[Federal Register: August 15, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48863-48875]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15au03-23]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 380
[Docket No. FMCSA-97-2199]
RIN 2126-AA09
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators
August 4, 2003.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is
proposing standards for mandatory training requirements for entry-level
operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) who are required to hold
or obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL). This action responds to
a study mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 that found the training of entry-level drivers in the heavy
truck, motorcoach, and school bus industries was not adequate. The
purpose of this proposal is to enhance the safety of CMV operations on
our nation's highways.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA-1997-2199 by any of the following methods:
[sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
[sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
[sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
[sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
[sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further information.
Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be included
in the docket and we will consider late comments to the extent
practicable. The FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time
after the close of the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Finn, Office of Safety
Programs, (202) 366-0647, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Training Curricula
In the early 1980's, the agency determined that there was a need
for technical guidance in the area of truck driver training. Research
showed that few driver training institutions offered a structured
curriculum or a standardized training program for any type of CMV.
In 1984, the agency developed the ``Proposed Minimum Standards for
Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' as a curriculum standard based upon
research conducted by the agency. The proposed minimum curriculum
standards were used by the agency to produce a curriculum for the heavy
truck industry. This Model Curriculum contains standardized minimum
core curriculum requirements and training materials as well as
guidelines pertaining to vehicles, facilities, instructor hiring
practices, graduation requirements, and student placement. Curriculum
content addresses the following areas: basic operation, safe operating
practices, vehicle maintenance, and non-vehicle activities. In 1995,
the agency created a similar curriculum, the ``Model Curriculum for
Training Motorcoach Drivers,'' that can be used to train motorcoach
drivers.
In 1986, the motor carrier, truck driver training school, and
insurance industries created the Professional Truck Driver Institute
(PTDI) to certify training programs offered by training institutions.
The PTDI used the truck driver Model Curriculum as the basis for its
training institute certification criteria and has recently made major
revisions to its curriculum. As of December 2002, 71 training schools
were PTDI certified.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and the CDL Program
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C.
31301 et seq.) established national minimum testing and licensing
standards for operators of CMVs. The goal was to ensure that drivers of
large trucks and buses possess the knowledge and skill necessary to
safely operate on public highways. The CMVSA established the CDL
program and directed the agency to establish minimum Federal standards
that States must meet when licensing CMV drivers. The CMVSA applies to
anyone who operates a CMV in interstate or intrastate commerce,
including employees of Federal, State, and local governments. As
defined by the implementing regulation in 49 CFR 383.5, a CMV is a
motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to
transport passengers or property if the vehicle:
(a) Has a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds) inclusive of a towed unit with a
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds); or
(b) Has a GVWR of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 or more pounds);
or
(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the
driver; or
(d) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of hazardous
materials as defined in this section.
See the FMCSA's recently published interim final rule entitled
``Limitations on the Issuance of Commercial Driver's Licenses with a
Hazardous Materials Endorsement'' (68 FR 23844, 23849; May 5, 2003)
implementing certain requirements in section 1012 of the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) [Pub. L.
[[Page 48864]]
107-56, October 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 272]. The definition of the term
``hazardous of materials'' was changed to include any material listed
as a select agent or toxin by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) in 42 CFR part 73.
In accordance with the CMVSA, all drivers of CMVs must possess a
valid CDL in order to be properly qualified to operate the vehicle(s)
they drive. In addition to passing the CDL knowledge and skill tests
required for the basic vehicle group, all persons who operate or
anticipate operating the following vehicles, which have special
handling characteristics, must obtain endorsements under Sec. 383.93:
(a) Double/triple trailers;
(b) Passenger vehicles;
(c) Tank vehicles; or
(d) Vehicles required to be placarded for hazardous materials.
The driver is required to pass a knowledge test for all
endorsements. The driver must also pass a skill test to obtain a
passenger vehicle endorsement.
The CDL requirements address driver testing and licensing. The
CMVSA does not contain any provisions specifically addressing driver
training. Accordingly, there are no prerequisite Federal training
requirements to obtain a CDL. Generally, drivers individually prepare
for the CDL tests by studying such areas as vehicle inspection
procedures, off-road vehicle maneuvers and operating a CMV in traffic.
The agency here is proposing required training in the following
four additional areas: driver qualifications, hours of service of
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle blower protection. The CDL tests
do not cover these subject areas and the agency believes that a
driver's knowledge of these areas is vital to large truck and bus
safety.
This proposal is part of an overall FMCSA effort to improve the CDL
program, which also involves improvements to the CDL tests, and a
graduated licensing study. Section 4019 of the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (Pub.L. 105-178; June 9, 1998) required the
agency to determine if the current system of CDL testing is an accurate
measure of an applicant's knowledge and skill needed to operate a CMV.
As a result, the questions used in the CDL knowledge tests are
currently being revised to insure that test questions and answers
adequately cover the required knowledge the driver needs to operate a
CMV.
The agency is examining the various skill test components to
determine whether testing modifications are necessary. If testing
modifications are needed, the agency may develop a future rulemaking,
which modifies the testing procedures. Section 4019 also required the
agency to identify the costs and benefits of a graduated licensing
system. The agency published a notice in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2003, asking for public comment on whether a graduated
licensing system for CMV operators is a workable concept (68 FR 8798).
The agency plans to use this information to help determine the costs
and benefits of the graduated CDL.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the agency began a
rulemaking proceeding on the need to require training of all entry-
level CMV drivers. On June 21, 1993, the agency published in the
Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
entitled ``Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level
Drivers'' (58 FR 33874). The agency asked 13 questions, which addressed
training adequacy standards, curriculum requirements, the CDL, the
definition of ``entry-level driver;'' and training, pass rates and
costs. There was no consensus on the issue of mandated entry-level
driver training. The heavy truck and bus industries were against
mandated training; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was in
favor.
The agency received a total of 104 comments. When the agency
published a notice on April 25, 1996, reopening the docket (61 FR
18355), it received 48 additional comments on an adequacy study, and
cost-benefit analysis, both of which are discussed below. On November
13, 1996, the agency held a public meeting at the Department of
Transportation headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss mandatory
training for entry-level CMV drivers. There were 26 persons who
participated at the public meeting.
A detailed analysis of the questions and comments appears later in
this document under the heading, ``Information from the ANPRM and the
Public Meeting.''
Training Adequacy Study
Concurrent with the development of the ANPRM, the agency conducted
a study, as required by Section 4007(a)(1) of the ISTEA, on the
effectiveness of private sector efforts to train entry-level drivers in
the heavy truck, motorcoach, and school bus industries. The first step
of the study involved development of a baseline training standard for
both the cargo and passenger-transporting segments of the CMV industry.
The next step involved collecting information on training currently
being offered by the cargo and passenger-transporting segments of the
CMV industry. A comparison of current training to the baseline
standards was then made to determine if employer-provided training was
adequate. In the final step of the study, driver and employer surveys
were performed to determine what percentage of drivers were adequately
trained by employers. Drivers were also asked what percentage of
drivers were adequately trained by training schools.
The agency assembled two groups of experts: one from the trucking
sector and the other from the motorcoach and school bus sectors. The
experts identified driver training baselines. The truck experts
selected the Model Curriculum as a baseline. The bus experts selected a
combination of the Model Curriculum and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) ``School Bus Driver Instructional
Program,'' developed in 1974 and currently being updated. The experts
reached a consensus on minimum requirements for the numbers of class
and practice driving hours, student/teacher ratios, and course topics.
