all other correspondence 

with NAAA related to this rulemaking can be found 

in the docket for this rule. 

agrichemical business, farm retail outlet 

and supplier, or livestock feeder. 

On July 22, 2016, FMCSA 

implemented this and other provisions 

of the FAST Act (81 FR 47714). The 

final rule amended § 383.3 by adding a 

new paragraph (i), providing that a State 

may waive the requirement that a driver 

obtain a HM endorsement to transport 

diesel fuel under certain circumstances. 

2018 NAAA Petition 

In April of 2018, NAAA submitted a 

petition to amend § 383.3(i), which 

FMCSA treated as a petition for 

rulemaking under § 389.31. NAAA 

argued that expanding the exemption 

options allowed by section 7208 of the 

FAST Act to include an HM exception 

for drivers with a Class A CDL 

transporting 1,000 gallons or less of jet 

fuel would provide an economic benefit 

to agriculture aviation operators while 

keeping America’s roads safe. NAAA 

asserted that the similar chemical 

properties of jet fuel and diesel fuel, 

along with infrequency of trips 

involving aviation fuel, the rural 

environments in which these trips 

typically occur, and exceptional 

weather conditions would provide an 

ELOS while reducing regulatory 

burdens on agriculture aviation 

operators. 

NAAA emphasized the cost to 

agriculture aviation operators, almost all 

of them small businesses, of paying 

drivers to obtain an HM endorsement 

when they already have the knowledge 

and skills required to hold a CDL. 

NAAA noted that retaining drivers with 

an HM endorsement is extremely 

difficult due to the seasonal nature of 

agriculture aviation work. NAAA 

indicated that a shortage of available 

drivers with such an endorsement may 

block the transportation of jet fuel to a 

satellite airstrip closer to the application 

site. In December of 2022, after review 

of the petition and consultation with 

technical staff from the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), FMCSA 

granted NAAA’s petition for rulemaking 

to amend § 383.3(i).6

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

Pursuant to §§ 383.93(a)(1) and (b)(4), 

a CDL holder may not drive a vehicle 

used to transport HM without obtaining 

a State-issued HM endorsement. The 

term hazardous materials is defined in 

§ 383.5 to include materials for which 

placarding is required under subpart F 

of 49 CFR part 172. Current regulations 

generally require a CDL holder to obtain 

an HM endorsement in order to 

transport fuel, including jet fuel. 

This NPRM would amend § 383(i) to 

allow States to waive the HM 

requirement for Class A CDL holders 

who are employed by agricultural 

aviation operators in their State of 

domicile and drive a vehicle 

transporting up to 3,785 liters (1,000 

gallons) of jet fuel (clearly marked with 

a ‘‘flammable’’ or ‘‘combustible’’ 

placard) for use in agricultural aviation 

operations. The Agency also proposes to 

add a definition of jet fuel to mean 

‘‘fuel, aviation, turbine engine’’ as listed 

in the Hazardous Materials Table in 49 

CFR 172.101 that is reclassed as a 

combustible liquid in accordance with 

49 CFR part 173. 

FMCSA developed the proposal in 

this NPRM based on evaluation and 

review of available data relating to the 

similarity of jet fuel and diesel fuel, the 

safety of the trucking operations of the 

agricultural aviation industry, NAAA’s 

petition content, existing exemptions to 

subpart H of 49 CFR part 383, potential 

impact on the States, and the ELOS for 

an addition of a jet fuel exemption. 

These topic areas are discussed 

individually below. In addition to the 

specific areas detailed below, FMCSA 

also requests comment on other 

questions regarding the agricultural 

aviation industry transport of fuel in 

general which can be found in Section 

VI.6. Issues on Which the Agency Seeks 

Further Comment. 

1. Jet Fuel and Diesel Fuel 

Both diesel and jet fuel are kerosenebased fuels and have similar chemical 

characteristics, transportation 

requirements, and related exceptions. 

Under the HM regulations, both diesel 

fuel and jet fuel are classified as 

flammable liquids in the hazardous 

materials table (§ 172.101), but in most 

instances, may be reclassed as 

combustible liquids if they have a flash 

point at or above 100 °F (38°C). If 

properly reclassed as combustible 

liquids and transported in non-bulk 

packaging, as defined in § 171.8, diesel 

and jet fuel are not subject to the 

requirements of Subchapter C of the HM 

regulations unless the combustible 

liquid is a hazardous substance, a 

hazardous waste, or a marine pollutant. 

This exception allows drivers to 

potentially transport more than 1,000 

gallons of diesel or jet fuel in multiple 

non-bulk packagings without an HM 

endorsement. However, when diesel or 

jet fuel are properly reclassed as 

combustible liquids but transported in a 

bulk packaging, as defined in § 171.8, 

they are subject to some of the HM 

regulations including the placarding 

requirements of subpart F of 49 CFR 

part 172 and the HM endorsement. 

Additionally, PHMSA’s Emergency 

Response Guidebook provides 

emergency responders the same 

guidance on what to do during the 

initial stages of a HM transportation 

incident. 

