[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 88732-88803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28012]
[[Page 88731]]
Vol. 81
Thursday,
No. 236
December 8, 2016
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 88732]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
[FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB66
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA establishes new minimum training standards for certain
individuals applying for their commercial driver's license (CDL) for
the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL holder
seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or
school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. These individuals are
subject to the entry-level driver training (ELDT) requirements and must
complete a prescribed program of instruction provided by an entity that
is listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR). FMCSA will
submit training certification information to State driver licensing
agencies (SDLAs), who may only administer CDL skills tests to
applicants for the Class A and B CDL, and/or the P or S endorsements,
or knowledge test for the H endorsement, after verifying the
certification information is present in the driver's record.
DATES: This final rule is effective February 6, 2017. The compliance
date for this rule is February 7, 2020. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on the collection of information must be
received by OMB on or before January 9, 2017.
Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than January 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-366-4325, or by email at
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
For comments on the Privacy Analysis in this Rulemaking, contact
FMCSA's Privacy Officer: Shannon DiMartino, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-366-1577.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule responds to a Congressional
mandate imposed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21). The rule is based in part on consensus recommendations
from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee
(ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee that held a series of
meetings between February and May 2015.
This Final Rule is organized as follows:
I. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
B. Privacy Act
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Benefits and Costs
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Background
VI. March 7, 2016, Proposed Rule
VII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the NPRM
1. Applicability of the ELDT Requirements
2. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP Before
the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
3. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP After
the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
4. ELDT Requirements for Driver-Trainees Who Obtain ELDT After
the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
5. Impact of the NPRM on ELDT Requirements Imposed by the States
6. Application of ELDT Requirements to CMV Drivers Operating in
Intrastate and Interstate Commerce
7. Definition of Training Provider
8. Definition of ``Range''
9. Can BTW-range and BTW-public road training be obtained from
separate training providers?
10. Small Training Entities
11. Required Minimum Number of BTW Hours
12. Minimum Number of Theory Hours
13. Clock vs. Academic Hours
14. Duplication Between CLP Knowledge Test and Theory Training
15. Core Curricula--Class A and Class B CDLs
a. Night Driving/Operation
b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW Training
16. Manual v. Automatic Transmission--Class A and B Curricula
Requirements
17. Class C CDL Curriculum
18. Passenger Endorsement Training
19. School Bus Endorsement Training
20. Hazardous Materials Endorsement Training
21. Refresher Training
22. Training Requirements for Driver-Trainees Obtaining Multiple
CDL Credentials
23. Training Materials
24. Sequence of ELDT
25. ELDT Instructor Qualifications
a. BTW Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction
Experience
b. Theory Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction
Experience
c. Additional Instructor Qualification Issues
26. BTW Instructors' CMV Driving History
27. ``De-Certification'' of ELDT Instructors
28. Self-Certification of Training Providers
29. Training Provider Identification Form and Related
Information Requirements
30. Timeframe to Electronically Transmit ELDT Certification
Information
31. FMCSA's Transmittal of ELDT Certification and Related
Information Requirements
a. Separate Training Providers
32. Audits, Investigations, and Documentation Requirements--
FMCSA's ``Authorized Representative''
33. Involuntary Removal From the TPR--Due Process
34. Scheduling the State-Administered CDL Skills Test
35. Third-Party Skills Testers--Verification of ELDT
Certification
36. Compliance Date for ELDT Requirements
37. Bond Requirements for Training Providers
38. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
VIII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the Analysis
IX. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes From the NPRM
X. Section-by-Section Summary
XI. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
J. Privacy
K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice)
I. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
For access to docket FMCSA-2007-27748 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
[[Page 88733]]
B. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments on the
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) from the public to better inform its
rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
FMCSA believes this final rule enhances the safety of commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by establishing
a minimum standard for ELDT and increasing the number of drivers who
receive ELDT. It replaces existing mandatory training requirements for
entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate and intrastate operations
required to possess a CDL. The minimum training standards established
in today's rule are for certain individuals applying for a CDL for the
first time, an upgrade of their CDL\1\ (e.g., a Class B CDL holder
seeking a Class A CDL), or a hazardous materials, passenger, or school
bus endorsement for the first time. These individuals are subject to
the ELDT requirements and must complete a prescribed program of
instruction provided by an entity listed on FMCSA's Training Provider
Registry (TPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Group A vehicles include all large, combination vehicles,
usually tractor/trailers. Group B vehicles include both large
straight trucks and buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA's legal authority for this rulemaking is derived from the
Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), and MAP-21.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
The rule primarily revises 49 CFR part 380, Special Training
Requirements. It requires an individual who must complete certain CDL
skills test requirements, defined as an ``Entry-Level Driver,'' to
receive mandatory training. The rule applies to persons who drive, or
intend to drive, CMVs in either interstate or intrastate commerce.
Military drivers, farmers, and firefighters who are generally excepted
from the CDL requirements in part 383 are also excepted from this rule.
The rule establishes Class A and Class B CDL core curricula and
training curricula including passenger (P); school bus (S); and
hazardous materials (H) endorsements. The core and endorsement
curricula generally are subdivided into theory (knowledge) and behind-
the-wheel (BTW) (range and public road) segments. There is no minimum
number of hours that driver-trainees must spend on the theory portions
of any of the individual curricula. However, training providers must
provide instruction in all elements of the applicable theory curriculum
and driver-trainees must receive an overall score of at least 80
percent on the theory assessment.
The BTW curricula for the Class A and Class B CDL, comprised of
range and public road segments, include discrete maneuvers which each
driver-trainee must proficiently demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
training instructor. There is no minimum number of hours that driver-
trainees must spend on the BTW elements of the core or endorsement
curricula. The training provider must not issue the training
certificate unless the driver-trainee demonstrates proficiency in
performing all required BTW skills. Providers must submit electronic
notification to FMCSA that an individual completed the required
training; the Agency will provide that information to the SDLAs through
the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS).
This rule applies to entities that train entry-level drivers, also
referred to herein as driver-trainees. Training providers must, at a
minimum, provide instruction in a training curriculum that meets all
the standards established in today's rule and must also meet other
eligibility requirements in order to be listed on FMCSA's TPR. Training
providers must also attest that they meet the specified requirements,
and in the event of an FMCSA audit or investigation of the provider,
must supply documentation to verify their compliance. The final rule
also makes conforming changes to parts 383 and 384 of the FMCSRs.
The compliance date for this rule is three years after the
effective date of the final rule. This three-year period provides the
States with sufficient time to pass necessary implementing legislation
and to modify their information systems to begin recording the CDL
applicant's compliance with ELDT requirements. This phase-in period
also allows time for CMV driver training entities to develop and begin
offering training programs that meet the eligibility requirements for
listing on the TPR.
C. Benefits and Costs
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers, training providers, SDLAs, and
the Federal Government will incur costs for compliance and
implementation. The costs of the final rule include tuition expenses,
the opportunity cost of time while in training, compliance audit costs,
and costs associated with the implementation and monitoring of the TPR.
As shown in Table 1, FMCSA estimates that the 10-year cost of the final
rule will total $3.66 billion on an undiscounted basis, $3.23 billion
discounted at 3 percent, and $2.76 billion discounted at 7 percent (all
in 2014 dollars). Values in Table 1 are rounded to the nearest million.
Table 1--Total Cost of the Final Rule
[In millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Entry-level Motor Training Federal Discounted Discounted
drivers carriers providers SDLAs government Total \(a)\ at 3% at 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................... $324 $20 $9 $56 $6 $415 $415 $415
2021.................................... 326 20 6 0 1 353 343 330
2022.................................... 328 20 7 0 1 356 336 311
2023.................................... 330 20 6 0 1 357 327 291
2024.................................... 331 20 7 0 1 359 319 274
2025.................................... 333 20 6 0 1 360 311 257
2026.................................... 335 20 7 0 1 363 304 242
[[Page 88734]]
2027.................................... 337 20 6 0 1 364 296 227
2028.................................... 339 21 7 0 1 368 291 214
2029.................................... 341 21 6 0 1 369 283 201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 3,324 202 67 56 15 3,664 3,225 2,762
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 366 367 368
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\(a)\ Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
The costs of this final rule specifically attributable to the S
(school bus) endorsement training requirement were evaluated separately
in the RIA, because, while Section 32304 of MAP-21 mandates training
for entry-level drivers who wish to obtain a CDL or a P or H
endorsement, the statute is silent with respect to the S endorsement.
Inclusion of the S endorsement training requirement increases the total
cost of the rule by only approximately 0.82 percent. On an annualized
basis at a 7 percent discount rate, this equates to an increase in the
total cost of the rule from $365 million to $368 million. Details of
these comparative analyses of the costs of the rule and the reasons for
this relatively small change in costs resulting from the inclusion of
the S endorsement training requirement are presented in Section 3 of
the RIA.
This final rule will result in benefits to CMV operators, the
transportation industry, the traveling public, and the environment.
FMCSA estimated benefits in two broad categories: Safety benefits and
non-safety benefits. Training related to the performance of complex
tasks may improve performance; in the context of the training required
by this final rule, improvement in task performance constitutes
adoption of safer driving practices that the Agency believes will
reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, thereby resulting in
safer roadways for all. The training related to fuel efficient driving
practices that will be taught under the `speed management' and `space
management' sections of the curriculum reduce fuel consumption and
consequently lower environmental impacts associated with carbon dioxide
emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 of the RIA for today's rule,
FMCSA does not believe that the training in fuel efficient driving
practices addressed by this rule will contribute to measurably longer
trip times, as the curricula focus on factors such as maintaining safe
distances between vehicles and avoiding hard acceleration and braking,
rather than reducing vehicle speed. The Agency therefore assumes in its
analysis that these fuel efficient driving practices will not
contribute to measurably longer trip times.
Safer driving and better-informed drivers will reduce maintenance
and repair costs. Table 2 below presents the directly quantifiable
benefits that FMCSA projects will result from this final rule (all in
2014 dollars, values rounded to the nearest million). Due to wide
ranges of estimates in studies relevant to the quantified benefits of
the rule and the lack of studies that specifically focus on the
curricula prescribed by this rule,\2\ the Agency presents benefits
estimated under alternate benefit scenarios in Table 3 and Table 4.
These alternate scenarios are derived from the low and high benefit
cases (see sensitivity analyses in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the
RIA) in which the fuel savings, CO2 emissions reductions,
and maintenance and repair cost savings are 50 percent lower (low
benefits case) and 50 percent greater (high benefits case) than the
central estimates that the Agency relied on in developing the values
presented in Table 2. Further discussion of the low and high benefits
cases is reserved to the RIA for the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA, the
Agency identified a variety of relevant studies related to each of
the quantified benefits. With particular respect to the estimated
fuel and CO2 savings the Agency was unable to identify
any studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this rule.
Table 2--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Maintenance
Value of fuel Value of CO2 and repair Total (b) Discounted at Discounted at
savings reduction (a) cost savings 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................... $89 $15 $13 $117 $117 $117
2021.................................................... 151 26 22 198 192 186
2022.................................................... 186 31 26 243 229 214
2023.................................................... 190 32 27 248 227 206
2024.................................................... 194 32 27 253 225 197
2025.................................................... 197 33 27 257 222 188
2026.................................................... 202 34 28 263 220 181
2027.................................................... 205 34 28 266 217 172
2028.................................................... 207 35 28 270 214 165
[[Page 88735]]
2029.................................................... 211 35 28 274 210 157
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,830 306 253 2,389 2,073 1,783
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 239 236 237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(a) The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and
``discounted at 7%'' columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on
monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in
Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b) Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
Table 3--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Low benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Maintenance
Value of fuel Value of CO2 and repair Total \(b)\ Discounted at Discounted at
savings reduction (a) cost savings 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................... $44 $8 $6 $58 $58 $58
2021.................................................... 75 13 11 99 96 93
2022.................................................... 93 16 13 121 114 107
2023.................................................... 95 16 13 124 114 103
2024.................................................... 97 16 13 127 112 99
2025.................................................... 99 17 14 129 111 94
2026.................................................... 101 17 14 131 110 90
2027.................................................... 102 17 14 133 108 86
2028.................................................... 104 17 14 135 107 82
2029.................................................... 106 17 14 137 105 78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 915 153 127 1,195 1,036 891
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 119 118 119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(a) The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and
``discounted at 7%'' columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on
monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in
Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b) Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
Table 4--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Value of CO2 Maintenance
Value of fuel reduction and repair Total \(b)\ Discounted at Discounted at
savings \(a)\ cost savings 3% 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020...................................... $133 $23 $19 $175 $175 $175
2021...................................... 226 38 32 295 287 278
2022...................................... 278 47 38 363 343 321
2023...................................... 285 48 39 371 340 308
2024...................................... 291 49 40 379 337 295
2025...................................... 296 50 40 385 332 282
2026...................................... 302 50 41 393 329 271
2027...................................... 307 51 41 399 324 258
2028...................................... 311 52 41 405 320 246
2029...................................... 316 52 42 410 314 235
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 2,745 459 372 3,576 3,100 2,668
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 88736]]
Annualized................................ .............. .............. .............. 358 353 355
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\(a)\ The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and
``discounted at 7%'' columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on
monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in
Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
\(b)\ Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
While FMCSA believes that this final rule will at minimum achieve
cost-neutrality, the net of quantified costs and benefits (presented in
Table 5 below) results in an annualized net cost of $131 million at a 7
percent discount rate. This estimate is based only on quantifiable
costs and benefits (central case) attributable to this rule. Safety
benefits are assessed separately via a threshold analysis discussed in
detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA.
Table 5--Net Cost of the Final Rule (Central Case), Absent Quantifiable
Safety Benefits
[In millions of 2014$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% 7%
Year Discount Discount
rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................................. $298 $298
2021.............................................. 151 144
2022.............................................. 107 97
2023.............................................. 100 85
2024.............................................. 94 77
2025.............................................. 89 69
2026.............................................. 84 61
2027.............................................. 79 55
2028.............................................. 77 49
2029.............................................. 73 44
---------------------
Total......................................... 1,152 979
---------------------
Annualized........................................ 131 131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of data directly linking training to improvements in
safety outcomes, such as reduced crash frequency or severity, posed a
challenge to the Agency. Discussion regarding the efforts undertaken by
FMCSA and its partners in the negotiated rulemaking process to estimate
such a quantitative link is presented in Section 4.2 of the RIA. In the
NPRM, the Agency again requested any additional data on the safety
benefits of requiring ELDT, but did not receive any information that
could be used to reliably quantify safety benefits associated with pre-
CDL driver training.
In the absence of a clear link between training and safety, FMCSA
followed the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
its Circular A-4 to perform a threshold analysis to determine the
degree of safety benefits that will need to occur as a consequence of
this final rule in order for the rule to achieve cost-neutrality.\3\ As
presented and discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA, the
central estimate of this analysis is that a 3.61 percent improvement in
safety performance (that is, a 3.61 percent reduction in the frequency
of crashes involving those entry-level drivers who would receive
additional pre-CDL training as a result of this final rule during the
period for which the benefits of training are estimated to remain
intact) is necessary to offset the $131 million (annualized at 7
percent) net cost of this final rule.\4\ Note that under the low and
high benefits cases presented in Table 3 and Table 4, the net cost of
this final rule ranges from $13 million to $250 million (annualized at
7 percent), suggesting the improvement in safety performance necessary
to offset the rule's costs may be as low as 0.36 percent and as high as
6.89 percent (see Section 4.2 of the RIA for the final rule for further
detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. Regulatory
Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (accessed July 25, 2016).
\4\ Some commenters to the RIA that was performed for the NPRM
for this rule incorrectly interpreted the breakeven percentage
reduction in crashes estimated here as being relative to all CMV
crashes industry-wide, rather than being relative to only to the
much smaller sub-set of crashes involving entry-level drivers that
are affected by the rule. Note that with respect to the magnitude of
the reduction in the frequency of all crashes involving large trucks
and buses that the annual average crash reductions presented in
Table 6 represent, the Agency notes that there were an estimated
total 3,649 fatal, 93,000 injury, and 379,000 PDO crashes in 2014
(see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), 2016 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics, May 2016, pages 33 and 34, available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59100/59189/2016_Pocket_Guide_to_Large_Truck_and_Bus_Statistics.pdf (accessed
July 1, 2016)). Therefore, viewed in this manner, based on the
annual average number of crash reductions necessary for this final
rule to achieve cost-neutrality (shown in the second row from the
bottom of Table 6), this equates to a reduction of only 0.14% of
fatal, 0.11% of injury, and 0.11% of PDO crashes, respectively
(relative to calendar year 2014). These percentage reductions are
calculated as follows: Fatal = 5 / 3,649; Injury = 102 / 93,000; PDO
= 432 / 379,000. It should be re-emphasized, however, that this view
of the data taken by some of the commenters is incorrect, and that
the breakeven percentage reduction in crashes estimated here is
relative to only the much smaller sub-set of crashes involving
entry-level drivers that are affected by the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 below presents the projected number of crash reductions
involving entry-level drivers that must occur under the central case in
each of the 10 years following this final rule's implementation and in
the aggregate, in order to offset the net cost ($131 million annualized
at 7 percent). It is the sum of the monetized value of all columns of
Table 6--not the sum of the monetized value of any individual column--
that results in cost-neutrality.
[[Page 88737]]
Table 6--Crash Reductions Involving Entry-Level Drivers, by Type, Necessary To Achieve Cost-Neutrality
[For the Central Case]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of Number of property
Year fatal crashes injury crashes damage only
(PDO) crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................................ 3 54 231
2021............................................................ 4 91 386
2022............................................................ 5 109 463
2023............................................................ 5 109 463
2024............................................................ 5 109 463
2025............................................................ 5 109 463
2026............................................................ 5 109 463
2027............................................................ 5 109 463
2028............................................................ 5 109 463
2029............................................................ 5 109 463
-----------------------------------------------
Annual Average \(a)\............................................ 5 102 432
-----------------------------------------------
Total \(b)\................................................. 49 1,016 4,319
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\(a)\ Rounded to the nearest whole number.
\(b)\ The individual values shown may not sum to the totals shown due to rounding.
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full name Abbreviation or acronym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety....... Advocates
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking....... ANPRM
American Association for Justice............ AAJ
American Association of Motor Vehicle AAMVA
Administrators.
American Bus Association.................... ABA
American Public Power Association........... APPA
American Transportation Research Institute.. ATRI
American Trucking Associations.............. ATA
Americans with Disabilities Act............. ADA
Anti-lock Braking Systems................... ABS
Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Adequacy Report
Vehicle Driver Training.
Associated General Contractors.............. AGC
Association American of Railroads........... AAR
Behind the wheel............................ BTW
California Department of Motor Vehicles..... CA DMV
Clean Air Act............................... CAA
Code of Federal Regulations................. CFR
Commercial Driver's License................. CDL
Commercial Driver's License Information CDLIS
System.
Commercial Learner's Permit................. CLP
Commercial Motor Vehicle.................... CMV
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. CMVSA
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.......... CVSA
Commercial Vehicle Training Association..... CVTA
Delaware Department of Education............ DDE
Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles....... DE DMV
Delaware Motor Transport Association........ DMTA
Delaware Technical Community College........ DTCC
Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Director
Vehicle Safety Standards.
Driver and Vehicle Services Division of the Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
Driver Holdings, LLC........................ Driver Holdings
Edison Electrical Institute................. EEI
Entry-Level Driver Training................. ELDT
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory ELDTAC
Committee.
Executive Order............................. E.O.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.... FMCSRs
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating................. GVWR
Hazardous Materials......................... HM
Hazardous Materials Endorsement............. H
Hazardous Materials Safety Permit........... HMSP
Hours of Service............................ HOS
International Union of Operating Engineers.. IUOE
Iowa Department of Transportation........... Iowa
[[Page 88738]]
Iowa Motor Truck Association................ IMTA
Minnesota Chauffeured Limousine Association. MCLA
Model Motorcoach Curriculum................. MMC
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984............ MCSA
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee..... MCSAC
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st MAP-21
Century Act.
National Association of Publicly Funded NAPFTDS
Truck Driving Schools.
National Association of Small Trucking NASTC
Companies.
National Association of State Directors of NASDPTS
Pupil Transportation Services.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives..... NCFC
National Environmental Policy Act........... NEPA
National Feed and Grain Association......... NFGA
National Governors' Association............. NGA
National Ground Water Association........... NGWA
National Highway Traffic Safety NHTSA
Administration.
National Limousine Association.............. NLA
National Motor Freight Traffic Association.. NMFTA
National Propane Gas Association............ NPGA
National School Transportation Association.. NSTA
Natural Rural Electric Cooperative NRECA
Association.
New York Association for Pupil NYAPT
Transportation.
New York Department of Motor Vehicles....... NY DMV
North Dakota Motor Carriers Association..... NDMCA
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking............... NPRM
Office of Management and Budget............. OMB
Oregon Department of Transportation......... ODOT
Out-of-service.............................. OOS
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers OOIDA
Association, Inc..
Petroleum Marketers Association of America.. PMAA
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety PHMSA
Administration.
Privacy Impact Assessment................... PIA
Professional Truck Driver Institute......... PTDI
Property Damage Only........................ PDO
Regulatory Impact Analysis.................. RIA
State Driver Licensing Agency............... SDLA
State of Michigan, Bureau of Driver and Michigan
Vehicle Licensing Programs, Department of
State.
State of Utah, Department of Public Safety.. Utah
State of Washington Department of Licensing. Washington
Training Provider Registry.................. TPR
United Motorcoach Association............... UMA
United Parcel Service....................... UPS
United States Code.......................... U.S.C.
United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
District of Columbia Circuit.
United States Department of Education....... ED
United States Department of Transportation.. DOT
Virage Simulation........................... Virage
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles....... Virginia
Virginia Trucking Association............... VTA
Werner Enterprises.......................... Werner
West Virginia Trucking Association.......... WVTA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of
1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and the Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as described below. It also
implements section 32304 of MAP-21, requiring the establishment of
minimum driver training standards for certain individuals required to
hold a CDL. The NPRM preceding this final rule reflected the
recommendations of FMCSA's ELDTAC, comprised of 25 industry
stakeholders and FMCSA, convened through a negotiated rulemaking in
2015, as discussed below. Today's rule retains a number of those
recommendations.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b),
provides that ``The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe
requirements for--(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor
carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operation.'' This rule improves the
``safety of operation'' of entry-level ``employees'' who operate CMVs,
as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, by enhancing the training they receive
before obtaining or upgrading a CDL.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA), codified at 49 U.S.C.
31136(a), provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor
carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of
Transportation to prescribe regulations for CMV safety to ensure that
(1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2)
responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to
operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is
adequate to operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does
not have a deleterious effect on drivers' physical
[[Page 88739]]
condition; and (5) CMV drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier,
shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in
violation of regulations promulgated under this section, or chapter 51
or chapter 313 of this title (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). This rule is based
specifically on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), requiring regulations to ensure
that CMVs are ``operated safely,'' and secondarily on section
31136(a)(2), requiring that regulations ensure that ``the
responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.'' The rule
enhances the training of entry-level drivers to further ensure that
they operate CMVs safely and meet the operational responsibilities
imposed on them.
This rule does not directly address medical standards for drivers
(section 31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects caused by driving
CMVs (section 31136(a)(4)). However, to the extent that the various
curricula in today's rule address FMCSA's medical requirements for CMV
drivers, section 31136(a)(3), has been considered and addressed. FMCSA
does not anticipate that drivers will be coerced (section 31136(a)(5))
as a result of this rulemaking. However, we note that the theory
training curricula for Class A and B CDLs include a unit addressing the
right of an employee to question the safety practices of an employer
without incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject to reprisal
simply for stating a safety concern. Driver-trainees will also be
instructed in procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion
from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation
intermediaries.
CMVSA provides, among other things, that the Secretary of
Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for
testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). The requirement of
today's rule that States test only those entry-level CDL applicants who
have completed the requisite training falls within the ``minimum
standards for testing'' authorized by the CMVSA. The training
requirement itself, as described below, was created by section 32304 of
MAP-21.
MAP-21 requires DOT to regulate ELDT (Pub. L. 112-141, section
32304, 126 Stat. 405, 791 (July 6, 2012)). MAP-21 modified 49 U.S.C.
31305 by adding paragraph (c), which requires FMCSA to issue ELDT
regulations. The regulations must address the knowledge and skills
necessary for safe operation of a CMV that must be acquired before
obtaining a CDL for the first time or upgrading from one class of CDL
to another. MAP-21 also requires that training apply to CMV operators
seeking passenger or hazardous materials endorsements (49 U.S.C.
31305(c)(1) and (2)). Although the statute specifically requires that
the regulations address both classroom and behind the wheel (BTW)
instruction, MAP-21 otherwise allows FMCSA broad discretion to define
the training methodology, standards, and curriculum necessary to
satisfy the ELDT mandate.
MAP-21 clearly establishes the scope of operations to be covered by
this rule by requiring that ELDT regulations apply to individuals
operating CMVs in both interstate and intrastate commerce. The ELDT
requirements are codified in section 31305 of Title 49 of the U.S.
Code, and the definition of a CMV in section 31301(4) therefore applies
to ELDT. The definition of ``commerce'' in section 31301(2) covers both
interstate commerce (paragraph A) and intrastate commerce (paragraph
B). ELDT, as a CDL-related mandate, therefore applies to both
interstate and intrastate commerce.
The final rule includes a school bus (S) endorsement curriculum, as
proposed in the NPRM. Although MAP-21 did not specifically mandate
training for this endorsement, the current FMCSRs require that an
applicant for the S endorsement must pass the knowledge and skills test
for a passenger vehicle (P) endorsement (49 CFR 383.123(a)(1)). FMCSA
believes that because Congress recognized the importance of entry-level
training in the operation of passenger vehicles by including the P
endorsement within the scope of the MAP-21 mandate, the inclusion of
the S endorsement training curriculum in the final rule is consistent
with that mandate.
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their
``costs and benefits'' (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those
factors are addressed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)
associated with this rulemaking and are summarized above.
V. Background
Regulatory History
On March 7, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM), Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators, in the Federal Register (81 FR 11944). FMCSA
received 338 submissions during the NPRM public comment period. FMCSA
and its predecessor agency, the Federal Highway Administration, Office
of Motor Carriers, have previously addressed the issue of CMV driver
training. The regulatory and legal history of these efforts is
summarized in the table below.
Timeline of Regulatory and Judicial Actions Related to Entry-Level Driver Training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Type of action Citation, date Synopsis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Curriculum for Training Federal Highway 1985.................. The Model Curriculum
Tractor-Trailer Drivers. Administration (FHWA) provided suggestions and
Recommendations. recommendations for
training providers
covering curriculum,
facilities, vehicles,
instructor qualifications
hiring practices,
graduation requirements,
and student placement.
Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training ANPRM by FHWA......... June 21, 1993; 58 FR The ANPRM asked 13
for All Entry Level Drivers. 33874. questions pertaining to
the adequacy of training
standards, curriculum
requirements, the
requirements for obtaining
a CDL, the definition of
``entry-level driver''
training, training pass
rates, and costs.
Assessing the Adequacy of FHWA Report........... 1995.................. It concluded, among other
Commercial Motor Vehicle Training. things, that effective
ELDT needs to include BTW
instruction.
Relief from Unlawfully Withheld Court Action.......... November 2002......... Sought an order directing
Agency Action, In re Citizens for the DOT to promulgate
Reliable and Safe Highways. various regulations,
including one establishing
ELDT.
Minimum Training Requirements for FMCSA's NPRM.......... August 15, 2003; 68 FR FMCSA proposed standards
Entry-Level Commercial Motor 48863. for mandatory training
Vehicle Operators. requirements for entry-
level operators of
commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) who are required to
hold or obtain a
commercial driver's
license (CDL).
[[Page 88740]]
FMCSA's Final Rule.... May 21, 2004; 69 FR The final rule included the
29384. four training elements
proposed in the NPRM:
driver medical
qualification and drug and
alcohol testing; driver
hours of service limits;
driver wellness; and
whistleblower protections.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Court Action.......... 429 F.3d 1136 (D.C. The Court held that the
Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Cir., December 2, 2004 final rule was
Safety Administration. 2005). arbitrary and capricious
because FMCSA ignored the
finding of the Adequacy
Report that BTW training
was necessary and remanded
the rule to the Agency for
further consideration. The
Court did not vacate the
2004 final rule.
Minimum Training Requirements for FMCSA's NPRM.......... December 26, 2007; 72 FMCSA proposed regulations
Entry-Level Commercial Motor FR 73226. requiring both classroom
Vehicle Operators. and BTW training from an
accredited institution or
program.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the Congressional Action.. July 6, 2012; Public MAP-21 requires DOT to
21st Century Act (MAP-21). Law No. 112-141, Sec. regulate ELDT.
32304, 126 Stat.
405, 791.
Minimum Training Requirements for FMCSA's Withdrawal September 19, 2013; 78 Based on a number of
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Notice. FR 57585. considerations, FMCSA
VehicleOperators. withdrew its December 26,
2007, NPRM that proposed
new ELDT standards for
individuals applying for a
commercial driver's
license to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
ELDT Negotiated Rulemaking......... FMCSA's Public Notices August 19, 2014; 79 FR FMCSA formally announced
49044. that it was considering
addressing the rulemaking
mandated by MAP-21 through
a negotiated rulemaking.
December 10, 2014; 79 FMCSA also stated its
FR 73274. intention to finish the
negotiated rulemaking
process in the first half
of 2015, followed by
publication of an NPRM the
same year and a final ELDT
rule in 2016.
February 12, 2015; 80 The Agency published a
FR 7814. Federal Register notice
listing the ELDTAC members
as required by the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act.
Public Meetings....... February-May 2015..... The ELDTAC met for a series
of six two-day meetings to
produce a consensus
agreement, which formed
the basis for the NPRM.
In Re Advocates for Highway and Court Action.......... September 18, 2014; FMCSA and DOT are sued in a
Auto Safety, the International No. 14-1183, D.C. mandamus action requesting
Brotherhood of Teamsters; and Circuit (2014). that the D.C. Circuit
Citizens for Reliable and Safe March 10, 2015........ order the Agency to
Highways vs. Anthony Foxx, publish a proposed rule on
Secretary of the United States ELDT in 60 days and a
Department of Transportation, et final rule within 120 days
al. of the Court's order.
The court ordered that the
petition for writ of
mandamus be held in
abeyance pending a further
order of the court to
permit the DOT to issue
final regulations pursuant
to MAP-21.
Minimum Training Requirements for FMCSA's NPRM.......... March 7, 2016; 81 FR Based on the consensus
Entry-Level Commercial Motor 11944. findings of the Entry-
Vehicle Operators. Level Driver Advisory
Committee, FMCSA proposed
new training standards for
certain individuals
applying for their initial
CDL; an upgrade of their
CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL
holder seeking a Class A
CDL); or a hazardous
materials, passenger, or
school bus endorsement;
and a ``refresher''
training curriculum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. March 7, 2016, Proposed Rule
MAP-21 mandated that the FMCSA issue regulations to establish
minimum entry-level training requirements for interstate and intrastate
applicants obtaining a CDL for the first time, CDL holders seeking
license upgrades, and those seeking passenger (P) or hazardous
materials (H) endorsements. In response to that statutory mandate, the
Agency published an NPRM, ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-
Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' on March 7, 2016. In the
NPRM, FMCSA proposed the ELDTAC's consensus recommendations ``to the
maximum extent possible consistent with its legal obligations'' as
required under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(a)(7)).
The proposed regulations addressed the knowledge and/or skills
training required for entry-level CMV drivers. Additionally, the NPRM
outlined new eligibility standards that training providers must meet to
deliver ELDT. Finally, while not specifically required by MAP-21, the
NPRM reflected the ELDTAC's consensus that training should also be
required for applicants seeking a school bus (S) endorsement and for
CDL holders disqualified for safety-related CMV driving violations
(refresher training).
The proposed rule generally applied to those individuals who obtain
a CDL (or a CDL upgrade or endorsement) on or after the compliance date
of the final rule and did not otherwise amend substantive CDL
requirements in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. The NPRM identified specific
categories of drivers excluded from the rule, based on current
exceptions in part 383.
The proposed rule also applied to entities that train CDL
applicants. Such providers would, at a minimum, provide instruction in
accordance with a training curriculum that meets all FMCSA standards as
set forth in the NPRM. Under the NPRM, training providers would attest
to their compliance with the eligibility requirements set forth in
proposed subpart G of part 380. These proposed requirements addressed
the following areas: Course administration; instructional personnel
qualifications; training vehicles; training facilities (e.g., classroom
and range); curricula; and
[[Page 88741]]
proficiency assessment of driver-trainees. Training providers meeting
these proposed requirements would be eligible for listing on FMCSA's
Training Provider Registry (TPR) and would also be required to meet the
criteria for continued listing on the TPR. The NPRM proposed that
training providers would, at FMCSA's request, be required to supply
specified documentary evidence to verify their compliance with the TPR
eligibility requirements.
The NPRM described factors that would justify FMCSA's removal of a
training entity from the TPR, setting forth procedures the Agency would
follow before removing an entity from the TPR. The NPRM also proposed
procedures that training providers would follow in order to challenge a
proposed removal and to apply for reinstatement to the TPR following
involuntary removal.
The NPRM proposed that training providers would electronically
notify the TPR by the close of the next business day after driver-
trainees completed training. The submission of this documentation would
ensure that each individual received the required training from a
provider listed on the TPR prior to taking the State-administered CDL
skills test for the Class A or B CDL and/or the passenger or school bus
endorsement, or the knowledge test for the hazardous materials
endorsement.
The NPRM proposed core curricula for Class A CDL and Class B CDL
applicants; curricula for the P, S, and H endorsements; and a
``refresher'' training curriculum. The proposed core curricula for
Class A and Class B CDL training programs, as well as the P and S
curricula, were subdivided into theory and BTW (range and public road)
components. The H endorsement training curriculum was proposed as
theory-only training because there is no CDL skills test currently
required for those seeking an H endorsement. The NPRM did not propose
that any minimum number of hours be spent by driver-trainees in
completing the theory portions of any of the individual curricula,
though training providers must cover all elements of the applicable
curriculum and trainees must achieve an overall score of at least 80
percent on the written theory assessment.
The NPRM proposed that a minimum number of BTW hours be required
for the Class A and Class B curricula. Class A applicants would be
required to complete at least 30 hours of BTW training, while Class B
applicants would need to complete a minimum of 15 hours BTW. The NPRM
did not propose that driver-trainees spend any minimum number of hours
to complete the BTW portion of the P or S curriculum. The preamble to
the proposed rule stated that, for BTW training, ``[a]ll required
driving maneuvers must be performed to the satisfaction of the
instructor . . .'' As proposed, a CDL holder disqualified from
operating a CMV due to safety-related violations would need to complete
refresher training requirements before applying for reinstatement of
his/her CDL. Similar to the other proposed curricula, the refresher
curriculum included both theory and BTW components; however, the NPRM
did not propose that a minimum number of hours be required to complete
any portion of the refresher curriculum. The Agency proposed that SDLAs
issue limited CDL privileges for persons seeking to become reinstated,
solely for the purpose of allowing the driver to complete the BTW
portion of the refresher curriculum.