They then developed an algorithm to quantitatively compare existing
driver training with the baselines. An overall negative score
demonstrated that the program was judged to be less effective than the
baseline. An overall positive score showed that the program was judged
to be more effective. Based on this analysis, the percentage of
employers that provide entry-level drivers with adequate training was:
heavy truck employers (8 percent), motorcoach employers (19 percent),
and school bus operators (24 percent).
One-hundred ninety-two (192) drivers were surveyed to determine the
adequacy of training provided by training schools in the opinion of the
drivers. Based on this survey, the percentage of drivers adequately
trained by heavy truck training schools was 31 percent. The survey
found that no heavy truck training school adequately trained drivers to
operate school buses, and that the motor coach industry had no training
school for motor coach drivers. According to the survey, the percentage
of heavy truck training schools providing adequate training was 50
percent.
The agency also surveyed a total of 641 employers. The percentage
of employers who train drivers, according to the employer survey, was
as follows: heavy truck 39 percent, motor coach 37.4 percent, and
school bus 93.5 percent.
[[Page 48865]]
The conclusion of both the training analysis and the driver survey,
using this methodology, was that neither the heavy truck, motorcoach,
nor school bus segments of the CMV industry were providing adequate
entry-level driver training. At the same time, the adequacy study found
that the only research-based evidence on the relationship between
training and accident reduction indicated that drivers with formal
training are somewhat more likely to have accidents. However, the
researchers concluded that the lack of uniform training standards may
have masked the real effects of good training.
The adequacy study found few studies within the motor carrier
industry that had examined the relationship between training and
accident reduction. However, Builder's Transport, Inc., a motor
carrier, did a study of 2,600 trained drivers in 1994, that showed a
two percent reduction in accidents per million miles driven in contrast
to drivers who had no training. Schneider National, Inc., a motor
carrier, also performed a study involving its training on hazard-
driving conditions, and found a 40 percent reduction in accidents. In
both of these studies, drivers with training had fewer accidents.
Adequacy Study Cost-Benefit Analysis
As part of the adequacy study, the agency performed a cost-benefit
analysis of training in the heavy truck industry. The analysis was
limited to heavy trucks due to a scarcity of available cost data among
motorcoach and school bus training programs. However, the agency
believes that the findings are generally applicable to the other
industries, because motor coaches and most school buses are over 11,794
kilograms (26,001 pounds), and the drivers of all three have similar
responsibilities. The cost benefit analysis applied the definition of
CMV contained in the CMVSA, but did not include placarded hazardous
material vehicles with a GVWR less than 11,794 kilograms (26,001
pounds). The results of this earlier analysis showed a much higher cost
than today's proposal, because it was based on 65.8 hours of required
training. This NPRM, however, does not specify a minimum number of
hours. The regulatory evaluation for this proposal is based on a total
of 10\1/2\ hours of training for heavy truck and motorcoach drivers,
and 4.5 hours for school bus drivers, as discussed later in this
proposal.
Report to Congress
The Secretary of Transportation submitted the adequacy study
entitled, Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver
Training: Final Report and the first Cost-Benefit analysis to the U.S.
Congress on February 5, 1996, as required by the ISTEA.
Information from the ANPRM and the Public Meeting
The agency received a total of 154 comments to the ANPRM and the
public meeting. Some commenters responded more than once, and some
commenters provided more than one answer to a particular question.
Question 1: How Can the Adequacy of Training Be Defined? What
Mechanisms Exist to Measure Adequacy?
A total of forty-seven comments were received regarding Question 1.
Defining Adequacy: Sixteen commenters, including the PTDI, stated
that adequacy was defined either by the PTDI tractor-trailer curriculum
or the Model Curriculum referenced above. Fourteen commenters,
including the National Private Truck Council, stated that either the
CDL in general, or the CDL tests in particular, define adequate
training. The remaining comments included statements that training
adequacy is defined by a job skills analysis, or that it is defined by
the Model Curriculum modified for straight trucks.
Measuring Adequacy: Seven commenters, including the ATA, stated
that the PTDI Model Curriculum is a measurement of training adequacy.
Nine commenters, including the California Department of Motor Vehicles,
stated that training adequacy is measured by the CDL tests. The
remaining comments included statements that training adequacy is
determined by comparing accident rates of trained versus untrained
drivers, or that it is determined by gaining employment as a CDL
driver.
The agency believes that the Model Curriculum represents the basis
for training adequacy. It is based on minimum training standards that
were adopted by the agency after an analysis of heavy truck driver
training being provided by the industry in the 1980's. Likewise, both
the PTDI curriculum and the Model Curriculum for Training Motorcoach
Drivers are adequate because they are based on the Model Curriculum.
Finally, the agency believes that the NHTSA School Bus Driver
Instructional Program is adequate. It was developed by school bus
driver employers in conjunction with NHTSA. The school bus driver
employers and NHTSA periodically meet to review the instructional
program and make any necessary revisions. Moreover, all of the above
curricula were selected as training program baselines by experts in the
adequacy study. They were also developed based on the regulations and
technology current at the time of development. However, the agency
disagrees with commenters indicating that the knowledge to pass the CDL
test is sufficient to determine training adequacy.
Finally, the agency believes employers that wish to train entry-
level drivers should ensure that the curriculum is suitable for the
type of vehicle the driver intends to operate. For example, a modified
Model Curriculum could be used to train drivers who operate straight
trucks exclusively.
Question 2: What Standards Exist to Ensure That Training Provided by
Schools and Employers Is Adequate for Entry-Level Truck Driver
Training?
A total of forty-three commenters responded to this question.
Thirteen commenters, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, cited either the PTDI organization or the PTDI
certification process, as a standard to ensure that training provided
by schools is adequate. Again, eight commenters, including the American
Bus Association, cited the CDL tests. The remaining comments cited the
Model Curriculum as an adequate training standard, or stated that no
standard exists.
The discussion to Question 1 also contains relevant information on
the adequacy of driver training. In addition, the agency agrees with
commenters that although the CDL requirements are a licensing standard
and not a training standard, the driver must study to pass the CDL
tests.
Question 3: What Should an Adequate Truck Driver Training Program
Include (e.g. Night Driving, Behind-the-Wheel Training, and Classroom
Instruction)? What Is the Minimum Amount of Time or Number of Hours
That Should Be Devoted to Each of These Components?
A total of seventy-one commenters addressed this question.
Eight commenters, including the ATA, stated that the training
should be the PTDI curriculum for both course content and length. Three
commenters, including the American Bakers Association, cited the Model
Curriculum as the standard for both course content and length. The
remaining comments recommend specific topics for classroom, off-road
maneuvers, or on-road driving, which included down hill speed control
for
[[Page 48866]]
automatic transmission-equipped vehicles, railroad grade crossing
safety, and work zone safety.
The ATA and the American Bakers Association stated that both the
PTDI curriculum and Model Curriculum have acceptable course content and
length for heavy truck drivers. The agency agrees that both curricula
are acceptable because experts use the agency's Model Curriculum as a
training standard in the adequacy study.
In addition, all drivers who wish to obtain a CDL are required to
pass specified knowledge tests. The agency and the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) have developed a Commercial
Driver's Manual to assist drivers in passing these tests. The manual
instructs drivers to shift to a lower gear before starting down a steep
grade in order to maintain a safe speed. The manual also has a section
for railroad highway grade crossing safety, as well as work zones where
the work can create a distraction for drivers and the workers may not
see the driver.
Question 4: Can Government or Private Standards That Guide the Training
of Entry-Level Drivers Be Used To Determine the Adequacy of Entry-level
Driver Training? Why Are These Standards Appropriate?