2. Safety of the Trucking Operations of 

the Agricultural Aviation Industry 

FMCSA reviewed the supporting 

evidence provided by NAAA in its 

petition. NAAA indicated that several 

factors support the safety of its proposed 

HM exemption, primarily the similarity 

of jet fuel to diesel fuel, for which an 

exemption option is already available. 

Additionally, agriculture aviation 

operations typically take place in rural 

areas with minimal traffic and during 

fair weather conditions. In many cases, 

driving occurs only once or twice a 

week to a satellite facility. These factors, 

in addition to the knowledge and skills 

required to obtain a Class A CDL, create 

low-risk safety conditions. FMCSA 

agrees diesel fuel is similar to jet fuel, 

as defined in this NPRM, and that 

agricultural aviation transport of jet fuel 

generally occurs in lower traffic areas 

which are linked to lower incident rates. 

In the FAST Act, Congress implicitly 

determined that allowing States the 

option to waive the HM endorsement for 

drivers transporting diesel fuel for the 

four agriculture-related businesses now 

listed in § 383.3(i), would not adversely 

affect safety. Because jet fuel is 

chemically very similar to diesel fuel 

and because agricultural aviation 

companies transport jet fuel in the same 

rural areas, on roads with low traffic 

density, as drivers transporting diesel 

fuel for the four agricultural businesses 

listed in the FAST Act, FMCSA 

concludes that the ELOS determination 

underlying the FAST Act waiver option 

is equally valid and applicable to the 

option for a State waiver of the HM 

endorsement proposed by this 

rulemaking. 

3. Impact on the States 

FMCSA is aware that States may have 

concerns if the HM knowledge test were 

allowed to be waived. These concerns 

could include undermining the purpose 

of a CDL and its intended level of safety, 

opening the possibility for other 

industries to request such exemptions, 

and inconsistency across the States that 

exercise discretion with the proposed jet 

fuel exemption. 

The Agency notes that, regardless of 

whether any State exercises its 

discretion, a driver may still be required 

to obtain an HM endorsement when 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 96181 

7FMCSA contacted the States, 50 of which 

responded as of July 25, 2024, to determine which 

States choose to grant the exemption for diesel. The 

16 States that grant the diesel exemption are: 

Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, 

New Mexico, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, 

South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin. 

8FAST Act Conference Report to Accompany 

H.R. 22. Dec. 1, 2015. https://www.congress.gov/ 

114/crpt/hrpt357/CRPT-114hrpt357.pdf (accessed 

June 21, 2024). 

9FMCSA Congress Safety and Enforcement 

Impacts Report to Congress. Feb. 2023. This 

document is available at: https://

www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2023- 

03/Safety%20and%20Enforcement

%20Impacts%20Report%20Final

%20February%202023.pdf and in the docket for 

this rulemaking (last accessed May 24, 2024). 

10 Dong, Chunjiao, Qiao Dong, Baoshan Huang, 

Wei Hu, and Shashi S. Nambisan. ‘‘Estimating 

factors contributing to frequency and severity of 

large truck-involved crashes.’’ 2017. Journal of 

Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems 143, 

no. 8: 04017032. 

11Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash 

Causation Study. Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation: 

Washington, DC, USA (2005). 

operating a CMV in a State that has not 

opted to waive the requirement. This 

scenario could occur when jet fuel is 

transported across a State line. As 

detailed earlier in the section V. B. 

Background, most satellite locations 

utilizing exempted CMVs are expected 

to be within a 50-mile radius of the 

permanent facility. FMCSA therefore 

believes that such discrepancies in 

endorsement requirements would be 

uncommon. 

The Agency’s experience with SDLAs’ 

responses to codification of the diesel 

fuel exemption indicate that 16 of 50 7

States choose to grant the exemption. 

FMCSA believes that States with 

economies heavily dependent on 

agriculture would be most likely to 

exercise a jet fuel exemption. The 

Agency expects a similar level of use if 

this proposal were to be made final, but 

requests comment on that assumption. 

States utilizing the exemption would 

need to provide training to roadside 

officers on the application of the new 

rule. The added development cost of the 

training would be minimal, however, 

due to the similarity of the existing 

diesel fuel exemption. 

4. Equivalent Level of Safety 

As part of evaluating the NAAA 

petition, FMCSA considered whether 

granting the exemption for jet fuel 

would likely maintain a level of safety 

equivalent to, or greater than, the level 

achieved by the current regulations. The 

Agency reviewed available safety 

records, reports, and statistics to 

evaluate the safety of the proposal 

presented in this NPRM. 