The proposed compliance date for this rule was three years after
the effective date of the final rule. The Agency believed the three-
year phase-in period would give the States enough time to (1) pass
implementing legislation and/or regulations as necessary; (2) modify
their information systems to begin recording the training provider's
certification information into CDLIS and onto the driver's CDL record;
and (3) begin making that information available to other States through
CDLIS. The three-year phase-in period would also allow ample time for
the CMV driver training industry to develop and begin offering training
programs that meet the requirements for listing on the TPR.
VII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the NPRM
There were 338 submissions on the proposed rule, 190 of which
provided substantive comments. In addition to private citizens, the
following types of entities commented on the proposed rule: Academic
institutions, agriculture industry, motor carriers, CMV driver
trainers, electric utilities, professional associations, owner/
operators, safety advocacy groups, State DMVs and other governmental
entities, school bus operations, and trade associations.
Commenters generally supporting the proposed rule endorsed setting
minimum standards, which they said would improve road safety and reduce
crashes involving CMVs. While a number of commenters asserted that over
the long term, entry-level driver training would result in greater
highway safety and efficiencies and savings for the industry, none of
those comments included quantitative data to support that assertion.
Commenters generally opposing the NPRM made several arguments. The
most frequent assertions were that an entry-level driver training
program would exacerbate a commercial driver shortage (especially for
school bus drivers), that an ELDT rule was unnecessary because carrier-
based or other existing training regimens already work, that FMCSA had
no data to support the proposed requirements, and that FMCSA
exaggerated savings or underestimated costs of the ELDT proposal.
1. Applicability of the ELDT Requirements
The ELDT requirements proposed in the NPRM pertain to drivers who
meet the definition of ``entry-level driver'' in Sec. 380.605 and who
intend to drive CMVs in interstate and/or intrastate commerce. As
proposed, drivers holding a valid Class A or Class B CDL or a P, S, or
H endorsement issued before the compliance date of the final rule would
not be subject to ELDT requirements. Under the NPRM, the following
categories of drivers, who are currently excepted or may, at the
State's discretion, be excepted from CDL requirements, would also be
excepted from the ELDT requirements: (1) Drivers excepted from the CDL
requirements under Sec. 383.3(c), (d), and (h), which includes
individuals who operate CMVs for military purposes, farmers,
firefighters, emergency response vehicle drivers and drivers removing
snow and ice, and drivers of ``covered farm vehicles''; (2) drivers
applying for a restricted CDL under Sec. 383.3 (e) through (g); and
(3) veterans with military experience who meet the requirements and
conditions of Sec. 383.77.
Comments: FMCSA received numerous comments from various industry
segments requesting exceptions from the ELDT final rule. Comments filed
jointly by the American Public Power Association (APPA), the Edison
Electrical Institute (EEI), and the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association (NRECA) requested that FMCSA exclude electric utility
drivers from the ELDT requirements. These commenters stated that
driving represents a small proportion of a utility worker's daily
responsibilities and that electric utility drivers have excellent
safety records.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commented that several
of the proposed training standards should not apply to railroad
employees required to hold a CDL. For example, AAR stated that FMCSA
[[Page 88742]]
should not require railroad employees who hold CDLs for their duties to
demonstrate skills such as alley dock backing or other skills that are
not necessary for the performance of their specific job functions. The
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen also requested an exception for
railroad employees who hold CDLs. An individual commenter requested
that truck repair technicians be able to obtain a ``special'' CDL
because they normally travel only short distances to repair facilities.
FMCSA received a large number of comments from the custom harvester
industry requesting an exception from the ELDT rule. The commenters
generally cited the following arguments in support of their request.
First, custom harvesters hire and train seasonal CDL drivers, most of
whom do not already have a CDL. Consequently, the custom harvester
typically provides training to enable the driver to obtain a CDL.
Because many entry-level drivers in the custom harvester industry
cannot afford training costs and other CDL-related expenses, the
employer must directly pay for, or absorb the cost of, providing CDL-
related training. Custom harvester employers therefore believed that
the ELDT training requirements would impose additional costs on them.
Second, the custom harvester industry argued that because the CMV
testing and licensing standards in certain foreign jurisdictions do not
meet the CDL testing standards established in part 383, a temporary
worker who holds an H2-A visa must obtain a non-domiciled CDL. Non-
domiciled CDLs are valid only for the length of the holder's work visa,
which is normally six to eleven months. Commenters felt it was unfair
for them to incur the cost of training drivers who obtain a CDL that is
valid only for the length of their employment in the United States, and
for whom they usually have to pay transportation expenses to and from
the United States.
Third, custom harvester industry commenters asserted that they have
a strong driver safety record in the United States. The National
Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) noted that agricultural services
``present a lower risk relative to other types of commercial vehicle
operations due to the nature of agricultural production and the way
trucks and application equipment are used.'' NCFC specifically cited
less traffic congestion in rural areas and fewer total miles driven
than the ``general commercial trucking industry.'' NCFC requested that
FMCSA therefore grant recognition for ``existing training programs,
previous driving experience, and current industry practices for non-
accredited entry-level driver classroom and behind-the-wheel training
requirements for farm-related industries.''
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) supported the
proposed exception for holders of valid CDLs issued before the
compliance date of the final rule, as provided in Sec. 380.603(b), but
noted that the language ``except as otherwise specifically provided''
is very unclear.
FMCSA Response: The ELDT requirements established in today's rule
are aligned with the existing CDL requirements in part 383. The final
rule does not create any new exceptions. Therefore, any individual who
is currently excepted from taking a skills test in order to obtain a
Class A or Class B CDL or a P or S endorsement would not be subject to
the final rule.
FMCSA acknowledges the concerns raised by the custom harvest
industry and others who believe that the specialized nature of their
industries makes mandated ELDT unnecessary or unduly burdensome. In
response, FMCSA emphasizes that any entity or employer currently
providing training would be eligible for listing on the TPR, as long as
the applicable minimum curricula and instructor requirements set forth
in today's rule are met. Additional costs for such providers would
include online registration for the TPR, which the Agency estimates
will be minimal (see RIA for discussion of these costs). In addition,
as noted in the NPRM and elsewhere in this preamble, today's rule does
not impose any new Federal accreditation requirements on either
classroom or BTW training providers.
Further, the fact that CDL applicants in a specific industry expect
to perform job functions that are more limited than the scope of the
required curricula, or who may be expected to travel relatively short
distances in the course of their employment, is not a valid basis for
exception from ELDT requirements. Entry-level drivers obtaining a Class
A or B CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement for the first time are presumed
competent to safely operate the type of CMV for which they have
received a license. Accordingly, CDL holders should be capable of
operating the vehicle in appropriate settings and circumstances, which
may go beyond the specific purpose or employment for which they
initially obtained the CDL or endorsement. Regardless of an applicant's
intentions at the time he or she obtains a CDL or endorsement, the
individual is in fact credentialed to operate a range of CMVs falling
within the CDL class of license or endorsement received. Therefore,
based on the current CDL program, it is reasonable for FMCSA to require
these individuals to receive training commensurate with the CMV driving
credentials they hold.
Additionally, FMCSA notes that it would be virtually impossible to
implement and enforce exemptions from the ELDT requirements in today's
rule based either on the driver's industry or anticipated use of a CMV
for which a CDL or endorsement is required.
The Agency also notes that the training requirements established in
today's rule are generally imposed on a one-time-only basis. This also
holds true for non-domiciled CDL holders; once they complete training
for the non-domiciled CDL class or endorsement, they would not be
required to repeat that same training upon their return to the United
States in subsequent years. Therefore, H2-A workers in the custom
harvest industry would need to complete the applicable ELDT
requirements only once. In addition, because the final rule permits
driver-trainees to obtain theory and BTW training from separate
providers, absent a conflicting State requirement, foreign workers can
complete the theory portion of the training online in order to reduce
ELDT related costs.
Finally, as proposed, the ELDT requirements do not apply to
individuals holding a valid CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement issued
before the compliance date of the final rule. Due to other changes in
the final rule discussed below, FMCSA deletes the language ``except as
otherwise specifically provided'' from Sec. 380.603(b).
2. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP Before the
Compliance Date of the Final Rule
As proposed, Sec. 380.603(c)(1) required that individuals who
obtain a CLP before the compliance date of the final rule would not be
subject to ELDT requirements if they obtain a CDL within 360 days of
obtaining a CLP. Therefore, under the NPRM, CLP holders who fail to
obtain a CDL within the 360-day time frame would be required to
complete ELDT before taking the required State-administered skills
test.
Comments: The New York Department of Motor Vehicles (NY DMV)
commented that ``360 days is too limited and problematic'' because the
States regulate how long a driver may wait from expiration of the
original CLP before renewing that CLP. Because a CLP holder does not
necessarily renew the CLP exactly on the date of expiration, the period
of time from the
[[Page 88743]]
original CLP issuance date to the expiration date of the renewed CLP
may be longer than 360 days. The ODOT asked that the 360-day limit be
changed to one year. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
(Virginia), noting that ``a CLP (original and renewal) could
potentially be issued for a period of 390 plus days based on Virginia's
30-day grace period,'' requested that the period be for the full
duration of the CLP instead of 360 days.
FMCSA Response: The Agency based the proposed 360-day time period
on current CLP requirements, which state that the CLP must be valid for
no more than 180 days from the date of issuance; States may renew the
CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the applicant to
retake applicable knowledge tests (Sec. 383.25(c)). However, the
comments illustrate that, in practice, the requirements related to CLP
renewal vary among the States, thereby resulting in an amount of time
between the date of initial CLP issuance and the expiration date of the
renewed CLP that may be longer than 360 days. Accordingly, FMCSA
revises the language in Sec. 380.603(c)(1) to state that individuals
who obtain a CLP before the compliance date of the final rule are not
subject to ELDT requirements as long as they obtain a CDL before the
expiration date of the CLP or renewed CLP. Any CLP holder who fails to
obtain the CDL within that period would be subject to the ELDT
requirements established in the final rule. The Agency believes this
approach provides sufficient flexibility for the States.
In addition, under revised Sec. 380.603(c)(1), CLPs with
endorsements are included within the scope of this exception.
Accordingly, any applicant who obtains a P or S endorsement on his or
her CLP before the compliance date of the final rule is not required to
complete the P or S endorsement training curriculum if the applicant
receives the endorsement before the initial or renewed CLP expires.
This requirement would not apply to individuals seeking the H
endorsement, who are not required to take a skills test, and therefore
do not need to obtain a CLP. Unlike the P and S endorsements, the H
endorsement is not linked to any specific class or type of vehicle.
Accordingly, applicants for the H endorsement will already hold a Class
A or B CDL, or will be concurrently obtaining a Class A or B CDL at the
time they apply for the H endorsement, or intend to transport hazardous
materials in a vehicle for which a Class A or B CDL is not required
(e.g., a pick-up truck).
3. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP After the
Compliance Date of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed that individuals obtaining a CLP on or after the
compliance date of the final rule must comply with applicable ELDT
requirements. The Agency received no comments on this requirement and
it is retained, as proposed, in Sec. 380.603(c)(2).
4. ELDT Requirements for Driver-Trainees Who Obtain ELDT After the
Compliance Date of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed that, except for driver-trainees seeking the H
endorsement, driver-trainees must complete the theory and skills
portion of the training within 360 days (Sec. 383.71(a)(4)).
Comments: AAMVA requested ``clarification on whether satisfactory
completion before the 360 day expiration is based on the date of
completion of the [theory] portion of the curriculum, the completion of
the behind-the-wheel portion of the training, successful completion of
the skills test, or the issuance of the CDL.''
FMCSA Response: The proposed requirement that theory and BTW
training be taken within a defined period of time reflects the ELDTAC's
concern that, given the integrated nature of the training, waiting too
long to complete both portions of the curriculum may diminish the
overall value of the training experience. The Agency retains that
concept in the final rule. However, for clarity and consistency, we
changed the applicable time period from 360 days to one year and moved
the provision from part 383 to part 380. Accordingly, under new Sec.
380.603(c)(3), on or after the compliance date of the final rule,
individuals who take ELDT related to the Class A or Class B CDL, or the
S and/or P endorsement, must complete both portions of the training
(theory and BTW) within one year of completing the first portion. As
discussed below, today's rule does not require that theory and BTW
training be taken in a particular sequence.
5. Impact of the NPRM on ELDT Requirements Imposed by the States
The NPRM proposed minimum training standards for entry-level CMV
drivers, minimum qualification requirements for individuals providing
theory and/or BTW instruction, and minimum eligibility requirements for
training providers.
Comments: Several comments addressed differences between the NPRM
and existing State requirements related to ELDT. The State of
Washington Department of Licensing (Washington) commented that its
minimum commercial driver training requirements, adopted in 2009,
include more required hours for entry-level drivers than the NPRM, and
urged FMCSA ``to adopt requirements with greater hours that are more
comparable to our state's requirements.'' The New York Association for
Pupil Transportation (NYAPT) commented that ``FMCSA should consider
ways to grandfather existing State programs that meet or exceed the
proposed high training standards to continue in place, particularly
within the school bus industry.''
The State of Michigan, Bureau of Driver and Vehicle Licensing
Programs, Department of State (Michigan), recommended that the final
rule require that theory/classroom training be coordinated with BTW
training, adding that ``[i]f not required by the rule, States should be
allowed to require such coordination.'' Michigan also noted that,
because ``some States do not presently allow the use of online training
courses for driver education,'' the final rule should not require that
States accept online training.
A commenter representing the Driver and Vehicle Services Division
of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (Minnesota) noted that
``Minnesota's licensed CDL behind-the-wheel instructor qualifications
refer to hours of experience, by a showing of 3,000 hours within the
last five years operating the class of vehicle for which instruction
will be provided.'' Also discussing the NPRM's requirements for BTW
instructors, Virginia requested that ``the proposed language be revised
to indicate these are minimum requirements so that States have
flexibility in requiring additional criteria.''
FMCSA Response: Today's rule implements MAP-21's mandate that FMCSA
establish minimum entry-level training requirements for individuals who
operate CMVs in intrastate and interstate commerce for which a
specified class of CDL or endorsement is required. The rule amends the
current entry-level driver training requirements in 49 CFR part 380,
the training section of the CDL regulations. The CDL program does not
have preemptive effect. In order to remain eligible to receive certain
Federal aid highway funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31314, States must
adopt regulations that comply substantially with the requirements of
the CDL program. Today's rule generally does not replace or otherwise
supersede State-based
[[Page 88744]]
ELDT requirements that exceed these minimum Federal standards when an
entry-level driver obtains training in that State. The Agency believes
that Congress, by expressly requiring that the Secretary establish
minimum training requirements for entry-level CMV drivers, intended
this result.
In order to comply with the requirements of today's rule, entry-
level drivers must obtain BTW and/or theory training from a provider
listed on the TPR. Under the final rule, the BTW portion of the
required training must be completed before the applicant can take the
State-administered skills test, except for H endorsement applicants,
who must complete the H endorsement theory curriculum before taking the
State-administered knowledge test.
The question of which, if any, additional State-based ELDT-related
requirements apply to the applicant will be determined by where he or
she obtains their BTW and/or theory training for the Class A or Class B
CDL and/or the P, S, or H endorsements.
The Agency anticipates that most driver-trainees will obtain ELDT
in their State of domicile. Under the final rule, driver-trainees who
obtain BTW and/or theory training in their State of domicile are
subject to any additional ELDT requirements that State imposes on CDL
applicants.
For example, if a State requires that entry-level drivers complete
a CDL training program with a prescribed minimum number of BTW hours, a
driver-trainee who is domiciled there and obtains BTW training there,
must comply with that requirement in order to take the State-
administered the skills test. Similarly, driver-trainees who take
theory training in their State of domicile would be required to comply
with any State-based requirements applicable to theory training.
Therefore, if a driver-trainee's State of domicile prohibits online
CDL-related theory training, the individual would be required to obtain
theory training in a classroom or other ``live'' setting permitted by
the State. In these examples, the applicant's State of domicile is both
the training State and the licensing State.
However, the final rule does not prohibit driver-trainees from
obtaining training outside their State of domicile, if they so choose.
Under Sec. 383.79, which currently permits a non-domicile State to
administer CDL skills testing to an applicant who has taken training in
that State, but is to be licensed in his or her State of domicile,
requires the applicant's licensing State to accept the results of that
skills testing. This could occur, for example, if the applicant's
prospective employer provided the training in a State other than the
applicant's State of domicile. Under today's rule, any ELDT
requirements that may exist in the licensing State (i.e., the
applicant's State of domicile) would not be applicable to the driver-
trainee who obtained skills training outside that State, even if the he
or she returns to the licensing State to take the skills test (as
permitted under Sec. 383.79). Consequently, an applicant's State of
domicile must issue a CDL to him or her, even if the BTW training
requirements imposed by the training State do not conform with those in
the State of domicile, as long as the applicant obtained the training
from a provider listed on the TPR.
Driver-trainees who elect to obtain theory training outside their
State of domicile would also be subject to any additional theory
training requirements imposed on CDL applicants by the training State.
Accordingly, driver-trainees, when selecting a training provider, will
need to understand the specific State-based ELDT requirements (if any)
where they intend to obtain either type of training. FMCSA notes that
the final rule does not require that driver-trainees obtain theory
training prior to taking the State-administered knowledge test (except
for H endorsement applicants), nor does it require that driver-trainees
obtain theory training in the same State where they intend to take the
State-administered knowledge test for any CDL license class or
endorsement covered by the rule.
The minimum standards in today's rule also apply to ELDT providers
and instructors. Training providers must meet and continue to comply
with eligibility requirements, set forth in Sec. Sec. 380.703 and 719
of the final rule, including utilizing qualified theory and BTW
instructors. In order to be eligible for listing on the TPR, training
providers must also comply with applicable State requirements in each
State where in-person training is conducted, and must utilize theory
and/or BTW instructors who comply with applicable qualification
requirements in each State where in-person training is conducted. The
Agency notes that, just as States may impose additional requirements on
entry-level drivers who obtain training in their State, the final rule
also permits States to impose requirements beyond the training or
instructor/provider qualification standards adopted today.
For example, States are free to require that ELDT instructors in
their State have more years of experience operating the class of
vehicle for which instruction will be provided than the two-year
minimum established in the final rule. States would also be free to add
ELDT instructor qualifications, such as a required level of vocational
or academic education (neither of which is required by today's final
rule); or to impose additional bases for disqualification of training
instructors. In these situations, training providers must comply with
the additional requirements imposed in their respective States in order
to meet the TPR eligibility requirement set forth in Sec.
380.703(a)(5)(i).
In today's rule, the only exception to this requirement is for
training providers who provide theory training exclusively online.
While online content must be prepared and delivered by instructors
meeting the qualification requirements of the final rule, the provider
is not required to utilize instructors complying with State-based
theory instructor qualifications. As explained below in the discussion
of the definition of ``theory instructor,'' online providers cannot
reasonably be expected to require that their theory instructors comply
with multiple, and potentially conflicting, qualification requirements
in any State where the online training might be taken.
As our discussion of these hypothetical examples illustrates, the
purpose of this final rule is to establish a floor, not a ceiling, by
requiring, at a minimum, that entry-level CMV drivers demonstrate
proficiency in the applicable theory and BTW curricula established
today. The Agency believes that, to the extent practicable, and
consistent with Congressional intent, the final rule allows States the
flexibility to impose additional ELDT requirements on driver-trainees
who obtain training in their State and on training providers and
instructors who deliver training in their State. That said, we are
aware that questions concerning the relationship between Federal and
State ELDT requirements will inevitably arise, and the Agency will
provide additional post-rule guidance to address those issues, as
necessary.
6. Application of ELDT Requirements to CMV Drivers Operating in
Intrastate and Interstate Commerce
As proposed, ELDT requirements apply to all entry-level drivers
operating CMVs in intrastate and interstate commerce, subject to the
limited exceptions noted above.
Comments: The State of South Dakota suggested a less burdensome
option requiring training only for drivers who will be operating CMVs
in interstate commerce. South Dakota stated the training would be a
burden, and in some cases would prevent children from getting to
school, citizens from receiving
[[Page 88745]]
fuel for heat, grain elevator/co-op businesses from providing services
to farmers, and public transit services (especially in rural areas)
from finding drivers.
FMCSA Response: The Agency does not believe that today's rule will
unduly burden intrastate commerce. In any event, FMCSA has no legal
authority to exclude intrastate CMV drivers from the final rule. As
noted in the Legal Basis for the Rulemaking, MAP-21 requires that ELDT
regulations, as a CDL-related mandate, apply to prospective CDL holders
operating in either intrastate or interstate commerce. Accordingly, the
scope of operations covered by the final rule is unchanged from the
NPRM.
7. Definition of Training Provider
The NPRM defined ``training provider'' as ``an entity that is
listed on the FMCSA TPR, as required by subpart G of this part.'' In
the preamble, the Agency noted that training providers could be
training schools, educational institutions, motor carriers providing
``in-house'' training to current or prospective employees, local
governments, or school districts.
Comments: The National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA)
acknowledged the preamble's reference to the fact that motor carriers
offering in-house training to entry-level drivers could be eligible for
listing on the TPR. NMFTA noted, however, that the NPRM did not
``expressly acknowledge the right of motor carriers to continue
offering training under the new regulatory scheme'' and requested that
the Agency do so in the final rule. The Associated General Contractors
also requested that the rule ``be expanded to include a listing of the
types of entities that can offer training programs and include in-house
providers.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA intends that any entity meeting the
eligibility requirements established in subpart G of today's rule can
be listed on the TPR and thus be qualified to provide ELDT that would
satisfy the rule's requirements. In order to clarify our intent, in the
final rule, we amend the definition of ``training provider'' in Sec.
380.605 to specifically identify types of entities that may be eligible
for listing on the TPR. The Agency included, as examples, training
schools, educational institutions, rural electric cooperatives, motor
carriers, State/local governments, school districts, joint labor
management programs, owner-operators, and individuals, in this
definition. In addition, FMCSA notes that eligible providers may
provide training either on a ``for-hire'' or ``not-for-hire'' basis.
Examples include motor carriers who provide ELDT at no cost to current
or prospective employees, independent training schools charging
tuition, and individuals who train family or friends (either at no cost
or for a fee). We note that this list of entities which could
potentially qualify for TPR listing is not exclusive. Our purpose in
amending the definition of ``training provider'' in today's rule is to
identify specific examples of potentially eligible entities. We
emphasize, however, that any training provider meeting the eligibility
requirements could be qualified to provide ELDT in accordance with the
final rule, regardless of whether they fall within a category
specifically identified in Sec. 380.605. Additional descriptive
information on the various types of training providers covered by the
final rule are addressed in the TPR registration instructions
accompanying this rule.
8. Definition of ``Range''
In the NPRM, FMCSA said a range was ``an area that must be free of
obstructions, enables the driver to maneuver safely and free from
interference from other vehicles and hazards, and has adequate sight
lines.''
Comments: Several commenters asked whether the proposed definition
of ``range'' would permit small and mid-sized entities to conduct BTW
range training in their yards. One commenter noted that it is neither
practical nor cost effective for smaller trucking companies to set up
or rent a practice driving range. OOIDA supported the proposed
definition because the flexibility to conduct range training in any
suitable location meeting the definitional requirements is ``especially
critical to small business truckers who would be able to utilize these
areas for training.'' Vincennes University (VU) noted that the NPRM
includes references to both ``range'' and ``driving range'' and asked
whether the two terms are interchangeable.
FMCSA Response: In today's rule, FMCSA retains the definition of
``range'' as proposed in the NPRM. This definition gives training
providers the flexibility to conduct BTW range training in any area
that meets the three basic requirements outlined in the NPRM.
Accordingly, this approach does not require that any training provider
maintain its own designated range for BTW training. As discussed in the
NPRM, the ELDTAC took into account the impact of the rule on smaller
training providers by proposing a definition of ``range'' that does not
require any training provider to maintain or rent a private facility or
space in which to conduct BTW range training. Under this definition,
range training could be conducted in public areas, such as a mall or
office building parking lot during ``off'' hours. It is up to the
training provider to ensure that the required elements, such as
sufficient space in which to safely maneuver the CMV, are met. However,
if a training provider chooses to conduct range training in a publicly
accessible area, all CLP requirements apply. Finally, in order to avoid
confusion, the Agency deletes the term ``driving range'' from the
regulatory text of the final rule. The relevant term, as defined in
Sec. 380.605, is ``range.''
9. Can BTW-range and BTW-public road training be obtained from separate
training providers?
As proposed, training in the theory and BTW portions of the
curricula may be delivered by different training providers, as long as
each provider is listed on the TPR. The NPRM was silent on whether the
range and public road portions of the Class A and B curricula could be
delivered by different providers.
Comments: An individual commenter asked whether the range and
public road portion of the BTW training could be obtained from
different training providers. The commenter stated that this approach
would be helpful to ``some BTW providers who will struggle to secure a
range that meets FMCSA requirements, but could easily deliver the
public road portion of the training.''
FMCSA Response: While today's rule does permit BTW (range and
public road) and theory training to be obtained from separate training
providers, FMCSA believes it is necessary that driver-trainees receive
both the range and public road portions of BTW training from the same
provider. FMCSA clarifies this requirement in the final rule. The
reason is that meaningful instruction in the range and public road
portions of BTW training requires that the provider be able to assess
the driver-trainee's skill proficiency in the two settings and to
adjust the amount of time or emphasis spent on the range or public road
maneuvers accordingly. This integrated approach to BTW instruction
permits the training provider to obtain a complete picture of the
individual driver-trainee's abilities when operating CMVs for which a
Class A or Class B CDL is required.
Further, in the case of BTW training for the S and P endorsements,
the range and public road portions are not set out separately as they
are for the Class A and B CDL core curricula. Instead, they are
combined into a single BTW (range and public road) curriculum,
effectively
[[Page 88746]]
requiring that the BTW training be obtained from one provider.
Finally, as noted above in the discussion of the definition of
``range,'' training providers are not required to maintain or rent a
private range in order to conduct BTW training. Publicly accessible
areas can be used for this purpose, as long as the area affords
sufficient space in which the required range maneuvers can be performed
safely and other basic requirements are met.
10. Small Training Entities
The NPRM proposed that training providers who train, or expect to
train, three or fewer entry-level drivers per year be exempt from two
requirements applicable to all other providers. First, in order to
qualify as a theory instructor, small training entities would not be
required to have previously audited or instructed that portion of the
theory curriculum they intend to instruct. Second, small entities would
not be required to provide written training materials for any of the
curricula. The purpose of these exemptions was to lessen the
administrative burden on small training entities.
Comments: The Delaware DMV commented that exemptions for small
training entities should be removed, noting that ``[t]he size of the
provider should not be taken into account if the goal is to sanction a
consistent [training program] for all entry level commercial motor
vehicle operators.'' Another commenter objected to the exemption
related to written training materials, stating that ``all driver-
trainees should be treated the same.'' The Delaware DMV pointed out
that, for many providers, the number of entry-level drivers trained in
the course of a year fluctuates and may be difficult to predict. Since
small training entities would have to identify their status on the
Training Provider Identification Report form, the commenter noted that
it would be cumbersome for providers to amend the form every time they
fell above or below the three driver limit.
IUOE observed that ``[s]ince written materials are integral
components of high quality training, this exemption from providing
written materials to trainees is contrary to the goals of this
rulemaking.'' IUOE also noted that the use of written training
materials ``is an obvious prerequisite to taking a test in a written or
electronic format to demonstrate mastery of the information.''
FMCSA Response: After consideration of comments, FMCSA concludes
that the two small training entity exemptions proposed in the NPRM, as
described above, are inconsistent with a uniform Federal minimum ELDT
standard. The Agency agrees with commenters who questioned the benefit
and efficacy of these relatively minor distinctions between small
training entities and other training providers. We therefore remove the
exemptions from the final rule. Accordingly, all training providers
subject to this rule, regardless of size, must meet the same
eligibility criteria and other requirements established in subpart G.
The Agency does not anticipate that removal of the two exemptions
will result in undue hardship on small training entities. For example,
the AAMVA CDL manual or other existing training materials could be used
to satisfy the requirement that written training materials be provided.
We also note that, because the rule permits driver-trainees to obtain
theory and BTW instruction from separate training providers, small
entities can opt not to offer theory instruction if they so choose.
Further, as discussed below in the Explanation of Changes from the
NPRM, FMCSA deletes from the definition of ``theory instructor'' in the
final rule the proposed alternate theory instructor qualification
requiring that instructors must have previously audited or instructed
that portion of the theory curriculum they intend to instruct.
Accordingly, the proposed small entity exemption to that requirement is
also deleted.
Finally, FMCSA notes that the NPRM requested comments regarding any
specific changes to the proposal that would lessen its regulatory
impact on small business entities. The Agency did not receive any
comments in response to that request.
11. Required Minimum Number of BTW Hours
FMCSA proposed a minimum number of required BTW hours for the range
and public road portions of the Class A and Class B CDL curricula:
Class A CDL driver-trainees would be required to receive a minimum of
30 hours of BTW training, with a minimum of 10 hours spent on a range,
and either 10 hours spent driving on a public road or 10 public road
trips (each no less than 50 minutes in duration). The remaining 10
hours of required BTW training could occur on either the range, public
road, or some combination of the two, depending on the instructor's
assessment of the individual driver-trainee's needs. Additionally, the
NPRM proposed that all required driving maneuvers must be performed to
the satisfaction of the instructor. In the NPRM, the definitions of
``BTW range training'' and ``BTW public road training'' each included a
requirement that the training occur when a ``driver-trainee has actual
control of the power unit during a driving lesson'' conducted on a
range or public road.
As proposed, Class B CDL trainees would receive a minimum of 15
hours of BTW (range and public road) training, with a minimum of seven
hours of public road driving. Again, the instructor would determine how
the remaining eight hours are spent, as long as all the BTW elements of
the range curriculum are covered.
FMCSA did not propose a minimum number of BTW hours for either the
P or the S endorsement curricula.
The Agency requested comment on various aspects of this approach,
including whether there should be a required minimum number of BTW
hours for the Class A and Class B curricula and, if so, what the
minimum number of BTW hours should be. In addition, we requested
comment on whether any minimum number of BTW hours should be required
for the P and S endorsements. The Agency also asked what alternatives
to a required minimum number of BTW hours, such as a requirement
expressed in terms of outcomes rather than specifying the means to
those ends, would be appropriate to ensure an adequate level of BTW
training for Classes A and B.
Comments in support of minimum BTW hours: The Agency received
numerous comments in response to its questions. Some commenters thought
that the number of proposed minimum BTW hours was too low. Jeff Frank,
a CMV driver training instructor, commented that ``[t]he proposed 15
hours for Class B and 30 hours for Class A of behind the wheel time
fall short of a quality standard.'' Mr. Frank stated that ``doubling
the proposed hours would improve skill sets in most beginners.'' The
American Association for Justice believes that ``[w]hen considering the
average amount of time a CMV driver can do within a week, it is clear
that these requirements are inadequate.'' Washington commented that the
NPRM ``does not include enough required hours for an entry-level
driver'' and encouraged FMCSA to increase the number of required BTW
hours. The Utah Department of Public Safety (Utah) stated that ``a
lengthier requirement for BTW training seems more appropriate.'' The
National Ground Water Association (NGWA) proposed that ``30 hours is
the minimum that should be required, regardless of class of license (A
or B).'' IUOE commented that the proposed
[[Page 88747]]
minimum BTW hours is below the level of BTW training currently required
by ``the more prominent providers and certifiers,'' as well as a number
of States.
OOIDA commented that it ``would like to see significantly more
robust training requirements than currently proposed; however the
required 30 hours BTW training is a necessary first step.'' Similarly,
although Delaware Technical Community College (DTCC) is ``satisfied
with the consensus reached by the ELDTAC for 30 hours of BTW time for
Class A,'' it supports a ``stronger BTW requirement.'' Specifically,
DTCC proposed increasing the BTW hours for Class B from 15, as
proposed, to 20, with a minimum of 10 hours of public road driving. The
Delaware Motor Transport Association (DMTA) also supported increasing
the minimum number of BTW hours for the Class B CDL from 15 to 20.
Other commenters, including the American Bus Association (ABA),
United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Advocates for Auto and Highway
Safety (Advocates), San Juan College, the National Association of State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), VU, VA DMV, and
the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), supported the
minimum number of required BTW hours for Class A and/or Class B as
proposed. NASDPTS commented that ``[t]he [Class B] proposal is
consistent with best practices and the high regard for safety exhibited
within the nation's student transportation community.'' Advocates, a
member of the ELDTAC, characterized the required minimum number of BTW
hours as ``a common sense and essential component of the performance-
based standard adopted by the ELDTAC.'' Advocates also noted that this
approach ``reflects the consensus determination of the ELDTAC about the
lowest level of BTW training that is necessary under the training
curriculum.'' The ABA, also a member of the ELDTAC, commented that the
BTW hours issue was discussed extensively during the Committee's
deliberations and that ``[t]he minimum was based on the experience of
current training providers' ability to deliver a basic program and
ensure that all of the material was covered.''
The State of Michigan supported a required minimum number of BTW
hours from which driver-trainees should not be permitted to ``opt
out,'' but had no position on what the number of hours should be. The
Iowa DOT also supported the ``concept of minimum hours of BTW
training,'' but said that driver-trainees demonstrating proficiency
should be able to ``opt out'' of the requirement. Minnesota commented
that ``[r]equired minimum hours is needed,'' but questioned how
compliance with an hours requirement would be documented. Schneider
National (Schneider) agreed with FMCSA's proposal of 30 BTW hours for a
Class A license, but recommended that hours spent on a public road
specifically include practicing entry and exit of the interstate. \5\
IUOE supported ``mandatory use of a `Master Trip Sheet,' combined with
a minimum number of BTW training [hours], as the most effective means
to ensure that training providers furnish high quality training and
that they thoroughly assess the skills of the trainees.'' Minnesota
commented that ``[i]f minimum hours are not specified, then the
potential for fraud within the training programs will be a concern.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FMCSA added this topic to the Theory and BTW (public road)
portions of the Class A and B core curricula. See, Appendix A and B
to Part 380.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters supported adding a required number of minimum
BTW hours to the P and S curricula. AAMVA recommended that FMCSA
analyze the minimum number of hours required to complete the curricula
``and use that number to set the baseline for the BTW requirement for
the S and P endorsements . . .'' The Iowa DOT supported a ``limited
amount of BTW training'' for the S and P endorsements. San Juan College
stated that ``[e]ntry-level Class C bus drivers should not be able to
obtain a CDL without BTW hours that are required of other initial CDL
applicants.''