A total of forty-five commenters responded to this question.
Eight commenters, including the ATA, mentioned either the PTDI
organization or the PTDI certification process as standards for
determining the adequacy of entry-level driver training. Two
commenters, including the Michigan Truck Safety Commission, cited the
Model Curriculum, and again, six commenters, including the American Bus
Association, cited the CDL test as a standard for determining the
adequacy of entry-level driver training. One employer, ITC, stated that
a motor carrier approves of a training institution by hiring its
students. The remaining commenters stated that the agency should
establish minimum entry-level training standards and that no standard
exists.
As discussed above, the agency agrees with commenters that the PTDI
curriculum and Model Curriculum are both voluntary government-industry
developed standards that can be used to determine the adequacy of
entry-level driver training.
Question 5: To Obtain a CDL, a CMV Driver Must Demonstrate Knowledge
and Skill Needed To Operate a CMV. Are These Tests Sufficiently
Comprehensive To Accurately Measure a Driver's Performance? Please
Explain Why or Why Not. Provide Information of Specific Deficiencies.
A total of eighty-one commenters responded to this question. Forty-
two commenters, including the ATA, stated that the CDL accurately
measures a driver's performance. Thirty-nine commenters, including the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, stated that the CDL does not
accurately measure a driver's performance. The Teamsters stated further
that mere possession of a CDL does not guarantee that the driver has
the necessary experience and skill.
The agency believes that the CDL gives the novice driver the basic
knowledge and skill necessary to operate a CMV. However, the employer
may have to provide additional safety training, or allow the driver to
gain CMV-operating experience before permitting the driver to drive,
for example, in hazardous weather conditions. Because of the
differences in operating practices among various CMV industries, the
employer should be responsible for ensuring that the driver receives
the appropriate training.
Question 6: Should Training Requirements for Entry-Level CMV Drivers be
Federally Mandated?
A total of one hundred and fifty-one commenters responded to this
question. Fifty-one commenters, including the Fox Valley Technical
College, stated that training should be mandated. The Fox Valley
Technical College stated that if training were not federally mandated,
many companies would not comply. Sysco Food Services stated that
training should only be mandated for companies with 50 or more new
drivers. Ninety-two commenters, including the National Private Truck
Council, stated that training should not be federally mandated. The
National Private Truck Council stated that because the CDL is a
performance based standard, training should not be mandated. Citizens
Gas and Coke Utility stated that training should only be required for
combination vehicles.
The agency believes that mandating training only for groups of 50
or more new drivers is not consistent with the need to train all entry-
level drivers. A large majority of motor carriers have six or fewer
power units, and would therefore be excluded from a 50 or more driver
mandate. Moreover, larger employers could limit the number of drivers
hired at one time to less than 50 to avoid being subject to mandatory
entry-level training requirements. The adequacy study found that
neither the heavy truck, motorcoach, nor the school bus industries
provided adequate entry-level driver training. As the study surveyed
drivers and employers that use both single and combination vehicles,
its findings lead the agency to conclude that training should be
mandatory for all entry-level drivers, irrespective of the kind of
vehicle they drive or the size of the employing carrier.
Question 7: What Is an Entry-Level Driver?
A total of forty-four commenters responded to this question.
Eighteen commenters, including the PTDI, stated that an entry-level
driver is one who has never driven a CMV. The adequacy study found that
entry-level training is training received in the first three years of
driving. However, the Truckload Carriers Association and ATA indicated
three years was too long. A representative of the Truckload Carriers
Association stated during the public meeting that the term ``entry
level'' is limited to the driver's first six months of driving. A
representative of the ATA indicated during the public meeting that an
``entry-level driver'' is a person who has ``a couple of years of
experience.'' In written comments, the ATA stated that the definition
of an entry-level driver should include a driver who moves to a higher
class of CMV.
The agency agrees with the ATA and the Truckload Carriers
Association that the three-year experience requirement cited in the
adequacy study is too long, because operating experience helps CMV
drivers reduce accidents caused by driver error. This rule proposes to
define entry-level driver as a driver with less than two years
experience operating a CMV with a CDL.
Question 8: What Industry-Wide Initiatives or Policies, If Any, Assure
That the Majority of All Entry-Level Drivers Are Trained?
A total of thirty-five commenters responded to this question.
Twelve commenters, including the Distribution LTL Association,
cited the PTDI curriculum, the Model Curriculum or both. Fifteen
commenters, including Schneider National, cited the CDL license. Three
commenters, including the Washington Department of Licensing, stated
that no such initiatives or policies exist. Five commenters, including
the ATA, cited insurance companies, which promote training programs for
entry-level drivers.
[[Page 48867]]
Question 9: How Many Truck Driver Training Schools and Motor Carrier
Programs Train Entry-Level Drivers? What Percentage of Those Enrolled,
Successfully Complete Such Training?
A total of thirty commenters responded to this question.
The Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools stated
that there are approximately 85 such schools in the country, and that
88 to 92 percent of students successfully complete training. The ATA
stated that there are 150 to 300 training schools nationwide, and that
60 to 70 percent of students successfully complete training. Mike
Byrnes and Associates stated that there are approximately 375 training
schools and motor carrier training programs in the United States. A
representative of Robert Forman Associates stated at the public meeting
that there were no motorcoach training schools in the country.
Question 10: Is the Successful Completion of an Entry-Level CMV Driver
Training Program (Either Before or After Hiring) a Requirement for the
Drivers Employed by Your Company?
A total of thirty commenters responded to this question.
The ATA stated that company policies generally require that new
drivers receive additional training relating to the motor carrier's
specific equipment and type of operation. Federal Express requires its
entry-level drivers to complete a 3-week training program. Eleven
commenters cited the PTDI standard. Eight commenters stated that motor
carriers trained drivers to motor carrier's own standards. One
commenter stated that its insurance company set training standards.
Question 11: Describe the Training Opportunities Available for Drivers
of Smaller Trucking Companies/Owner-Operators. What Percentage of Those
Enrolled Successfully Completes Such Training?
A total of twenty commenters responded to this question.
The National Solid Waste Management Association stated that small
companies rely primarily on supervised on-the-job training to qualify
new drivers. Mike Byrnes and Associates stated that some trucking
schools offer weekend training for drivers of small trucking companies.
The ATA believes that the percentage of truck drivers employed by small
employers, who complete training, is 60 to 70 percent; the same
percentage as for large employers.
Question 12: Describe the Expected Benefits and Estimated Dollar Costs
for the Following Types of Training: Residential Training at Public and
Private Truck Driver Training School (e.g. Trade, Vocational, and
Community College Program); a Combination of a Home Study Course and
Behind-the-Wheel Training; Formal School Training; and Externships
(i.e. Combination Truck Driver Training School and Motor Carrier
Operation)?
A total of twenty-eight persons responded to this question.
The Michigan Truck Safety Commission stated that it did not endorse
home study training. The International Trucking School stated that an
externship, involving both a truck driver school and a motor carrier,
is the best form of training available to the student. The Association
of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools agreed with this comment. The
PTDI stated that the cost of both private schools and motor carrier
training ranges from $1,500 to $6,000. The ATA stated that the costs of
motor carrier-run training programs range from $3,000 to $5,000;
externships cost between $3,000 and $6,000. The other cost comments
were similar. At the public meeting, Northeast Career Schools stated
that longer entry-level training courses involve better equipment and
more qualified instructors.