In addition to other analysis, FMCSA 

evaluated the existing diesel fuel 

exemption to determine if jet fuel has 

similar risk characteristics. FMCSA 

reviewed the conference report that 

accompanied the FAST Act, and found 

no indication that Congress 

intentionally excluded the 

transportation of kerosene-based fuels 

other than diesel fuels, such as fuels 

used in support of agriculture aviation 

operations.8

FMCSA analyzed existing data 

sources available in the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 

(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting 

System and FMCSA’s Motor Carrier 

Management Information System 

(MCMIS) as well completing a 47- 

question survey of Agency field staff 

directly involved in the enforcement of, 

and compliance with, Federal 

regulations. The study did not return 

evidence of safety or enforcement 

impacts directly attributable to the 

FAST Act provisions, which include the 

HM endorsement exemption for diesel 

fuel.9

NAAA indicated that agricultural 

aviation fuel transportation occurs most 

commonly in rural agricultural areas 

where there is less traffic. This is 

supported by research which indicates, 

for example, that 16.4 percent of crashes 

are on roads with 10,000 vehicles/day or 

fewer, compared to 36.9 percent of 

crashes on roads with 10,000–50,000 

vehicles, and 46.7 percent of crashes on 

roads with 50,000+ vehicles.10

Likewise, the 2005 FMCSA Report to 

Congress on the Large Truck Crash 

Causation Study reviewed crashes by 

roadway type and indicated the 

following: Interstate (25.1 percent), U.S. 

highway (24.2 percent), State highway 

(30.3 percent), country road (9.1 

percent), township (1.5 percent), 

municipality (6.8 percent), and other 

(2.6 percent).11

Finally, the FAST Act addition of 

§ 383.3(i) does not provide exemptions 

from additional regulatory requirements 

related to the transportation of diesel 

fuel and, for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, jet fuel. Because drivers 

transporting jet fuel are hazmat 

employees as defined in 49 CFR 171.8, 

hazmat training is still required under 

parts 172 and 177 for the agricultural 

aviation industry. 

PHMSA initial and recurring HM 

training requirements, found in 

§ 172.704, include general awareness/ 

familiarization with HM, function 

specific training, safety training 

including emergency response, and 

security awareness. Additionally, 

§ 177.816 requires driver training that is 

very similar to the training required to 

obtain the HM endorsement. 

FMCSA finds that initiation of a 

rulemaking to provide States the option 

to grant relief from the HM endorsement 

for agriculture aviation operators 

seeking a Class A CDL to be reasonable, 

given the similarity of diesel fuel to jet 

fuel and the available research. 

5. Issues on Which the Agency Seeks 

Further Comment 

The Agency requests comment on 

certain aspects of the agriculture 

aviation industry and the use of CMVs 

to transport jet fuel. 

a. FMCSA believes that States with 

economies heavily dependent on 

agriculture would be most likely to 

exercise a jet fuel exemption. Is this an 

accurate assumption? 

b. Will this proposal lead to 

additional burden or costs to SDLAs 

and/or roadside officers and any other 

law enforcement officials responsible 

for enforcing CDL and HM endorsement 

compliance? 

c. How many Class A CDL holders 

with HM endorsements are currently 

involved in transporting jet fuel in 

quantities of 1,000 gallons or less for 

agriculture aviation operations? 

d. How many CMV drivers will enter 

the market for transporting jet fuel in 

quantities of 1,000 gallons or less in 

participating States due to relaxed 

requirements? 

e. As part of the initial petition for 

rulemaking, the NAAA claimed that a 

shortage of available drivers may 

prevent the use of a satellite airstrip 

closer to the application site. How many 

satellite airstrips would be available for 

use if this proposal were to be finalized? 

How many refueling trips from 

application sites back to operational 

bases (mixing-loading sites) do aircraft 

currently make, and how much fuel do 

these trips require? 

f. How much revenue do agriculture 

aviation operators lose as a result of not 

having an available CMV driver with a 

Class A CDL and HM endorsement? In 

a survey from 2005 cited in its initial 

petition for rulemaking, the NAAA 

mentioned that one operator claimed 

that he loses $2,500 to $5,000 per day 

as a result of not having an available 

CDL holder and loses work as a result 

of this shortage. FMCSA is seeking an 

estimate of the revenue the typical 

(average) agriculture aviation operator 

loses per day by not having an available 

CMV driver to transport jet fuel and 

therefore occasionally being unable to 

work. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
96182 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

12BLS, date extracted: July 11, 2024. 

13https://www.agaviation.org/about/about-agaviation/industry-facts-faqs/. 

VII. International Impacts 

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 

between nations. 

VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

This section-by-section analysis 

describes the proposed changes in 

numerical order. Part 383 

‘‘Applicability’’ would be amended in 

five locations. Paragraph (i) of § 383.3 

would be amended to add ‘‘or jet fuel’’ 

to the commodities States may exempt 

from the subpart H CDL requirement. 

Paragraph (i)(1) would be amended by 

adding ‘‘agriculture aviation operation’’ 

to the list of industries to which the 

hazardous material endorsement 

exemption applies. Paragraph (i)(2)(i) 

would be amended to add operators of 

vehicles transporting jet fuel in a 

quantity of 1,000 or less gallons to the 

conditions of the hazardous material 

exemption. Paragraph (i)(2)(ii) would be 

revised to indicate that jet fuel or diesel 

fuel transported under this hazardous 

material endorsement exemption must 

be clearly placarded in accordance with 

Part 172 subpart F and all other 

applicable HMRs. 