Comments opposed to minimum BTW hours: A number of commenters
opposed any minimum number of required BTW hours. Those opposing an
hours-based requirement included ATA, the Iowa Motor Truck Association
(IMTA), American Truck Dealers (ATD), Driver Holdings LLC, Werner, C.R.
England, Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), Virginia
Trucking Association (VTA), SNAC International, the National Propane
Gas Association (NPGA), UPS, the North Dakota Motor Carriers
Association (NDMCA), and the National Feed and Grain Association
(NFGA). Most of those opposing the requirement alleged that the minimum
BTW hours requirement is arbitrary, given the lack of any scientific
evidence or data showing that an hours-based training requirement
results in fewer crashes. Some commenters also cited the lack of
flexibility inherent in a minimum hours requirement. Many of these
commenters instead supported an ``alternative'' approach in which a
driver-trainee's successful completion of the Class A and B BTW
curricula is determined solely by his or her demonstrated proficiency
(discussed below). National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT)
commented that ``[s]etting arbitrary, one-size-fits-all hours of
training as a standard would be overly restrictive in a world where
actual performance should matter more.'' VTA asserted that the minimum
BTW hours requirement ``will require additional equipment and trainers
which will increase costs for training providers, who will have to pass
those costs onto students.'' Other commenters, including PMAA, ATD and
NFGA, were concerned that the BTW hours requirement would discourage
entry-level drivers from obtaining a CDL. NFGA also noted that the
requirement could ``dissuade employers from providing opportunities for
CDL training.''
ATA, a member of the ELDTAC, viewed the proposed BTW hours
requirement as unnecessary and not supported by any research indicating
``a relationship between the number of hours spent in training and a
reduction in crashes.'' Noting that ``what little data is available
does not support a minimum hours-based approach,'' ATA cited the
American Transportation Research Institute's (ATRI) 2008 analysis of
the effect of CDL driver training on safety performance. According to
ATA, the ATRI study concluded that ``no relationship is evident between
total training program contact hours and driver safety events when
other factors such as age and length of employment are held constant.''
In its comments, C.R. England summarized a study it conducted among
2,929 of its drivers ``to test whether an hours-based program that
requires 30 BTW hours or more, results in better performance than a
performance-based program that requires fewer than 30 BTW hours.'' In
analyzing this data, C.R. England found, among other things, that
``drivers from the shorter programs have fewer crashes and less severe
crashes,'' thus showing ``a negative correlation between increased
required hours and negative safety outcomes.'' C.R. England therefore
recommended that, ``[g]iven the gaping lack of evidence to support the
BTW requirement and the arbitrary selection of the number of required
hours,'' FMCSA drop the requirement from the final rule.
ATA and other commenters also stated that the BTW hours requirement
contravenes Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, both of which express a
preference for establishing performance
[[Page 88748]]
objectives rather than requiring regulated entities to adopt specific
means of compliance. ATA asserted that, during the ELDTAC negotiations,
``it became clear that several parties would refuse to yield to the
majority of members who preferred a performance-based standard to be
instituted at least until such time as actual data from real-world
experience demonstrates the need for a minimum hours requirement.''
Two commenters opposed a minimum BTW hours requirement for the P
and S endorsements. NASDPTS commented that ``[g]iven the unparalleled
high level of safety already provided by school bus transportation, we
do not see any safety need or justification for further extending the
specific BTW hours requirement to include the passenger and school bus
curricula . . .'' San Juan College stated that for P and S endorsement
applicants taking their State-administered skills test in a bus, ``no
additional BTW should be required.''
Comments regarding alternatives to a minimum hours requirement:
Most commenters who proposed alternatives to a required minimum number
of BTW hours identified a competency or proficiency-based approach as a
preferable means of ensuring an adequate level of BTW training for the
Class A and B curricula. For example, the West Virginia Trucking
Association (WVTA) commented that ``[m]any prospective drivers may
demonstrate complete proficiency and competence behind-the-wheel before
reaching the minimum hours requirement, while the possibility exists
that by achieving this hour threshold, a prospective driver may
erroneously convey competency and possession of the skills needed to
safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' WVTA concluded that the final
rule should ``focus on competency and performance outcomes rather than
the number of hours logged.'' UPS commented that ``specific hours and
curricular requirements are no substitute for performance-based skills
testing,'' also noting that experienced drivers ``will not benefit from
some portion of a mandatory training regime targeted at less-
experienced drivers.'' The Iowa DOT commented that ``[a]n appropriate
alternative would be establishing a method of allowing a driver to
`pass out' of the BTW requirement.''
Several commenters, including ATA, Werner and C.R. England, favored
the use of a ``Master Trip Sheet'' to document the repeated successful
demonstration of required skills as an alternative to the BTW hours
requirement. Commenters identified a Master Trip Sheet as a document
used to record a driver-trainee's successful, repetitive demonstration
of required maneuvers. ATA commented that the Master Trip Sheet
``represents a clear performance objective--the demonstration of
competence--. . . preferable to an arbitrarily assigned number of
hours.''
Additionally, ATA stated that FMCSA, by failing to quantify or
qualify the Master Trip Sheet alternative to the minimum BTW hours
requirement adopted by the ELDTAC, did not comply with the requirements
of OMB Circular A-4. According to ATA, had the Agency followed the
directives of Circular A-4 and conducted a detailed analysis on the
Master Trip Sheet solution offered by ELDTAC members, ``a performance-
based BTW requirement would have prevailed because, as demonstrated by
ELDTAC, it is feasible, and produces a more favorable cost benefit
analysis.''
IUOE also supported the mandatory use of a Master Trip Sheet, but
stressed that it should be combined with a minimum BTW hours
requirement, which would be ``the most effective means to ensure that
training providers furnish high quality training and that they
thoroughly assess the skills of the trainees.''
On the other hand, NASDPTS stated it is ``unaware of any practical,
measurable and universally acceptable means of employing an outcomes-
based approach in lieu of a required number of BTW hours.'' Minnesota
stated that if ``performance standards'' are adopted in lieu of a
minimum BTW hours requirement, ``[t]his would defeat the purpose of
requiring comprehensive entry-level driver training and will add
another skewing variable to the purposed baseline of measuring the
effectiveness of training in reducing crashes by tracking it through
CDLIS.'' CVTA thought FMCSA's question regarding possible alternatives
to a minimum BTW hours requirement was misleading, ``as the FMCSA seems
to suggest that a performance or outcomes approach has not been
selected. Clearly it has.''
FMCSA Response: For the reasons discussed below, this final rule
does not require any minimum number of BTW hours for the completion of
the Class A and B curricula, as proposed in the NPRM. In today's final
rule, the proficient completion of the BTW portions of the Class A and
B curricula is based solely on the training instructor's assessment of
each driver-trainee's individual performance of the required BTW
elements of the range and public road training. The final rule retains
the definitions of ``BTW range training'' and ``BTW public road
training,'' as proposed, so that successful completion of the training
requires that, unless otherwise noted, all elements of the BTW
curricula be proficiently demonstrated while the driver-trainee has
actual control of the power unit during a driving lesson on a range or
public road. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does not require
a minimum number of BTW hours for either the P or S endorsement
curriculum.
FMCSA carefully considered all comments submitted in response to
the questions noted above. Clearly, as evidenced by the volume and
breadth of comments received on the proposed BTW hours requirement,
this issue is significant for a variety of stakeholders affected by
today's rule. And, as we noted in the NPRM, ``the issue of a
`performance-based' approach to BTW training versus an approach
requiring that a minimum number of hours be spent in BTW training was
the most thoroughly debated issue within the ELDTAC'' (81 FR 11944,
11956 (March 7, 2016)). The Agency's conclusion that the final rule
should not, at this time, impose a mandatory minimum number of BTW
hours for the Class A and Class B training, is primarily due to the
fact that, despite the best efforts of FMCSA and the ELDTAC, we were
not able to obtain sufficient quantitative data linking mandatory
minimum BTW training hours with positive safety outcomes, such as crash
reduction, following publication of the NPRM.
Consistent with the Agency's objective to produce data-driven
regulations that balance motor carrier safety with efficiency, FMCSA
has long recognized the value of quantitative correlative evidence
supporting ELDT. For example, in withdrawing the 2007 NPRM to establish
minimum training requirements for entry-level CMV operators, which
proposed a required minimum number of BTW hours, FMCSA noted the need
``to gather supporting information on the effectiveness of ELDT'' (78
FR 57585, 57587 (September 19, 2013)). Indeed, at the ELDTAC's initial
meeting on February 26, 2015, the Agency presented on the topic of data
gathering and economic analysis as a rule development priority, and a
Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work Group was established within the
ELDTAC.\6\ In the March 2016 NPRM,
[[Page 88749]]
FMCSA again requested ``any additional data on the safety benefits of
requiring EDLT . . . (e.g., demonstrated crash reduction as a result of
training)'' (81 FR 11944, 11953 (March 7, 2016)). Unfortunately, the
Agency did not receive any data that could be used in a quantitative
analysis to support the rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, February 26-27, 2015. For more
information concerning the Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work
Group's efforts to compile data related to the efficacy of entry-
level driver training, see the Work Group's meeting minutes posted
on the ELDTAC's Web site, at eldtac.dot.gov.
\7\ FMCSA specifically addresses the ATRI and C.R. England
studies, referenced in comments, in the RIA. For the reasons
discussed therein, the Agency does not rely on either of those
studies to draw conclusions regarding the correlation between
training hours and safety outcomes. Further, we note that the ATRI
conclusions on which ATA and other commenters rely are described by
ATRI as ``preliminary results.'' ATRI concludes its analysis with
the observation that its findings ``indicate the need for further
research on driver training and driver safety, beginning with
additional data collection and analysis as part of the present
study.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As several commenters who opposed the minimum hours requirement
noted, Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires that Federal agencies propose or adopt regulations that ``to
the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt''.\8\ In light of this Executive Order, and bearing in mind
the Agency's obligation to identify and use ``the least burdensome
tools for achieving regulatory ends,'' \9\ FMCSA has determined not
impose a mandatory minimum BTW hours requirement in today's rule. In
the Agency's judgment, a training standard in which BTW proficiency is
achieved according to the instructor's assessment of individual
performance of required range and public road maneuvers is a more
flexible, and thus less burdensome, option than mandatory minimum hours
because it recognizes that driver-trainees will complete BTW training
at a pace that reflects their varying levels of individual ability.
FMCSA emphasizes, however, that instructors must cover all elements of
the curricula and document the driver-trainee's demonstration of
proficiency in the required BTW skills, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(8) (October 4, 1993);
Executive Order 13563, section 1(b)(4) (January 21, 2011).
\9\ Executive Order 13563, section 1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to fulfill the statutory mandate set forth in MAP-21, the
Agency established the ELDTAC and, as required under the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act, relied on the Committee's consensus findings to the
maximum extent possible as the basis for the NPRM. In the hope that the
final rule development process would yield reliable data to support
mandatory minimum BTW hours, FMCSA, as a member of the ELDTAC,
supported the requirement in combination with an outcomes-based
approach, as reflected in the Committee's Consensus Agreement.
FMCSA believes it was appropriate to propose minimum BTW hours for
the Class A and B curricula, based on the ELDTAC's estimation of the
time an average driver-trainee would need to demonstrate BTW
proficiency. However, as some commenters noted, that approach could
potentially result in the unintended consequence of effectively
penalizing high-performing trainees who may be capable of achieving BTW
proficiency in less time than the proposed required minimum. Based on
the ELDTAC discussions, the Agency does not believe the proportion of
high-performing trainees capable of completing the BTW curricula in
significantly less time than the proposed minimums represents a
substantial percentage of entry-level drivers. However, it is important
to avoid, if possible, imposing unnecessary training costs on that
population.
FMCSA acknowledges the numerous comments supporting minimum BTW
hours as a ``common sense'' and intuitively effective means of ensuring
that entry-level drivers receive adequate training to safely operate
CMVs. As noted below, the Agency will continue to evaluate the impact
of minimum BTW hours on CMV safety. Because the final rule does not
include a minimum hours requirement as proposed, many of the comments
that raised concerns regarding that approach are now moot. Accordingly,
FMCSA does not specifically respond to comments suggesting that the
requirement would discourage prospective applicants from obtaining a
CDL, dissuade motor carrier employers from providing ELDT, or require
training providers to obtain additional equipment.
The Agency's adoption of a proficiency-based BTW training standard
in lieu of minimum hours notwithstanding, FMCSA believes that the
ELDTAC process was highly constructive, and we greatly appreciate the
time, effort and expertise put forth by ELDTAC members. The Committee's
collective expertise allowed us to propose detailed minimum ELDT
curricula and training instructor qualifications, which are largely
retained in the final rule.
Our decision not to include the minimum BTW hours as part of the
Class A and B curricula should not necessarily be construed as the
Agency's last word on this subject. In order to gather data which will
allow FMCSA to perform a thorough post-rule evaluation, we require in
today's rule that all individual training certifications submitted to
the TPR by training providers include the total number of BTW hours
spent by each driver-trainee in achieving proficiency, as determined by
the training instructor. Collecting this information will allow the
Agency to compare the CMV driving records of drivers who received
varying amounts of BTW training, and to draw conclusions regarding the
extent to which hours of BTW training correlate to safer driving
outcomes. This data will also assist in the Agency's oversight of
training providers.
The Agency will thus continue to assess whether minimum BTW hours
requirements are necessary to improve CMV safety, and, if so, at what
levels. Should FMCSA ultimately decide, on the basis of post-rule
quantitative data, to revisit the issue of mandatory minimum BTW hours
for entry-level driver training, we will do so through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. We note, however, that today's rule does not
prohibit States or training providers from requiring a minimum number
of BTW hours, as many CMV driver training programs currently do.
While the final rule does not impose mandatory minimum BTW hours,
FMCSA nevertheless expects that, based on the extensive experience of
CMV driver training organizations represented on the ELDTAC,\10\ most
[[Page 88750]]
driver-trainees will still spend approximately 30 and 15 hours BTW
demonstrating proficiency in the required Class A and Class B curricula
elements, respectively. The 30 BTW hours for Class A and the 15 BTW
hours for Class B are based on the ELDTAC's informed estimation of the
minimum amount of time the average driver-trainee would need to
repetitively and proficiently demonstrate all of the required BTW
skills set forth in the curricula. As described by the ABA, a member of
the ELDTAC, in its comments, ``[t]he minimum [required BTW hours] was
based on the experience of current training providers' ability to
deliver a basic program and ensure that all of the material was
covered.'' Similarly, Advocates, also a member of the ELDTAC, commented
that the minimum BTW hours requirement ``reflects the consensus
determination of the ELDTAC about the lowest level of BTW training that
is necessary under the training curriculum . . .'' Accordingly, the
Agency is retaining 30- and 15-hours for the Class A and B curricula,
respectively, as the basis for estimating the costs of the final rule,
as discussed in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Members of the ELDTAC included a variety of CMV driver
training experts, including the Professional Truck Drivers Institute
(PTDI), a non-profit organization that develops uniform skill
performance, curriculum and performance standards for the trucking
industry; the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving
Schools (NAPFTDS), a non-profit organization whose membership
includes more than 100 publicly funded schools that operate truck
driver training programs; and the Commercial Vehicle Training
Association (CVTA), a national trade association representing the
proprietary truck driving schools in the U.S. and Canada, with
member school locations in 41 states graduating approximately 50,000
entry-level drivers per year. In addition to FMCSA, the remaining
members of the ELDTAC are: FMCSA, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
American Bus Association, Paraprofessional and School-Related
Personnel, American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO), Amalgamated
Transit Union (AFL-CIO), American Trucking Associations, Citizens
for Reliable and Safe Highways, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance,
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, Great West Casualty
Company, Greyhound Lines, Inc., International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle Division,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, National Association of
Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools, National Association of Small
Trucking Companies, National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services, National School Transportation Association,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Professional Truck
Drivers Institute, Stevens Transport, Spoon Trucking, Truckload
Carriers Association, Truck Safety Coalition, United Motorcoach
Association, and Women in Trucking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Agency's judgment, the extensive CMV driver training
expertise represented on the ELDTAC is a credible basis for FMCSA's
assessment of the cost of compliance with the BTW portions of the Class
A and Class B curricula. FMCSA expects, however, that some trainees
will demonstrate BTW proficiency in less than 30 or 15 hours and that
others will require more time to achieve a proficient level of
performance of the required BTW elements of those curricula.
Accordingly, actual costs of compliance for these trainees will be
lower or higher than the costs estimated in the RIA, but the Agency
currently has no data on which to determine variations in cost for
trainees who achieve BTW proficiency in either less time or more time
than the average student.
Under today's rule, BTW proficiency is determined solely by the
instructor's evaluation of how well the driver-trainee performs the
fundamental vehicle control skills and driving procedures set forth in
the curricula. In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies this point in the
introduction to the Class A and B curricula. As a number of commenters
observed, a proficiency-based standard based entirely on individual
skill levels and learning abilities, rather than a mandatory minimum
number of hours spent on either a range or public road, will permit
skilled trainees to demonstrate proficiency more efficiently than
adherence to a minimum training time. Accordingly, since the final rule
does not require minimum BTW hours, there is no need to permit highly
proficient trainees to ``opt out'' of that requirement, as several
commenters requested.
Instructors will also determine how much or how little training is
required for individual skills, as proposed in the NPRM. The final
rule, therefore, emphasizes the individual trainee's attainment of
performance goals as set forth in the curricula and evaluated by the
instructor. As IOUE noted in its comments, since there is no
requirement that training providers devote a specified amount of time
to individual curriculum topics in the core BTW curricula, training
programs will have ``the latitude to emphasize topics that present the
greatest safety challenges'' in the operation of CMVs in various
segments of the motor carrier industry.
Although today's rule adopts a minimum set of driving skills in
which proficiency must be demonstrated, the Agency does not define
``proficiency''. The instructor, based on his/her professional
judgment, must decide at what point the driver-trainee demonstrates the
proficient performance of required skills and the instructor will
determine the amount of time each driver-trainee needs to spend on the
range and public road portions of the curricula. However, FMCSA
believes that demonstrated proficiency requires some level of
successful repetition of the required BTW curricula elements, as
determined by the instructor. In other words, performing each required
maneuver correctly one time does not mean that the trainee has
demonstrated proficiency. In the Agency's view, a ``one and done''
approach is essentially the equivalent of the CDL skills tests. MAP-21
requires that FMCSA establish ELDT requirements addressing the
knowledge and skills necessary for the safe operation of a CMV (49
U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)). Since the CDL skills testing protocols in part
383 were in place years before Congress enacted the ELDT requirements
in MAP-21, we conclude that Congress intended that the BTW training
requirements be more extensive than a simple one-time demonstration of
skills. In addition, as noted above, the ELDTAC's estimation of the 30
and 15 hours to successfully complete the BTW elements of the Class A
and B curricula assumed some level of repetition of required
skills.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Agency notes that a number of commenters opposed to
the BTW minimum hours requirement proposed a ``Master Trip Sheet'' as a
preferable alternative. Trip sheets are a means to document the
repeated successful demonstration of required skills. The Master Trip
Sheet specifically considered by the ELDTAC, and endorsed by ATA \12\
and other commenters, contained the individual BTW Class A curriculum
elements; it also included space for the instructor to note that the
driver-trainee correctly performed each BTW element, a total of five
times, in order to demonstrate proficiency. (The ELDTAC assumed fewer
repetitions would be necessary to demonstrate proficiency in Class B
BTW skills).\13\ The use of that Master Trip Sheet as a means of
documenting proficiency therefore assumes that effective BTW training
involves some degree of repetition, or practice, of the required
skills. (The use of a Master Trip Sheet as a tool for documenting
driver-trainees' proficiency under today's rule is discussed further
below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for FMCSA's response
to ATA's assertion that, had the Agency conducted a detailed
analysis of the ELDTAC Master Trip Sheet alternative, in accordance
with the directives of OMB Circular A-4 ``a performance-based BTW
requirement would have prevailed'' over the minimum hours
requirement because it would have produced a more favorable cost
benefit analysis.
\13\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015. p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, individual commenters also endorsed the value of the
repeated demonstration of required skills. For example, Werner
Enterprises noted that ``[a] requirement expressed in terms of
consistent demonstration of applicable skills is more appropriate [than
minimum BTW hours] and would serve as a better predictor of increased
safety outcomes.'' Similarly, TCA stated that ``[t]ruck driving is a
skill . . . through which repetition and practice will almost certainly
increase a driver's awareness and performance when operating equipment
on our highways.''
In the Agency's judgment, safe CMV driving, like many other skills,
requires some level of repetition and practice. Repetition of required
skills also increases the likelihood that driver-trainees will have the
opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency under a wider array of
road and weather conditions than a ``one time'' demonstration,
particularly with regard to public road training. For example, the
proficient entry and exit of an interstate
[[Page 88751]]
or other controlled access highway could potentially be demonstrated in
both wet and dry weather, which would provide the instructor with a
more complete picture of the trainee's ability to successfully navigate
real-world situations. The importance of training under conditions
trainees will face as CMV drivers was noted in a December 2015 survey
of long-haul truckers, conducted by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The NIOSH survey found that 38
percent of the respondents believed they did not receive adequate
entry-level driver training to ``safely drive a truck under all road
and weather conditions'' (emphasis added).\14\ However, under the final
rule, training instructors maintain the flexibility to determine the
extent to which the successful repetitive performance of required
skills demonstrates proficiency for individual driver-trainees on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ G.X. Chen, et al., Accident Analysis and Prevention, NIOSH
national survey of long-haul truck drivers: Injury and safety
(2015), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.001
(accessed October 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As proposed in the NPRM, instructors also maintain flexibility to
select the specific means or method by which a driver-trainee's
proficient performance of required BTW skills is recorded in order to
comply with the documentation requirements in Sec. 380.715(b). As
noted above, instructors will also need to capture the total number of
hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing BTW training, so that
this information can be included in the training certifications
submitted to the TPR, as required in Sec. 380.717. Nothing in today's
rule prohibits the use of Master Trip Sheets to document either the
driver-trainee's proficient demonstration of BTW skills or the total
number of hours spent in completing the BTW curriculum, as required in
Sec. 380.715(b).
The NPRM did not propose a minimum hours requirement for BTW
training in either the P or the S endorsement curricula, and, for the
reasons discussed above, the final rule does not include such
requirements. However, the final rule does require that training
providers who certify, through the TPR, the successful completion of
the P and/or S BTW (range and public road) curricula, must indicate the
total number hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing the BTW
curriculum. FMCSA will use this information to assist us in a post-rule
evaluation of whether, and to what extent, varying amounts of BTW
training impact the safe operation of passenger-carrying CMVs and
school busses.
12. Minimum Number of Theory Hours
The NPRM set forth minimum theory curricula requirements for the
Class A and Class B CDLs and the P, S, and H endorsements. As proposed,
the training provider must cover all curriculum topics and assess
driver-trainees' understanding of the material in a written or
electronic format. Driver-trainees must receive a minimum score of 80
percent on the theory assessment. FMCSA did not propose a minimum
number of required hours for any of the theory curricula.
Comments: The VA DMV recommended a minimum number of hours for
theory instruction in order to provide consistency across training
programs. VA DMV also noted that ``not having a minimum period assigned
to the theory training will make it difficult for FMCSA or SDLA
auditors to ensure the necessary training is provided.''
FMCSA Response: Today's final rule does not impose any minimum
number of required hours for completion of any of the theory curricula.
The Agency believes that the final rule ensures an appropriate minimum
standard for entry-level driver theory instruction by prescribing
specific topics for each of the five theory curriculum, requiring the
training provider to cover all topics, and requiring that driver-
trainees demonstrate their understanding of the material by achieving
on overall minimum score of 80 percent on the theory assessment. Each
of these requirements is verifiable through an audit by FMCSA or its
authorized representative.
Further, this approach retains flexibility for training providers
and driver-trainees to cover the required topics at a pace that is
comfortable for them. FMCSA also notes that, as with the other
requirements established in the final rule, the individual topics of
the theory curricula represent the minimum amount of knowledge
necessary for ELDT. Today's rule permits States and individual training
providers to require that driver-trainees complete additional theory
topics.
13. Clock vs. Academic Hours
In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed allowing training providers flexibility
by using either clock-hours or academic hours (i.e., 50 minutes)
depending on the type of entity that offers the training (e.g. motor
carriers vs. community college). FMCSA requested comment on this
proposal and asked whether there is a discernable difference between
the two concepts.
Comments: The NSTA commented that, since there is a need for set-up
and administrative time prior to actual training, ``the concept of
academic hours is appropriate for all training providers,'' regardless
of type. CVTA stated that, while ``training providers should be allowed
to use whichever unit is best for their program,'' the ELDTAC Consensus
Agreement ``clearly indicated that BTW should be measured in 50 minute
hours.'' Accordingly, CVTA believes that in the final rule, BTW time
should be based on academic hours, which is ``the predominant
measurement of schools and training providers.''
Other commenters, including NAPT, ABA, Schneider, and the VA DMV,
supported the NPRM's approach of allowing training providers to decide
whether they would use clock or academic hours because the flexibility
would accommodate the specific training being delivered. These
commenters generally did not perceive a discernible difference between
the two concepts.
The DMTA thought there was an obvious difference between the two
concepts, but did not object to the use of academic hours ``so long as
an equivalency is maintained so that the actual time spent at
activities is equal to the clock hours required by FMCSA.'' Utah
commented that if the Agency ``is going to allow the usage of credit
hours, FMCSA needs to define how many practical hours should be
considered a credit hour.''
An individual commenter noted that for every six academic hours,
``you have lost one hour of clock hour training time.'' Other
commenters said that if academic hours are allowed, then the total
hours should be increased to match the clock hours. The Delaware
Department of Education (DDE) commented that, while trainers understand
what an hour on the clock means, many would not know how to interpret
an academic hour. Michigan commented that, in its experience, truck
schools misuse terms such as ``academic hours'' and ``credit hours'' to
``grossly'' misrepresent actual training time. DTCC and NGWA also
recommended that clock hours should be used as the standard training
unit.
FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, the Agency uses the term
``clock hours'' (i.e., 60 minutes) as the standard measurement of BTW
training time. We note that the resolution of this issue remains
relevant. Although the final rule does not mandate minimum BTW hours,
training providers must document and report the actual number of hours
that each driver-trainee spends
[[Page 88752]]
in completing BTW training (under Sec. Sec. 380.715 and 380.717, as
revised).
Based on the commentary, FMCSA is concerned that exclusive use of
the term ``academic hour,'' or permitting either term to be used at the
training provider's discretion, would cause confusion and inconsistency
in the documentation of BTW delivery, even if FMCSA attempted to
convert ``academic hours'' to ``clock hours,'' or vice-versa, as some
commenters suggested. FMCSA therefore believes that ``clock hour'' is a
term that is easily understood by all training entities and consistent
with a uniform minimum standard
14. Duplication Between CLP Knowledge Test and Theory Training
FMCSA requested comment on whether there is duplication between
ELDT theory training and the CLP exam and, if so, whether such
duplication should be minimized or eliminated.
Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments in response to this
question. Most commenters, including OOIDA, Schneider, DTCC, NYAPT,
Delaware Motor Transport Association, DDE, and Werner, asserted that,
to the extent duplication exists, it serves to reinforce key concepts
and should not be eliminated. Werner noted, however, that ``[a]ny
duplication that does not have a demonstrable benefit to the driver-
trainee or the general public should be minimized to the extent
practical.'' The VA DMV commented that ``[r]eceiving the information in
multiple mediums will assist in reinforcing the information with
drivers and lead to better retention of the information.''
Michigan believes that, while the CLP exam and ELDT theory training
cover the same subject matter, each serves a distinct purpose. ``The
CLP exam measures for minimum competency for the purposes of allowing a
driver to begin training. The theory training should build on that
minimum competency and improve the entry-level driver's skills . . .''
CVTA also noted that, while the CLP exam and theory training address
many of the same topics, ``. . . the theory portion should not be
eliminated or minimized because it teaches many additional subjects, in
greater depth than are covered on the Commercial Learner's Permit
exam.''
NRECA did not find any duplication between theory training and the
CLP exam. On the other hand, Driver Holdings LLC believed there is
duplication and requested that it ``be eliminated from the ELDT theory
training.'' Several individual CMV driving trainers also requested that
duplication be minimized or eliminated. Farris Brothers, Inc. commented
that, if driver-trainees complete ELDT theory training, a CLP should
then be issued. Utah, noting that ``applicants who are completing the
minimum training will have already completed the knowledge exam,''
asked whether driver-trainees' knowledge should, in effect, be tested
twice, or would it be better to ``test the application of that
knowledge through various skills tests.'' The Iowa DOT commented that
``[i]t would be reasonable through training to eliminate the need for
knowledge tests at the SDLA . . . while allowing the SDLA to test
randomly or when evidence exists to warrant a re-test.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with commenters who suggest that, to
the extent duplication between the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory
training exists, it should not be minimized or eliminated because some
degree of repetition benefits driver-trainees by reinforcing the core
concepts of safe CMV driving. Therefore, as proposed, all of the
curricula in today's rule retain a theory training component.
As several commenters noted, the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory
training serve separate and distinct functions in CMV driver education.
Theory training, as set forth in today's rule, is designed to provide
driver-trainees with substantive understanding of the operating
characteristics of the vehicles they intend to operate, safe driving
practices, and the legal and medical requirements related to CMV
driving. The CLP knowledge test is designed to assess whether CDL
applicants have sufficient knowledge of basic concepts related to the
safe operation of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two approaches each
represent important and distinct elements of CMV driver education.
15. Core Curricula--Class A and Class B CDLs
FMCSA proposed a Class A and B CDL core curriculum. The Class A
curriculum addressed the knowledge and skills necessary to safely
operate combination vehicles (Group A), while the Class B curriculum
pertains to heavy straight vehicles (Group B). The proposed curricula
set forth training topics specific to the underlying CDL class, all
elements of which must be taught and assessed. The Agency requested
comment on the scope and content of the proposed curricula.
Comments: The Agency received a number of comments regarding the
content of the individual core curricula. Some commenters suggested
adding topics to one or more of the curricula, while others believed
that certain elements should be removed.
Schneider recommended that the Class A BTW-public road curriculum
include a requirement to practice entry and exit of the interstate,
noting that it ``often encounters newly licensed drivers who enter its
finishing program without any experience operating a CMV on a highway
or interstate.'' CM Air Brake and Electrical Training Services, LLC,
commented that the ELDT rulemaking presents a unique opportunity to
``ensure that drivers have a sufficient understanding of air brake
systems to actually recognize whether or not the brake systems on their
vehicles are functioning properly.''
The AAR supported the NPRM's requirement that driver-trainees be
trained in recognizing potential dangers and appropriate safety
procedures for use at railroad grade crossings. AAR suggested that, in
addition, driver-trainees should be instructed that railroads have
personnel available at the posted Emergency Notification System (ENS)
telephone numbers to receive notification of any information relating
to an unsafe condition at the railroad-highway grade crossing, such as
a warning system malfunction at the railroad-highway grade crossing, or
a disabled vehicle or other obstruction blocking a railroad track at
the railroad-highway grade crossing.
An individual commenter, noting that improperly inflated tires
increase braking distances and contribute to punctures and blowouts,
suggested that load-to-tire inflation tables be included in the ELDT
curricula.
Truckers Against Trafficking (TAT) suggested adding an element to
the Class A and B curricula addressing human trafficking in the
trucking industry, focusing on ``the understanding and recognition of
this crime, along with the action steps to be taken.'' Other commenters
suggested adding the following training topics: (1) As part of trip
planning--instruction, practice, and evaluation for map reading
utilizing an atlas; (2) overview of the requirements of the ELDT
regulation along with information on how to report a non-compliant
school; (3) whistleblower protection regulations in 29 CFR part 1978
and the procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from
motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries;
(4) driver wellness and basic health maintenance that affect a driver's
ability to safely operate a CMV; and (5) Federal rules pertaining to
physical qualifications of CMV drivers, including medical certification
and medical examination procedures.
[[Page 88753]]
The Agency also received comments suggesting that certain topics be
removed from various curricula, primarily because the topic did not
directly apply to the commenter's occupation or segment of the
industry. For example, AAR said that railroad employees should not be
required to demonstrate skills like alley dock backing or other skills
similarly unrelated to their job functions. UPS commented that several
proposed elements in the theory portion of the Class A curriculum,
including photographing the scene and assessing weather and signage
conditions post-crash, ``do not correspond to specific substantive
safety requirements and are inconsistent with prudent operations.''
Minnesota suggested that the rule ``address training requirements
for non-fifth wheel combinations in addition to the traditional
tractor-trailer combinations,'' noting that if CDL holders are
restricted to operating a non-fifth wheel combination, ``training
curricula needs to be developed to address the needs of operating this
type of class A combination vehicle safely.''
DDE commented that school bus drivers will typically have a Class B
CDL with P and S endorsements. DDE noted that many elements of the
Class B theory curriculum are not applicable to school buses, including
coupling and uncoupling combination vehicles, hazardous materials
regulations, stopping at weigh stations, awareness of surroundings
including truck stops/rest areas, tire chain procedures, theory of
cargo weight distribution, cargo securement, and hours of service.
Finally, several commenters, including Minnesota DPS, DTCC, and
Century College, suggested that certain ``dangerous driving maneuvers''
or ``extreme driving conditions'' in the Class A and B BTW public road
curricula, such as skid control and recovery, should be removed from
the BTW portion of the curricula and retained as theory topics only.
DTTC commented that ``[i]t would be impractical at best and dangerous
at worst to mandate [skid control and recovery] as part of BTW
training.''
FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA revises the Class A
and B CDL curricula to add topics that, as suggested by commenters,
will improve the safe operation of CMVs, including proper entry and
exit of ramps on the interstate and other controlled access highways
and notification to railroad personnel of an unsafe condition at the
railroad-highway grade crossing.
FMCSA adds specific cross references to applicable pre- and post-
trip inspection sections of the FMCSRs (i.e., Sec. Sec. 392.7 and
396.11) to all of the theory curricula, which include for example:
tires, wheels and rims, emergency equipment, and steering mechanisms.
Although brakes were identified as a key vehicle system in the
``Identification and diagnosis of malfunctions'' portion of the
proposed Class A and B theory curricula, in the final rule the Agency
expanded the term to include specific types of CMV braking systems,
including ABS, hydraulic and air, as applicable. In response to the
comment regarding non-fifth wheel combinations for Group A vehicles, we
note that techniques for the proper coupling and uncoupling of
combination vehicles are included in the Class A theory curriculum and
that ``coupling devices'' are included within the scope of both pre-
trip and post-trip inspections in Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11,
respectively. In addition, FMCSA adds the words ``as applicable'' after
``coupling and uncoupling combination vehicle units'' in the Class A
curriculum to indicate that more than one type of coupling device
exists.
The Agency also made various conforming and organizational changes
to the curricula for purposes of clarity and consistency, most of which
are specifically noted below in the section-by-section explanation of
changes from the NPRM.