Question 13: Although the Primary Purpose of This ANPRM Is to Gather
Information on Entry-Level Truck Driver Training, the Agency Would Like
To Collect Some Information on the Training Experienced Drivers
Receive. Please Describe the Type and Frequency of Training, If Any,
That You Offer or Financially Support for the More Experienced CMV
Drivers of Your Company: Is This Training Required at Certain Specific
Intervals or Provided Only on an ``as Needed'' Basis?
A total of 18 comments responded to this question.
The Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools stated
that their members teach defensive driving courses, advanced driving
techniques, and specialized training. Schneider National offers
training in preparing logs, backing, defensive driving, injury
prevention, trip planning, and efficient driving. CRST, Inc. requires
all experienced drivers to be trained in a 2-day program. The ATA
stated that the training for experienced drivers varies significantly
from fleet to fleet. Fox Valley Technical College stated that the
industry generally provides no formal training for its experienced
truck drivers. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated
training should be given every five years. The ATA and J.B. Hunt stated
that training should be given either after accident involvement or to
correct hours of service problems.
Other Issues Raised By Commenters
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that the adequacy
study should not have excluded transit buses.
Transportation performed by the Federal government, a State, or any
political subdivision of a State, or an agency established under a
compact between States that has been approved by the Congress of the
United States, is exempt from parts 350 through 399 of the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Transit bus operators are subject to
the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and are
generally local government employees. Transit systems utilize training
materials developed by the FTA. These materials cover basic vehicle
controls and vehicle maneuvers in traffic. Transit systems report total
bus mileage to FTA as a condition for receiving Federal grants. These
grantees operated CMVs approximately 1.8 billion miles in calendar year
2000 according to the FTA's Transit Safety & Security Statistics &
Analysis 2000 Annual Report. The report also states that there were 90
total fatalities for transit buses in calendar year 2000. Therefore,
the fatal accident frequency per million miles for calendar year 2000
is approximately .048, which is very low. The agency believes that the
FTA can effectively monitor transit bus system training. For these
reasons, the agency is not including transit bus drivers in the
proposed rule.
The ATA also provided comments on the adequacy study-cost benefit
analysis referenced above. ATA stated that the cost of providing
adequate entry-level training exceeded the 450 million dollar per year
estimate cited in that analysis.
Summary of NPRM Provisions
This proposal is in response to a Congressional mandate in ISTEA,
which directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate safety
regulations for entry-level training of heavy truck, motorcoach, and
school bus drivers. Congress was specifically concerned about the
number of heavy truck crashes caused by inadequate driver training, and
believed that better training would reduce these types of crashes. In
addition, an agency study found that training for entry-level drivers
in these industries was inadequate.
Both the Model Curriculum and the Model Curriculum for Training
[[Page 48868]]
Motorcoach Drivers instruct drivers on the basic operational skills,
such as vehicle inspection, vehicle backing, hazard perception, proper
communications procedures, and speed and space management, which are
necessary to operate CMVs on the public road, plus the specialized
knowledge and skill a driver needs to obtain the passenger, double/
triple, tank vehicle, and hazardous materials endorsements. These
curricula also contain instruction in vehicle inspection procedures,
off-road skill test maneuvers, and operating CMVs in vehicular traffic.
The CDL tests examine CMV drivers on the knowledge and skill the
drivers learn in these curricula.
The agency is not requiring entry-level drivers to receive training
in areas that are covered in the CDL test. Such training would be
redundant. Instead, the required training would address: (1) driver
qualifications--medical, and drug and alcohol testing, (2) driver hours
of service limitations, (3) driver wellness, and (4) whistle blower
protection. These are training areas that are not covered in the
current CDL test. The agency is only requiring drivers to be trained in
the areas appropriate to their driving occupation as entry-level
drivers. Each of these areas focuses on the commercial motor vehicle
driver, who the agency believes is key to promoting motor carrier
safety on our nation's highways. The agency believes that training in
these four areas would serve to set a minimum floor of safety for
entry-level CMV drivers, and at the same time not be overly burdensome
for drivers or motor carriers to implement. Although the proposal does
not specify a required number of hours for the training, the agency
estimates that it would require approximately 10.5 hours for heavy
truck and motorcoach drivers, and 4.5 hours for school bus drivers. The
Texas Department of Public Safety stated in comments to the ANPRM that
the State of Texas currently requires a school bus driver to receive
twenty hours of initial training and 8 hours of refresher training
every three years. The Michigan Department of Education requires a
school bus driver to pass an initial training course and a road test.
The State also requires the school bus driver to receive 6 hours of
refresher training every two years. The NHTSA has developed the
``School Bus Driver Instructional Program'' as a voluntary training
standard. However, the NHTSA training standard does not cover either
driver wellness or whistle blower protection. In addition, the agency's
review of school bus driver training data indicates that school
districts do not include instruction in driver wellness and whistle
blower protection. The agency estimates that driver wellness and
whistle blower training would mean an additional 4.5 hours of training
for school bus drivers.
The agency requests comments on whether entry-level training in
other areas, such as fire extinguisher training, should be required.
Driver Qualification
Examples of topics that could be covered are minimum vision and
hearing standards, the recommended hypertension standard, the
recommended monitoring practices for mild hypertension, and standards
for other health-related problems. Emphasis could be placed on medical
disqualification caused by illegal drug use, alcoholism, or epilepsy.
Hours of Service
There is evidence that many crashes occur as a result of CMV driver
error, and that driver error is often the result of inattention.
Inattention can often be the result of fatigue, which may be related to
sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation can often be related to working
conditions.
Examples of possible topics for hours of service would include
awareness of the causes of fatigue, its effect on driving safety, sleep
disorders, fatigue-prevention strategies (including good sleep
hygiene), the procedures used to complete a driver's daily log
including the use of quarter-hour increments to indicate time, the
different types of duty statuses, the hours of service rules, and the
importance of keeping up-to-date and accurate logs.
Driver Wellness
According to Roberts and York, ``Design, Development and Evaluation
of Truck and Bus Driver Wellness Programs,'' FMCSA, No. DOT-MC-00-200,
June 2000, obesity, high blood pressure, alcohol and drug abuse, and
stress are major health issues, among truck and bus drivers. The
Roberts and York report cited a study by Stoohs, Guilleminault, and
Dement, ``Sleep Apnea and Hypertension in Commercial Truck Drivers,''
Sleep, Vol. 16 No. 8 (1993) that 71 percent of the 125 drivers in the
Stoohs, Guilleminault, and Dement study were obese because they had a
body mass/fat index greater than 28. In addition, the Roberts and York
report cited data from ``Heart and Stroke Facts, 1996 Statistical
Supplement,'' American Heart Association, that nationally 26.3 percent
of men and 25.0 percent of woman have blood pressures greater than 140
over 90 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). Hypertension is defined as
blood pressure greater than or equal to 140 over 90 mm Hg.
Additionally, the Roberts and York report cited data from ``Accident
Facts:'' 1996 edition that indicates that alcohol is a factor in 41
percent of all traffic fatalities. Finally, the Roberts and York report
cited data from Orris, et. al., ``Stress Among Package Truck Drivers,''
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 31, (1997), that
indicates that the drivers in that study had higher stress levels than
91 percent of the U.S. population.
In light of these data, examples of topics that could be covered in
driver wellness training include information on how to maintain healthy
blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and weight, as well as the
importance of periodic health monitoring and testing, diet, and
exercise.