Finally, section 383.5 ‘‘Definitions’’ 

would be amended to add a definition 

for jet fuel. The definition includes all 

classes of fuel, aviation, turbine engine 

as listed in the Hazardous Materials 

Table in 49 CFR 172.101, including Jet 

A, that are reclassed as a combustible 

liquid in accordance with 49 CFR part 

173. 

IX. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), E.O. 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

FMCSA has considered the impact of 

this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 

51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory 

Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 

3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review, and 

E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, Apr. 11, 2023) 

Modernizing Regulatory Review. The 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs within the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) determined that this 

NPRM is not a significant regulatory 

action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, 

as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 

14094, and does not require an 

assessment of potential costs and 

benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 

order. Accordingly, OMB has not 

reviewed it under that E.O. 

This proposal would amend the CDL 

regulations to allow States additional 

flexibility to waive the HM endorsement 

requirement for holders of a Class A 

CDL who are transporting aviation fuel 

in quantities of 1,000 gallons or less in 

service of agricultural aviation 

operations. Under the current 

regulations, before undertaking this 

task, drivers working for agricultural 

aviation operators must obtain an HM 

endorsement, which requires training, 

testing, and a TSA background check. 

This proposal would allow flexibility 

for a limited population of drivers while 

operating within their State of domicile 

to provide services to agricultural 

aviation operations without obtaining 

an HM endorsement. 

This proposed rule is voluntary in 

nature and does not require that States 

adopt any flexibilities contained herein. 

This proposed rule could impact States, 

SDLAs, agricultural aviation operators, 

and drivers. The analysis below 

discusses these affected entities, the 

need for the regulation, and the costs 

and benefits that could result from the 

proposed rule. 

Affected Entities 

States 

States could be impacted by this 

proposal; however, FMCSA does not 

know how many States would opt to 

waive the HM endorsement for 

agricultural aviation businesses and 

their drivers under this proposal. In 

response to Section 7208 of the FAST 

Act, 16 of 50 States chose to grant the 

exemption for diesel fuel, which is 

similar to the jet fuel exemption 

specified in this proposal. FMCSA 

assumes that there would be a similar 

level of adoption for this proposal, and 

that the majority of participating States 

would be those with agriculturedependent economies. 

SDLAs 

This proposal would impact SDLAs in 

States that choose to waive the 

requirement for HM endorsements for 

Class A CDL holders employed by 

agricultural aviation operators. SDLAs 

are responsible for administering CDLs 

and endorsements for the motor carrier 

driver population. SDLAs in 

participating States would need to 

become familiar with these new 

requirements and update information on 

requirements for CDL holders. 

Drivers 

This proposal would impact Class A 

CDL holders who are employed by 

agricultural aviation operators in 

participating States and are responsible 

for transporting jet fuel in quantities of 

1,000 gallons or less. Drivers serve as 

‘‘mixer-loaders’’ for crop protection 

products and load agricultural aircrafts 

with these products and fuel. Drivers 

pump fuel from fixed base tanks into the 

fuel truck then transport it to the 

satellite airstrip to load into agricultural 

aircraft. Under this proposal, drivers 

operating Group A vehicles would still 

need to hold a Class A CDL since this 

proposal would only allow States to 

waive the HM endorsement 

requirement. These drivers would still 

be required to obtain an HM 

endorsement when transferring jet fuel 

across State lines. 

FMCSA anticipates that any impacted 

drivers would work in the same North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) industry as agricultural 

aviation operators; 11511—support 

activities for crop production. As of May 

2023, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

reports that there are 5,430 heavy 

tractor-trailer drivers working in the 

1151 industry.12 The 1151 industry is 

broader than agricultural aviation 

operations, and as such drivers 

impacted by this rule would be a subset 

of the 5,430 within this industry. 

Further, FMCSA does not know how 

many drivers are employed by 

agricultural aviation operators in the 

States that would waive the HM 

endorsement requirement. FMCSA 

requests comment on the size of this 

population. 

Agricultural Aviation Operators 

According to the NAAA, there are 

approximately 1,560 agricultural 

aviation businesses and 3,400 

agricultural pilots (approximately 2,000 

are hired pilots and 1,400 are owner/ 

operators) operating in the United 

States.13 FMCSA does not know how 

many agricultural aviation businesses 

would be impacted by this rule. 

Need for the Regulation 

While both fueling and mixing and 

loading of crop-protection products 

(e.g., fertilizers, insecticides, fungicides, 

or herbicides) are normally conducted at 

a location where agriculture aviation 

operators have permanent fuel tanks 

and mixing and loading facilities, at 

times operators and pilots work so far 

from their permanent facility that it is 

cost-effective to use a satellite landing 

strip and an on-site fuel truck. When onsite fuel trucks or drivers are not 

available, pilots must fly agricultural 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 96183 

14 Department of Labor (DOL), BLS. Occupational 

Employment Statistics (OES). May 2023. Median 

hourly wage for Heavy and Tractor-Trailer truck 

drivers in the 115110 occupation is $20.75. 

Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/tables.htm 

(accessed July 11, 2024). 

15 DOL, BLS. Employer Cost for Employee 

Compensation for Transportation and 

Warehousing, Table 4: Table 4: Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation for private industry 

workers by occupational and industry group. March 

17, 2023. Available at: https://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf (accessed Apr. 22, 2024). 

aircraft back to their permanent mixing 

and loading facilities, which limits the 

amount of land pilots can spray on a 

given day and increases fuel costs, 

leading to reduced revenue for 

businesses. 

Agricultural aviation businesses face a 

shortage of qualified drivers because for 

a Class A CDL an HM endorsement is a 

marketable asset, and these drivers are 

likely to find consistent, non-seasonal 

work. Furthermore, these businesses 

tend to operate in remote, rural areas 

that may be hundreds of miles away 

from the nearest SDLA. These factors 

limit agricultural aviation businesses 

from meeting their workforce needs. 

Costs and Benefits 

Costs 

This proposal could result in costs to 

States and their licensing agencies and 

may result in cost savings to drivers and 

to agricultural aviation operators. Under 

this proposal, States and their SDLAs 

may incur costs. SDLAs in participating 

States may need to update their 

websites to reflect the changes in 

requirements for Class A CDL holders 

transporting hazardous materials. Also, 

roadside officers in participating States 

would need to undergo training to be 

able to determine which drivers are 

operating under the waiver. FMCSA 

anticipates that States would update 

their biannual training to include a 

module on any changes to the CDL 

regulations and model any changes 

resulting from this rule after the training 

for the diesel fuel exemption. Because 

this training is ongoing, FMCSA 

anticipates that any additional costs 

related to this change would be de 

minimis. The Agency does not have 

data with which to estimate these 

potential State and SDLA costs and 

requests comments on the scope and 

magnitude of costs in participating 

States as a result of this proposal. 

The proposal would result in cost 

savings for agricultural aviation 

operators and the drivers these 

operators hire to mix, load, and 

transport jet fuel in quantities of 1,000 

gallons or less in participating States. 

Under the proposal, Class A CDL 

holders would not need to undergo the 

4-step process of obtaining an HM 

endorsement: completing a theory 

training module, passing a written 

exam, passing a TSA Security Threat 

Assessment (STA), and paying an SDLA 

fee, if applicable. As outlined below, the 

total cost per driver to obtain an HM 

endorsement is $261. 

Drivers must take theory training from 

training providers listed on the FMCSA 

Training Provider Registry (TPR). 

FMCSA anticipates that drivers 

impacted by this rule would opt to take 

online theory training because they live 

in remote areas. There are over 1,000 

providers listed on the TPR that provide 

online HM endorsement training. 

FMCSA took a random sample of 

approximately 180 providers and 

researched websites to develop 

estimates of training cost and time. 

Based on those websites that provided 

information, FMCSA found that the 

theory training cost ranges from $16 to 

$200, with a mean cost of $96 and a 

median cost of $99. These trainings tend 

to be self-paced, so few companies 

advertise the average length of time to 

complete the training. From those 

companies that provided information, 

the time ranges from 1 hour to 16 hours, 

with a mean of 5 and a median of 2 

hours. For estimation purposes, FMCSA 

anticipates that drivers impacted by this 

rule would save a $99 theory training 

fee and 2 hours of training, valued at 

$61.50. The opportunity cost of training 

time is valued at the rate at which 

drivers would accept in exchange for it, 

$30.75 per hour ($20.75 median hourly 

wage × 48.19 percent fringe benefit 

rate).14 15

Drivers seeking an HM endorsement 

must complete a background 

investigation through the TSA HM 

Endorsement Threat Assessment 

Program on-line application, visiting an 

application center, and paying a nonrefundable fee of $86.50. This process 

must be completed every 5 years in 

order to maintain the HM endorsement. 

Drivers operating under the waiver 

provided in the proposed rule would 

not be required to complete this process. 

Lastly, Class A CDL holders operating 

under the waiver provided in the 

proposed rule would not need to return 

to the SDLA to obtain an HM 

endorsement and would not be required 

to pay the associated SDLA fee. The 

SDLA HM endorsement fee changes by 

jurisdiction, ranging from $0 to over 

$40. For illustrative purposes, FMCSA 

estimates the average SDLA fee to be 

$14. As displayed in the table below, 

the total per driver cost to obtain an HM 

endorsement is $261. 

TABLE 1—COSTS TO OBTAIN HM 

ENDORSEMENT

Component Value 

Theory Training Fee ....................... $99.00 

Driver Opportunity Cost of Training 61.50 

TSA Background Fee ..................... 86.50 

SDLA HM Endorsement Fee .......... 14.00 

Total Cost Savings for each 

Class A CDL Holder ............ 261.00 

FMCSA does not expect this proposal 

would immediately impact drivers who 

currently hold a Class A CDL and HM 

endorsement. The proposal could 

impact these drivers at the time of 

renewal by eliminating the fees for the 

HM endorsement. 