The Agency notes that many of the suggested additions to the
training curricula were proposed in the NPRM and remain in the final
rule, including whistleblower protection in 29 CFR part 1978, reporting
incidents of coercion to FMCSA, physical qualification of drivers, and
driver wellness. While we did not include the reporting of non-
compliant training providers as a topic in the curricula, instructions
for doing so will be available on the ELDT Web site. FMCSA considers
human trafficking, suggested by TAT as an additional topic for the
training curricula, to be an extremely important issue. However, it is
not directly related to safe CMV driving skills, and therefore was not
included in the final rule. FMCSA notes that training providers are
free to add any topics they consider relevant to the training
experience, as long as the required elements of the ELDT curricula are
taught and assessed in compliance with today's rule.
Additionally, FMCSA removed several elements from the ``Post-crash
procedures'' portion of the Class A and B theory curricula that, as UPS
noted, do not directly impact the safe operation of CMVs, including
photographing the scene, obtaining witness information, assessing skid
measurements, and assessing signage, road, and weather conditions. We
also note that the NPRM inadvertently included ``tire chaining
procedures'' in the BTW-public road portion of the Class B curriculum;
the Agency removed that element in the final rule. Tire chaining
procedures remain in the Class A and B theory curricula, as proposed.
Finally, FMCSA disagrees with commenters suggesting that certain
training topics be deleted from the proposed curricula, or should not
apply to certain CDL holders, because they are not relevant to a
particular occupation or vehicle. Regardless of an applicant's
intentions at the time he or she obtains a CDL or endorsement, the
individual is in fact credentialed to operate a range of CMVs falling
within the CDL class or endorsement received. For example, although an
individual may intend to make a living as a school bus driver, if he or
she holds a Class A or Class B license in addition to the S and P
endorsements, that individual is considered qualified to operate any
CMV falling within those classifications, including straight trucks.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to require that these individuals receive
training commensurate with the CMV driving credentials they hold.
In response to comments suggesting that certain driving skills,
such as hazard perception and skid control and recovery, be removed
from the Class A and Class B BTW public road curricula and retained as
theory topics only, FMCSA notes that these skills are not necessarily
intended to be performed by the driver-trainee. In the NPRM, the
following BTW skills were specifically designated as ``appropriate for
discussion during public road training or simulated, but not
necessarily performed'' (emphasis added): Hazard perception, railroad
(RR)-highway grade crossing, night operation, extreme driving
conditions, emergency maneuvers/skid avoidance, and skid control and
recovery (81 FR 11944, 11973 (March 7, 2016)).
These topics remain in the BTW public road curricula because they
are appropriate for commentary instruction, in which the instructor
discusses the proper techniques for responding to these conditions
while the driver-trainee is behind-the-wheel of a CMV, even when such
conditions may not actually be encountered during the training session.
For example, an instructor could discuss adjustments to speed and
following distance that need to be made during periods of heavy rain,
even when actual driving conditions are dry. FMCSA believes that
commentary instruction during public road training provides a valuable
opportunity for
[[Page 88754]]
driver-trainees to reinforce safe driving behaviors in a contextual
learning environment. The Agency therefore retains these topics in both
the public road and theory portions of the curricula, as proposed. The
final rule clarifies that instructors must provide commentary
instruction for these elements of the BTW curricula. The final rule
also states that driver-trainees are not required to demonstrate
proficiency in these elements of the BTW curricula.
a. Night Driving/Operation
As proposed, Class A and B CDL trainees would be required to
receive both theory and BTW (public road) instruction in night
operation of a CMV in order to recognize and respond to the special
problems that night driving presents. While training providers were
strongly encouraged to offer driver-trainees actual night-driving
experience where feasible, they would not be required to do so.
Comments: Comments were mixed on the need to require driver-
trainees to operate CMVs at night. Truckers for a Cause stated that the
final rule should require ``actual BTW instruction during times of
darkness.'' One commenter suggested that the BTW hours requirement
should be no less than 200 hours, 50 of which should be night driving
hours.
On the other hand, several training providers supported the NPRM's
approach of not making nighttime driving a requirement. Century College
commented that ``[a]dding a night driving component would add
instructional costs and insurance costs that would be prohibitive,''
noting that drivers could learn night driving operations from specific
employers after obtaining a CDL.
FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, the BTW public road core
curricula do not require driver-trainees to operate a CMV at night.
Therefore, night driving must be discussed during public road training,
but not necessarily performed. In order to ensure that this topic is
sufficiently addressed during BTW public road training when actual
night driving is not feasible, the training instructor would, for
example, provide commentary instruction to convey how night driving
conditions differ from daytime driving, such as the impact of nighttime
glare on a driver's mirrors. As noted above, the final rule does not
require driver trainees to demonstrate proficiency in BTW elements they
are not required to perform, such as night driving.
b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW Training
As defined in the NPRM, BTW training means training provided by a
qualified driver-instructor when driver-trainees have actual control of
the power unit during a driving lesson conducted either on a range or
public road. Therefore, as proposed, time spent on a driving simulation
device would not substitute for actual ``hands on the wheel'' training
on a range or public road. The NPRM did, however, include ``driving
simulation devices'' within the scope of ``theory instruction,'' thus
permitting simulator use to fulfill the proposed theory curricula
requirements.
Comments: Virage Simulation (Virage) commented that three research
studies demonstrated that backing skills learned on a driving simulator
are equal to training in the truck. Virage stated that the ``continued
lack of support by the FMCSA for substitution of BTW hours with
simulation hours is somewhat perplexing in light of the express purpose
of the ELDT NPRM to establish `more extensive entry-level driver
training.' '' Virage proposed that FMCSA allow simulator-based training
for the substitution of up to 50 percent of the required BTW hours.
Schneider suggested allowing for 10 percent of the BTW training
hours to be completed using driving simulation, noting that simulator
use will allow the training provider to expose the driver-trainee to
adverse conditions that are (1) not readily accessible in the training
provider's region (e.g., snow in the south or mountains in the
Midwest); and/or (2) too dangerous to purposefully recreate on the open
road for training purposes (e.g., a tire blowout or severe wind).
According to Schneider, allowing for simulated drive time will also
have the additional benefits of reducing fuel cost and lowering
emissions in the cost-benefit analysis for this rulemaking. ABA
requested that FMCSA ``recognize the value of simulators, and provide
additional flexibility for their use under this proposal.''
FMCSA Response: The final rule does not require that a minimum
number of BTW training hours be completed. Accordingly, whether or not
simulation devices can be used to fulfill part of the proposed BTW
hours requirement is no longer an issue. However, in the Agency's
judgment, there is simply no substitute for the time a driver-trainee
actually spends behind the wheel and in direct control of a CMV during
range and public road training. Today's rule therefore does not permit
BTW training to be conducted by using a driving simulation device, and
a driver-trainee may not use a simulation device to demonstrate
proficiency. However, as discussed below, simulators may be used in
theory training.
FMCSA agrees that simulators can provide valuable learning
opportunities to entry-level drivers to improve driving techniques and
introduce them to hazards and driving conditions they may expect to
encounter in their driving career. The Agency has previously recognized
the value of specified simulation technology for entry-level training
of CMV drivers.\15\ Accordingly, the final rule retains the definition
of ``theory instruction'' proposed in the NPRM, which specifically
includes ``driving simulation devices.'' Consequently, training
providers may use simulation technology in meeting any of the theory
curricula requirements for the Class A and B CDLs and the P, S, or H
endorsements. For example, simulation devices can allow a driver to
better understand how to react in potentially hazardous situations,
which cannot be prudently demonstrated on a public road. Simulators are
also useful in helping students understand how to effectively manage
emergency situations, such as tire blowouts, skid avoidance or control,
and collision avoidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Commercial Motor Vehicle Driving Simulator Validation Study
(SimVal): Phase II (Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-044, October 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Manual v. Automatic Transmission--Class A and B Curricula
Requirements
As proposed in the theory portion of the Class A and B curricula,
the topic ``shifting/operating transmissions'' is described as an
introduction to ``basic shifting patterns and procedures,'' which will
enable the trainee to perform basic shifting maneuvers, including
executing ``up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range
transmissions if appropriate.'' The description of the ``shifting/
transmission'' topic in the BTW-public road curricula requires driver-
trainees to ``demonstrate proficiency in proper techniques for
performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting and making any necessary
adjustments in the process.''
Noting that some carriers utilize only CMVs equipped with automatic
transmissions, FMCSA invited comment on whether there should be an
option to forego this element of the training for driver-trainees who
intend to operate only automatic transmission-equipped CMVs. The NPRM
also noted that, currently, drivers who take their CDL skills test in a
CMV equipped with an
[[Page 88755]]
automatic transmission must have an indication on their CDL that the
driver is restricted from operating a CMV with a manual transmission,
49 CFR 383.95(c)(1).
Comments: Most of the comments on this issue said driver-trainees
should be trained in the type of CMV they intend to operate. Werner
Enterprises (Werner) commented that FMCSA should permit operators of
automatic transmission vehicles to forego the instruction on manual
shift transmissions, noting that requiring manual transmission training
for drivers who intend to operate CMVs equipped only with automatic
transmissions ``will take valuable training time which could be better
devoted to further developing other skill areas.'' According to Werner,
approximately 70 percent of CMVs currently produced are equipped with
automatic transmissions; both manufacturers and carriers agree that
this trend towards automatic transmission CMVs is likely to continue.
ATA, stating that it ``foresees broad adoption of automatic
transmissions in the future,'' suggested that ``FMCSA should seriously
consider giving training providers the flexibility to train drivers for
the equipment they expect to drive.''
C.R. England also stated that the NPRM ``lacks flexibility because
it does not allow reduced training hours for restricted licenses.''
Noting, for example, that ``if a driver intends to drive an automatic
transmission vehicle and receive a restricted license, less training is
required'' C.R. England suggested that ``required BTW time for a Class
A or Class B license with a manual transmission restriction be reduced
by \1/3\.''
Schneider and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV)
both noted that, if driver-trainees opt to receive training only in an
automatic transmission vehicle, the training provider would need to
indicate that on the training certificate uploaded to the TPR and
States must be able to accept and store that information on the
electronic driving record.
NASDPTS noted that since almost all school buses are now equipped
with automatic transmissions, there is no value in qualifying school
bus drivers to operate manual transmission-equipped vehicles. DDE and
NAPT also supported the option to forego the manual transmission
element because school buses have automatic transmissions.
However, several commenters opposed permitting driver-trainees to
obtain training only in an automatic transmission-equipped CMV. The
Iowa DOT said ``the training should be inclusive and not specific to
the transmission.'' In addition, the Iowa DOT thought the NPRM was
unclear regarding the situation in which a driver changes jobs or the
type of vehicle, asking whether a driver ``would have to take the
training over again if they drive a manual transmission because they
were trained in the `automatic only' curriculum?''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that ELDT requirements should be
flexible enough to accommodate a driver-trainee's choice to operate a
CMV equipped with an automatic transmission. The final rule does not
require that ELDT occur in a CMV equipped with a manual transmission.
On further review of the ELDTAC meeting record, the Agency believes
this flexibility was already intended. For example, during the
development of the ``shifting/operating transmissions'' component of
the theory portion of the Core A and B curricula, the words ``if
appropriate'' were added to the topic description, so that it would
read as follows: ``[t]his must include training each trainee to execute
up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range
transmissions, if appropriate'' (emphasis added).\16\ A slightly
revised version of the ``shifting/operating transmissions'' topic,
which included the ``if appropriate'' modifier, appeared in the NPRM.
FMCSA therefore infers that the ELDTAC recognized that training in this
theory topic would necessarily vary according to the type of
transmission the driver-trainee intends to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Proposed Core Curriculum'', ELDTAC Meeting, April 23-24,
2015, available at www.FMCSA.dot.gov/advisory-committees/eldtac/meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The description of ``shifting/transmission'' as a component of the
BTW-public road training for Class A, initially presented to the ELDTAC
by the Core Curriculum Working Group at its third meeting on April 9-
10, 2015, remained largely unchanged throughout the remainder of the
ELDTAC's meetings.\17\ The description, cited above, simply refers to
the driver-trainee's ability to demonstrate proficiency in ``proper''
shifting techniques and to make ``necessary adjustments.'' There is no
reference to either manual or automatic transmissions.\18\ An identical
description of the ``shifting/transmission topic'' was subsequently
adopted as part of the Class B BTW-public road curriculum. Again, the
Agency infers that the proposed definition was intentionally not
transmission-specific in order to permit driver-trainees to receive BTW
training in the type of CMV they intend to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The words ``safe and fuel efficient'' were added to the
BTW-public road description of the ``shifting/transmission'' topic
and the word ``required'' was deleted at the ELDTAC meeting on May
14-15, 2015. See ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 14-15, 2015.
\18\ Section 383.5 defines a manual transmission as ``a
transmission utilizing a driver-operated clutch that is activated by
a pedal or lever and a gear-shift mechanism operated by either hand
or foot.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA's conclusion is further supported by the fact that, as
several commenters noted, the prevalence of automatic transmission-
equipped vehicles in the Group A and B classifications is currently
significant and is widely expected to increase over time. In light of
this clear trend toward automatic transmission-equipped CMVs, it defies
logic to presume that the ELDTAC intended to require that all driver-
trainees receive training on a manual transmission, regardless of
whether they intend to operate a CMV so equipped, or would be required
to do so in the course of their employment. The Agency regrets any
confusion caused by posing the question of whether driver-trainees
should be permitted to ``opt out'' of manual transmission training.
Further, FMCSA notes that States, in administering the CDL skills test,
``must check the vehicle in which the applicant takes his or her test
is representative of the vehicle group the applicant has certified that
he or she operates or expects to operate'' (Sec. 383.73(b)(2)).
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule requires, that
training vehicles must be in the same group and type that the driver-
trainee intends to operate for the CDL skills test (Sec.
380.711(b)).The Agency notes that, in addition to the manual
transmission restriction discussed above, other restrictions currently
apply to air brakes and non-fifth wheel connections (Sec. 383.95(a),
(b) and (d)). In the final rule, the Agency adds ``as applicable'' to
the brake-related topic descriptors in the Class A and B curricula and
the coupling descriptor in the Class A curricula, to clarify that
driver-trainees are free to select a training curriculum that is
appropriate for the type of CMV they intend to operate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Existing regulations require that, if a CDL applicant fails
the air brake component of the knowledge test, the State must
indicate that restriction on the applicant's CLP (Sec.
383.95(a)(1)). In such cases, the applicant could complete BTW
training only in a vehicle that is not equipped with any type of air
brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the final rule does not require that driver-trainees
complete a minimum number of BTW training
[[Page 88756]]
hours, the question of whether required minimums should be lowered if
BTW training occurs in an automatic transmission-equipped vehicle is
now moot. However, FMCSA does not believe there would have been any
basis on which to reduce the proposed required BTW time when driver-
trainees receive training in a specific type of CMV, such as an
automatic-transmission equipped vehicle or a vehicle not equipped with
air brakes. First, we note that the BTW hours requirements proposed in
the NPRM reflected the total minimum amount of time it would take the
average driver-trainee to proficiently perform the required skills; the
ELDTAC did not ascribe any set number of hours to the performance of
specific tasks. More importantly, as explained above, the Agency
believes that, by keeping the curriculum topic descriptions broad, the
ELDTAC intended to permit flexibility in the type of training
delivered, based on the driver-trainee's choice of vehicle within a
designated group. The ELDTAC agreed to assign a specified number of BTW
hours for the Class A and B curricula after the curricula had been
unanimously adopted by the full committee. FMCSA therefore concludes
that, if the proposed BTW minimum hours requirements had been retained
in the final rule, a reduction in the minimum number of BTW hours based
on any specific vehicle type would not have been justified. The Agency
therefore continues to assume that most driver-trainees will spend at
least 30 and 15 hours to complete the Class A and Class B BTW
curricula, respectively.
Contrary to the assertion of commenters who noted that, if a
driver-trainee completes training in an automatic transmission-equipped
vehicle, the training provider would need to indicate that on the
trainee's ELDT certification the provider electronically submits to the
TPR, there is no need to identify the specific transmission type in
which the driver completed BTW training. As noted in the NPRM and in
today's rule, each BTW curriculum requires only that the training be
conducted in a vehicle representative of the applicable class or
endorsement. As explained above, there is no ``automatic transmission
only'' training designation. Driver-trainees will take BTW training in
the type of CMV they intend to operate and, consequently, in which they
expect to take the CDL skills test. The training certificate would
simply indicate, for example, that the individual completed training
applicable to a Class A or Class B CDL.
In response to the Iowa DOT's question concerning what, if any,
ELDT requirements would apply to drivers who obtain ``automatic
transmission only'' training and subsequently have that restriction
removed from the CDL by taking a skills test in a manual transmission-
equipped vehicle, the answer is that no further ELDT would be required.
Again, FMCSA notes there is no ``automatic transmission only'' training
designation. An applicant who takes the CDL skills test in a CMV
subject to a restriction (e.g., a CMV equipped with an automatic
transmission), and who subsequently has that restriction removed
following successful completion of a skills test in a non-restricted
vehicle, is not required to obtain any further ELDT. In today's rule,
FMCSA revises Sec. 380.603 to clarify that the ELDT requirements do
not apply to drivers who simply have a restriction removed from their
CDL.
17. Class C CDL Curriculum
FMCSA did not propose a curriculum for Class C CDL training because
a Group C vehicle must be designed to transport 16 or more passengers
(including the driver) or any hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR
383.5. As such, the driver of a Group C vehicle needs a P, S, or H
endorsement. The NPRM proposed training curricula for each of these
endorsements. In addition, because Group C vehicles weigh less than
26,001 pounds, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to prescribe
BTW training comparable to the other classes of CDL.
Comments: Washington DOL commented that ``[s]ince a Class C driver
must be getting a passenger, school bus or hazardous materials
endorsement to obtain the CDL, Class C drivers should be required to
meet the same minimum behind-the-wheel training requirements as Class B
drivers to ensure public safety.'' The State of Michigan commented that
it ``is satisfied that entry-level Class C drivers will receive
sufficient training through endorsement training,'' but noted that ``if
endorsement training is eliminated from the final rule then the issue
of Class C training should be examined.'' The NYAPT commented that it
is unclear whether the proposed regulations would apply to Class C CDL
holders who drive smaller school buses, including ``Type A'' buses.
NYAPT requested that FMCSA clarify that issue, stating that ``these
drivers should be covered by the regulations given their
responsibilities for transporting our children.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not include a Class C CDL curriculum in
today's final rule. As explained in the NPRM, the Agency believes that
Class C license holders will receive the appropriate training required
for any of the three endorsements applicable to a Class C license. For
example, an applicant wishing to transport passengers in a Group C
vehicle must complete the P endorsement training, which includes both
theory and BTW components. Similarly, under today's rule, a driver, a
driver of a ``Type A'' (i.e., ``short'') school buses designed to carry
ten or more passengers, would be required to complete the theory and
BTW portions of both the P and S curricula.
We note that, under the final rule, applicants for the H
endorsement are not required to obtain BTW training because there is no
State-administered skills test for the H endorsement. As noted
previously, applicants for the H endorsement will already have a Class
A or B CDL, or will be concurrently obtaining a Class A or B CDL at the
time they apply for the H endorsement, or intend to transport hazardous
materials in a vehicle for which a Class A or Class B CDL is not
required. Consequently, H endorsement applicants must complete the
theory curriculum set forth in Appendix E of Part 380 before taking the
State-administered knowledge test required to obtain that endorsement.
18. Passenger Endorsement Training
The NPRM included a curriculum to address the specific training
needs of a CMV driver seeking a P endorsement. There was no minimum
number of hours proposed for either the theory or BTW (range and public
road) portions of the P endorsement training, but the training provider
must cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. Additionally,
the training must be conducted in a representative vehicle for the P
endorsement.
Comments: Comments on this issue were generally supportive. The ABA
commented that specialized training should be required before an
endorsement is conferred because motor coach driving operations require
a unique skill set. ABA urged adoption of the Model Motorcoach
Curriculum (MMC) and encouraged the use of motorcoach/P endorsement
training providers, stating that most truck driving schools are not
able to address motorcoach driving skills. ABA believes the rule will
increase the transparency of training provider course offerings and
make it easier for individuals to find training providers. Overall, ABA
believes this will likely result in an
[[Page 88757]]
increase in training providers for the motorcoach industry, as well as
an increase in hiring opportunities for drivers. In addition to ABA,
the UMA and bus safety groups supported the P curriculum.
The DDE commented that the theory curriculum for the P endorsement
had additional items not applicable to school bus operations, e.g.,
techniques of photographing an accident scene, skid measurements,
baggage and cargo management, identifying prohibited and acceptable
materials, hours of service, weigh station obligations, and CVSA out-
of-service criteria. DDE stated it would not have trainers qualified to
teach the additional material in the P endorsement curriculum. An
individual commenter suggested that the reference to CVSA inspections
be removed from the S and P curricula ``since the class A/B truck
driver will have a better chance of being at a roadside [inspection]
than a school bus driver.''
The AAR stated that certain elements of the P curriculum, including
inspection of restrooms and handling of passenger baggage, should not
be required for railroad employees who drive crew vehicles, as those
vehicles ``are not equipped with restrooms and the drivers do not
handle passenger baggage.''
The NYAPT had no objection to the curriculum content prescribed for
attainment of the P endorsement, but expressed concern over the
potential impact the rigorous training requirements will have on school
bus driver recruitment and hiring.
Two commenters believed that limousine drivers should not be
required to complete the proposed curriculum for the P endorsement
training. Minnesota Chauffeured Limousine Association (MCLA) stated
that the limousine industry ``already faces difficulty trying to obtain
drivers because of the stipulations put on us by the insurance
companies,'' predicting that ``with these new regulations, it will be
almost impossible to hire drivers or promote drivers to achieve a
passenger endorsement.'' The National Limousine Association (NLA) noted
the positive safety record of the passenger-carrying motor vehicle
industry, suggesting that the P endorsement training should not be
required for smaller CMVs such as vans, shuttles, and mini-coaches. NLA
is not aware of any ``pressing concerns in the pre-arranged passenger
ground transportation industry that would necessitate additional new
training requirements for those vehicles.''
In addition, NLA noted that the majority of its members own vehicle
fleets comprised primarily of sedans. The organization expressed
concern that ``[i]f the company has one CMV that does interstate work,
then the company will be required to train all of its drivers since
they may at some point be needed to drive the CMV.'' NLA therefore
concluded that ``there should be some exemption [from P endorsement
requirements] for very small operators.''
FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA retains the passenger
P endorsement curriculum largely as proposed. The Agency adds
drawbridge safety procedures to the theory portion of the P curriculum
and deletes several topics unrelated to safe operation of passenger-
carrying CMVs. These changes are discussed below in the ``Section-by-
Section Explanation of Changes from the NPRM.''
In response to ABA's suggestion that the Agency adopt the MMC, we
note that the MMC is not necessarily intended for entry-level drivers.
Rather, the MMC is a comprehensive training curriculum for
motorcoaches, more likely to be used in ``finishing'' training for
newly-hired drivers who have already obtained the P endorsement. In
contrast, the P endorsement curriculum in today's rule focuses on the
basic specific skills that a driver-trainee will need to master in
order to safely operate a passenger-carrying CMV.
Part 383 currently requires that anyone seeking the S endorsement
also pass the knowledge and skills tests for obtaining the P
endorsement (Sec. 380.123(a)(1)). In response to comments that the
proposed P curriculum included topics unrelated to the operation of a
school bus, such as cargo management and weigh station obligations, we
note that such topics are extremely relevant to common carrier motor
coach operations, which are also covered by the P endorsement, and are
thus retained in today's rule.
In the Agency's judgment, any CMV driver holding a P endorsement
should be capable of safely operating representative passenger vehicles
covered by that endorsement, regardless of whether or not the
individual also holds the S endorsement and intends to drive only
school buses. Similarly, Class B holders who operate railroad crew
vehicles may not intend to operate other types of passenger vehicles,
such as a motor coach, but holding a Class B CDL with a P endorsement
permits them to do so, and they should be trained accordingly.
In addition, there is no justification for excepting drivers of
``smaller CMVs such as vans, shuttles, and mini-coaches,'' from the P
endorsement curriculum requirements, as suggested by NLA. The fact
remains that these smaller Group C vehicles are used to transport
passengers. Therefore, it is important that drivers of these vehicles
receive passenger endorsement-specific training which allows them to
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for their safe operation.
The Agency does not believe that the P curriculum requirements in
today's rule will ``kill the passenger transportation business'' by
making it too difficult to hire limousine drivers as MCLA asserted. To
the contrary, better trained drivers may make it less difficult to
obtain liability insurance. In addition, to the extent that limousine
companies currently provide P endorsement training to employees or
potential employees or wish to begin providing such training, they may
be listed on the TPR if they meet the eligibility requirements set
forth in Sec. Sec. 380.703 and 380.719 of the final rule.
Finally, as noted below in the discussion of the S endorsement
curriculum, FMCSA does not anticipate that the training requirements in
today's rule will hinder school bus driver recruitment and hiring. The
majority of jurisdictions currently impose school bus driver training
requirements that meet or exceed the minimum standard established in
the final rule. Under both the NPRM and the final rule, such training
programs would be eligible for listing on the TPR. In order to make
this clearer, we amend the definition of ``training provider'' in
today's rule to specifically include local/State governments and school
districts.
19. School Bus Endorsement Training
The NPRM included a curriculum to address the specific training
needs of a CMV driver seeking an S endorsement. The NPRM did not
propose a minimum number of required hours for either the theory or BTW
(range and public road) portions of the S endorsement training, but the
training provider must cover all of the topics in the curriculum. BTW
training must also be conducted in a representative vehicle for the S
endorsement.
Comments: Comments were mixed on the proposed S endorsement
training. The NASDPTS believes the proposed curriculum is appropriate.
Furthermore, NASDPTS is confident that training provided by most States
and school districts throughout the nation is consistent with, and in
many cases exceeds, the training outlined in the NPRM. The National
School Transportation Association (NSTA) also endorsed the proposed
curriculum, noting that it ensures that all entry-level drivers will
receive the necessary amount of training on all vital elements
[[Page 88758]]
of safe student transportation. Other commenters also supported the
proposed S endorsement curriculum, asserting that since many States
already cover these topics in their mandated school bus driver
training, the proposed curriculum is appropriate as a minimum national
standard.
The DMTA supported S endorsement training, but stated that no BTW
time should be mandated since the trainee would already have a Class B
CDL or would need to meet the Class B training mandate (which includes
a BTW requirement). Some commenters believed the proposed S endorsement
training is unnecessary because school bus drivers in most States are
currently subject to rigorous training requirements from their State
Highway Patrols or Departments of Education. Consequently, they claim
that school bus drivers are already among the best trained groups of
CDL drivers and have the best safety record. The NYAPT expressed
concern that ``the rigorous training programs and provider network in
place will be supplanted by these new requirements and result in lower
levels of quality and intensity of training.'' Accordingly, NYAPT
requested that ``FMCSA consider ways to grand-parent existing programs
that meet or exceed the proposed high training standards . . .''
NYAPT also commented that the new requirements could likely have an
effect on the shortage of school bus drivers, stating that ``[t]his
training regimen, however well intended, will make it more difficult
for drivers to be brought on-line in school bus operations.'' A number
of SDLAs, including the North Dakota Department of Transportation, the
Iowa DOT, and the Delaware DMV, opposed the inclusion of the S
endorsement training, also asserting that requiring entry-level
training for school bus drivers would negatively impact the school
districts in their States, which are currently struggling to hire
drivers. Several commenters also noted that MAP-21 did not mandate S
endorsement training.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA retains the S endorsement training in the
final rule. As we acknowledged in the NPRM, while MAP-21 did not
specifically require the adoption of S endorsement training
requirements, the statute did include the P endorsement within the
scope of required ELDT. In light of the fact that part 383 currently
requires that anyone seeking to obtain an S endorsement also obtain a P
endorsement, including the S endorsement training requirements in
today's rule is entirely consistent with MAP-21. FMCSA believes that
retaining the S curriculum in the final rule will improve safety by
providing a more complete approach to training that involves the
transportation of all CMV passengers, including school children.
FMCSA does not believe the final rule unduly burdens those
jurisdictions that already maintain reasonable S training requirements.
As noted above, States or localities currently requiring that school
bus drivers obtain S training that meets or exceeds the minimum
standard established by today's rule will be minimally impacted because
the rule does not impose additional training requirements on those
programs. Any provider who currently offers S endorsement training that
is equivalent to, or more stringent than, the curriculum set forth in
proposed Sec. 380.621 (now appendix D to part 380) could be eligible
for listing on the TPR, presuming all instructor qualifications and
other requirements are met. Entities eligible for listing on the TPR
include, for example, individual school districts, State agencies or
departments, and third-parties that contract with States or localities.
The Agency revises the definition of ``training provider'' in Sec.
380.605 of the final rule to make this more clear. The Agency notes,
however, that it is up to individual training providers to determine
whether they meet the requirements of today's rule.
FMCSA disagrees with the DMTA's position that the S endorsement
training curriculum should not include a BTW component. According to
DMTA, S endorsement BTW training would be redundant since the driver-
trainee would either already have a Class B CDL or would be required to
obtain a Class B CDL and thus complete a curriculum that includes at
least 15 hours of BTW training. First, we note that, even in the
absence of a 15 hour minimum BTW requirement (which was not retained in
the final rule), the school bus-specific BTW training requirements in
today's rule do not duplicate the Class B curriculum requirements for
BTW on either the range or public road. The range/public road component
of the S endorsement curriculum describes six maneuvers, specific to
the operation of a school bus, in which the driver-trainee must
demonstrate proficiency, as determined by the instructor.
When a driver-trainee who has not previously held a CDL intends to
concurrently obtain a Class B CDL, as well as the P and S endorsements,
the trainee can elect to take the Class B BTW training in a school bus.
In such situations, BTW instructors will ensure that the range and road
maneuvers required as part of the S endorsement training will be
addressed in addition to the maneuvers required by the Class B
curriculum. It would be up to the instructor to determine the point at
which the driver-trainee demonstrates the school bus-specific
competencies. FMCSA also notes that, for driver-trainees who
concurrently obtain training for the Class B CDL and the P and S
endorsements from the same training provider, the provider would
electronically submit certification to the TPR indicating that the
individual completed each of the three curricula.
In addition, not all driver-trainees wishing to obtain the S
endorsement will necessarily have or need to obtain a Class B CDL.
Those who intend to drive ``Type A'' school buses below a GVWR of
26,001 pounds would not need to hold or obtain a Class B CDL in order
to obtain the S endorsement. Similarly, a driver who previously
obtained a Class B CDL by completing BTW training and taking the CDL
skills test in a straight truck, and who subsequently wishes to add the
S endorsement to his or her CDL in order to drive school buses, must
complete the BTW requirements specific to the operation of a school
bus.
Commenters who asserted that the S endorsement training would
either cause or exacerbate a shortage of school bus drivers did not
offer any specific information in support of their claims, other than
to note that ``additional'' training requirements would make it more
difficult to find qualified drivers. We do not find this generic
argument a persuasive basis for either eliminating or reducing the S
endorsement curriculum.
As previously discussed, for those States and localities that
already require training in the safe operation of a school bus, today's
rule will likely have marginal impact as long as those training
programs, at a minimum, follow the S endorsement curriculum as set
forth in Appendix D and become listed on the TPR. For those
jurisdictions presently without mandated training that meets this
minimum standard, today's rule ``raises the bar'' for safety by
requiring that school bus drivers be adequately trained. In the
Agency's judgment, that is the paramount consideration for any
jurisdiction or entity responsible for transporting children.
20. Hazardous Materials Endorsement Training
FMCSA proposed training for individuals seeking an H endorsement.
As noted above, the current requirements to obtain an H endorsement,
set forth in Sec. 383.121, do not include a State-administered skills
[[Page 88759]]
test, because the H endorsement is not linked to a specific vehicle
group or type of vehicle. Accordingly, the proposed H endorsement
curriculum did not include a BTW component. The NPRM did not require a
minimum number of hours for completing the H theory curriculum.
The Agency sought comment on the scope and content of the proposed
curriculum and on whether the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration's (PHMSA) hazardous materials employee training
regulations in 49 CFR 172.704 could be used or modified to satisfy the
proposed H endorsement training requirements.
Comments: The State of Minnesota asked whether the H endorsement
training would need to be completed prior to the applicant taking the
State-administered H endorsement knowledge test. Minnesota noted that
since the proposed H endorsement theory curriculum ``closely mirrors
the information in the hazardous materials section of the AAMVA CDL
manual,'' the proposed endorsement training may not be necessary. The
NGPA also commented that the proposed H endorsement curriculum is
``superfluous'' because State governments already provide training
guidance for the H endorsement knowledge test, which includes material
that ``is analogous to the proposal''. Additionally, NGPA noted that
propane motor carriers already have a ``profound incentive to provide
appropriate training on hazardous material operations, including all
elements detailed in the proposal.''
Schneider requested that FMCSA remove the requirement for H
endorsement training or, in the alternative, demonstrate the benefit
from training. Schneider noted that H endorsement applicants are
already required to pass a knowledge test as a condition of obtaining
the endorsement and that, under the proposed rule, ``the driver would
also be required to pay to complete this course work.'' Accordingly,
``Schneider believes the driver would demonstrate the same level of
knowledge with or without the ELDT training and, therefore, the benefit
of this training is not likely to justify the costs.''
The PMAA supported ``provisions in the NPRM designed to establish
an improved core curriculum for Hazardous Materials endorsements.''
OOIDA does not support substituting hazardous materials regulations
(HMR) training in 49 CFR 172.704 to satisfy the H endorsement training
in the proposed rule, noting that ``the ELDTAC hazardous materials
curriculum recommendations were carefully developed by a clear
consensus.'' On the other hand, the Iowa DOT commented that
substituting PHMSA's HMR training for the H endorsement training
proposed in the NPRM ``seems reasonable and would establish a more
universal standard for HAZMAT training.''
FMCSA Response: As noted in our discussion of the legal basis for
this rulemaking, MAP-21 requires that minimum ELDT standards address
the specific training needs of a CMV operator seeking an H endorsement
(49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(2)). The Agency therefore does not have the legal
authority to remove the H endorsement training requirements from the
final rule, and they are retained as proposed. Further, FMCSA concludes
that PHMSA's hazardous materials training requirements in Sec. 172.704
may not be used to satisfy the H endorsement curriculum requirements in
today's rule because the PHMSA regulations do not address the CMV-
related topics included in the H endorsement curriculum. Finally, motor
carriers and other entities that currently provide H endorsement
training that meets or exceeds the minimum standard established in the
final rule could continue to do so, as long as they are listed on the
TPR in accordance with the eligibility requirements set forth in
Sec. Sec. 380.703 and 380.719.
21. Refresher Training
FMCSA proposed refresher training for any CDL holder who is
disqualified from operating a CMV under Sec. 383.51(b) through (e).