Whistleblower
Topics that the agency anticipates would be covered include: the
right of a driver to refuse to drive if there is an unsafe vehicle
condition, the requirement for an employer to provide the driver a safe
place to work, the prohibition against the motor carrier to pressure
the driver to violate the hours-of-service requirements, and the
complaint process of the U.S. Department of Labor if a driver feels
that he or she has been discriminated against for filing a safety-
related complaint.
Under the proposal, employers would have to ensure that new entry-
level drivers receive the required training before driving. The agency
solicits comments on whether a 90-day period or some other time period
would be more appropriate for new entry-level drivers. Commenters are
requested to provide supporting rationale.
Drivers with up to one year of driving experience would have 90
days to complete the training. Drivers having between one to two years
of experience who do not qualify for grandfathering would also have 90
days to complete the required training. The agency solicits comments on
whether the 90-day time period is appropriate for these two groups of
drivers, and specifically whether a lesser period of time should be
required. Commenters are requested to provide supporting rationale.
The motor carrier, a training school, or a class conducted by a
consortium or association of motor carriers could provide the training.
Examples include a classroom setting and a professional instructor, a
one-on-one office meeting between the entry-level driver and a
representative of his or her employer working from a prepared outline,
or
[[Page 48869]]
exposure of the entry-level driver to a professionally prepared video
covering the required topics. In all cases, the motor carrier would
have to maintain some evidence of the content of the instruction for a
Safety Investigator seeking to verify that the requirements of the
training have been met. Informal, unverifiable, or undocumented
communication between the entry-level driver and his or her employer
would not be acceptable. Evidence that a driver has received the
training would be maintained in the driver's personnel file. An entry-
level driver would be one with less than two years of experience
operating a CMV with a CDL. However, drivers with one year of
experience operating a CMV with a CDL, who have a good driving record,
would be grandfathered and therefore would not have to take the
proposed training.
The FMCSA believes that for many entry-level drivers, the
combination of a good driving record and at least one year of
experience operating a CMV with a CDL is an appropriate indication that
the individual has the minimum knowledge and driving skills to operate
such a vehicle. Accordingly, the FMCSA would allow certain drivers to
substitute a good driving record and experience for the completion of
the proposed driver-training requirements. The FMCSA believes
grandfathering such drivers would not diminish public safety or overall
safe operation of CMVs.
The FMCSA is proposing that a motor carrier issue a Certificate of
Grandfathering to those drivers whose experience and driving record
qualify them to be grandfathered under this proposal. A copy of the
certificate would be filed in the driver's personnel file.
Grandfathered drivers would not be subject to the training requirements
of this new subpart. This action is consistent with that taken when the
agency grandfathered certain drivers from the CDL skills tests
contained in part 383. Qualified drivers, who want to obtain a
Certificate of Grandfathering, must do so within one year of the
effective date of the final rule. After the one-year period, only those
drivers who present an employer with a Certificate of Grandfathering
would be exempted from entry-level driver training requirements.
The agency recognizes that, in order to develop the training
curriculum required by this proposal, a phase-in period would be
necessary. The agency believes that a 2-month phase-in period is
adequate and would provide sufficient time for motor carriers and
training schools to develop the required training material. The
effective date of the rule would be 2 months after its publication in
the Federal Register.
The FMCSA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this action is a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of E.O. 12866, and is significant
within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR
11034, February 26, 1979) because of significant public interest in the
issues relating to CMV safety and training of certain CMV drivers. This
proposed rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
under E.O 12866.
Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis for this Proposal
Background
This proposed rule is required by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The FMCSA is proposing that
entry-level commercial drivers receive mandatory training in the
following content areas: driver qualifications, hours of service of
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle blower rights. This NPRM would
require an applicant to complete entry-level driver training that
includes these four content areas and furnish a copy of the training
certificate to the employer in cases where someone other than the
employer provides the training. An employer could not allow a new
entry-level driver to operate a CMV on the public road unless the
driver has received the required training and documentation of training
is in the employer's possession.
The agency seeks to ensure high standards of safety among more
experienced drivers without imposing an undue burden on these drivers
by imposing an immediate training requirement. Such a requirement could
mean an interruption of the driver's work schedule and a substantial
loss in wages. In order to eliminate an overly burdensome approach to
training, the NPRM proposes that drivers with up to one year of driving
experience would have 90 days to complete the training. Drivers having
between one to two years of experience who do not qualify for
grandfathering would also have 90 days to complete the required
training. The agency solicits comments on the economic impact of
requiring training within the 90-day time period for these two groups
of experienced drivers as well as the costs associated with a lesser
period of time. Commenters are requested to provide supporting
rationale.
The FMCSA has conducted a regulatory evaluation of this proposed
rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning
and Review.'' This rule is estimated to cost $25.1 million in the first
year of implementation and $22.7 million annually thereafter
(undiscounted). The higher costs in the first year are the result of
this rule's effect on some existing drivers (i.e., those with less than
two years of experience), where a certain percentage would be required
to undertake the required training within the first 90 days of the
rule's implementation. Total discounted costs of this rule are $173.3
million over the 10-year period.
Our analysis of this proposed rule indicates that it would have to
prevent 315 truck-related crashes (i.e., combined fatal, injury-
related, and property-damage-only crashes) in the first year to be
cost-beneficial (i.e., to offset the $25.1 million in first-year
costs). The rule would have to prevent 285 crashes in each year
thereafter to be cost-beneficial. The 285-315 truck-related crashes to
be avoided represent less than seven one-hundredths of one percent (or
0.07 percent) of the average total number of truck-related crashes
reported annually (estimated at 445,000 in 1999 and 2000). This 0.07-
percent reduction in truck-related crashes is obviously much less than
the size of crash reductions experienced in studies cited earlier in
this NPRM, where case studies revealed crash reductions of 2 and 40
percent from implementation of new driver training programs and is also
well below the 15-percent reduction in crashes used in the regulatory
evaluation prepared in 1995 for the ANPRM (which involved a more
comprehensive training program than proposed here). A summary of costs
is provided in the next section. For a complete discussion of the
assumptions made, data used, and analysis performed in this regulatory
evaluation, the reader is referred to the docket, where a copy of the
full regulatory evaluation is contained.
Costs
The largest cost component of this rule is the cost of providing
training to entry-level operators of heavy trucks, school buses, and
motor coaches. Training costs include both the direct cost to train
drivers and the (opportunity) cost of drivers' time. The two key
factors in estimating the
[[Page 48870]]
training costs are the number of drivers who will need training and the
hours of training they will have to undertake.
The FMCSA estimates that the proposed rule would require 10.5 hours
of training of the entry-level drivers of heavy trucks in the proposed
four subject areas. The two content areas of driver qualifications and
hours of service together would require about 6 hours of training. The
driver wellness training would also require about 4 hours, while
training on whistle blower protection is estimated at 30 minutes.
However, the FMCSA believes that the entry-level drivers of school
buses would only require 4.5 hours of training, comprised of 4 hours of
driver wellness instruction and 30 minutes of whistle blower protection
training (given that the Federal driver qualifications and hours-of-
service content would not apply). The FMCSA also estimates that the
proposed rule would require 10.5 hours of training of the entry-level
drivers of motorcoaches. The training hours estimate for heavy truck
drivers was based on information provided in the instructor's guide for
the Professional Truck Drivers Institute's (PTDI) accredited training
courses and discussions held with FMCSA CDL Program staff. The training
hours estimate for motor coach drivers was estimated using the
instructor's guide for the Model Curriculum for motor coach drivers and
discussions with FMCSA CDL Program staff.
Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total number of
entry-level truck drivers is estimated at 58,600 per year for the next
10 years, while the entry-level drivers required for growth and
replacement for the school bus and motorcoach industry are estimated at
17,800 and 2,100 per year, respectively, also over the next 10 years.