These estimates do not include the 

costs associated with traveling to a TSA 

appointment center for the STA or 

traveling to the SDLA to take an HM 

knowledge test or obtain the HM 

endorsement. In rural areas where aerial 

agricultural operations are based, an 

SDLA may be several hundred miles 

away. FMCSA does not have data on 

how far drivers must travel to a TSA 

appointment center or an SDLA to pass 

the requirements to operate a vehicle 

transporting jet fuel but welcomes 

comment on the costs associated with 

this process. 

Agricultural aviation operators would 

gain efficiencies from this proposal 

because pilots working for operators in 

participating States would not need to 

expend time and fuel to travel back to 

their home bases to refuel. Instead, they 

would rely on CMV drivers with Class 

A CDLs to transport jet fuel and crop 

protection products from permanent 

facilities, which are often far from the 

agricultural fields, to satellite airstrips. 

According to an NAAA survey from 

2005, operators shared that in many 

cases they could not work because 

drivers were not available. The NAAA 

maintains that a shortage of available 

drivers with HM endorsements prevents 

the use of satellite airstrips, limiting the 

amount of land that can be sprayed on 

a given day and resulting in increased 

jet fuel costs. FMCSA does not know the 

current fuel or time (opportunity) costs 

these trips entail. In addition, FMCSA 

does not know how many more satellite 

facilities would be available as a result 

of this proposal and how many trips to 

mixing-loading facilities would be 

avoided by agricultural pilots. As such, 

FMCSA cannot estimate the cost savings 

that could result from this provision but 

requests comment on the impact of this 

proposed change as well as any data 

that the Agency can use to quantify the 

impact of this provision. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
96184 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

16A major rule means any rule that the Office of 

Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is 

likely to result in (a)an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; (b)a major 

increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 

industries, geographic regions, Federal, State, or 

local government agencies; or (c)significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United 

States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and export markets 

(5 U.S.C. 802(4)). 

17Endorsement as defined in § 383.5 means an 

authorization to an individual’s CLP or CDL 

required to permit the individual to operate certain 

types of commercial motor vehicles. 

18Title 49, United States Code, was recodified in 

1994, the waiver authority in 49 U.S.C. app. 2711 

was redesignated as 49 U.S.C. 31315 (Pub. L. 103– 

272, 108 Stat. 745, 1029, July 5, 1994), and the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA–21) revised 49 U.S.C. 31315 as ‘‘Waivers, 

exemptions, and pilot programs’’ (Pub. L. 105–178, 

112 Stat. 107, 401, June 9, 1998). 

Benefits 

FMCSA does not expect this proposed 

rule would negatively impact CMV 

safety. For various reasons, drivers who 

transport jet fuel operate in low-risk 

safety conditions and rarely experience 

crashes. According to the previously 

mentioned survey from 2005 cited in 

the NAAA’s initial application for 

endorsement, 95.3 percent of 

agricultural aviation operations had 

never been involved in any type of 

accident, and 92.9 percent travel on 

rural roads with minimal traffic. The 

NAAA also noted in this survey that 

drivers transporting fuel and chemicals 

travel an average of 57.81 miles per day, 

although they drive only once or twice 

a week to a satellite facility. 

Furthermore, the NAAA currently 

provides highway safety education for a 

large portion of the small business 

owners of agricultural aircraft 

operations throughout the country 

through its Professional Agricultural 

Aviation Support System. 

The Agency has not identified any 

other benefits to society that would 

result from the proposed change to 

§ 383.3(i). 

B. Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is 

required to publish an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or 

proceed with a negotiated rulemaking if 

a proposed rule is likely to lead to the 

promulgation of a major rule.16 As this 

proposed rule is not likely to result in 

the promulgation of a major rule, the 

Agency is not required to issue an 

ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated 

rulemaking. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 (Pub. L. 

104–121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996) 

and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–240, 124 Stat. 2504 

September 27, 2010), 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. Therefore, 

FMCSA is publishing this initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) to 

aid the public in commenting on the 

potential small business impacts of the 

proposals in this NPRM. 

An IRFA must contain the following: 

1. A description of the reasons why 

the action is being considered; 

2. A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule; 

3. A description—and where feasible, 

an estimate of the number of small 

entities to which the rule will apply; 

4. A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

5. An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

(1) A description of the reasons why 

the action is being considered. 

FMCSA proposes to amend the CDL 

regulations to allow States additional 

flexibility to waive the HM 

endorsement 17 requirement for certain 

drivers transporting aviation fuel in 

furtherance of agricultural aviation 

operations. Many such operations rely 

on aircraft to apply pesticides or 

fertilizers to their crops. Agricultural 

aviation operators often deliver aircraft 

fuel to staging areas some distance from 

their headquarters. These companies, 

particularly in remote, rural areas, have 

difficulty finding CDL holders with HM 

endorsements to complete these 

deliveries. 

(2) A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

proposed rule. 