The NPRM proposed that a CDL holder be required to complete refresher
training from a provider listed on the TPR prior to retaking the State-
administered skills test to reinstate his or her Class A or Class B
CDL. Under the NPRM, the State may not restore full CMV driving
privileges until the disqualification period is completed and the State
receives notification that the driver completed refresher training.
FMCSA did not propose a minimum number of required hours for the
refresher training, but required that the training provider cover all
topics in the curriculum. As proposed, disqualified drivers taking
refresher training would obtain a restricted CDL solely for the purpose
of completing the BTW portion of the refresher training curriculum. The
Agency specifically invited comment on the practical implications of
implementing that proposed requirement. FMCSA also invited comment on
whether a driver disqualified under Sec. 383.52 (imminent hazard)
should also be required to complete refresher training before his or
her CDL is reinstated.
Comments: Several comments recognized the value of refresher
training. Advocates, DMTA, and the electric trades (EEI/NRECA/APPA)
supported the idea of refresher training for drivers disqualified under
49 CFR 383.51(b) through (e). The State of Michigan supports refresher
training ``only for reinstatement of lapsed CDLs, major CDL violations,
imminent hazard, Sec. 383.51, and Sec. 383.52.'' NYAPT believes that
``it is appropriate to require CDL holders who have been disqualified
or put on suspension to engage in some form of corrective training
before they are allowed to resume their licensed status.''
Several commenters noted that the term ``refresher training'' may
also pertain to training for CMV drivers whose CDLs have lapsed for
some period of time. San Juan College suggested that, in the final
rule, the Agency change the term to `Reinstatement Training' ``to
differentiate the training required for ``highway-safety'' related
issues from the current refresher training programs that are not
related to a safety issue.'' Another commenter suggested that FMCSA
make clear that refresher training is not a short cut to initially
getting a license.
A number of comments opposed all or part of the refresher training
proposal. The ODOT questioned FMCSA's stated premise for refresher
training, noting that ``[t]rained, experienced drivers may make
mistakes or poor decisions in their driving behavior, but that does not
mean they have suddenly lost their ability to safely operate a CMV.''
The North Dakota DOT commented that the proposal ``will have a direct
administrative impact on the State's workload and lend itself to
confusion for the public.'' The CA DMV stated that its ``system would
require significant program modification in order to prevent the
issuance of a CDL when refresher training was not completed.'' The VA
DMV commented that the refresher training requirement would burden
drivers subject to a 60-day disqualification, ``since a driver who is
convicted of two speeding tickets in a three year period would be
required to obtain an ``R'' restriction on his CLP/CDL, complete theory
and BTW training (with fees) and return to DMV to have the ``R''
restriction lifted.'' AAMVA noted that, while it ``appreciates the need
for refresher training, the requirement for refresher training for all
violations incorporated under Sec. 383.51 would drastically increase
the volume and demand for operators requiring
[[Page 88760]]
such training prior to operational authorization of a commercial
vehicle.''
A number of commenters pointed out various logistical and
implementation issues associated with the States' limited reinstatement
of the CDL to permit driver-trainees to complete the BTW portion of the
refresher training curriculum, as proposed in Sec. 383.95(h). The
State of Minnesota said that having to provide limited privileges for
refresher training would be an undue burden on SDLAs. The commenter
noted that, in addition, ``Minnesota currently has a conflict with the
`R' restriction as that letter code is already used for something else
in MN and this most likely is the case in many other states.'' The
State of Michigan commented that ``the proposal for a limited license
that allows for a training period when a person is currently under a
suspension/revocation violates the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
(MCSIA) that was very specific that CDL drivers were not to be issued a
limited term (restricted) license.''
The NY DMV commented that ``[t]here are too many variables to
consider to implement a `limited CDL' and would be putting a heavy
burden on the States to program and monitor.'' The ODOT said that
``requirement for the SDLA to issue a `restricted CDL' for the purpose
of the BTW portion of the refresher training is unmanageable and
burdensome.'' The Nebraska DMV, the State of Montana-DOJ/MVD, the Iowa
DOT, the CA DMV, and the Delaware DMV also expressed concerns regarding
the practical difficulties associated with a temporary reinstatement of
the CDL in order for the holder to complete refresher training. AAMVA
asked what evidence would be provided which would allow an individual
``to operate a CMV for the sole purpose of satisfying the refresher
training.''
FMCSA Response: The final rule does not include a requirement for
refresher training. The Agency removed the provision based primarily on
the SDLAs' comments identifying specific ways in which implementation
and administration of the proposed refresher training requirement would
be difficult and burdensome to administer. Based on the comments, it is
reasonable to assume that requiring an individual to obtain a
restricted license solely for the purpose of completing the BTW road
training would cause confusion for law enforcement, SDLAs, and
individual drivers.
Further, the States impose their own reinstatement protocols on CDL
holders who have been disqualified, some of which include remedial
driver education and/or a requirement that the driver re-take the
State-administered skills test as a condition of CDL reinstatement.\20\
FMCSA therefore concludes that States should maintain their current
flexibility to determine when, and on what basis, disqualified CDL
holders will be reinstated. Accordingly, the final rule removes any
reference to or requirement for refresher training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Drivers who are required to take a State-administered
skills test in order to reinstate their CDL would not be subject to
the training requirements of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Training Requirements for Driver-Trainees Obtaining Multiple CDL
Credentials
In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed a Class A CDL core curriculum; a Class
B CDL core curriculum and curricula for the P, S, and H endorsements.
The curricula for Class A and B CDLs and the P and S endorsements are
comprised of both theory and BTW (range and public road) elements.
Individuals seeking the H endorsement would be required to complete
theory training only. As explained previously, the H endorsement is not
linked to any specific vehicle group or type of vehicle; consequently,
there is no skills test required in order to obtain it. The Agency's
responses to the comments below address the curriculum requirements
applicable to driver-trainees seeking multiple CDL credentials.
Comments: The NY DMV noted that it is not clear whether a driver
who is applying for a Class A or B CDL, as well as the P and S
endorsements at the same time, must undergo multiple trainings and
obtain certification in all three training curricula. NY DMV requested
that FMCSA clarify that ``more than one training curriculum and
certification would be required if undertaking the skills testing at
the same time for more than one of the applicable Class CDLs or
endorsements.''
NY DMV also noted that the NPRM is not clear regarding the
obligations of driver-trainees undertaking multiple curricula when some
of those curricula have overlapping elements in theory and/or BTW
instruction. They posed the following example: ``a trainee undergoes
the Class A curriculum, then wants to undergo the Class B curriculum,
may the Training Provider offer them reduced theory and/or BTW
instruction, if the trainee took the same theory and/or BTW instruction
form the Class A curriculum?'' Other commenters wanted to know whether
a driver upgrading from a Class B CDL to a Class A CDL would have to
complete the entire Class A curriculum. The Nebraska DMV asked whether
``anything completed for the Class B training count[s] toward the Class
A requirement.'' San Juan College, noting that the Class A and Class B
curricula are virtually identical but for the inclusion of ``coupling/
uncoupling'' in Class A training, stated that ``there should be some
training required to upgrade from Class B to Class A, but it should
only relate to skill required for pulling a trailer.''
The DDE commented that the NPRM does not address the requirements
that a driver with a Class A CDL would need to meet in order to drive a
school bus, i.e. ``just do the theory and BTW curriculum for `P' & `S'
endorsements or also complete the Class B theory and BTW curricula?''
The CA DMV noted that the NPRM apparently requires that a person
seeking a P, S, and/or H endorsement for a Class A or B CDL meet the
specific endorsement training requirements in addition to the
``standard training requirements for the specified class of CDL.''
However, CA DMV commented that ``that fact is not clearly noted in the
proposed language'' and requested that FMCSA clarify these
requirements.
The DE DMV commented that ``[r]equiring additional training on top
of Class A and B core `entry-level' training for a specific endorsement
is unnecessary'' because ``the applicant has already obtained the
knowledge base necessary to operate a CMV.'' DE DMV also noted that it
currently requires 12 hours of classroom training and 6 hours of BTW
training for the ``S application,'' which ``falls short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.'' DE DMV asserted that if the
NPRM's S endorsement training requirements were adopted in the final
rule, ``major changes to our current State laws, regulations and
procedures will need to be made in order to meet this mandate.''
FMCSA Response: As proposed in the NPRM, the final rule requires
that a training provider cover all theory and/or BTW topics in the
curriculum for the applicable Class or endorsement in order for a
driver-trainee to complete the training. The Agency acknowledges that
there is overlap in some of the curricula content. For example, the
topics included in both theory and BTW curricula for the Class A and B
CDLs are virtually identical in most respects. However, there is a
significant difference in the types of CMVs to which the Class A and B
CDLs apply. Group A includes combination vehicles with a Gross
Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) of 26,001 pounds or more, provided the
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle
[[Page 88761]]
being towed exceeds 10,000 pounds (Sec. 383.91(a)(1)). Group B
includes heavy straight vehicles (i.e., non-combination) with a GVWR of
26,000 pounds or more, or any such vehicle towing vehicle not in excess
of 10,000 pounds GVWR (Sec. 383.91(a)(2)).
The different operating characteristics of these two distinct
vehicle groups require that many of the elements in the Class A and B
curricula, though topically the same, be taught in ways tailored to the
specific vehicle class. Space management, extreme driving conditions,
pre-trip inspection, and backing are examples of topics that would call
for different methods of instruction depending on the underlying
vehicle class. The current CDL skills testing process accounts for the
difference in handling characteristics between and among vehicle groups
by requiring that the driving tests must be given in a representative
vehicle for a given vehicle group (Sec. 383.91(b)). Similarly, today's
rule requires that BTW training be conducted in representative vehicles
for the class or endorsement for which training is provided. To the
extent there is overlap between the Class A and B curricula, FMCSA
agrees with the numerous commenters who noted that some level of
repetition in training is acceptable as a means of reinforcing core
concepts and competencies. Moreover, since the final rule does not
require any minimum number of hours for BTW training, Class B CDL
holders can reasonably expect to demonstrate proficiency in the Class A
BTW elements in less time.
In response to the NY DMV's question regarding whether a Class A
CDL holder, having already completed Class A training, who wishes to
obtain a Class B CDL would have to complete the Class B training
curriculum, the answer is no. Currently, any Class A CDL holder is
permitted to drive a CMV in either Group B or Group C without taking
the related knowledge/skills tests (Sec. 383.91(c)(1)). Today's rule
does not change existing part 383 licensing requirements; therefore, no
additional training would be required under those circumstances.
We note, however, that the ELDT requirements established in today's
rule apply to persons who take a skills test either to obtain a Class A
or B CDL for the first time, to upgrade to a Class A from a Class B,
and to upgrade to a Class A or B from a Class C. Accordingly, after the
compliance date of the final rule, a Class B CDL holder wishing to
upgrade to a Class A CDL would be required to complete the entire Class
A curricula (theory and BTW) before taking the skills test for the
Class A CDL. Class C CDL holders seeking to upgrade to a Class A or B
CDL would need to complete that curriculum before taking the applicable
skills test. In addition, anyone holding a Class A, B, or C CDL who
wants to obtain a P and/or S endorsement would need to complete the
entire P and/or S endorsement curricula (theory and BTW) before taking
the State-administered skills test in a representative passenger
vehicle. Similarly, any CDL holder seeking an H endorsement must
complete the H endorsement theory curriculum before taking the State-
administered knowledge test.
As noted above, the DE DMV asserted that Class A or B holders
already ``have the knowledge base to operate'' a CMV and should
therefore not be required to undergo any additional endorsement-related
training. To the contrary, the Agency believes it is both necessary and
appropriate that CDL holders obtaining either the P or the S
endorsement be trained specifically in the safe operation of the
passenger vehicle(s) they will be licensed to operate.
Several commenters had questions regarding the ELDT requirements
for driver-trainees obtaining more than one CDL credential at the same
time. For example, DDE asked whether a Class A CDL holder wishing to
obtain the S endorsement would need to complete the Class B, S, and P
endorsement curricula. In that situation, the CDL holder would need to
complete both portions of the S curriculum since the applicant would be
required to take a State-administered skills test in order to obtain
the endorsement. Because Sec. 383.123(a)(1) currently requires that S
endorsement applicants must also pass the knowledge and skills test for
obtaining the P endorsement, the applicant must also complete the
theory and BTW portion of the P endorsement training curriculum. The
Class A CDL holder in this example would not need to complete the ELDT
curriculum for the Class B CDL because, as previously stated, under
Sec. 383.91(c)(1), a Class A CDL holder is already licensed to operate
a Group B (or Group C) vehicle.
As noted above, the DE DMV expressed concern that the DDE's current
training program for the S endorsement, which requires 12 hours of
classroom and 6 hours of BTW training, ``falls well short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.'' We believe that concern is
unfounded since the NPRM did not require any minimum number of hours
for completion of either the theory or BTW portions of the S
endorsement curriculum, and today's rule does not include such
requirements. In order to comply with the minimum standard established
by the final rule, existing programs simply must cover the S
endorsement curriculum, and the instructor must determine that the
driver-trainee is proficient in the knowledge and skills covered by the
training. As stated previously, States are free to impose training
requirements that exceed this minimum standard.
23. Training Materials
As proposed, training providers that train more than three driver-
trainees annually must provide written training materials addressing
the applicable curricula to each driver-trainee. Providers training
three or fewer driver-trainees annually were not subject to this
requirement.
Comments: The VA DMV asked ``whether FMCSA will provide training
materials, such as instructor manuals and student manuals, for use by
training providers or whether FMCSA will provide a list of approved
vendors where compliant training materials may be obtained.'' NYAPT
inquired ``as to the intention of FMCSA to provide course of study
related to the theory portion of the training to enable training
entities to simply deliver already approved training programs in the
future.''
IUOE recommended that the Agency ``post written training materials
on-line and develop an interactive, on-line training program for the
theory portion of the Core Curricula'', noting that this approach would
``provide a feasible mechanism'' through which FMCSA could ensure
quality and uniformity of training. IUOE also noted that FMCSA-
sponsored training and testing would ``reduce by one-third the costs of
ELDT borne by individual workers.'' Similarly, OOIDA commented that
``FMCSA should be able to create the necessary training and assessment
for the theory curriculum'', which would prevent disparity among ELDT
providers and provide a basis for tracking training performance.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not intend to provide written or
electronic training materials for any of the curricula set forth in
today's rule, nor will the Agency endorse or certify specific materials
or vendors. The minimum curricular standards in the final rule are
designed to provide sufficient topical guidance to theory training
providers, while allowing those providers to determine the specific
content and format of their training materials. The Agency anticipates
that there will be variations in ELDT curricula based on a training
provider's
[[Page 88762]]
presentation preferences and the needs of the driver-trainees they
serve. In addition, training providers are permitted to add additional
curriculum elements they deem appropriate. Accordingly, FMCSA-provided
theory training materials represents an approach entirely inconsistent
with the flexibility envisioned by today's rule.
FMCSA anticipates that the final rule will encourage new entrants
into the market for ELDT services, which will increase the availability
of innovative and cost-effective alternatives from which driver-
trainees may choose. In addition, many motor carrier employers seeking
qualified driver applicants currently provide ELDT (including training
materials) at little or no cost to the driver-trainee, and the Agency
has no basis to anticipate that will change as a result of the final
rule. Because IUOE offered no substantiation for its claim that FMCSA-
provided online training materials would reduce driver-trainees' costs
by one-third, the Agency is unable to respond directly to that
assertion.
As noted above, the final rule makes no distinction based on the
size of the training provider; therefore, smaller training entities are
subject to the requirement that written training materials must be
provided to driver-trainees.
24. Sequence of ELDT
In the NPRM, FMCSA did not propose that the theory, BTW-range, and
BTW-public road training occur in a specific sequence, but requested
comment on whether there should be a particular order for any of the
required curricula. The Agency also requested comment on whether theory
training should be required before a driver-trainee takes the State-
administered knowledge test to obtain a CLP.
Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments supporting the NPRM's
approach, which allows training providers the flexibility to determine
how they would structure and sequence their programs. According to
DTCC, many schools have been very successful in training CDL drivers
using a variety of curricular sequencing and that ``[t]o take this
academic freedom away would cause undue hardship to the training
providers and students alike.''
ATA agreed that training providers should be granted flexibility to
determine when to teach various elements of the ELDT curricula, noting
that many of CDL training schools currently provide instruction in
most, if not all, of the curricula elements proposed in the NPRM. Over
the years, the experience of those providers has taught them the best
sequence in which to teach various elements. Additionally, ATA stated
that maintaining this flexibility will encourage innovative and
adaptive training programs that could greatly improve collective
understanding of effective CDL training.
The VA DMV suggested that the final rule should require that theory
and BTW-range instruction be provided before the BTW-public road
portion of the training in order to ``ensure that drivers have a basic
understanding of the laws governing CMVs and what to expect before
beginning operation of a vehicle.'' AAMVA commented that it would be
``logical'' to provide theory training prior to any BTW ``where an
increased element of danger is introduced into the environment,'' also
noting that prior theory training would increase the value and
efficiency of BTW training. AAMVA recommended that ``range hours
precede public road training to limit public exposure to drivers that
have not had BTW training in a controlled environment.'' The State of
Michigan favored requiring that ``some'' theory instruction be
completed before beginning BTW training, Michigan also commented that
the final rule should require that theory training ``be coordinated
with'' BTW training and, if not, ``states should be allowed to require
such coordination.''
VU asked whether driver-trainees will be required to complete the
full ten hours of range training for a Class A CDL before proceeding to
the public road portion of the training.
AAMVA also commented that theory training should not be a mandatory
requirement for taking the SDLA knowledge test, but should be made
available to students who may want to use theory training to aid in
their preparation for obtaining a CLP. San Juan College commented that,
although completion of the theory portion of the ELDT does not need to
be required before taking the State-administered CLP written tests,
applicants would be much better prepared to take the CLP tests after
completing their theory training. VU strongly believes that driver-
trainees should not be required to take theory training before
obtaining a CLP, noting that a student's ability to obtain a CLP,
whether prior to or during the theory training, will facilitate the
timely completion of the BTW portion of the training.
FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA retains the approach
proposed in the NPRM; there is no mandatory order in which the theory,
BTW-range, and BTW-public road training must be administered, nor does
the rule require that theory training must be completed before
obtaining a CLP. The Agency believes it is appropriate to allow the
training providers to determine how to structure their programs and
best serve the needs of their students. Accordingly, the final rule
does not require that a certain portion of range training precede the
public road portion of BTW training for either a Class A or Class B
CDL. However, as we noted in the NPRM, FMCSA expects that, for any of
the BTW curricula established in today's rule, trainers will require
that driver-trainees master basic vehicle control maneuvers in a
controlled environment before allowing them to operate a CMV on a
public road. In addition, if States currently have or wish to impose
requirements for sequential or integrated ELDT, nothing in the final
rule prohibits them from doing so.
25. ELDT Instructor Qualifications
The NPRM proposed that, among other things, ELDT instructors
providing theory and BTW training must be ``experienced drivers''
having at least one year of experience in either CMV operation or
driver training instruction. The Consensus Agreement noted the ELDTAC's
preference for two or more years of CMV driving experience. FMCSA
requested comment on whether a two-year experience requirement would
affect the applicability of State laws relating to instructors or
training providers.
The NPRM also proposed that BTW instructors complete training in
the public road portion of the curriculum in which they are
instructing.
a. BTW Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
Comments: Most commenters supported a minimum of two years of
experience operating a CMV; however, several commenters thought the
minimum of CMV driving experience should be five years. Truckers for a
Cause strongly disagreed with the length of the proposed experience
requirement, stating that ``[i]t does not mandate enough experience to
properly train a CLP holder.'' Truckers for a Cause recommended that
experience be specified as either 200,000 miles of ``logged over the
road driving'' or 3000 hours of ``paycheck documented driving work
time.'' Similarly, Minnesota noted that its CDL BTW instructor
qualifications refer to hours of experience, i.e., ``3000 hours within
the last five years of experience operating the class of vehicle for
which instruction will be provided.''
[[Page 88763]]
Other commenters, including NAPT and ATD, urged FMCSA to allow a
maximum degree of flexibility in setting instructor qualifications.
Virginia requested the final rule make clear ``that these are minimum
requirements so that the states have flexibility in requiring
additional criteria.'' ATD expressed concern that ``overly restrictive
instructor qualification requirements would unduly limit the number and
availability of qualified instructor/trainers.'' DTCC commented that
the final rule should specify that the instructor's experience pertain
to the classification of CMV in which instruction is being provided.
FMCSA Response: In today's rule, FMCSA increases the minimum level
of CMV driving or instructional experience from one year, as proposed,
to two years. Accordingly, the rule requires that BTW instructors hold
a CDL of the same (or higher) class, with all endorsements necessary to
operate the CMV for which training is to be provided, and have either a
minimum of two years of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the
same or higher class and/or the same endorsement or at least two years
of experience as a BTW CMV instructor. In addition, as proposed in the
NPRM, BTW instructors must meet all applicable State requirements for
CMV instructors. Accordingly, nothing in the final rule prohibits
States from imposing more stringent qualifications for BTW instructors,
such as a requirement that they have at least five years of CMV driving
experience.
FMCSA believes this approach, which reflects the ELDTAC's
preference for at least two years of CMV driving or BTW instruction
experience, as well as the opinion of numerous commenters, establishes
a sufficient minimum qualification standard for BTW instructors. We
also note that the instructional requirements described above are now
incorporated directly into the definition of ``BTW instructor'' in
Sec. 380.603, rather than in the definition of ``experienced driver,''
as proposed. Consequently, the term ``experienced driver'' does not
appear in the final rule.
Finally, we note the final rule does not include the requirement,
proposed in the NPRM, that certain BTW instructors must have completed
training in the public road portion of the curriculum in which they are
instructing. The Agency believes the higher level of CMV driving
experience now required makes that additional requirement unnecessary.
b. Theory Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
Comments: The NY DMV requested that FMCSA clarify how the proposed
definition of ``experienced driver'' applies to theory instructor
qualification requirements.
FMCSA Response: As noted above, the final rule does not use the
term ``experienced driver.'' The qualifications for theory instructors
are now incorporated directly into the definition of ``theory
instructor'' in Sec. 380.605. Under the final rule, theory instructors
must hold a CDL of the same (or higher) class, and with all
endorsements necessary, to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided, and have a minimum of two years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of that class or endorsement or at least two years of
experience as a BTW CMV instructor. The NPRM proposed that theory
instructors have a minimum of one year of CMV driving or instruction
experience. The two-year level of CMV driving or instruction experience
is thus commensurate with the BTW instructor qualifications described
above.
In addition, FMCSA deletes the proposed qualification that theory
instructors must have audited or instructed the portion of theory
training that they intend to provide. On further consideration, we
concluded that this qualification standard is insufficient because it
does not require that the theory instructor have actual CMV driving or
instructional experience. In the final rule, the Agency adds an
exception to the theory instructor qualifications set forth in Sec.
380.605: An instructor is not required to hold a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV
for which training is to be provided, as long as the instructor
previously held a CDL of that class and meets all other qualification
requirements. The Agency makes this change in order to permit retired
CMV drivers, who may have many years of experience operating a CMV but
who no longer hold a CDL, to provide theory instruction. As noted
below, this change responds to a comment regarding the valuable
experience that such drivers possess.
The final rule requires that, as proposed, theory instructors must
also meet any applicable State requirements for CMV instructors.
However, today's rule includes a limited exception to that requirement
when online theory training is provided. Because the nature of online
training makes it available literally anywhere there is an internet
connection, it would be impractical to expect an online provider to
meet multiple (and possibly conflicting) State-based requirements
pertaining to CMV theory instructors. Therefore, State-based
qualification requirements otherwise applicable to theory instructors
would not apply to those instructors who provide content for online
providers. The Agency adds a requirement pertaining to theory providers
who offer online content in any of the theory curricula included in
today's rule: They must ensure that the online theory curriculum
content is prepared and/or delivered by theory instructors who meet the
qualifications described above (e.g., two years of CMV driving or BTW
instruction experience).
c. Additional Instructor Qualification Issues
Comments: Truckers for a Cause suggested that ``older experienced
drivers who may no longer be able to obtain a DOT medical card'' be
able to qualify as instructors under the final rule.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA adds an exception to the BTW instructor
qualifications in today's rule: A BTW instructor who provides training
on a range that is not a public road does not need to hold a CDL of the
same or higher class, and with all endorsements necessary, for which
training is to be provided, as long as he or she previously held a CDL
of the same or higher class, and with all endorsements necessary to
operate the vehicle for which training is to be provided, has at least
two years of CMV driving experience or CMV instruction experience,
meets applicable State requirements, and meets the driving history
requirements for BTW instructors, as discussed below. This limited
exception allows older drivers, some of whom may be retired from
driving or are no longer medically qualified to operate a CMV on a
public road, to teach entry-level drivers during the range portion of
BTW training. However, since any instructor who provides BTW range
training on a public road or BTW public road training would need to
hold a CDL, this exception would not apply to training conducted under
either of those circumstances. (See Sec. 380.605 for BTW instructor
qualifications and requirements.)
26. BTW Instructors' CMV Driving History
The NPRM proposed that within the past two years, BTW instructors
must not have had any CMV-related convictions for the offenses
identified in Sec. 383.51(b) through (e). It also required
[[Page 88764]]
training providers to utilize public road BTW instructors whose driving
records meet applicable Federal and State requirements.
Comments: All comments addressing this issue agreed that a BTW
instructor's driving record is relevant in determining whether the
instructor is qualified. Both DMTA and DTCC commented that, because of
the serious nature of the offenses identified in Sec. 383.51(b)
through (e), any driver disqualified for any of those offenses should
be permanently barred from engaging in BTW instruction. OOIDA commented
that three of the offenses proposed as a basis for disqualifying a BTW
instructor (i.e., speeding excessively, following the vehicle ahead too
closely, and railroad-highway grade crossing offenses) have the
potential to be ``cited incorrectly'' and thus should not be relied on
to determine an instructor's qualification. OOIDA also suggested that
the time period for disqualifying offenses should be five years, rather
than two years as proposed.
An individual driver stated that instructors should ``have no
record of theft or violence of any kind, nor have had any record of
drug use or DUI.'' The NY DMV noted that, in addition to the offenses
identified in Sec. 383.51(b) through (e), ``there are many other
factors on a driving record that would make an instructor undesirable,
including, but not limited to, other sanctions, fraud, non-CMV
violations, and accidents,'' suggesting that FMCSA strengthen the
provision pertaining to an instructor's prior driving record. The ODOT
asked what is meant by the proposed requirement that an instructor's
driving record meet ``applicable Federal and State requirements.''
FMCSA Response: In an effort to both simplify and clarify this
provision, today's rule states that if an instructor's CDL has been
suspended, revoked, or cancelled due to any of the disqualifying
offenses identified in Sec. 383.51, the instructor is prohibited from
engaging in BTW instruction for two years following the date his or her
CDL is reinstated following the disqualification. Anyone who loses the
privilege to drive a CMV due to engaging in any of these unsafe driving
behaviors should not be entrusted to teach entry-level drivers how to
safely operate a CMV.
The Agency believes that the standard for BTW instructor
disqualification is more appropriately based on CDL suspension,
revocation, or cancellation, rather than on CMV-related convictions, as
proposed. This change reflects the fact that under Sec. 383.51,
certain offenses require more than one conviction before a driver's CDL
is suspended, cancelled, or revoked, while other offenses result in
loss of CDL driving privileges after the first conviction. The outcome
therefore varies according to the severity of the underlying offense.
Therefore, BTW instructor disqualification is based on the loss of CDL
driving privileges due to unsafe driving behaviors.
We also note that the NPRM's proposed requirement that a BTW
instructor's driving record meet ``applicable Federal and State
requirements'' has been deleted from the final rule. FMCSA concludes
the language is unnecessary in light of the reference to ``applicable
State requirements for CMV instructors'' in the definition of ``BTW
instructor'' in Sec. 380.605.
Finally, FMCSA reiterates that States are permitted to impose more
stringent BTW instructor requirements.
27. ``De-Certification'' of ELDT Instructors
Comments: The NY DMV noted that the NPRM did not include processes
related to the ``de-certification'' or reinstatement of ELDT
instructors.
FMCSA Response: Under today's rule, FMCSA has no role in certifying
training instructors. The final rule defines a minimum qualification
standard for BTW and theory instructors, but leaves it up to the
training provider to determine whether those qualifications, as well as
any applicable State requirements, are met. Further, FMCSA is not in a
position to evaluate a training provider's compliance with State
requirements. As part of the self-certification process, training
providers must attest, under penalty s of perjury, that they comply
with the requirements of Sec. Sec. 380.703 and 380.719 in order to be
eligible for initial and continued listing on the TPR. Those
requirements include utilizing BTW and/or theory instructors meeting
the criteria set forth in Sec. 380.713. Failure to meet State
requirements could result in the training provider's removal from the
TPR.
28. Self-Certification of Training Providers
As proposed, in order to be listed on the TPR, a training provider
must meet the applicable eligibility requirements set forth in subpart
G and electronically submit a completed Training Provider Registration
Form affirming, under penalty of perjury, that the provider will teach
the FMCSA-prescribed curriculum that is appropriate for the CDL class
or endorsement. FMCSA did not propose that training providers be
accredited by a third-party organization in order to be eligible for
listing on the TPR.
Comments: Commenters strongly supported the concept of training
provider self-certification. ATA supported the proposed requirement
that training providers self-certify because it will ensure there are
an adequate number of training providers available when the rule is
fully implemented. Furthermore, ATA believed that periodic audits will
confirm that these training providers are offering fully compliant
programs.
The NMFTA was also supportive. It stated that while self-
certification processes are ``commonly viewed as suspect,'' in this
case FMCSA has proposed adequate safeguards to ensure they are
meaningful. NMFTA cited the proposed documentation retention
requirements and on-site audits or investigations by FMCSA as
additional enhancements to program integrity.
ATD supports the self-certification proposal because a third-party
accreditation mandate would be too bureaucratic, inflexible, and
costly. They also noted that an accreditation model could result in an
insufficient supply of training options to meet industry demands.
The Agency did not receive any comments opposing self-
certification.
FMCSA Response: In today's rule, FMCSA retains the self-
certification approach for training providers, as proposed in the NPRM.
In response to specific comments, the Agency clarified some of the data
elements to be included in the Training Provider Registration Form,
which are discussed immediately below.
29. Training Provider Identification Form and Related Information
Requirements
The proposed Training Provider Identification Report form (TPID
form), available in the NPRM docket, was designed to capture the
information necessary for registration on the TPR, such as identifying
business and training facility information, training provider type
(e.g., in-house, for-hire), and type of CDL training offered (i.e.,
specific CDL class or endorsement). The TPID also included a section
titled ``Third-Party Quality Control,'' in which providers could
indicate the CMV driver training third-party certification or
accreditation organizations with which they are affiliated. The
proposed form identified three organizations by name (i.e., PTDI, CVTA,
and NAPFTDS) and also provided a blank space in which applicants could
specifically identify other third-party groups to which they
[[Page 88765]]
belong. The NPRM proposed that training providers report changes in key
information within 30 days of the change and biennially submit an
updated TPID form to FMCSA. The Agency also noted that the TPR would
provide a way for individuals seeking training to find an eligible
provider meeting their specific needs.
Comments: The State of Michigan supports the requirement for
training providers to report each training location (Sec.
380.703(a)(6)) and that each location have some unique identifier in
the TPR, but is concerned that as proposed, the rule may not link
multiple locations to one training provider. Michigan suggested that
two ``linked sets of unique identifiers be created--one for training
providers (business entities) and another for facilities (locations
used by providers).'' UPS expressed concern about ``the lack of clarity
in the rule regarding whether each of the numerous training facilities
it operates across the United States must be separately registered''
and subject to biennial renewal of registration and other requirements
for continued listing on the TPR.
The VA DMV asked whether there ``will be an initial fee for
applicants to register'' or a fee associated with continued listing on
the TPR. Some commenters were concerned that the registration process
would be unduly burdensome and expensive. UPS said that ``[t]he
proposed rule would impose on UPS and other carriers with proven in-
house training programs the unnecessary cost and burden of ensuring
that all of it facilities meet the specific requirements'' for listing
on the TPR. The NSTA, citing ``administrative fees and burdens'' that
it expects to be associated with the registration process, urged FMCSA
to streamline the required information and registration process as much
as possible in order to minimize costs.
Dart Transportation recommended that ``motor carriers not be
required to register as certified training programs as long as [they]
use BTW trainers with at least one year of experience and otherwise
meet all DOT qualification requirements.'' UPS recommended that ``any
school operated by a motor carrier that employs more than 1000 CDL-
licensed drivers for the purpose of training drivers that the motor
carrier intends to employ, shall be conclusively presumed to satisfy
the requirements for listing on the TPR.''
The VA DMV requested that FMCSA maintain a ``publicly accessible
listing of approved training providers that includes when providers
have received a notice of proposed removal.'' The NYAPT commented that,
as proposed, the TPR will ``require many school districts to sign up as
training providers'' which ``will inflate the size of the Registry
significantly with entities that seek to train their own drivers and
who are not intending to make their services available to other
employers.''
Minnesota commented that ``[t]here will need to be communication
between the TPR registry and states that license CDL training schools
when a training school fails to follow state requirements.'' The NY DMV
asked whether the State has an affirmative obligation to inform FMCSA
if a training provider ``ceases to be certified to provide training in
that State.''
IUOE requested that FMCSA clarify that ``apprenticeship programs
and other joint labor-management programs satisfy the `third-party
quality control' section'' of the TPID Report form. IUOE also noted
that, in the NPRM, FMCSA stated its intention to provide post-rule
guidance regarding both suggested and proposed documentation
establishing a training provider's compliance with the eligibility
requirements for listing on the TPR. IUOE urged the Agency to ``resolve
issues related to third-party quality control through the rulemaking
process, rather than through post-regulatory guidance.'' The Montana
Logging Association (MLA) asked that FMCSA ``eliminate or modify the
part where training facilities need to be accredited by an educational
source.''
FMCSA Response: The Agency appreciates the comments it received on
the training provider registration process, some of which led to
revisions in the newly titled Training Provider Registration Form
(TPRF) and/or the related instructions, both available in the docket of
this rulemaking. For example, FMCSA agrees with commenters who raised
questions about the registration process for training providers with
multiple training facility locations. The Agency revises the
registration form to accommodate Michigan's suggestion that, for such
entities, linked sets of unique identifier numbers be assigned, one for
the training provider business entity and others for separate training
locations operated by that entity. FMCSA intends to minimize the
training location-specific information required for the biennial
updates for entities that maintain multiple training locations. We also
note that the TPRF is an online form that must be electronically
transmitted through the TPR Web site. The Agency will not accept paper
registrations forms.