In this analysis, we assumed that 30 percent of the entry-level
heavy truck drivers, or 17,580, would not need any additional training,
as they are assumed to attend a PTDI or similar accredited training
program (i.e., PTDI accredited courses already include these content
areas in their curriculum). This assumption is based on information
obtained regarding the number of accredited programs as a percent of
total driver training programs. For the remaining 70 percent (or
41,020, entry-level drivers), we assumed that they either receive
training from a non-accredited training program or they receive
informal training from their employer. Therefore, this 70 percent of
entry-level drivers would require 10.5 hours of training per driver on
the four subject areas mentioned above. Therefore, the total hours of
training required by the proposed rule for the entry-level heavy truck
drivers is estimated at 430,710 hours per year. For those drivers who
already receive some type of formal (yet non-accredited) employer-or
third-party training, it is quite possible that employers (or third-
party training providers) might reduce the amount of training time
spent on other, non-required subject matter, so that the net increase
in training per truck driver would be less than 10.5 hours. However, in
the absence of specific information on the types of subject matter than
might be omitted from these driver training programs to offset the new
training costs, we assumed a net increase of 10.5 hours for estimating
the costs of this rule.
Regarding school bus driver training, neither the Federal driver
qualifications nor the Federal Hours of Service rules are applicable to
these drivers. Therefore, this entry-level training rulemaking will
result in only 4.5 hours of additional training for each entry-level
driver, since these training programs would include primarily driver
wellness (4 hours) as well as whistle blower protection (0.5 hours).
States have long required school bus drivers to take written exams
designated to test an entry-level driver's knowledge of state laws and
regulations affecting school transportation. Additionally, behind-the-
wheel road tests are used to evaluate an applicant's driving skills.
For example, as a comment to the ANPRM, the Texas Department of Public
Safety stated that Texas requires classroom and behind-the-wheel
training totaling 20 hours. In our review of the school bus driver
training information, we concluded that no districts were providing
instruction in driver wellness and whistle blower protection, since the
NHTSA voluntary training standard, known as the School Bus Driver
Training Program, did not include such content. Therefore, FMCSA
estimates that all 17,800 entry-level school bus drivers would need an
additional 4.5 hours of training for a total of 80,100 hours of
training per year.
FMCSA assumes that the additional hours of training for an entry-
level motorcoach driver would be 10.5 hours. The instructor's guide to
the model curriculum for training motor coach drivers includes 5 hours
of logbook training but only about an hour on safety and wellness
issues (including topics such as the correct lifting of heavy objects
and identifying prohibited cargo). The FMCSA does not have information
on the proportion of entry-level motorcoach drivers following training
as per the model curriculum. Therefore, the FMCSA estimates that 2,100
entry-level drivers of motorcoaches would require 10.5 hours of
training on driver qualifications, hours of service for drivers, driver
wellness and whistle blower protection for a total of 22,050 hours of
training per year.
To be conservative, a figure of $25 per hour of training was used
in this analysis to calculate the direct costs of training (calculated
via an average cost of $4,000 per training course divided by 4 weeks
divided by 40 hours per week). This translates into $262.50 of direct
training costs for a 10.5-hour course and $112.50 for 4.5-hour course.
The agency believes that this was a reasonable estimate of the total
hourly cost to train drivers (whether or not the training is provided
by the employer or a third party) because it falls well within the
range of training cost estimates provided in comments to the ANPRM. In
reality, employer-based training could very well be less than $25/hour
in certain cases (i.e., assuming new physical space is not leased by
the employer to conduct the training, or the training is self-directed
by the driver), but to be conservative the agency used the same figure
whether the training was employer-or third party-based so as to ensure
not underestimating employer and/or driver costs.
To arrive at a truck driver's wage rate, we use a figure of $14.75
per hour, which is an average from three recent national wage/
employment surveys (including the Current Population Survey). We added
31 percent to cover the cost of fringe benefits, an estimate developed
in the Hours of Service regulatory evaluation. (It is a weighted
average of the fringe benefits for private and for-hire carriers, based
on data from the ATA and the BLS.) The 31 percent increase brings total
compensation to $19.32.
Regarding a school bus driver's wage, we use a figure of $7.67 per
hour obtained from the BLS 2001 National Occupational Employment and
Wage survey. This figure represents the 25th percentile wage estimate
for an entry-level school bus driver and we used it because entry-level
drivers generally earn at the low range of the industry wage standards.
Again, 31 percent is added to cover the cost of fringe benefits,
resulting in a total hourly wage estimate of $10.05 per hour.
Regarding a motorcoach driver's wage, we use a figure of $9.98 per
hour obtained from the BLS 2001 National Occupational Employment and
Wage survey. This figure represents the 25th percentile wage estimate
for an entry-level motorcoach driver and we used it
[[Page 48871]]
because entry-level drivers generally earn at the low range of the
industry wage standards. Again, 31 percent is added to cover the cost
of fringe benefits, resulting in a total hourly wage estimate of $13.07
per hour.
To get the total unit cost of training per hour (i.e., including
both direct training costs and the drivers' cost of time), the relevant
estimate of the driver's wage rate for truck, school bus, and motor
coach drivers was added to the average hourly cost of training
discussed earlier. For example, for an entry-level truck driver, the
unit cost of training is $44.32 an hour ($19.32 of foregone driver
wages plus $25 in actual training costs). For entry-level school bus
drivers, the total training cost is estimated at $35.05 per hour
($10.05 of foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual training costs),
and for entry-level motor coach drivers, it is $38.07 per hour ($13.07
of foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual training costs.
Taking these hourly training costs for each type of entry-level
driver (based on median wage rates and an average hourly cost of
training) and applying them to the hours of required training for each
type of driver (discussed earlier) and the number of entry-level
drivers in each category, we can develop an estimate of total annual
costs of this rule.
To do so, we multiplied the hours of training required for each
type of driver by the total number of drivers in that driver group per
year by the applicable hourly wage rate to drivers in each group
(including direct wage and costs of training). The result is a total
first-year cost of $25.1 million and $22.7 million (undiscounted)
annually in each subsequent year of the rule. Using the 7 percent
discount rate recommended by the OMB, the present value of training
costs of the proposed rule is calculated as $173.3 million over 10
years, or a discounted average of $17.3 million per year for next 10
years.
The reason first year costs are higher than the annual costs in
subsequent years is that within the first year (90 days to be exact),
some portion of the entry level drivers who received training between
12-24 months prior to implementation of this rule (i.e., those
effectively with chargeable crashes) would be required to undertake
training in these four content areas. Our analysis indicates that
almost 6,000 drivers who received training between 12-24 months prior
to the rule's implementation would have to undertake the training
required under this rule. As such, first-year costs increase because a
larger pool of drivers must initially undertake the required training.
Full details of these costs are provided in the stand-alone regulatory
evaluation contained in the docket.
Benefits
The total number of accidents potentially avoided by the proposed
rule is difficult to quantify largely because of the variability in
study results on the impact of training on the truck crash reduction.
This variability is most likely due to the wide variation in quality of
driver training programs and the difficulty associated with estimating
(statistically speaking) the relationship between a single input
(training) and an output (safety) when working with very large data
sets. However, several case studies, including two cited earlier in
this NPRM, reveal that driver training programs reduced crashes by two
to 40 percent. Because of the relatively modest costs (estimated at
$22.7 million to $25.1 million annually (undiscounted)), this proposed
rule would have to deter between 285 and 315 truck-related crashes
(fatal, injury-related, and property-damage-only crashes combined) each
year in order to be cost beneficial (i.e., where the rule's benefits
exceed its costs).