The CDL regulations are based on the 

authority of CMVSA. Section 12013 of 

the CMVSA allowed the FHWA, 

FMCSA’s predecessor agency, to 

‘‘waive, in whole or in part, application 

of any provision of this title or any 

regulation issued under this title with 

respect to class of persons or class of 

commercial motor vehicles if the 

Secretary determines that such waiver is 

not contrary to the public interest and 

does not diminish the safe operation of 

commercial motor vehicles’’ (Pub. L. 

99–570, Title XII, 100 Stat. 3207–170, 

3207–186, Oct. 27, 1986, codified at 49 

U.S.C. app. 2711). Following statutory 

amendments,18 the language of the 

CMVSA’s section 12013—that a waiver 

must be ‘‘not contrary to the public 

interest’’ and ‘‘not diminish the safe 

operation of commercial motor 

vehicles’’—has been replaced by the 

standard that a waiver or an exemption 

must ‘‘likely achieve a level of safety 

that is equivalent to, or greater than, the 

level that would be achieved in the 

absence of the waiver’’ (49 U.S.C. 

31315(a) or ‘‘absent such exemption’’ 

(49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1)). 

FMCSA believes that the ELOS 

standard required by the waiver and 

exemption provisions is the appropriate 

standard for this NPRM. The 1992 

FHWA rule authorized the States to 

waive the knowledge and skills tests 

otherwise required to obtain a CDL for 

employees of custom harvesters, farm 

retail outlets and suppliers, 

agrichemical businesses, and livestock 

feeders (57 FR 13650, Apr. 17, 1992) 

and required that the State waiver 

option not diminish the safe operation 

of CMVs, and all subsequent versions of 

the statute and regulation have retained 

that ELOS concept. Congress itself 

clearly embraced that standard when 

section 7208 was explicitly limited to 

the same four agriculture-related 

businesses covered by the 1992 

exemption. 

Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31305(a), which 

sets forth the general standards for the 

CDL rules, FMCSA ‘‘shall prescribe 

regulations on minimum standards for 

testing and ensuring the fitness of an 

individual operating a commercial 

motor vehicle.’’ Implicit in that 

provision is the authority to decide 

whether certain CDL holders may meet 

the ‘‘fitness’’ requirement without 

complying with every part of the CDL 

regulations. FMCSA believes that 

exempting employees of agricultural 

aviation companies who hold Class A 

CDLs and transport jet fuel from the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 96185 

19National Agricultural Aviation Association 

(NAAA), https://www.agaviation.org/about/. 

Accessed: July 18, 2024 

20Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, note 

following 5 U.S.C. 552a (Dec. 4, 2014). 

requirement to obtain a HM 

endorsement is consistent, both with the 

standard of the CMVSA’s section 12013 

and with the current ELOS and 

‘‘fitness’’ standards enacted by 

Congress. A waiver granted by a State 

under this proposal, as under section 

7208 of the FAST Act, would also 

exempt eligible drivers from the TSA 

background records check in 49 CFR 

part 1572, subpart B. 

(3) A description—and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number—of 

small entities to which the proposed 

rule will apply. 

Under the standards of the RFA, as 

amended by SBREFA, the participating 

States are not small entities. States 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 or 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. 

Drivers are not considered small 

entities because they do not meet the 

definition of a small entity in section 

601 of the RFA. Specifically, drivers 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. 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) defines the size standards used to 

classify entities as small. SBA 

establishes separate standards for each 

industry, as defined by the NAICS. 

FMCSA expects that CMV drivers 

transporting jet fuel would largely be 

employed by aerial application 

operators that operate within the 

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and 

Hunting sector (NAICS sector 11), and 

more specifically, within NACIS 

industry 115110 (support activities for 

crop production). Industry groups 

within the 1151 NAICS industry have 

size standards based on the amount of 

annual revenue and ranging from $8.5 

million in revenue to $34 million in 

revenue. There is not a specific NAICS 

national industry for aerial application 

operators, and therefore it is not 

possible to narrow down the Census 

data to determine the number of small 

entities that are potentially impacted by 

this rule. Based on the NAAA 

membership, FMCSA estimates that, if 

adopted in all jurisdictions, this rule 

could impact up to 1,900 aerial 

application operators.19 FMCSA 

requests comment on how many of 

these entities would be considered 

small based on the SBA size standards. 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the 

proposed rule, including an estimate of 

the classes of small entities that will be 

subject to the requirements and the 

types of professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record. 

This proposal would not result in 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance requirements. This 

proposed rule is voluntary in nature and 

does not require that States adopt any 

flexibilities provided in the proposed 

rule. Further, the Agency did not 

identify significant alternatives that 

would lessen the burden on small 

entities beyond the proposed exemption 

in § 383.3(i). 

(5) An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict 

with the proposed rule. 

FMCSA is not aware of any relevant 

Federal rules that may duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the proposed 

rule. 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

In accordance with section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. 