There is no fee associated with either initial or continuing
registration on the TPR. Further, FMCSA expects that the registration
process itself will be neither burdensome nor costly, as the process is
entirely electronic and captures basic identifying and categorical
information. The Agency sees no rationale under which motor carrier-
operated training schools should be permitted to opt out of the TPR
registration requirements on the basis of their size or safety record,
as several commenters suggested. Such exceptions would defeat the very
purpose of the registration process, which is to provide FMCSA with
identifying information and to require all training providers to
attest, under penalty of perjury, that they provide ELDT in accordance
with the final rule. In addition, registration is necessary to allow
for the electronic transmission of training certification information
to the TPR.
FMCSA acknowledges that some training providers, including those
who provide ELDT only for their own employees or prospective employees,
may wish to keep their contact information private and therefore not
have it publicly displayed on the TPR Web site. Accordingly, training
providers who do not intend to make their services available to all
driver-trainee applicants can elect not to include their contact
information in the public listing that appears on the TPR Web site.
This option will be made available at the time of initial registration
and can be changed anytime the provider so chooses. Because these
training providers do not wish to be contacted by driver-trainee
applicants, they will be listed on the TPR Web site simply by name,
city, and State. We note, however, that it is important that all
training providers eligible to deliver training that complies with
today's rule be publicly listed, so that driver-trainee applicants will
have a reliable means of confirming the provider's eligibility. The
publicly available information on the TPR may be accessed by anyone, at
no cost. A provider listed on the TPR is eligible to provide ELDT once
it has been assigned a unique training provider ID number. However, the
Agency emphasizes that, as explained above in the discussion of the
self-certification approach adopted in today's rule, merely because a
training provider is listed on the TPR does not mean that FMCSA
certifies or otherwise ``approves'' that provider's operations.
Prospective entry-level drivers are thus encouraged to perform their
own due diligence before selecting a suitable training provider.
The Agency agrees with the VA DMV's suggestion that training
providers who have received a notice of
[[Page 88766]]
proposed removal should be publicly identified on the TPR Web site. The
final rule requires, as proposed, that training providers who receive a
notice of proposed removal under Sec. 380.723(b) to inform current
driver-trainees, as well as those scheduled for future training, of the
proposed removal. However, FMCSA believes this information should also
be available on the TPR Web site as an additional means of putting
prospective students on notice that the Agency issued a notice of
proposed removal to a training provider listed on the TPR. In the event
that FMCSA withdraws the notice, the Agency would remove the
designation that a notice was issued. FMCSA adds this provision to
Sec. 380.723(b) of the final rule.
Several commenters asked whether a State must inform the Agency
whenever a CMV driver training provider licensed, certified, or
otherwise approved by that State no longer complies with the applicable
requirements imposed by the State. The answer is yes, and parts 383 and
384 are revised to make that obligation clear. This notification
requirement is necessary because FMCSA has no independent means by
which to monitor a training provider's compliance with existing State
laws and regulations. A training provider's failure to comply with the
licensure, certification, or other requirements of the State in which
it conducts training may result in that provider's removal from the
TPR.
In response to comments by MLA and IUOE, FMCSA notes that we may
have inadvertently caused confusion by labeling a section of the TPID
form as ``Third-Party Quality Control.'' As noted above, no third-party
certification or accreditation requirements for training providers were
proposed in the NPRM and none are adopted in the final rule. The
purpose of this section on the proposed TPID form was merely to
identify organizational affiliations that training providers may have.
There is no requirement that training providers belong to any third-
party group as a condition of listing on the TPR. In order to avoid
confusion going forward, FMCSA changes the name of that section of the
registration form from ``Third-Party Quality Control'' to ``Third-Party
Affiliations.'' We also add ``joint labor-management programs'' to the
list of third-party organizations identified in this section of the
form.
FMCSA further clarifies that the Agency does not intend to issue
post-rule guidance pertaining to ``third-party quality control''. The
guidance to which we referred in the NPRM concerned the specific
documentation requirements set forth in Sec. 380.725. In light of the
clarifying changes made in Sec. 380.725 of the final rule discussed
below, the Agency believes that post-rule guidance on training provider
documentation requirements is unnecessary. In addition, draft
instructions accompanying the TPRF, available in the docket for this
rulemaking, provide detailed descriptions of the categories of
information required for registration on the TPR.
30. Timeframe to Electronically Transmit ELDT Certification Information
FMCSA proposed that all training providers must upload training
certificates to the TPR by close of the next business day after the
driver-trainee completes the training.
Comments: The Delaware DOE stated that not all of its certified
trainers have the hardware or software to transmit certificates.
Delaware DOE, DMTA, and DTCC asserted the requirement to notify FMCSA
by the next day will not be possible in all cases. DMTA and DTCC
favored allowing training providers up to one week to upload training
certification. Werner requested that the time for electronic
transmission of certificates be extended beyond what was proposed,
noting that ``[a] potential daily requirement to complete and upload
training certificates is an unreasonable and potentially expensive
administrative burden on training providers.'' AAMVA recommended that
``instead of using the subjective timing of when a business day
`closes,' FMCSA [should] instead use `midnight of the next business
day'.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges that, for a variety of reasons,
training providers may need more than one business day to transmit the
training certification information to the Agency through the TPR.
Accordingly, in today's rule, training providers have until midnight of
the second business day after a driver-trainee completes training to
electronically transmit the ELDT certification to the TPR. In addition,
the final rule requires that providers electronically submit training
certification information, as defined in Sec. 380.717, to the TPR
through an online form, rather than uploading the training certificate,
as proposed. FMCSA believes this method of data transmission is more
efficient and ensures that the required informational elements will be
uniformly understood and reported.
31. FMCSA's Transmittal of ELDT Certification and Related Information
Requirements
As proposed, following a driver-trainee's completion of ELDT
administered by a training provider listed on the TPR, the provider
will electronically transmit to the TPR a certificate of completion
which contains specified information, including the driver-trainee's
name, CLP/CDL number and the CDL class and/or endorsement training the
driver-trainee received. FMCSA would then instantaneously transmit the
certificate to the SDLA via CDLIS for entry into the appropriate driver
record. In the NPRM, the Agency indicated that it would not retain a
copy of the trainee certificate in any Agency system of records. For
Class A or B CDLs or P, S, or H endorsements issued after the
compliance date of the final rule, FMCSA proposed that, before issuing
a CDL, States be required to initiate a check with CDLIS to determine
that the applicant completed the required ELDT from a training provider
listed on the TPR.
Comments: A number of commenters had questions related to the
process by which SDLAs would confirm that a CDL applicant completed the
required ELDT. AAMVA and the ODOT asked whether SDLAs would be
permitted to accept paper training certificates. Other commenters
recommended that FMCSA retain the training certificate as ``back-up''
documentation in the event the SDLAs do not receive the information or
there is a verification problem. The Connecticut DMV asked FMCSA to
clarify how States will be notified when the Agency removes a training
provider from the TPR.
AAMVA noted further that it is unclear how quickly the SDLAs would
be notified after the ELDT certificate is uploaded to the TPR and
requested that the Agency clarify the time frame in the final rule.
AAMVA also asked FMCSA to clarify how long SDLAs have to post the ELDT
certificates and for what length of time the States must retain the
information. South Dakota DPS commented that if license examiners must
record the training certificate when the driver applied for a CDL,
there would be longer wait times at examining stations, requiring
States to hire additional staff. The ABA asked whether FMCSA intends to
make ELDT certificates available to motor carriers seeking to hire
qualified drivers.
The NY DMV commented that FMCSA ``has not set any regulations or
guidelines as to the establishment of [the TPR] or the integration of
the transmittal of TPR certification data to
[[Page 88767]]
CDLIS.'' AAMVA noted that, while Sec. 380.717 identified the
information that a training provider must submit to the TPR, the NPRM
did not include a list of proposed data elements that need to be posted
to the CDLIS driver record. AAMVA requested that FMCSA clarify ``which
data elements CDLIS and the SDLAs will be required to accommodate.''
ODOT observed that, because CDLIS does not retain CDL issuance history,
``after only a few years, every driver will appear to be under the
training requirement.'' Accordingly, ODOT suggested that the Agency add
specific data elements for recording in CDLIS, such as whether the ELDT
requirements applied to an individual driver as of the compliance date
of the final rule and what class of CDL and/or endorsements the driver
received.
ATA commented that ``[i]t is imperative that training providers are
able to electronically transmit training certificates to the SDLAs, and
that the SDLAs are able to append the certificate, or confirmation
thereof, to the driver's [CDLIS] record prior to implementation of this
rule.'' Similarly, NY DMV recommended that the TPR be ``fully
established and operational to integrate the training certifications to
CDLIS prior to'' the compliance date of the final rule. AAMVA suggested
that the TPR send an inquiry to CDLIS to verify that the training
certification can be matched to a CDLIS Master Pointer record prior to
the TPR's transmission of ELDT certification to the SDLA.
FMCSA Response: In the final rule, FMCSA will not, as proposed,
transmit the training certificate to the States through CDLIS for entry
on the driver's record. Instead, the Agency intends to provide the
relevant ELDT certification information through data elements added to
CDLIS that will be entered by the SDLAs directly onto the driver's
record. At a minimum, these additional data elements will include the
training provider's unique ID number (assigned upon initial listing on
the TPR), the date the applicant completed applicable ELDT, and the
type of ELDT the applicant received (e.g., Class A, Class B and/or the
P, S, or H endorsements). The Agency intends to transmit the training
certification information as soon as FMCSA confirms the information is
complete. Under this approach, States will not be required to verify
that the applicant received ELDT from a training provider on the TPR,
as proposed. Consequently, there is no need for FMCSA to notify States
if a provider in their State is removed from the TPR. SDLAs will simply
need to confirm, by checking the applicant's driver record, that he or
she has completed requisite ELDT before allowing the individual to take
the applicable skill test(s) or, in the case of the H endorsement, the
knowledge test. In addition, the final rule does not require that
States separately retain the training certification information, since
the relevant data will be entered directly onto the driver's record
through CDLIS.
Contrary to the position that FMCSA expressed in the NPRM, the
Agency will retain the training certification information
electronically transmitted to the TPR. Upon consideration, FMCSA
believes retention of this information is prudent in the event that
data transmission to CDLIS is unsuccessful, as several commenters
noted. Further, as noted previously, the Agency intends to use the
specific training information contained in the certificates to assess
the impact of ELDT on motor carrier safety and to monitor the
effectiveness of individual training providers. FMCSA will not make
individual driver-trainee ELDT certification information available
through the TPR to potential employers or any entity other than the
SDLAs. The means by which FMCSA will protect the personally
identifiable information (PII) contained in the training certification
information is discussed in the Privacy Impact Assessment associated
with this rulemaking.
The Agency will not issue paper training certificates for use by
the SDLAs; FMCSA's transmittal of ELDT certification information to the
SDLAs will be entirely electronic through CDLIS. The Agency believes
that the use of paper training certificates is susceptible to fraud.
Accordingly, in the final rule, FMCSA revises Sec. 383.73(b)(10) to
clarify that States must accept only electronic notification of ELDT
certification. However, today's rule does not prohibit training
providers from issuing paper certificates to individual driver-
trainees, who may wish to have their own documentation of ELDT
completion.
The comments submitted by SLDAs and training providers have raised
important questions and concerns regarding the transmittal of ELDT
certification information to the States through CDLIS. Many of the
operational details will necessarily be developed during the
implementation phase of the TPR, and the Agency will take these
comments into account during that process. In addition, FMCSA will work
closely with AAMVA and the SDLAs during the implementation phase to
address these issues in a way that minimizes the administrative burden
on States to the greatest possible extent.
a. Separate Training Providers
The NPRM permitted theory and BTW training to be delivered by
separate providers. The Agency noted that it ``would not transmit
training certification to the SDLA until it receives notice of
successful completion of both theory and BTW (range and public road)
training, when applicable.'' (81 FR 11960)
Comments: The NY DMV wanted to know whether, if the training is
completed by two different providers, both providers would be required
to complete a training certification. If so, how would separate
certifications ``be reconciled for transmittal of a single
certification of driver training completion to CDLIS?'' NY DMV
recommended that ``the training certification not be issued and pushed
to CDLIS until both components of the training are completed.''
Similarly, the CA DMV noting that ``[t]he proposed language seems to
indicate the DMV will receive multiple electronic completion notices
when separate training providers deliver the theory and BTW training,''
commented that ``it would be less complicated if the states only
receive one certification per curriculum.''
FMCSA Response: If a driver-trainee completes BTW and theory
training delivered by two separate providers, each provider must
transmit its certification to the TPR. The Agency will not transmit
notice of ELDT certification through CDLIS until both portions of the
training are completed. Therefore, as the NY and CA DMVs suggested,
there will be a single notification to SDLAs indicating that the CDL
applicant complies with applicable ELDT requirements. We also note
that, as discussed above, today's rule requires that the range and
public road components of BTW training be obtained from the same
training provider.
32. Audits, Investigations, and Documentation Requirements--FMCSA's
``Authorized Representative''
As proposed, one of the requirements that training providers must
meet in order to remain listed on the TPR is to allow an audit or
investigation of their operations conducted by FMCSA or its authorized
representative (Sec. 380.719(a)(6)). Training providers must also
ensure that all required documentation is available upon request by
FMCSA or its authorized representative.
Comments: Several commenters questioned the meaning of the term
``authorized representative'' as used in
[[Page 88768]]
the NPRM. The NY DMV commented that it ``does not have the funding or
the resources & expertise to undertake such a task if FMCSA decided to
utilize state agencies.'' The Nebraska DMV stated that ``SDLAs not be
considered an `authorized representative' now or any time in the
future,'' requesting that FMCSA make this clear in the final rule.
FMCSA Response: The provisions in Sec. 380.719(a)(6) and (7),
cited above, remain unchanged in the final rule. By using the term
``authorized representative'', FMCSA does not intend to impose any
audit, investigation, or documentation inspection requirement on the
States. The term simply indicates that the Agency may fulfill these
functions by using third party representatives as appropriate.
33. Involuntary Removal From the TPR--Due Process
As proposed, Sec. 380.723 set forth procedures related to the
voluntary and involuntary removal of a training provider from the TPR.
Comments: Driver Holdings LLC (Driver Holdings) noted that under
proposed Sec. 380.723, any training provider to whom FMCSA issues a
notice of proposed removal must notify current students, as well as
students scheduled for future training, of the proposed removal ``and
all training after that date is not compliant.'' Driver Holdings
commented that Sec. 380.723 ``does not appear to provide due process''
because ``[t]here does not seem like there is an opportunity for the
[training provider] to correct the problem, short of suspending its
program.''
FMCSA Response: The procedures set forth in Sec. 380.723 are
largely retained as proposed. Under Sec. 380.723(b), FMCSA initiates
the process for removing a training provider by issuing a notice of
proposed removal from the TPR, setting forth the reasons for the
proposed removal and any corrective actions necessary for the provider
to remain listed on the TPR.
The Agency acknowledges the commenter's concern that the proposed
language does not appear to afford the training provider an opportunity
to correct noted deficiencies ``short of suspending its program.'' In
response, FMCSA deletes the proposed language in Sec. 380.703(b)
stating that ``no training conducted after issuance of a notice of
proposed removal will be considered to comply with this subpart until
FMCSA withdraws the notice.'' Accordingly, under the final rule,
training providers who receive a notice of proposed removal can
continue to conduct training during the period in which they are
undertaking the necessary corrective actions, which is generally 60
days. However, the final rule requires, as proposed, that providers who
receive a notice of proposed removal must inform driver-trainees
currently enrolled in training, as well as those scheduled for future
training, of the proposed removal. In addition, as noted below, FMCSA
will indicate on the TPR Web site that it has issued a notice of
proposed removal to the training provider. (The Agency will remove that
notation from the TPR Web site if it withdraws the notice.) If FMCSA
subsequently removes the provider from the TPR because it did not
respond to the notice or proposed removal within 30 days, or because it
did not complete the required corrective actions, any training
conducted after the date of removal is invalid.
In the Agency's judgment, this approach balances the needs of
training providers who wish to correct deficiencies in their program
and driver-trainees who are already receiving training from a provider
to whom FMCSA issues a notice of proposed removal. Finally, we note
that, under the emergency removal procedures in Sec. 380.723(e), FMCSA
can immediately remove any training provider engaged in fraud, criminal
behavior or when the public interest or safety requires.
The rest of Sec. 380.723(c)(1) remains largely as proposed. The
Agency, therefore, believes that the final rule offers training
providers significant due process protections which allow them to: (1)
Respond to the notice of proposed removal by explaining why the
proposed removal is not warranted or by agreeing to take specified
corrective actions; (2) conduct training following issuance of the
notice of proposed removal (3) avoid removal from the TPR by taking
prescribed corrective actions; (4) request administrative review of
removal; and (5) apply for reinstatement to the TPR no earlier than 30
days after involuntary removal.
34. Scheduling the State-Administered CDL Skills Test
The NPRM did not address when a driver-trainee may schedule his or
her State-administered CDL skills test. Under existing regulations, a
CLP holder is not eligible to take the CDL skills test in the first 14
days after initial issuance of the CLP (Sec. 383.25(e)). However, part
383 does not prohibit a CDL applicant from scheduling a skills test
before that date.
Comments: Several commenters suggested that driver-trainees should
be permitted to schedule skills testing prior to the completion of the
required ELDT and urged FMCSA to address the issue in the final rule.
Most commenters cited State CDL skill testing delays as the reason for
their request that scheduling be permitted before ELDT is completed.
FMCSA Response: The final rule does not prohibit an applicant from
scheduling a skills test in advance of his or her completion of the
required training. However, the rule is very clear that a State may not
administer a skills test until a driver-trainee completes the training
for the CDL or endorsement for which he or she is applying. Today's
rule will better prepare the applicant to take the skills test, thereby
reducing the chance of failure and the need to take the test more than
once.
35. Third-Party Skills Testers--Verification of ELDT Certification
The NPRM did not address whether, or how, a third-party CDL skills
tester would access a driver-trainee's training certification
information. Under Sec. 383.75, States may currently authorize a
third-party tester to administer the CDL skills tests, as long as
specified conditions are met.
Comments: AAMVA commented that, as an agent of the State, a third-
party CDL skills tester would need to verify that the applicant
completed the required ELDT, but noted that ``[n]o consideration of
this verification process by third-party providers is included in the
NPRM . . .'' AAMVA suggested that, in the final rule, FMCSA permit
third-party testers to ``submit a search inquiry to the TPR and obtain
the necessary certificate data to administer the skills test.''
Similarly, ATA observed that, absent granting third-party skills
testers access to CDLIS, they ``would have no way to verify the course
has been completed.'' However, ATA opposed granting third-party testers
access to the TPR to obtain the information, citing privacy concerns.
The State of Michigan also noted the third-party tester's need to
confirm the ELDT certification, suggesting that the certificates be
submitted to the Commercial Skills Test Information Management System
(CSTIMS).
FMCSA Response: The Agency acknowledges that third-party skills
testers may need to obtain ELDT certification information. Currently,
however, individual States decide whether to use third parties to
administer the CDL skills test and, if so, how the third-party testers
verify the applicant's eligibility. Therefore, it would not be feasible
for the Agency to set forth third-party testing ELDT verification
requirements in today's rule. FMCSA will work with AAMVA and the SDLAs
during the
[[Page 88769]]
implementation phase to address the process by which a third-party
tester may determine whether the driver-trainee has completed the
applicable ELDT.
36. Compliance Date for ELDT Requirements
As proposed, the compliance date will be three years after the
effective date of the final rule.
Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments from State licensing
authorities asserting that three years does not allow sufficient time
for the States to make necessary adaptations to their IT systems and
record the CDL applicant's training certificate information on the
driver's record through CDLIS. The State of Michigan commented that,
``[g]iven these training requirements have been many years in the
making, ELDT requirements should be effective 5 years (not 3) after the
effective date of the final rule.'' Noting that ``three years to
implement this program is a very short and unreasonable amount of
time,'' the Delaware DMV suggested a minimum of seven years from
publication of the final rule. Some SDLAs cited the refresher training
requirements, including the issuance of a restricted CDL, as
particularly problematic. For example, Oregon DMV stated that
``[i]ssuing a restricted CDL as described in this rulemaking would
require a very lengthy programming effort . . .''
AAMVA commented that ``[t]he registry of entry-level training
providers and the process for transmittal and acceptance of all
applicable information associated with the entry-level training
certification must be in place before the compliance date.'' AAMVA
requested that the three year compliance date be specifically
predicated on the completion of all process and functional requirements
associated with the final rule. Similarly, the Connecticut DMV asked
the Agency to extend the compliance date ``until all process
requirements of the rule and [the TPR] are functional.'' The NY DMV
also commented that the compliance date should be tied directly to the
functionality of the TPR, suggesting that the date be no earlier than
one year after the ``fully established and operational training
Registry.''
In addition to SDLAs, several other commenters expressed concern
regarding the proposed compliance date. The NYAPT commented that FMCSA
could place the State licensing agencies in the difficult position of
having to implement requirements before the related systems changes are
fully operational. UMA reminded the Agency ``of the importance of a
fully functional electronic system between schools, FMCSA and states
prior to full implementation.''
FMCSA Response: The compliance date of today's rule remains as
proposed, three years after the effective date of the final rule. While
FMCSA acknowledges the implementation concerns raised by commenters,
the Agency nevertheless believes that three years allows adequate time
for the States to pass implementing legislation and modify their
technology platforms accordingly. FMCSA intends to work closely with
AAMVA to address CDLIS-related implementation issues as expeditiously
as possible and to provide post-rule implementation guidance to assist
SDLAs in addressing specific implementation issues. Further, we note
that because the final rule does not include a refresher training
requirement (as proposed), SDLAs will not need to modify their systems
in order to issue restricted CDLs for the purpose of completing BTW
refresher training on a public road.
Finally, unlike FMCSA's phased approach to the Medical
Certification and National Medical Registry implementation, the Agency
will not provide SDLAs with paper training certificates, nor will SDLAs
be permitted to accept paper certificates as evidence of ELDT
compliance. Accordingly, FMCSA believes that the underlying information
systems can be integrated and operational by the compliance date of
today's rule.
37. Bond Requirements for Training Providers
The NPRM did not propose any bond requirements for training
providers listed on the TPR. However, in the preamble, the Agency noted
that the ELDTAC considered the effect of a training provider's
involuntary removal from the TPR on driver-trainees who had already
paid tuition, but had not yet completed their training. The ELDTAC
determined the issue should be resolved between the training provider
and the driver-trainee.
Comments: The Virginia DMV and the ODOT both expressed concern
about the NPRM's lack of consumer protection for a driver-trainee who
paid tuition to a training provider that, due to non-compliance with
today's rule, is involuntarily removed from the TPR before the driver-
trainee completes his or her training. The commenters suggested that
training providers be required to submit a surety bond in order to
provide recourse to driver-trainees under such circumstances. The ODOT
noted that, in the absence of a bond requirement, driver-trainees will
look to their State licensing or education authorities, neither of
which would be in a position to offer assistance. In support of its
request for a bond requirement for training providers, the ODOT cited
an FMCSA regulation requiring third-party CDL skills testers to
maintain a bond.
FMCSA Response: As noted above, the NPRM did not require training
providers to maintain a surety bond in order to be eligible for listing
on the TPR and neither does today's rule. The Agency agrees with the
ELDTAC's assessment that the issue of tuition reimbursement related to
the training provider's involuntary removal from the TPR is
appropriately addressed directly by driver-trainees and the training
providers they choose. Prudent driver-trainees will assess the
provider's training operations before making a financial commitment.
Potential sources to assist in such evaluation include State or local
consumer protection agencies, third party training accreditation
entities, State Departments of Education or Transportation, and the
U.S. Department of Education. We also note that the final rule does not
prohibit a State from requiring a training provider to post or maintain
a surety bond as a condition of doing business in that State.
The bond requirement for third-party skill examiners, referenced by
the ODOT, is not an appropriate precedent for requiring training
providers to maintain a bond under today's rule. Section
383.75(a)(8)(v), provides that when the State has an agreement with a
third party to administer CDL skills testing, that agreement must
include a provision requiring the third-party tester to initiate and
maintain a bond, in an amount determined by the State, sufficient to
pay for re-testing drivers in the event the third-party is involved in
fraudulent activities related to conducting skills testing for CDL
applicants. That bond requirement is therefore part of a contractual
agreement between the State and third-party, non-government entities
who provide testing services for the State.
No contractual relationship exists between a training provider and
FMCSA. In order to be eligible for listing on the TPR, training
providers need only attest, under penalty of perjury, that they meet
the eligibility criteria to provide ELDT and that they agree to comply
with other requirements set forth in subpart G. This self-certification
approach is very different from the way that third-party CDL skills
examiners are regulated under part 383. Section 383.75 requires, for
example,
[[Page 88770]]
that States authorizing third-party testers to conduct CDL skills
testing do the following: (1) Perform onsite inspections of the
testers; (2) periodically validate the legitimacy of the testers'
skills testing operations; (3) include specified contractual provisions
in agreements between the State and the third-party; and (4) take
prompt remedial action against testers failing to comply with CDL
program standards. Since today's rule does not impose any similar
regulatory requirements related to the oversight of training providers,
the Agency does not believe there is sufficient basis to implement a
bond requirement related to ELDT.
However, the Agency recognizes that driver-trainees should be
timely informed about the status of providers from whom they obtain, or
plan to obtain, ELDT. The final rule requires, as proposed, that
training providers inform driver-trainees currently enrolled in
training, as well as those scheduled for future training, of the
proposed removal (Sec. 380.723(b)). Further, as noted above, the
Agency adds a provision to Sec. 380.723(b) stating that, if the
provider is listed on the TPR Web site, FMCSA will indicate on the Web
site that it has issued a notice of proposed removal to the provider.
(In the event that FMCSA withdraws the notice, that designation will be
removed from the provider's TPR listing.)
As noted above, in today's rule, FMCSA deletes the proposed
provision stating that training conducted after the Agency's issuance
of a notice of proposed removal is invalid until FMCSA withdraws the
notice. Under Sec. 380.723(b) of the final rule, training conducted
following issuance of a notice of proposed removal is generally
considered compliant until the provider is actually removed from the
TPR. Therefore, a driver-trainee in the process of receiving ELDT from
a provider to whom FMCSA issues a notice of proposed removal will very
likely be able to complete their training before the provider can be
removed, which is a minimum of 30 days following issuance of the
notice. (Any training provided after the date of removal from the TPR
is not valid.)
Further, FMCSA expects that the potential imposition of civil and
criminal penalties on training providers failing to comply with the
requirements of today's rule will, in most case, deter fraudulent
conduct. However, in the event that driver-trainees become aware of
fraudulent training operations, they are encouraged to report the
activity to the DOT Office of Inspector General (OIG). Instructions for
reporting fraud, waste and abuse are available on the OIG's Web site,
www.oig.dot.gov/hotline, and will also be available on the TPR Web
site.
38. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 requires that Federal agencies, consistent with their
mission, identify whether ``economically significant'' rules pose
environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately
affect children. In the NPRM, FMCSA stated that, while the proposed
rule was economically significant, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could in any way create an environmental or
safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.
Comment: NAPT took ``strong exception'' to the Agency's assertion
that the NPRM does not create an environmental health or safety risk
that could disproportionately affect children and therefore does not
invoke E.O. 13045. NAPT commented that the S endorsement training
requirements will lead to school bus driver shortages, resulting in
children having to find alternative and less safe means of
transportation to and from school. NAPT concluded that the NPRM would
thus create ``a very real situation that may indeed disproportionately
affect children since they are the primary beneficiaries of school bus
service.''
FMCSA Response: E.O. 13045 defines ``environmental health risks and
safety risks'' as risks that ``are attributable to products or
substances that the child is likely to come in contact with (such as
the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for
recreation, the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed
to).'' (E.O. 13045, Section 2-203.) This rulemaking does not pose any
risks ``attributable to products or substances [a] child is likely to
come in contact with.'' As previously discussed, today's rule retains
the S endorsement training requirements proposed in the NPRM. The S
endorsement curriculum is intended to enhance the safety of school bus
transportation by ensuring that all school bus drivers have the
requisite knowledge and skills to operate the vehicle safely. As we
explained in the discussion of the Agency's decision to retain the S
endorsement training requirement, we do not anticipate that this
requirement will result in reduced school bus service. FMCSA therefore
disagrees with NAPT's assertion that the rule poses a safety risk that
disproportionately affects children.
VIII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the Analysis
Opportunity Costs
Comment: An individual commenter stated that the tuition costs do
not take into account the fact that driver-trainees would not be
earning an income while they are in training, and that all training was
uncompensated time that the Agency did not account for.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA discussed this issue in Section 3.1.3
(Opportunity Cost of Time) of the RIA for the NPRM and for today's
rule. FMCSA first estimated the total amount of time that a driver-
trainee would spend in training--both theory and BTW hours--for each of
the proposed curricula. Additionally, FMCSA estimated the cost of this
time using the appropriate driver wage rate; that is, presuming that
the time driver trainees spend in training is time they could otherwise
be working as a driver.
Carrier Opportunity Cost
Comment: The NPGA stated that FMCSA did ``not account for the
opportunity cost of the propane motor carrier while the potential
driver receives training from an institution.''
FMCSA Response: FMCSA discussed this issue in Section 3.2.1
(Opportunity Cost of Entry-Level Driver Training to Motor Carriers) of
the RIA for the NPRM and for today's rule. FMCSA estimated that the
opportunity cost of the motor carriers, that is, the best alternative
to the carriers in the absence of regulatory action, would have been
the value of drivers' labor under the carriers' employ and
consequently, the carriers earning some increment of profit or value
from each of those drivers' labor hours of work.
Barrier To Entry for Prospective Drivers
Comments: FMCSA received numerous comments regarding the effect of
the proposed ELDT requirements on the supply of CMV drivers. Most of
these commenters, which included the school bus industry, custom
harvesters, the limousine industry, and some SDLAs, believe that the
rule may inhibit the entry of new drivers into the CMV industry,
thereby making it more difficult for carriers to hire drivers, and more
expensive for carriers to employ those drivers once they are hired. A
number of commenters asserted that, accordingly, the proposed rule
would exacerbate any preexisting CMV driver shortage.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not believe that today's rule will
impose a barrier to entry or exacerbate any preexisting CMV driver
shortage. As
[[Page 88771]]
discussed in Section 2.4.1 (Number of Entry-Level CDL Drivers Annually)
and Section 2.4.6 (Current Entry-Level Driver Training Efforts) of the
RIA, the rule is estimated to have minimal impact on drivers because
most of them already receive training that meets or exceeds the
requirements of today's rule, and therefore it seems unlikely that
significant barriers to entry would be imposed in the CDL driver labor
market as a result of the ELDT rule.
FMCSA's Tuition Estimate
Comment: C.R. England stated that FMCSA underestimated tuition
costs because BTW hours are more costly than theory hours, and under
the current baseline, which does not include a Federal minimum hours
requirement, the number of BTW hours in the existing training programs
identified by FMCSA would be fewer than the minimum of 30 BTW hours for
Class A training.
FMCSA Response: As explained in Section 3.1.2 (Tuition Costs) of
the RIA for today's rule, the Agency concludes that it overestimated
tuition costs in the RIA for the NPRM. In the final rule, the Agency
has eliminated the minimum hours requirement for Class A and Class B
BTW training, but retains the requirement for instructors to determine
that entry-level drivers have achieved proficiency in the required BTW
skills. FMCSA disagrees with the commenter's statement that the number
of BTW hours in existing training programs identified by FMCSA would be
fewer than the estimated average 30 hours of BTW training for the Class
A curricula and estimated average 15 hours of BTW training for the
Class B curricula that some entry level drivers will receive as a
result of this final rule. As discussed in Section 2.4.6 (Current
Entry-Level Driver Training Efforts) in the RIA, the Class A programs
provided by the approximately 865 CDL training programs identified by
FMCSA mostly consist of programs with substantially more hours of BTW,
and more hours of theory training, than the estimated average 30 hours
of BTW training for the Class A curricula and estimated 60 hours theory
in the ELDT rule. Therefore, if anything, the Agency's original tuition
estimates in the RIA for the NPRM were likely overly conservative in
that they would overestimate the cost of tuition given that both the
estimated average 30 hours of BTW training for the Class A curricula,
and the estimated 60 hours of theory training, are less than that
generally observed on average.
FMCSA acknowledges that the costs per hour for delivering BTW
training may exceed the costs per hour for delivering theory training,
given that one includes the costs of more one-on-one instruction and
observation of the student operating a CMV on the range and road, while
the other involves the costs of theory instruction which may be
provided simultaneously in a classroom setting to multiple students or
via online training. The Agency does not believe this fact is relevant
to the content of the rule or the estimates of the costs for completing
all the training necessary to obtain the CDL.
Non-Safety and Safety Benefits
Comment: An individual commenter stated that reduced fuel
consumption, while admirable, is not a safety issue, and that therefore
fuel savings should not be evaluated in the RIA.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA interprets this comment not as a challenge to
the methodology by which fuel savings were estimated, but rather more
broadly to suggest that no RIA should quantify any ancillary benefits
that would arise from regulation. The commenter is correct in that none
of the quantified benefits (fuel savings, CO2 emissions
reductions, and maintenance and repair cost savings) are primary goals
of this rule. However, it is appropriate for the Agency to quantify
each of these because they are legitimate benefits resulting from the
rule. OMB Circular A-4 encourages agencies to consider and, if
possible, monetize both ancillary benefits (i.e., favorable impacts of
the rule that are typically unrelated or secondary to the statutory
purpose of the rulemaking), and undesirable side effects or
countervailing risks (i.e., adverse consequences of a rule not already
accounted for in other direct cost estimates of the rulemaking).\21\
FMCSA's evaluation of ancillary costs, but not ancillary benefits,
would result in an incomplete and inconsistent accounting of regulatory
impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. Regulatory
Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA) stated that the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2 or
SCC) is highly uncertain and its applicability to benefit-cost analysis
is inappropriate and results in arbitrary analysis.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA disagrees with these contentions. For a
history of the development of the SC-CO2 that documents the
lengths to which the Administration has gone to ensure the scientific
accuracy and transparency of the preparation of the SC-CO2
guidance, the recent White House guidance addressing the quantification
of SC-CO2 benefits states ``Federal agencies will continue
to use the current SCC estimates in regulatory impact analysis until
further updates can be made to reflect the forthcoming guidance from
the Academies.'' \22\ We note further that FMCSA opted not to quantify
or monetize the reduction of other harmful emissions and criteria
pollutants that would result from reduced fuel consumption in order to
ensure that the aggregate environmental benefits estimated in the RIA
are conservatively low. In the RIA for today's final rule, an expanded
and enhanced fuel savings (and consequently, SC-CO2)
sensitivity analysis has been added to better reflect the uncertainty
regarding the extent to which driver training may result in fuel
savings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ ``Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Reductions,'' Shelanski, H. and Obstfeld, M. The White House, July
2015. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissions-reductions (accessed
June 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional details can be found in Section 4.1.1 (Savings from
Reduction in Fuel Consumption) and Section 4.1.2 (Monetized
CO2 Impacts--Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide Emissions) of the
RIA.