To develop the above estimate of the number of truck- and bus-
related crashes that must be avoided each year for the rule to be cost
beneficial, the researchers used crash cost estimates from a recent
study by Zaloshnja, et al., which estimated the average cost of a crash
involving a large truck (i.e., those 10,000 lbs GVW) at
almost $80,000 (in 2001 dollars). Dividing the annual costs of the rule
($22.7 million to $25.1 million) by this average cost per truck-related
crash ($80,000) allows us to arrive at the cost-beneficial threshold of
285-315 annual crashes. This range (285-315 avoided crashes) represents
less than seven one-hundredths of one percent (or 0.07 percent) of the
total average number of truck-related crashes annually (estimated at
445,000 using 1999-2000 data). This 0.07-percent reduction is obviously
much smaller than the size of crash reductions experienced in studies
cited earlier in this NPRM, where case studies revealed crash
reductions of 2 and 40 percent from implementation of new driver
training programs and is also well below the 15-percent reduction in
crashes used in the regulatory evaluation prepared in 1995 for the
ANPRM (which involved a more comprehensive training program than
proposed here). Therefore, we believe the rule would be cost-beneficial
upon implementation.
A complete copy of the preliminary regulatory evaluation is in the
public docket described above under ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small
entities. In addition, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of
all regulations (or proposals) on small entities, and mandates that
agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The
Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must cover the following
topics.
(1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency 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 proposed rule would apply.
(4) A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
(5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
Reason the Action Is Being Considered
This action is required by Congressional direction. Specifically,
section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations
requiring training for entry-level heavy truck, school bus, and
motorcoach drivers.
Objective and Legal Basis for This Action
The objective for this action is to reduce the number of crashes
caused by entry-level drivers of heavy trucks, school buses, and
motorcoaches. Congress was specifically concerned about the number of
heavy truck crashes caused by inadequate driver training, and believes
that better training will reduce these types of crashes. As noted
above, the legal basis for this rule is section 4007 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Number of Small Entities to Which the Action Would Apply
This action would apply to all small entities regulated by the
FMCSA. The FMCSA is currently conducting
[[Page 48872]]
research to specify the size of the small motor carrier population.
Presently we consider motor carriers with 6 or fewer drivers to be
small entities. Using this number of drivers as a proxy for size, the
majority of carriers can reasonably be described as small. As of April
of 2002, there were 610,000 motor carriers on the FMCSA's Motor Carrier
Management Information System (MCMIS) census file. Among the 500,000 of
these motor carriers for which the agency has driver data, 435,000 (87
percent) have 6 or fewer drivers. Assuming that 87 percent of the
110,000 motor carriers with no driver information are also small, the
total number of motor carriers with six or fewer drivers would exceed
half a million.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule
This action would impose a very modest burden on small entities,
since it largely proscribes the actions of drivers rather than motor
carriers. Nonetheless, this action does impose some reporting and
recordkeeping requirements on motor carriers. The primary motor carrier
requirement would be to verify drivers' eligibility before allowing
them to operate a CMV. In addition, motor carriers must maintain a copy
of the required driver's training certificate in each personnel file.
Motor carriers are currently required to maintain a driver
qualification file for each driver, as outlined in Part 391 of the
FMCSRs. No special skill is required to verify eligibility to operate a
CMV or to place a driver's training certificate in a personnel file.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
The FMCSA is not aware of any other rules that duplicate State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or overlap, or conflict
with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the FMCSA hereby certifies that the proposed action
discussed in this document will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) requires each
agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on State, local,
tribal governments, and the private sector. This proposed rule does not
impose an unfunded Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector, of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one
year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. It has been determined
that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on
States, nor would it limit the policy-making discretion of the States.
Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. An analysis of this
proposal was made by the FMCSA, and it has been determined that the
final rule, when promulgated, would create a new collection of
information requiring OMB's approval. This PRA section addresses the
information collection burden for activities associated with training
certification forms and grandfathering eligible drivers.
The FMCSA estimates that operators of heavy trucks, operators of
motor coaches, and operators of school buses will require additional
training due to requirements contained in this proposed rule. The
agency further estimates 58,600 new drivers will be needed annually in
the heavy truck industry, 2,100 new drivers in the motor coach
industry, and 17,800 new drivers in the school bus industry. However,
it is estimated that for the heavy truck industry 30 percent of the
entry level drivers already receive training through an accredited
program and will not require additional training. The remaining 70
percent, or 41,020 drivers, would require additional training.
There would be an annual burden to the motor carrier or other
training entity to complete, photocopy, and file the certification
form. FMCSA estimates this will take 10 minutes, resulting in an
additional annual burden of 10,153 hours [60,920 (41,020 + 2,100 +
17,800) drivers x 10 minutes per motor carrier/training entity, divided
by 60 minutes = 10,153].
For the first year after the rule becomes effective, there would
also be burdens associated with the estimated 121,840 drivers currently
employed with less than 2 years experience who have not already
received accredited training [41,020 (heavy truck) + 2,100 (motor
coach) + 17,800 (school bus) = 60,920 x 2 years = 121,840 drivers].
Based on eligibility criteria previously described in this proposed
rule, the FMCSA estimates that 75 percent of these 121,840 drivers
would be eligible to be grandfathered and 25 percent would not be
eligible.
Using these estimates, there would be an additional 21,560 drivers
in the heavy truck and motor coach industries [(41,020 x 2 = 82,040) +
(2,100 x 2 = 4,200) = 86,240 x 25 percent = 21,560] that would need
additional training, because they would be ineligible to be
grandfathered. Using the same percentage as above (25 percent), the
school bus industry would have 8,900 drivers (17,800 x 2 years x 25
percent) who would be ineligible for grandfathering and would thus
require additional training. Each of these 30,460 (21,560 + 8,900)
drivers would need to be issued certificates following their training.
At 10 minutes per certificate, that burden is estimated to be 5,077
hours (30,460 drivers x 10 minutes, divided by 60 minutes).
For grandfathering the estimated 91,380 remaining drivers (75
percent of 121,840 drivers eligible for grandfathering during the first
year), there would be a one-time burden, since drivers could only be
grandfathered during the first year after the rule becomes effective.
There are two parts to the burden for these 91,380 drivers: (1) the
burden for the driver to collect and provide the information to the
motor carrier, and (2) the burden for the motor carrier to review the
documents, complete, duplicate, and file the certification form. FMCSA
estimates that it would take approximately 10 minutes for a driver to
collect the necessary information and provide the document to the motor
carrier, and 10 minutes for the motor carrier to review the
information, complete the certification, and duplicate and file the
document. Therefore, the one time burden associated with grandfathering
the 91,380 drivers would be 30,460 hours [(91,380 x 10 minutes per
driver / 60 minutes = 15,230) + (91,380 x 10 minutes per motor carrier
/ 60 minutes = 15,230) = 30,460]. This 30,460-hour estimate represents
the first-year only burden associated with certifying drivers who are
grandfathered.
Accordingly, the burden associated with the 121,840 current drivers
is 35,537 burden hours [5,077 hours (for current entry level drivers
not eligible for grandfathering) + 30,460 hours (for certifying drivers
who are eligible to be grandfathered)].