L. 104–121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA 

wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so 

they can better evaluate its effects on 

themselves and participate in the 

rulemaking initiative. If the proposed 

rule would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

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 

(Office of the National Ombudsman, see 

https://www.sba.gov/about-sba/ 

oversight-advocacy/office-nationalombudsman) 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. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to assess the 

effects of their discretionary regulatory 

actions. The Act addresses actions that 

may result in the expenditure by a State, 

local, or Tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$200 million (which is the value 

equivalent of $100 million in 1995, 

adjusted for inflation to 2023 levels) or 

more in any 1 year. Though this NPRM 

would not result in such an 

expenditure, and the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply as 

a result, the Agency discusses the effects 

of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains no new 

information collection requirements 

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 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 

would not have substantial direct costs 

on or for States, nor would 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. Privacy 

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005,20 requires the Agency to assess 

the privacy impact of a regulation that 

will affect the privacy of individuals. 

This NPRM would 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 that receives 

records contained in a system of records 

from a Federal agency for use in a 

matching program. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
96186 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 233 / Wednesday, December 4, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

21Public Law 107–347, sec. 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 

2921 (Dec. 17, 2002). 

The E-Government Act of 2002,21

requires Federal agencies to conduct a 

Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for 

new or substantially changed 

technology that collects, maintains, or 

disseminates information in an 

identifiable form. No new or 

substantially changed technology would 

collect, maintain, or disseminate 

information as a result of this rule. 

Accordingly, FMCSA has not conducted 

a PIA. 

In addition, the Agency submitted a 

Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to 

evaluate the risks and effects the 

proposed rulemaking might have on 

collecting, storing, and sharing 

personally identifiable information. The 

PTA has been submitted to FMCSA’s 

Privacy Officer for review and 

preliminary adjudication and to DOT’s 

Privacy Officer for review and final 

adjudication. 

I. 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. 

J. National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 

FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule 

pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (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), 

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

categorical exclusion (CE) in paragraph 

(6)(t)(2) covers requirements ensuring 

that States have the appropriate 

regulations concerning the qualification 

and licensing of persons who apply and 

are issued a commercial driver’s license. 

The proposed requirements in this rule 

are covered by this CE. 

K. Rulemaking Summary 

As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a 

summary of this rule can be found in 

the Abstract section of the Department’s 

Unified Agenda entry for this 

rulemaking at https://www.reginfo.gov/ 

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=

202310&RIN=2126-AC59. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 383 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, 

Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor 

carriers, Penalties, Safety, 

Transportation. 

Accordingly, FMCSA proposes to 

amend 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. 23019 of Pub. L. 117–58, 135 

Stat. 429, 777; and 49 CFR 1.87. 

■ 2. Amend § 383.3 by revising 

paragraph (i) to read as follows: 

§ 383.3 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(i) Hazardous materials endorsement 

exemption for certain drivers 

transporting diesel or jet fuel. A State 

may waive the requirement for a holder 

of a Class A commercial driver’s license 

to obtain a hazardous materials 

endorsement under this part, if the 

license holder is: 

(1) Acting within the scope of the 

license holder’s employment, and 

within the State of domicile (or another 

State with a hazardous materials 

endorsement exemption) as an 

employee of a custom harvester 

operation, agrichemical business, farm 

retail outlet and supplier, livestock 

feeder, or agriculture aviation operation; 

and 

(2) Operating a service vehicle that is: 

(i) Transporting diesel or jet fuel in a 

quantity of 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or 

less; and 

(ii) Clearly placarded in accordance 

with 49 CFR part 172 subpart F and all 

other applicable HMRs. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 383.5 by adding in 

alphabetical order a definition for jet 

fuel to read as follows: 

§ 383.5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Jet fuel means ‘‘fuel, aviation, turbine 

engine’’ as listed in the Hazardous 

Materials Table in § 172.101 of this title 

that is reclassed as a combustible liquid 

in accordance with part 173 of this title. 

* * * * * 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87. 

Vincent G. White, 

Deputy Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28097 Filed 12–3–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 241127–0305; RTID 0648– 

XE346] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands; Proposed 2025 and 

2026 Harvest Specifications for 

Groundfish 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; harvest 

specifications and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes 2025 and 

2026 harvest specifications, 

apportionments, and prohibited species 

catch allowances for the groundfish 

fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian 

Islands (BSAI) management area. This 

action is necessary to establish harvest 

limits for groundfish during the 2025 

and 2026 fishing years and to 

accomplish the goals and objectives of 

the Fishery Management Plan for 

Groundfish of the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

(FMP). The 2025 harvest specifications 

supersede those previously set in the 

final 2024 and 2025 harvest 

specifications, and the 2026 harvest 

specifications will be superseded in 

early 2026 when the final 2026 and 

2027 harvest specifications are 

published. The intended effect of this 

action is to conserve and manage the 

groundfish resources in the BSAI in 

accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

January 3, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: A plain language summary 

of this proposed rule is available at 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

NOAA-NMFS-2024-0116. You may 

submit comments on this document, 

identified by NOAA–NMFS–2024–0116, 

by any of the following methods: 

• Electronic Submission: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1