Comment: The NPGA also commented on the projected reduction in
CO2 emissions, stating that FMCSA failed to account in the
NPRM RIA for the cost or effect of the increase in CMV operations and
emissions to comply with the rule. NGPA's comment was made in the
context of a broader argument that a purely ``performance-based'' BTW
standard (which does not include a minimum number of required BTW
hours) would not result in these purported costs or effects.
FMCSA Response: In the final rule, the Agency has eliminated the
minimum hours requirement for Class A and Class B BTW training, but
retains the requirement for instructors to determine that entry-level
drivers have achieved proficiency in the required BTW skills.
Nonetheless, FMCSA disagrees with NPGA's assumption that FMCSA failed
to account for the cost or effect of an increase in CMV operations and
emissions to comply with the rule. Throughout the RIA, FMCSA
consistently applies the assumption that, in the absence of the rule,
those entry-level drivers who would continue to receive no or minimal
BTW training would be hired sooner by motor carriers and thus begin to
drive on the job sooner. Regardless of whether these entry-level
drivers are driving in the employ of motor carriers, or with
instructors providing pre-CDL BTW
[[Page 88772]]
training, fuel is combusted, CO2 is emitted, and vehicle
operational costs are incurred. The Agency therefore concludes there is
no net increase in CO2 emissions or vehicle operational
costs at the societal level resulting from this rule.
Comments: ATA and C.R. England commented that the studies FMCSA
relied on to estimate a 5 percent fuel economy improvement are
``irrelevant'' and overstate any fuel economy benefit attributable to
this rule.
FMCSA Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenters that the 5
percent fuel economy improvement is incorrect, overstated, based on
faulty premises, or lacking in relevance. In the RIA for the NPRM,
FMCSA evaluated several studies (see February 2016 RIA, pp. 79-81) that
covered a broad range of fuel economy improvements resulting from a
variety of factors impacting driver behavior. FMCSA understands that
some of those studies used approaches beyond the scope of this
rulemaking (such as in-cab feedback technologies to provide drivers
with real-time analysis of fuel economy, the use of simulators, or the
use of incentive schemes to reward fuel-efficient driving). However,
the Agency believes these studies have value because they demonstrate
that driver behavior can substantially alter fuel consumption. Again,
in order to be conservative, FMCSA, in identifying a 5 percent
reduction in fuel consumption, chose to rely on the value at the lowest
end of the estimates, which is not predicated on in-cab technologies,
incentives, simulators or other factors that could reasonably be
expected to improve fuel economy.
In Section 4.1.1 of the RIA (Savings from Reduction in Fuel
Consumption), the Agency demonstrates that the 5 percent fuel economy
benefit attributable to this final rule is conservative, because it is
predicated on only a few key training concepts, encompassed in the
Class A and Class B curricula, that could reasonably be expected to
improve fuel economy (e.g., speed management, space management and
avoidance of rapid acceleration and sudden deceleration).
Additionally, due to wide ranges of estimates in studies relevant
to the quantified benefits of the rule and the lack of studies that
specifically focus on the curricula prescribed by this rule,\23\ the
Agency presents benefits estimated under alternate benefit scenarios in
which the fuel savings, CO2 emissions reductions, and
maintenance and repair cost savings are 50 percent lower (low benefits
case) and 50 percent greater (high benefits case) than the central
benefits estimates, which are based on the 5 percent fuel economy
improvement. Further discussion of the low and high benefits cases is
presented in the RIA for today's rule (see sensitivity analyses in
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA for today's rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA,
the Agency identified a variety of relevant studies related to each
of the quantified benefits. With particular respect to the estimated
fuel and CO2 savings, the Agency was unable to identify
any studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact of Automatic Transmission on Potential Fuel Saving
Comment: ATA commented that the industry is increasingly moving
toward the use of automatic shift transmissions and that this trend
reduces the potential fuel savings that may result from ELDT.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA acknowledges that the prevalence of automatic
transmission-equipped CMVs appears to be on the rise. Although training
on shifting is expected to produce fuel savings benefits, particularly
for entry-level drivers operating manual transmission-equipped
vehicles, the Agency did not quantify this impact in its analysis.
Instead, the estimated 5 percent fuel savings attributable to this rule
is based solely on the portion of the training related to driving with
the flow of traffic. A more extensive discussion of this issue is
presented in Section 4.1.1 (Savings from Reduction in Fuel Consumption)
of the RIA.
In addition, FMCSA accounted more broadly for other external
factors related to vehicle technology by adjusting downward the
baseline fuel consumption projection to reflect the possible impact of
the joint EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Standards rule.\24\ This adjustment,
discussed in Section 4.1.1 (Savings from Reduction in Fuel Consumption)
of the RIA, ensures that the fuel savings benefits attributable to this
final rule does not overlap with benefits that would be achieved by
other emerging technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Department
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicle--Phase 2. October 25,
2016. 81 FR 73478-74274. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf (accessed October 26, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance and Repair Cost Savings
Comment: ATA claims that maintenance and repair cost savings
estimated in the RIA for the NPRM would not occur as drivers are
already required to perform pre-trip, en-route and post-trip
inspections daily to identify potential equipment failure before an
accident occurs.
Additionally, ATA commented that the RIA does not estimate the cost
of additional maintenance that would be required for the non-safety
benefits to be achieved.
FMCSA Response: The Agency excludes this element from the
estimation and monetization of maintenance and repair cost savings
attributable to this final rule, but notes in Section 4.1.3
(Maintenance and Repair Cost Savings) of the RIA for today's rule that
it may nonetheless yield some potential additional benefits that are
not quantified in the RIA. It is irrelevant that these daily
inspections are already performed in the absence of this rule. The
relevant point is that a better-informed driver, with greater
understanding of inspection procedures and of vehicle hardware, can
more readily observe and note minor maintenance needs that, if left
undetected, may eventually require more costly fixes and greater
vehicle downtime. While there is a cost associated with attention to
maintenance needs that would remain unobserved by some entry-level
drivers in the baseline, the Agency considers the benefits of that
additional maintenance to exceed the corresponding costs. Various
sources support the link between the identification of the need for
preventive maintenance and--contingent upon the performance of such
maintenance--a reduction in the likelihood and severity of breakdown
and repair costs. These sources are discussed in more detail in Section
4.1.3 (Maintenance and Repair Cost Savings) of the RIA for today's
rule. Despite this, the Agency is unable to quantify the magnitude of
the net benefit of the additional identification of necessary
preventive maintenance resulting from enhanced driver awareness
resulting from this final rule, and therefore, as noted earlier,
excludes this element from the estimation and monetization of
maintenance and repair cost savings attributable to this final rule.
Finally, the estimated decrease in maintenance and repair costs
attributable to this final rule has been reduced by approximately 75
percent relative to the RIA for the NPRM, which is discussed in more
detail in Section 4.1.3 of the RIA for today's rule.
[[Page 88773]]
Improvements in Safety That Would Occur in the Absence of This Final
Rule
Comment: C.R. England states that FMCSA did not account for the
speed at which new technology will result in improvements in CMV
safety.
FMCSA Response: The Agency assumed no growth in the absolute number
of crashes per year, despite projected growth in CMV vehicle miles
traveled. By holding this number constant throughout the analysis
period for this rule, this implicitly includes safety benefits that are
independent of this rule, such as new CMV safety technologies. For more
information, see Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits) of the RIA.
Threshold Analysis
Comments: Multiple commenters, including ATA, ODOT, NPGA, and C.R.
England, found overly optimistic the 8.15 percent reduction in crashes,
estimated in the RIA for NPRM as necessary for the costs and benefits
of the rule to be equal.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that commenters incorrectly
characterized the reduction in crashes necessary for the rule to be
cost-neutral as a reduction in the total industry-wide number of
crashes involving the operation of trucks and buses. This 8.15 percent
reduction does not mean an 8.15 percent reduction in the total number
of large truck and bus crashes. Rather, the 8.15 percent reduction is
specific to the subset of the most recent year's crash totals (2013 in
the RIA for the NPRM) involving the 14 percent of entry-level drivers
estimated to receive no pre-CDL training in the baseline. With respect
to the magnitude of the reduction in the frequency of all crashes
involving large trucks and buses relative to the 8.15 percent reduction
noted above from the NPRM, there were an estimated total 3,806 fatal,
86,000 injury, and 299,000 property damage only (PDO) crashes in
2013.\25\ Based on the annual average number of crash reductions
necessary for the NPRM to achieve cost-neutrality (11 fatal, 236
injury, and 786 PDO), this equates to the reduction of only 0.29
percent of fatal, 0.27 percent of injury, and 0.26 percent of PDO
crashes, respectively (relative to large truck and bus crash totals for
calendar year 2013).\26\ Therefore, FMCSA disagrees that the 8.15
percent reduction in the subset of crashes as presented in the RIA for
NPRM is overly optimistic. This rule requires only a small change in
behavior to have a significant impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA). 2016 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and
Bus Statistics. Pages 33 and 34. Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59100/59189/2016_Pocket_Guide_to_Large_Truck_and_Bus_Statistics.pdf (accessed
July 1, 2016).
\26\ Necessary reductions' shares of total crashes calculated as
follows: Fatal = 11 / 3,806; Injury = 236 / 86,000; PDO = 786 /
299,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA notes that these numbers have been updated in the RIA for
today's rule and can be found in Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits).
Crash Reduction Data
Comments: In the NPRM, the Agency acknowledged that ``[o]ne of the
most significant challenges faced by both FMCSA and the ELDTAC is the
limited qualitative or quantitative data correlating the provision of
any type of ELDT with positive safety outcomes, such as crash
reduction.'' There were numerous comments concerning the lack of data
linking ELDT with crash reduction and the corresponding relation to the
Agency's break-even analysis. Commenters on this issue included ATA,
C.R. England, the North Dakota DOT, Driver Holdings LLC, NRECA,
Delaware DMV, Werner, Southern Company, Virginia DMV, and the Oregon
DMV.
FMCSA Response: When it is not possible to quantify and monetize
the estimated benefits (or costs) of a rule, OMB guidance, as set forth
in Circular A-4, is to perform a threshold or break-even analysis.\27\
Other agencies have conducted threshold analyses in their regulatory
evaluations of safety training rules (noted in both the RIA for the
NPRM, and in the RIA for today's rule). These include rulemakings from
FRA, FTA, USCG, and OSHA. The 8.15 percent crash reduction the Agency
estimated in the RIA for the NPRM as necessary for the rule to be cost-
neutral is on the low end of the range relative to other agencies'
rulemakings. The Agency sought data related to the correlation between
training and safety through the ELDTAC and specifically requested such
data in the NPRM (81 FR 11959). Detailed discussion of the Agency's
efforts to obtain correlative data, and the shortcomings of data and
studies that were provided to FMCSA, are noted in Section 4.2 (Safety
Benefits) of the RIA for today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. Regulatory
Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: ATA asserted that, in the absence of correlative data,
FMCSA's use of a threshold analysis to estimate the benefits necessary
to produce a cost-neutral rule ``should have led the agency to pick the
alternative that would produce the maximum net benefit.'' ATA concluded
that the Agency's failure to analyze the ``performance-based'' Master
Trip Sheet alternative to BTW training offered by some ELDTAC members,
``would have prevailed because . . . it produces a more favorable cost
benefit analysis.''
FMCSA Response: ATA provided no analysis to support their
conclusion that an outcomes-based approach would result in lower costs.
Further, based on currently available data and information as discussed
in the RIA, FMCSA has no basis to believe that such an outcomes-based
approach would, in fact, result in lower costs. Nonetheless, in the
final rule, the Agency has eliminated the minimum hours requirement for
Class A and Class B BTW training, but retains the requirement for
instructors to determine that entry-level drivers have achieved
proficiency in the required BTW skills.
H Endorsement Benefits
Comment: Schneider National requested that FMCSA separately
quantify the benefits of the H endorsement training.
FMCSA Response: The nature of the likely benefits from the H
endorsement training is specific to safety. As explained above, FMCSA
lacked sufficient empirical data to quantify the safety benefits of the
H endorsement training; therefore, a threshold analysis is appropriate
and was performed in Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits) of the RIA.
Furthermore, as noted above, the H endorsement training is required by
MAP-21.
Training Provider Eligibility and Costs Related To Training
Comments: Many current entities that provide in-house entry-level
driver training commented that they would not be able to afford to send
their entry-level drivers to a ``formal'' CDL training school. Other
commenters that provide in-house entry-level driver training stated
that the burden to become a ``certified'' training provider is so great
that they would not be able to continue training entry-level drivers.
FMCSA Response: Any entity currently providing in-house entry-level
driver training can continue to offer such training under the rule by
becoming listed on the TPR.
FMCSA does not believe the final rule imposes a heavy burden or
cost on training providers seeking to be listed on the TPR. As
discussed above, FMCSA does not ``certify'' training providers under
the final rule, instead relying on a self-certification approach for
training providers who want to be eligible for listing on the TPR.
Training
[[Page 88774]]
provider costs are based on four separate activities: (1) Completing
the initial TPRF, (2) a biennial update to the TPRF, (3) compliance
audits, and (4) submission of certification information to the TPR. The
average cost for submitting certification information to the TPR is
estimated at about $7 per student,\28\ and the training provider's
total cost associated with submission certification information to the
TPR will vary depending on the number of students the provider trains.
FMCSA notes that the anticipated costs are greatest in the first year
and therefore uses the estimated first year costs as a basis for
determining the impact per training provider in order to ensure that
costs were conservatively estimated. Based on the information presented
in Section 3.3 (Costs to the Training Providers) of the RIA for today's
rule, we calculate that the average total cost in the first year for a
training provider that trains only one student would be approximately
$189, and the average total cost for a training provider that trains
ten students would be approximately $251.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The calculated $7 cost on a per-student basis is based on
the estimated 5 minutes necessary for a training provider to upload
certification information for an entry-level driver, multiplied by
the total hourly compensation as shown in Section 2.3.2 of the RIA
for the ``training and development managers'' occupational category
($7.17 = $86 x (5/60)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Costs Related to the Rulemaking
Comments: Some SDLAs and AAMVA commented that the proposed rule
would result in implementation costs for the States. These costs would
be related to revising CDL license processing programs, modification of
State driver records, accommodation of data transferred from the TPR,
an additional CDLIS Central Site, as well as costs associated with
ongoing maintenance of effort. The ODOT expected an impact of $1.1
million for modification of State driver-records in the State of
Oregon.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA recognizes that there will be costs
associated with CDLIS modifications and other systems-related changes
necessary for implementation of the final rule. In the RIA for the
NPRM, FMCSA estimated that the State implementation costs would total
approximately $500,000 per SDLA. In the RIA for today's rule, FMCSA
increases its estimate of the State implementation costs to $1.1
million per SDLA. For a further discussion of how FMCSA estimated these
costs, see Section 3.4 (Costs to the State Driver Licensing Agencies)
of the RIA for today's rule.
Applicability
Comments: A number of commenters, including the American
Pyrotechnics Association, NRECA, NGWA, NGPA, the New England Fuel
Institute, the Associated General Contractors of America, PMAA, and the
IUOE, observed that the analysis did not address specific industries
that fall outside of the motor carrier industry, but that nevertheless
require drivers to obtain a CDL for ancillary parts of their jobs.
FMCSA Response: In the RIA for the NPRM, FMCSA estimated the number
of entry-level CDL drivers annually using different methods, and using
data from a variety of sources (including CDLIS, and the SDLAs
themselves). These data include all entry-level CDL drivers, regardless
of the particular occupation or industry in which they are ultimately
employed. Therefore, all entry-level CDL drivers are fully represented
in FMCSA's estimate of the number of entry-level drivers annually. For
further discussion on this topic, see Section 2.4.1 (Number of Entry-
Level CDL Drivers Annually) of the RIA for today's rule.
IX. Section-By-Section Explanation of Changes From the NPRM
As discussed in the response to comments, the final rule makes the
following changes to the NPRM:
Subpart F--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements
Sec. 380.600 Compliance Date for Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Drivers
This section remains as proposed. Compliance is required with this
subpart three years after the effective date of the final rule.
Sec. 380.601 Purpose and Scope
As proposed, this subpart established training requirements for
entry-level drivers, minimum curricula contents, and standards for
training providers. It also stated that ELDT, as defined in this
subpart, applies only to individuals who apply for a CDL or CDL upgrade
or endorsement and does not otherwise amend substantive requirements in
part 383.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the reference to ``standards for
training providers'', which the Agency inadvertently included in this
section. (Training provider standards are addressed in subpart G,
discussed below.) We also make conforming changes to reflect the
revised definition of ``entry-level driver,'' as discussed below. The
provision remains otherwise unchanged.
Sec. 380.603 Applicability
The Agency makes several clarifying and conforming changes to this
section, which explains how ELDT requirements apply to drivers who
intend to operate CMVs in intrastate and/or interstate commerce.
First, in Sec. 380.603(a), we add an exception: CMV drivers
applying for removal of a restriction in accordance with Sec.
383.135(b)(7) are not subject to the training requirements set forth in
today's rule (Sec. 380.603(a)(4)).
The meaning of Sec. 380.603(b), which stated that drivers holding
a valid CDL issued before the compliance date of the final rule are not
subject to ELDT requirements, remains essentially as proposed. However,
FMCSA deletes the term ``valid CDL'' and adds clarifying language in
order to make this provision explicitly consistent with the scope of
today's rule. Accordingly, the subsection now states that anyone
holding a Class A or Class B CDL, or the passenger (P), school bus (S),
or hazardous materials (H) endorsement, issued before the compliance
date is not subject to ELDT requirements pertaining to that CDL or
endorsement. We also delete the words ``except as otherwise
specifically provided''.
Section 380.603(c)(1) proposed that individuals holding a CLP
before the compliance date of the final rule are not subject to ELDT
requirements if they obtain a CDL within 360 days of obtaining the CLP.
In the final rule, the Agency adds clarifying language to specify that
individuals who obtain a CLP before the compliance date of the final
rule are not subject to ELDT requirements if they obtain the underlying
CDL and/or endorsement to which the CLP applies before the CLP or
renewed CLP expires. As noted in the response to comments, the deletion
of ``360 days'' accounts for the fact that individual States address
the renewal of CLPs differently. Section 380.603(c)(2), which proposed
that individuals obtaining a CLP after the compliance date of the final
rule are subject to ELDT requirements, remains as proposed.
FMCSA adds new subsection Sec. 380.603(c)(3). Originally proposed
as new Sec. 383.71(a)(4), this requirement stated that, except for
individuals seeking the H endorsement, individuals successfully
completing the theory portion of the training had to complete the BTW
portion within 360 days. In the final rule, FMCSA moves this
requirement to Sec. 380.603(c) and changes ``360 days'' to ``one
year''. We also clarify that theory and BTW portions of
[[Page 88775]]
the training do not need to be taken in a particular sequence (as the
proposed language implied), as long as the two training components are
completed within one year. Accordingly, the requirement now states
that, except for individuals obtaining the H endorsement, the theory
and BTW portions of ELDT must be completed within one year of
completing the first portion.
In the final rule, the Agency deletes proposed Sec. 380.603(d),
which stated that, except for those persons subject to the proposed
refresher training requirements, a person who received ELDT qualifying
him or her to take the skills test for a CDL or endorsement would not
be required to obtain such training again before reapplying for a CDL
or endorsement. FMCSA believes that the revised definition of ``entry-
level driver'' in Sec. 380.605, discussed below, makes this provision
unnecessary.
The Agency also deletes proposed Sec. 380.603(e), which required
that a CDL holder disqualified from operating a CMV under Sec.
383.51(b)-(e) must complete refresher training as proposed in Sec.
380.625. Because the final rule does not include a refresher training
requirement, this provision is no longer necessary.
Sec. 380.605 Definitions
The Agency makes various clarifying and conforming changes to this
section, as discussed below, but does not add any new definitional
terms in the final rule.
``Behind-the-Wheel (BTW) Instructor''
As proposed, the definition of ``behind-the-wheel (BTW)
instructor'' required that the instructor be an ``experienced driver''
as defined in this section and must have completed training in the
public road portion of the curriculum in which they are instructing,
except that BTW instructors utilized by ``providers that train, or
expect to train, three or few drivers annually'' are not required to
comply with that requirement.
In the final rule's definition of BTW instructor, we delete the
reference to the term ``experienced driver'' as well as the reference
to providers training three or fewer drivers annually because the final
rule does not retain the proposed distinction between large and small
training entities.
In addition, the Agency incorporates the qualification requirements
for BTW instructors, proposed as Sec. 380.713(b) (and cross-referenced
to the proposed definition of ``experienced driver'' in Sec. 380.605),
directly into the definition of BTW instructor in the final rule. The
qualifications are also revised to reflect comments suggesting that BTW
instructors should have a minimum of two years of relevant driving or
instructional experience, rather than the one year of experience, as
proposed.
Accordingly, in the final rule, the definition of BTW instructor
means an individual providing BTW training involving the actual
operation of a CMV on a range or public road who meets one of the
following qualifications: Holds a CDL of the same (or higher) class,
and with all endorsements necessary, to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided; has a minimum of two years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of that class or endorsement; and meets
all applicable State requirements for CMV instructors; or holds a CDL
of the same (or higher) class, and with all endorsements necessary, to
operate the CMV for which training is to be provided; has a minimum of
two years of experience as a BTW CMV instructor; and meets all
applicable State requirements for CMV instructors.
In addition, FMCSA adds an exception to the definition of BTW
instructor: instructors who provide BTW training solely on a private
range are not required to currently hold a CDL of the same or higher
class and all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is provided as long as they previously held that class of CDL.
As noted in the response to comments, FMCSA makes this change to permit
non-CDL holders, such as retired CMV drivers, or CMV drivers not
medically certified, to provide training on a private range.
Finally, FMCSA revises the BTW training instructor qualification
requirement pertaining to the instructor's CMV driving record. As
proposed in Sec. 380.713(b), during the two years prior to engaging in
BTW instruction, instructors must not have had any CMV-related
convictions for the offenses identified in Sec. 383.51(b)-(e) and the
instructor's driving record must meet applicable Federal and State
requirements.
In the final rule, if an instructor's CDL has been cancelled,
suspended, or revoked due to any of the disqualifying offenses
identified in Sec. 383.51, the instructor is prohibited from engaging
in BTW instruction for two years following the date his or her CDL is
reinstated following the disqualification. FMCSA adds this provision to
the definition of ``BTW instructor'' in the final rule.
``Theory Instructor''
As proposed, ``theory instructor'' was defined as instructors who
provide knowledge instruction on the operation of a CMV and are either
an ``experienced driver'' as defined in this section or have previously
audited or instructed that portion of the theory training course they
intend to instruct.
FMCSA makes several substantive changes to this definition, as well
as conforming changes to account for the fact that, as noted above, the
definition of ``experienced driver'' is not retained in the final rule.
The qualifications for theory instructors are now incorporated directly
into the definition of the term, just as they are for BTW instructors.
In the final rule, theory instructors must hold a CDL of the same
(or higher) class, and with all endorsements necessary, to operate the
CMV for which training is to be provided, and have a minimum of two
years of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of that class or
endorsement, or at least two years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor. The NPRM proposed that theory instructors have a minimum of
one year of CMV driving or instruction experience. The two-year level
of CMV driving or instructional experience in the final rule is thus
commensurate with the revised BTW instructor qualifications described
above. The Agency also adds an exception to this definition: An
instructor is not required to hold a CDL of the same (or higher) class
and with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, as long as the instructor previously held a
CDL of that class and meets all other qualification requirements, The
Agency makes this change in order to permit retired CMV drivers, who
may have many years of experience operating a CMV but who no longer
hold a CDL, to provide theory instruction.
FMCSA also adds the following provision to the definition of''
theory instructor'' in the final rule: If an instructor's CDL has been
cancelled, suspended, or revoked due to any of the disqualifying
offenses identified in Sec. 383.51, the instructor is prohibited from
engaging in theory instruction for two years following the date his or
her CDL is reinstated following the disqualification. As noted above, a
similar provision is also included in the definition of ``BTW
instructor''. FMCSA adds the provision to the definition of ``theory
instructor'' because we believe the instructor's CMV driving record is
also a relevant qualification for individuals who provide theory
[[Page 88776]]
instruction in the safe operation of CMVs.
In addition, as discussed in the response to comments, FMCSA
deletes the proposed qualification standard a theory instructor must
have previously audited or instructed that portion of the theory
training course they intend to instruct.
``Experienced Driver''
As proposed, an ``experienced driver'' was defined as a driver who
holds a CDL of the same or higher class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be provided; has
at least one year of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the
same or higher class and/or the same endorsement or has at least one
year of experience as a BTW CMV instructor; and meets all applicable
State training requirements for CMV instructors. That proposed
definition was cross-referenced in proposed Sec. 380.713, which set
forth the theory and BTW instructor qualification requirements. As
described above, the proposed definition of ``experienced driver'' is
not retained in the final rule. The Agency revises the instructor
qualification requirements proposed in Sec. 380.713 and incorporates
them into the definitions of ``BTW instructor'' and ``theory
instructor'' in the final rule.
``Behind-the-Wheel (BTW) Range Training''/''Behind-the-Wheel (BTW)
Public Road Training''
The definitions of BTW range training and BTW road training remain
as proposed, except that FMCSA changes the term ``driver-instructor''
to ``BTW instructor'' in each definition.
``Entry-Level Driver''
As proposed, the definition of ``entry-level driver'' included a
person who must complete the CDL skills test requirements under 49 CFR
383.71 prior to receiving the initial CDL or having a CDL reinstated,
upgrading to a Class A or B CDL, or obtaining the P, S, or H,
endorsement. Individuals for whom States waive the CDL skills test
under 49 CFR 383.77 were excepted from the proposed definition.
As discussed above, the Agency received a number of comments
stating that the proposed definition was unclear. Accordingly, in the
final rule, FMCSA revises the definition of ``entry-level driver'' as
follows: An individual who must complete the CDL skills test
requirements under Sec. 383.77 prior to receiving a Class A or Class B
CDL for the first time, upgrading to a Class B or a Class A CDL, or
obtaining a P, S, or H, endorsement for the first time. FMCSA believes
that the phrase ``receiving a Class A or Class B CDL for the first
time'' is clearer than the term ``initial CDL'', as proposed. This
phrase is also consistent with the language of MAP-21, which requires
that FMCSA establish entry-level training requirements addressing the
knowledge and skills that ``must be acquired before obtaining a
commercial driver's license for the first time,'' 49 U.S.C.
31305(c)(1)(B).
The Agency deletes the reference to ``having a CDL reinstated''
primarily because the proposed refresher training requirement is not
retained in the final rule. In addition, as noted above in the
explanation of changes to Sec. 380.603(a), FMCSA adds an exception for
individual drivers applying to have a restriction removed from their
CDL. The exception for individuals for whom the States waive the skills
test under Sec. 383.77 remains as proposed.
``Entry-Level Driver Training''
FMCSA makes conforming changes to the definition of ``entry-level
driver training'' in the final rule in order to reflect the revised
definition of ``entry-level driver'' described above. Accordingly, ELDT
means training that an entry-level driver receives from an entity
listed on the TPR prior to taking the CDL skills test required to
receive a Class A or Class B CDL for the first time or upgrade to a
Class B or a Class A CDL; taking the CDL skills test required to obtain
a P and/or S endorsement for the first time; or taking the CDL
knowledge test required to obtain the H endorsement for the first time.
``Refresher Training''
As proposed, ``refresher training'' was defined as training that a
CDL holder who has been disqualified from operating a CMV must take.
For reasons explained in FMCSA's response to comments on the proposed
refresher training requirement, we delete this definition (along with
the refresher training curriculum) from the final rule.
``Training Provider''
As proposed, ``training provider'' was defined as an entity listed
on the TPR, as required by subpart G. In the NPRM preamble, FMCSA noted
that training providers could be training schools, motor carriers
providing ``in-house'' training to current or prospective employees,
local governments, or school districts.
In order to clarify that any entity meeting the eligibility
requirements set forth in subpart G can be a ``training provider,''
FMCSA revises the definition of the term in the final rule by adding
specific examples of potentially qualifying entities. Accordingly,
``training provider'' is defined as an entity listed on the TPR, as
required by subpart G; training providers include, but are not limited
to, training schools, educational institutions, rural electric
cooperatives, motor carriers, State/local governments, school
districts, joint labor management programs, owner-operators, and
individuals. As noted in our response to comments on this issue, these
examples are not intended to be a finite list; the Agency adds them to
illustrate the range of entities that could potentially be eligible for
listing on the TPR.
Sec. 380.609 General Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements
As proposed, this section explained that CDL applicants must
complete training that meets the CDL class and/or endorsement (i.e.,
Class A, Class B, P, S, or H endorsements) they wish to obtain from a
provider listed on the TPR, and that CDL holders disqualified from
operating a CMV must receive refresher training from a provider listed
on the TPR.
While the essential meaning of Sec. 380.609 remains unchanged in
the final rule, the Agency makes various conforming changes to this
section. We delete the reference to ``refresher training,'' as that
proposed requirement is not retained in the final rule. FMCSA also
clarifies that specified ELDT requirements apply to individuals who
wish to obtain a Class A or B CDL for the first time and/or a P, S, or
H endorsement for the first time. The Agency makes these changes to
conform to the revised language in Sec. 380.603 (Applicability), as
discussed above. We make other conforming changes to reflect the fact
that all of the training curricula in the final rule are included in
Appendices A-E to part 380 of the final rule and are no longer set
forth in Sec. Sec. 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621 and 380.623, as
proposed.
Sec. 380.611 Driver Training Provider Requirements
As proposed, this section stated that training providers seeking to
be listed on the TPR must meet the requirements of subpart G, attest
that they meet the requirements of this part, and supply documentary
evidence of their compliance with these requirements to FMCSA or its
authorized representative, upon request.
FMCSA deletes this section in the final rule. As proposed, the
provision applied directly to training providers; we therefore conclude
that it does not belong in subpart F. Additionally, this
[[Page 88777]]
section effectively duplicates requirements now set forth in Sec. Sec.
380.703, 380.719, and 380.725 of subpart G, discussed below.
Sec. 380.613 Class A CDL--Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the Class A training curriculum is moved to
Appendix A of part 380. Although the curriculum elements for the Class
A CDL remain largely as proposed, FMCSA makes clarifying and conforming
changes, as well as several topic-related additions and deletions, as
described below. Additionally, as discussed in the response to
comments, FMCSA deletes the requirement that driver-trainees complete a
minimum of 30 BTW hours in order to complete that portion of the
curriculum. In the introduction to the curriculum, FMCSA adds the
requirement that training providers must determine that the driver-
trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all elements of the BTW
curriculum, unless otherwise noted. This language is consistent with
the NPRM's designation of certain elements of the BTW curriculum, such
as night driving or skid control, as ``discussed during public road
training or simulated, but not necessarily performed.'' The Agency also
clarifies that training instructors must provide commentary instruction
in those elements of the BTW curriculum. FMCSA considers these
additions to be clarifying rather than substantive.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that instructors document the total
number of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee spends in completing
all elements of the BTW (range and public road) curriculum. As noted
above, the purpose of this requirement is to allow FMCSA to collect
data which will assist the Agency in assessing the effectiveness of
ELDT and in monitoring the effectiveness of training providers.
Finally, the Agency clarifies that BTW training may not be conducted by
using a driving simulation device, nor may a driver-trainee use a
simulation device to demonstrate BTW proficiency.
Additionally, in response to comments, the Agency adds two safety-
related topics to the Class A curriculum. First, ``entering and exiting
the interstate or controlled access highway'' is added to the ``Basic
control'' unit of the theory curriculum and to the ``Vehicle controls''
unit of and BTW-public road portion of the curriculum. In addition, the
Agency adds an element to the ``Railroad-highway grade crossings'' unit
in the ``Advanced operating practices'' section of the theory
curriculum, which requires that training providers instruct driver-
trainees that railroads maintain ``Emergency Notification Systems'' to
receive notification of unsafe conditions, such as a disabled vehicle
blocking the track.
The Agency deletes several topics because they are not directly
related to the safe operation of a CMV, as required by MAP-21 (49
U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)). In the ``Fatigue and wellness awareness'' unit
of the theory curriculum, the Agency deletes the following topics:
Diet, exercise, personal hygiene, stress, and lifestyle changes. In the
final rule, this unit covers the consequences of chronic and acute
driver fatigue, in addition to wellness and basic health maintenance
issues that affect a driver's ability to safely operate a CMV. In the
``Post-crash procedures'' unit of the theory curriculum, FMCSA deletes
the following topics: Responsibilities for assisting injured parties;
``Good Samaritan'' laws; a driver's legal obligations and rights,
including rights and responsibilities for engaging with law enforcement
personnel; and the importance of learning company policy on post-crash
procedures. As previously noted, training providers may address these
and other topics as they see fit, but they are not required curriculum
elements under today's rule.
FMCSA also cross-references the current FMCSRs (i.e., Sec. Sec.
392.7 and 396.11) to the description of pre-trip/post-trip inspections
in the theory and BTW-range portions of the curriculum. The Agency adds
specific examples of braking systems (i.e., hydraulic, ABS, air) ``as
applicable'' to the description of the ``Basic operation'' section of
the theory portion. We add ``as applicable'' to the description of
``coupling and uncoupling'' unit in the theory and BTW (range) portions
of the curriculum to account for the fact that there are different
types of coupling systems. The unit entitled ``Distracted driving,''
proposed as part of the ``Advanced operating practices'' section of the
Class A Theory curriculum, is moved to the ``Safe operating
procedures'' section of that curriculum; the unit descriptor remains as
proposed.
Finally, the Agency makes various clarifying and conforming changes
to the Class A curriculum in the final rule in order to improve
organizational efficiency and consistency between curricula and delete
redundancies in individual curriculum topics.
Sec. 380.615 Class B CDL--Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the Class B training curriculum is moved to
Appendix B of part 380. Although the curriculum elements for the Class
B CDL remain largely as proposed, FMCSA makes clarifying and conforming
changes, as well as several topic-related additions and deletions, as
described below. Additionally, as discussed in the response to
comments, FMCSA deletes the requirement that driver-trainees complete a
minimum of 15 BTW hours in order to complete that portion of the
curriculum. In the introduction to the curriculum, FMCSA adds the
requirement that training providers must determine that the driver-
trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all elements of the BTW
curriculum, unless otherwise noted. This language is consistent with
the NPRM's designation of certain elements of the BTW curriculum, such
as night driving or skid control, as ``discussed during public road
training or simulated, but not necessarily performed.'' The Agency also
clarifies that training instructors must provide commentary instruction
in those elements of the BTW curriculum. FMCSA considers these
additions to be clarifying rather than substantive.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that instructors document the total
number of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee spends in completing
all elements of the BTW (range and public road) curriculum. As noted
above, the purpose of this requirement is to allow FMCSA to collect
data which will assist the Agency in assessing the effectiveness of
ELDT and in monitoring the effectiveness of training providers.