Thus, the total first-year burden is estimated to be 45,690 hours
[10,153
[[Page 48873]]
(annual burden) + 35,537 (first year burden of 5,077 + 30,460)].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burden
Activity Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Certification form for new entry level drivers...... 10,153
Certification form for drivers not eligible to be 5,077
grandfathered (following training) (first year only)......
Grandfathering certificate for those eligible (first year 30,460
only).....................................................
Total.................................................. 45,690
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information collection burden for subsequent years would drop
to 10,153 hours [45,690 -35,537 (first year only burden hours)].
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any
aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not
limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for
the performance of the functions of the FMCSA, including whether the
information has practical utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
collected information, and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden
without reducing the quality of the information collected.
You may submit comments on this information collection burden
directly to OMB. The OMB must receive your comments by October 14,
2003. You must mail or hand deliver your comments to: Attention: Desk
Officer for the Department of Transportation, Docket Library, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations)
The agency evaluated the environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and
determined that there were no environmental justice issues associated
with this proposed rule. Environmental justice issues would be raised
if there were a ``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on
minority or low-income populations. The agency determined that there
were no high and adverse impacts associated with the proposal. In
addition, the agency analyzed the demographic makeup of the trucking
industry, potentially affected, and determined that there was no
disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. This is
based on the finding that low-income and minority populations are
generally underrepresented in the trucking occupation.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires
that agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules that also
concern an environmental health or safety risk, or that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, must include
an evaluation of these effects on children. Section 5 of Executive
Order 13045 directs an agency to submit for a ``covered regulatory
action'' an evaluation of its environmental health or safety effects on
children.
The agency evaluated the possible effects of the proposed action
and determined that they would not create disproportionate
environmental health risks or safety risks to children.
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under E. O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number of 20.217,
Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order
12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
has determined that this action would not have an adverse effect on the
quality of the environment.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380
Driver Training, instructor requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA hereby proposes to
amend title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B,
part 380 as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for this part continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31307, and 31502; and Sec. 4007(b)
of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2152); and 49 CFR 1.73.
2. Part 380 is revised by adding a new subpart E to read as
follows.
PART 380--SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements
Sec.
380.501 Applicability.
380.502 Definitions.
380.503 Entry-level driver training requirements.
380.505 Substitute for driver training.
380.507 Proof of training.
380.509 Driver responsibilities.
380.511 Employer responsibilities.
380.513 Employer recordkeeping responsibilities.
380.515 Required information on the training certificate.
Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements
Sec. 380.501 Applicability.
All entry-level drivers who drive in interstate commerce and are
subject to the CDL requirements of part 383 of this subchapter must
comply with the rules of this subpart, except drivers who are subject
to the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration.
Sec. 380.502 Definitions.
(a) The definitions in part 383 of this subchapter apply to this
part, except where otherwise specifically noted.
(b) As used in this subpart:
Entry-level driver is a driver with less than 2 years experience
operating a CMV with a CDL.
Entry-level driver training is training the CDL driver receives in
driver qualification requirements, hours of service of drivers, driver
wellness, and whistle blower protection as appropriate to the entry-
level driver's current position in addition to passing the CDL test.
Sec. 380.503 Entry-level driver training requirements.
Entry-level driver training must include instruction addressing the
following four areas:
(1) Driver qualification requirements: The federal rules on medical
[[Page 48874]]
certification, medical examination procedures (49 CFR part 391,
subparts B and E), and drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR part 382).
(2) Hours of service of drivers: The limitations on driving hours
and the requirement to be off-duty for certain periods of time (49 CFR
part 395).
(3) Driver wellness: Basic health maintenance including diet and
exercise. The importance of avoiding alcohol and drug abuse. Fatigue
countermeasures as a means to avoid accidents.
(4) Whistleblower protection: The right of an employee to question
the safety practices of an employer without the employee's risk of
losing a job or being subject to reprisals simply for stating a safety
concern (29 CFR part 1978).
Sec. 380.505 Substitute for Driver Training.
(a) Grandfather clause. The driver training requirements specified
in subpart E of this part do not apply to an individual who meets the
conditions set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. A
motor carrier must ensure that an individual claiming eligibility to
operate a CMV on the basis of this section meets these conditions
before allowing him/her to operate a CMV.
(b) An individual must certify that, during the 1-year period
immediately preceding the date of application for a Certificate of
Grandfathering, he/she had:
(1) A valid CDL;
(2) No more than one driver's license;
(3) No suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his/her CDL;
(4) No convictions for a major offense while operating a CMV as
defined in Sec. 383.51(b) of this subchapter;
(5) No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense
while operating a CMV as stated in Sec. 383.51(d) of this subchapter;
(6) No convictions for violating an out-of-service order as defined
in Sec. 383.51(e) of this subchapter;
(7) No more than one conviction for a serious traffic violation, as
defined in Sec. 383.5 of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
(8) No convictions for a violation of State or local law relating
to motor vehicle traffic control arising in connection with any traffic
accident while operating a CMV; and
(9) No accident in which he/she was found to be at fault, while
operating a CMV.
(c) An individual must certify and provide evidence that he/she:
(1) Is regularly employed in a job requiring the operation of a CMV
that requires a CDL; and
(2) Has operated a CMV for at least 1 year immediately preceding
the date of application for a Certificate of Grandfathering.
(d) An employer must issue a Certificate of Grandfathering, which
is substantially in accordance with the form below, to an individual
that meets the requirements of this section and maintain a copy of the
certificate in his/her personnel file.
(e) The grandfather provisions of this section are available to
eligible drivers for a limited period of one year after [The effective
date of the final rule.].
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU03.069
Sec. 380.507 Proof of training.
(a) An entry-level driver who receives the required training must
receive an original training certificate containing all the information
contained in Sec. 380.515 from the training provider.
(b) The entry-level driver must also receive a copy of the training
certificate if the training provider is not the driver's employer or
potential employer.
Sec. 380.509 Driver responsibilities.
The driver must present a training certificate, containing the
information specified in Sec. 380.515, to the employer or potential
employee that the driver received training as specified in Sec.
380.503, if the employer or potential employer is not the training
provider.
Sec. 380.511 Employer responsibilities.
(a) Employers must ensure that all new entry-level drivers receive
the required training on or after [Insert the effective date of the
final rule].
(b) Employers must ensure that entry-level drivers, who do not
qualify for grandfathering, receive the required training no later than
90 days after [The effective date of the final rule].
(c) The employer must place evidence of training completion or a
Certificate of Grandfathering, as appropriate, in the driver's
qualification file.
[[Page 48875]]
Sec. 380.513 Employer recordkeeping responsibilities.
The employer must keep the records specified in Sec. 380.511 for
as long as the driver is employed by the employer and for three years
thereafter.
Sec. 380.515 Required information on the training certificate.
(a) The training provider must provide a training certificate to
the entry-level driver, which contains the following six items of
information.
(1) Name of training institution;
(2) Mailing address of training institution;
(3) Name of driver;
(4) A statement that the driver has completed driver qualification
requirements, hours of service of drivers, driver wellness, and whistle
blower protection;
(5) The printed name of the person attesting that the driver has
received the required training.
(6) The signature of the person attesting that the driver has
received the required training.
(b) The training provider must issue a Driver Training Certificate
that is substantially in accordance with the following form.
(1) Driver-Certification
I certify that ---------------- has completed training requirements
set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR
380.503) for entry-level driver training.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Full name of training entity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Business address (Street Address, City, State and Zip code)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone number:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of training certifying official
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature of training certifying official
Issued on: August 12, 2003.
Warren E. Hoemann,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-20888 Filed 8-14-03; 8:45 am]