Finally, the Agency clarifies that BTW training may not be conducted by
using a driving simulation device, nor may a driver-trainee use a
simulation device to demonstrate BTW proficiency.
Additionally, in response to comments, the Agency adds two safety-
related topics to the Class B curriculum. First, ``entering and exiting
the interstate or controlled access highway'' is added to the ``Basic
control'' unit of the theory curriculum and to the ``Vehicle controls''
unit of and BTW-public road portion of the curriculum. In addition, the
Agency adds an element to the ``Railroad-highway grade crossings'' unit
in the Advanced operating practices'' section of the theory curriculum,
which requires that training providers instruct driver-trainees that
railroads maintain ``Emergency Notification Systems'' to receive
notification of unsafe conditions, such as a disabled vehicle blocking
the track.
The Agency deletes several topics because they are not directly
related to the safe operation of a CMV, as required by MAP-21 (49
U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)). In the ``Fatigue and wellness
[[Page 88778]]
awareness'' unit of the theory curriculum, the Agency deletes the
following topics: Diet, exercise, personal hygiene, stress, and
lifestyle changes. In the final rule, this unit covers the consequences
of chronic and acute driver fatigue, in addition to wellness and basic
health maintenance issues that affect a driver's ability to safely
operate a CMV. In the ``Post-crash procedures'' unit of the theory
curriculum, FMCSA deletes the following topics: Responsibilities for
assisting injured parties; ``Good Samaritan'' laws; a driver's legal
obligations and rights, including rights and responsibilities for
engaging with law enforcement personnel; and the importance of learning
company policy on post-crash procedures. As previously noted, training
providers may address these and other topics as they see fit, but they
are not required curriculum elements under today's rule.
FMCSA also cross-references the current FMCSRs (i.e., Sec. Sec.
392.7 and 396.11) to the description of pre-trip/post-trip inspections
in the theory and BTW-range portions of the curriculum. The Agency adds
specific examples of braking systems (i.e., hydraulic, ABS, air) ``as
applicable'' to the description of the ``Basic operation'' section in
the theory portion. The unit entitled ``Distracted driving'', proposed
as part of the ``Advanced operating practices'' section of the Class B
theory curriculum, is moved to the ``Safe operating procedures''
section of that curriculum; the unit descriptor remains as proposed.
Finally, FMCSA makes various clarifying and conforming changes to
the Class B curriculum in the final rule in order to improve
organizational efficiency and consistency between curricula and delete
redundancies in individual curriculum topics.
Sec. 380.619 Passenger Endorsement Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the passenger (P) endorsement curriculum is
moved to Appendix C of part 380. The P curriculum remains largely as
proposed. FMCSA adds language to the introduction to the curriculum
clarifying that the training instructor must determine that the driver-
trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all elements of the BTW
curriculum. FMCSA also adds a requirement that instructors document the
total number of (clock) hours that each driver-trainees spends in
completing the BTW curriculum, for the reasons previously noted. The
Agency adds ``drawbridges'' to the ``Railroad-highway grade crossings''
topic in the theory portion of the P curriculum for consistency with
Sec. 383.111. FMCSA also cross-references the current FMCSRs (i.e.,
Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11) to the description of pre-trip/post-trip
inspections in the theory and BTW-range/public road portions of the
curriculum.
In the ``Post-crash procedures'' unit of the P endorsement theory
curriculum, FMCSA deletes the following topics: Responsibilities for
assisting injured parties; ``Good Samaritan'' laws; a driver's legal
obligations and rights, including rights and responsibilities for
engaging with law enforcement personnel; and the importance of learning
company policy on post-crash procedures. As noted above, the Agency
removes these topics from the curriculum because they are not directly
related to the safe operation of a CMV, as required by MAP-21. In
addition, FMCSA deletes paragraph (4) from the ``Baggage and/or cargo
management'' units of the theory and BTW-range and public road portions
of the curriculum, which identifies various prohibited items and
materials; in the final rule, that topic is now covered in revised
paragraph (2) of each unit.
FMCSA also makes clarifying and conforming changes to the P
curriculum in the final rule in order to improve organizational
efficiency and consistency between curricula and delete redundancies in
individual curriculum topics.
Sec. 380.621 School Bus Endorsement Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the school bus (S) endorsement curriculum is
moved to Appendix D of part 380. The S curriculum remains largely as
proposed. FMCSA adds language to the introduction to the curriculum
clarifying that the training instructor must determine that the driver-
trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all elements of the BTW
curriculum. FMCSA also adds a requirement that instructors document the
total number of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee spends in
completing the BTW curriculum. The Agency also cross-references the
current FMCSRs (i.e., Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11) in the description
of pre-trip/post-trip inspections in the theory and BTW-range/public
road portions of the curriculum.
FMCSA adds a ``vehicle orientation'' unit to the theory portion of
the S curriculum, which covers the basic physical and operational
characteristics of a school bus. This addition is made to provide
consistency with the theory portions of the Class A and B and the P
curricula, each of which contains a vehicle orientation unit. FMCSA
deletes the proposed theory unit entitled ``antilock braking systems'',
because ``brake systems'' are included in the vehicle orientation unit
added to the S curriculum in the final rule. The Agency deletes the
``Night operation'' unit from the theory curriculum, because that
topic, which is not unique to the operation of a school bus, is
addressed in the Class A and B core curricula.
Sec. 380.623 Hazardous Materials Endorsement Curriculum
In the final rule, the hazardous materials (H) endorsement
curriculum is moved to appendix E of part 380. The H curriculum remains
essentially as proposed.
Sec. 380.625 Refresher Training Curriculum
As proposed, the refresher training curriculum set forth the
training requirements that CDL holders who are disqualified from
operating a CMV must complete before their CDL can be reinstated. As
explained above, the final rule does not include any requirements
related to refresher training. Accordingly, FMCSA deletes the refresher
training curriculum in the final rule.
Subpart G--Registry of Entry-Level Driver Training Providers
Sec. 380.700 Scope
As proposed, this section stated that subpart G establishes
eligibility requirements for listing on the TPR, and that drivers
seeking ELDT may use only providers listed on the TPR to comply with
this part. In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies that, in order to provide
ELDT in compliance with this part, providers must be listed on the TPR.
The Agency deletes the reference to the driver's need to obtain ELDT
only from providers listed on the TPR, as that obligation is referenced
in Sec. 380.609.
Sec. 380.703 Requirements for the Training Provider Registry
As proposed, this section set forth the requirements a training
provider must meet in order to be eligible for initial listing on the
TPR. It remains essentially as proposed.
FMCSA makes several conforming changes to reflect that, in the
final rule, the ELDT curricula are set forth in Appendices A-E and that
refresher training requirements are not included in the final rule. We
also change the name of the registration document from ``Entry-Level
Driver Training Identification Report'', as proposed, to ``Training
Provider Registration Form'', in the final rule. Further, FMCSA
clarifies that training providers must
[[Page 88779]]
complete the form online and electronically transmit it through the TPR
Web site.
FMCSA adds new Sec. 380.703(a)(5)(i), requiring that training
providers be licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide
training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of any
State where in-person training is provided. This provision, proposed as
Sec. 380.719(a)(4), is moved to Sec. 380.703 because it is a
threshold eligibility requirement; the wording of this provision
remains as proposed, except for the clarifying addition of ``in-
person''. The Agency also adds new Sec. 380.703(a)(5)(ii), which
states that State qualification requirements otherwise applicable to
theory instruction do not apply to providers who offer instruction only
online. As discussed in the response to comments, this exception is
necessary to account for the fact that, because online training can be
delivered virtually anywhere, online providers cannot reasonably be
expected to comply with multiple (and possibly conflicting) State
requirements. However, as noted above in the discussion of the revised
definition of ``theory instructor'' in Sec. 380.605, online providers
must ensure that the training content is delivered and/or prepared by
theory instructors meeting the definition.
Finally, the Agency deletes the reference to the creation and
maintenance of driver-trainee records of completion and/or withdrawal,
as proposed in Sec. 380.703(a)(7). The Agency will have access to the
pertinent information through the providers' transmission of ELDT
certification information for each driver-trainee completing their
training program.
Sec. 380.707 Entry-Level Training Provider Requirements
As proposed, this section set forth the requirements applicable to
ELDT providers. It mandated that providers require that all accepted
applicants for BTW public road training meet Federal, State and/or
local laws pertaining to drug screening, controlled substances testing,
age, medical certification, licensing and driving record. This section
also required that training providers cover all required elements of
the BTW (range and public road) and theory curricula, as applicable. As
proposed, providers training more than three driver-trainees annually
must provide training materials to each trainee addressing the
applicable curricula; providers training three or fewer trainees
annually were not subject to this requirement. This section also stated
that separate training providers may deliver the theory and BTW
portions of the curricula.
FMCSA makes several changes to this section in the final rule. The
Agency makes conforming changes to reflect that the final rule does not
include a refresher training curriculum and that different requirements
are not imposed on providers training three or fewer trainees annually,
as proposed. In Sec. 380.707(a), the Agency clarifies that accepted
BTW applicants must certify that they will comply with DOT regulations,
as well as State and local laws, pertaining to alcohol and controlled
substances testing, age, medical certification, licensing and driving
record. As proposed, the requirement could be interpreted to mean that
training providers are responsible for driver-trainees' compliance with
these requirements, which was not FMCSA's intention. FMCSA also adds a
requirement that training providers verify that accepted BTW applicants
hold valid CLPs/CDLs, as applicable, in order to ensure that driver-
trainees operating CMVs on a public road are licensed to do so.
FMCSA clarifies in Sec. 380.707(c) that, while separate providers
may provide theory and BTW training, both the range and public road
portions of BTW training must be provided by the same training entity,
as noted in the response to comments. FMCSA adds a requirement that
training providers offering online training must ensure that the
content is prepared by a theory instructor as defined in Sec. 380.605.
Finally, FMCSA deletes the provisions, proposed as Sec. 380.707(b) and
(c), requiring that BTW and theory instruction include all elements set
forth in the applicable curricula because those requirements are
already imposed on training providers in Sec. 380.703(a)(1).
Sec. 380.709 Facilities
As proposed, this section required that a training provider's
classroom and/or range facilities comply with all applicable Federal,
State, and/or local laws. Additionally, training providers offering
BTW-range training must have an instructor on site to demonstrate
applicable skills and correct deficiencies of individual students; and
the range must be free of obstructions, enable the driver to maneuver
safely and free from interference from other vehicles and hazards, and
have adequate sight lines.
In the final rule, FMCSA retains, as proposed, the requirement that
a training provider's classroom and/or range facilities comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and/or local laws. The Agency deletes the
requirements pertaining to range instruction because they are
duplicative. In the final rule, the range-related requirements proposed
in Sec. 380.709 are addressed in the introductions to the Class A,
Class B, P, and S curricula in Appendices A-D and in the definition of
``range'' in Sec. 380.605.
Sec. 380.711 Equipment
As proposed, this section required that all vehicles used in BTW
must be in safe mechanical condition and that vehicles used in BTW-
public road training comply with applicable Federal and State safety
requirements. In addition, training vehicles must be in the same class
(A or B) and type (bus or truck) that driver-trainees intend to operate
for their CDL skills test.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the provision requiring that all
vehicles used for BTW-range training be in safe mechanical condition.
The Agency believes that the requirement that vehicles used for BTW
training comply with applicable Federal and State safety requirements,
now in Sec. 380.711(a), adequately addresses the issue of training
vehicle safety. In addition, we delete the parenthetical references to
``(A or B)'' and ``(bus or truck)'' in response to a comment that Group
C vehicles, which may be used in BTW training for the P and/or S
endorsement, are not used in Class A or B CDL training and may be
neither a bus nor a truck.
Sec. 380.713 Driver-Instructor Qualification Requirements
As proposed, this section required that training providers utilize
theory and BTW instructors meeting the specified definitions in Sec.
380.605. Additionally, this section required training providers to
utilize BTW instructors whose driving record meets applicable State and
Federal requirements and who, in the two years prior to engaging in BTW
instruction, have not had any CMV-related convictions for the offenses
identified in Sec. 385.51(b)-(e).
FMCSA significantly revises Sec. 380.713 in the final rule, as
noted above in the explanation of changes made to Sec. 380.605. The
specific qualification requirements pertaining to theory and BTW
instructors are now addressed directly in the definitions of those
terms. Accordingly, in the final rule, this section simply requires
that training providers utilize ``theory instructors'' and ``BTW
instructors'' meeting the definition of those terms as set forth in
Sec. 380.605.
[[Page 88780]]
Sec. 380.715 Assessments
As proposed, this section required that driver-trainees
successfully complete a course of instruction meeting the ELDT
curriculum requirements. Training providers must use assessments (in
written or electronic format) to demonstrate the trainee's proficiency
in the knowledge objectives set forth in the applicable theory
curriculum; trainees must achieve an overall score of 80 percent or
higher on the theory assessment. Training providers are required to
assess a driver-trainee's proficiency on the driving range in
accordance with the applicable curriculum, as well as a trainee's
proficiency in BTW driving skills on a public road in the class (A or
B) and type (bus or truck) of vehicle the trainee will operate for the
CDL skills test.
In the final rule, Sec. 380.715 remains largely as proposed. FMCSA
makes conforming changes to reflect that the ELDT theory and BTW
curricula are now in Appendices A-E of part 380 and are no longer set
forth in Sec. Sec. 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621 and 380.623, as
proposed. FMCSA deletes the requirement that driver-trainees must
complete a course of instruction meeting the applicable ELDT
requirements, because that provision is set forth in Sec. 380.609.The
Agency clarifies that training providers must document their assessment
of a driver-trainee's proficiency in the BTW skills, as required in
Appendices A-D, as well as the total number of (clock) hours each
driver-trainee spends in completing BTW (range and public road)
training, but the proficiency documentation requirement in Sec.
380.715(b) of the final rule is now combined for all BTW skills (range
and public road). Separate documentation for range and public road
skills, as proposed in Sec. 380.715(b) and (c), is therefore no longer
required. FMCSA does not require any specific means or method of
documentation of BTW proficiency or the number of hours spent in
completing the BTW curriculum.
Finally, FMCSA deletes the proposed requirement that BTW skills
assessment must occur in ``a vehicle class (A or B) and type (bus or
truck) that the driver-trainee will operate for the CDL skills test,''
for the reason noted above in the explanation of changes to Sec.
380.711. We also note that all of the BTW curricula in today's rule
require that the training occur in a representative vehicle for the CDL
class or endorsement.
Sec. 380.717 Training Certification
As proposed, this section required that training providers upload
ELDT certificates to the TPR by the close of the next business day
after the individual's completion of the training. It also set forth
the specific information elements to be included in the training
certification, such as the driver-trainee's name, CLP/CDL number and
State of licensure, the type of training completed the training
provider's name and unique TPR identification number, and the date of
training completion.
In the final rule, Sec. 380.717 remains largely as proposed. In
response to comments, FMCSA extends the time period for electronically
transmitting the ELDT certification information to the TPR to midnight
of the second business day following the individual's completion of the
training. As noted above, FMCSA adds the total number of (clock) hours
spent to complete BTW training, as applicable, to the required
certification information. We also add the trainee's driver's license
number as a potential data element to account for the fact that
trainees who are not CDL holders and who complete the theory curricula
before obtaining BTW training may not have a CLP number at that point.
The Agency also requires that training providers electronically
transmit the ELDT data elements to the TPR, rather than uploading a
training certificate, as proposed.
Sec. 380.719 Requirements for Continued Listing on the Training
Provider Registry
As proposed, this section identified the specific obligations
imposed on training providers as a condition of continued listing on
the TPR. The requirements include: Meeting the applicable requirements
of this subpart; providing biennial updates to the Entry-Level Driver
Training Provider Identification Report; reporting to FMCSA specified
changes in key information within 30 days; being licensed, certified,
registered or authorized to provide training in each State where
training is provided, as applicable, and maintaining related
documentation; allowing FMCSA or its authorized representative to
conduct an audit or investigation of the training provider; and
ensuring that all required documentation is provided within 48 hours of
receiving a request for documentation from FMCSA or its authorized
representative.
In the final rule, this section remains largely as proposed. The
Agency clarifies that biennial updates to the Training Provider
Registration Form, as well as any reports of changes in key
information, must be transmitted electronically through the TPR Web
site. As noted above, the requirement that training providers meet
applicable State laws and regulations in each State where training is
provided, proposed as Sec. 380.719(a)(4), is in Sec. 380.703(5)(i) of
the final rule. The Agency moves the provision to Sec. 380.703 because
it is a threshold eligibility requirement for listing on the TPR.
Sec. 380.721 Removal From Training Provider Registry: Factors
Considered
As proposed, this section established the factors that FMCSA may
consider when removing a training provider from the TPR. All training
certificates issued after the training provider is removed from the TPR
will be considered invalid.
In the final rule, this section remains essentially as proposed.
FMCSA makes clarifying changes to Sec. 380.721(a)(5), deleting the
reference to ``the SDLA CDL exam passage rate.'' In the final rule, the
regulatory text refers to the CDL skills test passage rate for
applicants for the Class A CDL, Class B CDL, P endorsement, and/or S
endorsement and the SDLA knowledge test passage rate for applicants for
the H endorsement. In response to comments, the Agency also deletes
``abnormally low'' from this provision in order to clarify that we do
not intend to establish a minimum required CDL test passage rate. FMCSA
will assess the passage rate information in the context of State norms.
Finally, the Agency makes a clarifying change to the proposed language
stating that all training certificates issued after the date a provider
is removed from the TPR will be considered invalid. In the final rule,
the provision states that any training conducted after the removal date
is invalid.
Sec. 380.723 Removal From Training Provider Registry: Procedure
As proposed, this section set forth the procedures for voluntary
and involuntary removal of a training provider from the TPR. This
section addresses FMCSA's initiation of the involuntary removal
process, the training provider's right to respond to the notice and
undertake corrective action, the provider's right to oppose FMCSA's
notice of proposed removal, the provider's right to request
administrative review of an involuntary removal, procedures for FMCSA's
emergency removal of a provider from the TPR, and the process by which
a provider may apply for reinstatement to the TPR following voluntary
or involuntary removal.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes several changes to the procedures
related to a training provider's involuntary removal from the TPR, as
[[Page 88781]]
set forth in Sec. 380.723(b). First, in order to ensure that training
providers to whom FMCSA issues a notice of proposed removal have
adequate opportunity to implement corrective actions, the Agency
deletes the proposed language stating that training conducted after
issuance of the notice is non-compliant until FMCSA withdraws the
notice. FMCSA also adds a provision to this subsection stating that the
Agency will note on the TPR Web site whenever a training provider
listed on the TPR is issued a notice of proposed removal, as further
means of informing prospective students of the status of that provider.
If FMCSA withdraws the notice, the notation will also be removed from
that provider's listing on the TPR Web site.
In Sec. 380.723(c)(1)(iii), the Agency adds a sentence stating
that any training conducted after the date a provider is removed from
the TPR is invalid. This provision was proposed and is retained as part
of Sec. 380.721; it is included here for clarity and consistency.
Otherwise, Sec. 380.723 remains as proposed.
Sec. 380.725 Documentation and Record Retention
Section 380.725 sets forth the documentation and record retention
requirements that apply to training providers eligible for listing on
the TPR. As proposed, providers must retain their policy containing
requirements for driver-trainee applicants related to controlled
substances testing, medical certification, licensing, and driving
records; specified instructor qualification documentation (e.g., copies
of CDL/endorsements); the amount of time generally allocated to theory
and BTW training, as applicable; the instructor-trainee ratio for each
portion of the curriculum; the number of vehicles used in training and
a description of lesson plans for theory and BTW, as applicable; and
the names of all driver-trainees who completed or withdrew from
instruction and who passed/failed the training provider's assessment of
theory and BTW training, as applicable. In addition, training providers
must generally retain these records or documentation for a minimum of
three years from the date the document was generated or received.
In order to consolidate and clarify the record keeping requirements
imposed on training providers, FMCSA makes several changes to Sec.
380.725 in the final rule. The Agency deletes the proposed retention
requirements for the amount of time generally allocated to theory and
BTW training, proposed as Sec. 380.725(b)(3); the instructor-driver-
trainee ratio and number of training vehicles; and the names of driver-
trainees who complete or withdraw from the instruction and who passed/
failed the theory or BTW assessment, proposed as Sec. 380.725(b)(5).
FMCSA will instead capture the relevant information on the Training
Provider Registration Form (TPRF), so the provider does not need to
retain that information separately. In addition, the Agency makes
conforming changes to Sec. 380.725(b)(1) to require the retention of
self-certifications by driver-trainee BTW applicants, who must attest
that they will comply with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations in parts 40, 382, 383, and 391, as well as State and local
laws, related to alcohol and controlled substances testing, age,
medical certification, licensing, and driving records, as required in
Sec. 380.707(a).
FMCSA adds the following record retention requirements: the TPRF,
copies of a driver-trainee's CLP/CDL (as applicable), and records of
ELDT assessments as described in Sec. 380.715. FMCSA believes these
revised requirements capture the information essential for the Agency
to perform a meaningful audit or investigation of a training provider's
operations. The three-year record retention requirement in Sec.
380.725(c) remains as proposed.
Part 383--Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and
Penalties
In the proposed rule, FMCSA revised the authority citation for part
383 and made various conforming changes. The proposed rule did not make
any substantive changes to the existing requirements in part 383. FMCSA
discusses below only the proposed conforming changes to part 383 which
were notably revised in the final rule. All other conforming changes to
part 383 remain essentially as proposed.
Sec. 383.51 Disqualification of Drivers
In the proposed rule, new subsection (a)(8), stated that CDL
holders disqualified as a result of convictions of offenses under Sec.
383.51(b) through (e) must not be fully reinstated until completing the
refresher training curriculum.
As discussed above, the final rule does not include any refresher
training requirements. Accordingly, FMCSA deletes this proposed
conforming amendment to Sec. 383.51 from the final rule.
Sec. 383.71 Driver Application Procedures
Sec. 383.71(a)(3)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.71(a)(3) required that, as of the
compliance date of the final rule, a person must complete the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter prior to taking the
skills test for a Class A CDL, Class B CDL, a P or S endorsement, or
the knowledge test for the H endorsement. The training must be
administered by a training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming change remains largely as
proposed. FMCSA adds language to this provision to clarify that the
required training must be completed prior to taking the skills test for
the Class A CDL or Class B CDL for the first time, or the skills test
for a P or S endorsement for the first time, or the knowledge test for
the H endorsement for the first time (emphasis added). As noted above,
this language is consistent with MAP-21's requirement that training
standards be established for individuals obtaining a CDL ``for the
first time''.
Sec. 383.71(a)(4)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.71(a)(4) provided that, except for
driver-trainees seeking the H endorsement, driver-trainees completing
the theory portion of the training must complete the skills portion
within 360 days.
As discussed above, FMCSA deletes this requirement from Sec.
383.71, as proposed, makes clarifying changes to this requirement, and
moves it to Sec. 380.603(c) of the final rule. The provision now
requires that trainees complete both portions of the required ELDT
within one year of completing the first portion of the training.
Sec. 383.71(b)(11)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.71(b)(11) required that, as of the
compliance date of the final rule, a person must complete the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter prior to taking the
skills test for an initial Class A CDL, Class B CDL, or a P or S
endorsement, or the knowledge test for the H endorsement. The training
must be administered by a training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming change remains largely as
proposed. As noted above in the discussion of conforming changes to
Sec. 383.71(a)(3), FMCSA adds language to this provision to clarify
that the required training must be completed prior to taking the skills
test for the Class A CDL or Class B CDL for the first time, or the
skills test for a P or S endorsement for the first time, or
[[Page 88782]]
the knowledge test for the H endorsement for the first time.
Sec. 383.71(e)(5)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.71(e)(5) required that a person must
complete the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this
chapter prior to taking the skills test for upgrading to a CDL from one
class to another, or upgrading a CDL with a P or S endorsement, or
taking the knowledge test for the H endorsement issued on a CDL. The
training must be administered by a training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming change remains largely as
proposed. As noted above in the discussion of conforming changes to
Sec. Sec. 383.71(a)(3) and 383.71(b)(11), FMCSA adds language to this
provision to clarify that the required training must be completed prior
to taking the skills test for upgrading to a Class A or Class B CDL,
adding a P or S endorsement to a CDL the first time, or taking the
knowledge test for the H endorsement for the first time.
Sec. 383.73 State Procedures
Sec. 383.73(b)(3)(ii)
As proposed, this section would be amended to add, in Sec.
383.73(b)(3)(ii), a requirement that the State check with CDLIS to
determine, if the CDL was issued on or after the compliance date of the
final rule, whether an applicant for a Class A or Class B CDL or a CDL
with a P, S, or H endorsement has completed the training required by
subpart F of this subchapter from a training provider listed on the
TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the requirement that the State
determine that the required ELDT was obtained from a training provider
on the TPR. As discussed in the response to comments, the Agency will
not be transmitting a training certificate to the State through CDLIS,
as proposed in the NPRM. Instead, data elements containing the relevant
training certification information will be added to the driver's record
through CDLIS. Accordingly, the State is not obligated to confirm that
the applicant received training from a provider listed on the TPR;
FMCSA will verify that before transmitting the data elements to the
driver's record. This subsection otherwise remains as proposed.
Sec. 383.73(b)(10)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.73(b)(10) provided that, beginning on
the compliance date of the final rule, the State must not conduct a
skills test for a Class A or Class B CDL, or a P or S endorsement,
until the State verifies that the applicant completed the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter from a training
provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies that the State must verify
electronically the applicant's completion of the required ELDT. As
discussed in the response to comments, the Agency makes this change in
order to clarify that the State may not accept paper training
certificates from either the applicant or the training provider as
evidence that the applicant has completed the required training. In
addition, for the reasons noted above in the discussion of Sec.
383.73(b)(3)(ii), FMCSA deletes the requirement that the State
determine that the required ELDT was obtained from a training provider
on the TPR. This subsection otherwise remains as proposed.
Sec. 383.73(e)(8)
As proposed, new Sec. 383.73(e)(8) provided that, beginning on the
compliance date of the final rule, the State must require a person with
a CDL upgrading from one class of CDL to another or upgrading a CDL
with an H, P, or S endorsement, to complete the training prescribed in
subpart F of part 380 of this chapter from a training provider listed
on the TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes several clarifying changes to this
subsection. First, the Agency specifies that the requirement applies to
upgrades to either a Class A or Class B CDL, or the addition of a P, S,
or H endorsement. Additionally, for the reasons noted above in the
discussion of Sec. Sec. 383.73(b)(3)(ii) and 383.73(b)(10), FMCSA
deletes the requirement that the State determine that the required ELDT
was obtained from a training provider on the TPR.
Sec. 383.73(p)
Finally, the Agency adds new (p) to Sec. 383.73 to require that,
after the compliance date of the final rule, the State must notify
FMCSA in the event that a training provider in the State does not meet
applicable State requirements for CMV instruction. As discussed in the
response to comments, this change is necessary since FMCSA has no means
of independently determining whether a training provider complies with
applicable State requirements for CMV instruction. If the training
provider is listed on the TPR, failure to meet State requirements could
result in that provider's removal from the TPR. This subsection
otherwise remains as proposed.
Sec. 383.95 Restrictions
As proposed, new Sec. 383.95(h) provided that the State would
reinstate the CDL for a CDL holder disqualified from operating a CMV
under Sec. 383.51(b)-(e) solely for the limited purpose of completing
the refresher training curriculum. The State may not restore full CMV
driving privileges until receiving notification that the driver
completed the refresher training curriculum.
As discussed above, the final rule does not include any refresher
training requirements as proposed. Accordingly, FMCSA deletes this
proposed subsection from the final rule.
Sec. 383.153 Information on the CLP and CDL Documents and Applications
As proposed, Sec. 383.153(a)(10) was amended to add (ix), a new
restriction (R) for refresher training only.
Because the final rule does not include any refresher training
requirements as proposed, FMCSA deletes this proposed addition to Sec.
383.153(a)(10) from the final rule.
Part 384--State Compliance With Commercial Driver's License Program
In the proposed rule, FMCSA revised the authority citation for part
384 and made various conforming changes. The proposed rule did not make
any substantive changes to the existing requirements in part 384. FMCSA
discusses below only the proposed conforming changes to part 384 which
were revised in the final rule. All other conforming changes to part
384 remain essentially as proposed.
Sec. 384.230 Entry-Level Driver Certification
As proposed, new Sec. 384.230(a) required a State, beginning on
the compliance date of the final rule, to follow the procedures
prescribed in Sec. 383.73 for verifying that a person received
training from a provider listed on the TPR before issuing an initial
Class A or Class B CDL, a CDL with an H, P, or S endorsement, upgrading
a CDL from one class to another, or upgrading a CDL with an H, P, or S
endorsement. In addition, under proposed Sec. 384.230(b), States would
be permitted to issue a CDL to individuals who obtain an initial CLP
before the compliance date of the final rule who have not complied with
the ELDT requirements in subpart F of part 380, so long as they obtain
the CDL within 360 days after obtaining the initial CLP. Finally, under
proposed Sec. 384.230(c), a State may not issue a CDL to individuals
who obtain a CLP on or after the compliance date of the final rule
unless
[[Page 88783]]
they comply with the ELDT requirements in subpart F of part 380.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes several clarifying changes to Sec.
384.230(a) and (b). In Sec. 384.230(a), we add specific references to
Sec. 383.73(b)(3)(ii), (b)(10), and (e)(8) in order to clarify the
ELDT completion verification procedures a State is required to follow
and make corresponding conforming changes to the regulatory text. In
Sec. 384.230(b), the Agency makes a conforming change to clarify that
a State may issue a CDL to individuals who obtain a CLP before the
compliance date of the final rule who have not complied with the ELDT
requirements in subpart F of part 380, so long as they obtain a CDL
before the CLP or renewed CLP expires. Section 384.230(c) remains as
proposed.
Sec. 384.235 Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Notification
FMCSA adds new Sec. 384.235 to mandate that the State must meet
the entry-level driver training notification requirement of Sec.
383.73(p).
X. Section-by-Section
Part 380
Subpart E of Part 380
Subpart E would be retitled as ``Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver
Training Requirements Before February 7, 2020.'' On the compliance date
of the final rule, this subpart would be removed and reserved and
replaced by new subparts F and G.
New Subpart F of Part 380
This new subpart establishes the requirements for entry-level
drivers, minimum curriculum content, and standards for training
providers. The entry-level driver training requirements that would
replace those in current subpart E would be titled ``Subpart F--Entry-
Level Driver Training Requirements On and After February 7, 2020.''
New Subpart G of Part 380
This new subpart establishes the minimum qualifications for an
entity to be eligible for listing on the FMCSA TPR. The TPR will be an
online portal administered by FMCSA allowing training providers to
register. Training providers will also transmit driver-trainee training
certifications to FMCSA electronically through the TPR. The TPR allows
drivers seeking training to find an eligible provider who meets their
needs.
Part 383
Sec. 383.71 Driver Application Procedures
FMCSA adds new paragraphs--(a)(3), (b)(11), and (e)(3) through
(5)--regarding the completion of the training prescribed in part 380,
subpart F, before a Class A or B CDL, a passenger, school bus, or
hazardous materials endorsement for the first time, or an upgrade to a
Class A or Class B CDL is issued.
Sec. 383.73 State Procedures
FMCSA adds new paragraphs (b)(10), (e)(8), and (p) and revised
paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to prohibit a State from issuing a Class A or B
CDL, or a CDL with a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus
endorsement for the first time, or an upgrade to a CDL, unless the SDLA
has received electronic ELDT certification information.
Part 384
FMCSA adds new Sec. Sec. 384.230 and 384.235. Additionally, the
Agency adds a new paragraph (j) to Sec. 384.301.
XI. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking is an economically
significant regulatory action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,\29\
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563.\30\ It
also is significant under Department of Transportation regulatory
policies and procedures because the economic costs and benefits of the
rule exceed the $100 million annual threshold and because of the
substantial Congressional and public interest concerning the lack of
Federal entry-level driver training requirements. A Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA) is available in the docket. That document:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Regulatory
Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735-51744 (October 4, 1993).
\30\ Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011. Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review. 76 FR 3821-3823 (January 21,
2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifies the problem targeted by this rulemaking,
including a statement of the need for the action.
Defines the scope and parameters of the analysis.
Defines the baseline.
Defines and evaluates the costs and benefits of the
action.
Compares the costs and benefits.
Interprets the cost and benefit results.
The RIA is the synthesis of research conducted specific to current
entry-level driver training practices, industry discussions from the
ELDTAC, and research conducted on the costs and benefits of the entry-
level driver training provisions of this final rule.
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers, training providers, SDLAs, and
the Federal Government would incur costs for compliance and
implementation. The costs of the final rule include tuition expenses,
the opportunity cost of time while in training, compliance audit costs,
and costs associated with the implementation and monitoring of the TPR.
As shown in Table 1, FMCSA estimates that the 10-year cost of the final
rule would total $3.66 billion on an undiscounted basis, $3.23 billion
discounted at 3 percent, and $2.76 billion discounted at 7 percent (all
in 2014 dollars). Values in Table 1 are rounded to the nearest million.
Table 1--Total Cost of the Final Rule
[In millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Entry-level Motor Training Federal Discounted Discounted
drivers carriers providers SDLAs government Total \a\ at 3% at 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................... $324 $20 $9 $56 $6 $415 $415 $415
2021.................................... 326 20 6 0 1 353 343 330
2022.................................... 328 20 7 0 1 356 336 311
2023.................................... 330 20 6 0 1 357 327 291
2024.................................... 331 20 7 0 1 359 319 274
2025.................................... 333 20 6 0 1 360 311 257
[[Page 88784]]
2026.................................... 335 20 7 0 1 363 304 242
2027.................................... 337 20 6 0 1 364 296 227
2028.................................... 339 21 7 0 1 368 291 214
2029.................................... 341 21 6 0 1 369 283 201
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 3,324 202 67 56 15 3,664 3,225 2,762
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 366 367 368
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
The costs of this final rule specifically attributable to the S
endorsement training requirement were also evaluated separately in the
RIA. This was done because MAP-21 mandates training for entry-level
drivers who wish to obtain a CDL, or a P endorsement, or an H
endorsement, but is silent with respect to the S endorsement. Inclusion
of the S endorsement training requirement increases the total cost of
the rule by only approximately 0.82 percent. On an annualized basis at
a 7 percent discount rate, this equates to an increase in the total
cost of the rule from $365 million to $368 million (this can be seen in
Section 3 of the RIA). Details of these comparative analyses of the
costs of the rule and the reasons for this relatively small change in
costs resulting from the inclusion of the S endorsement training
requirement are presented in Section 3 of the RIA. The costs presented
in Table 1 include this small additional incremental cost associated
with the S endorsement training requirement as part of the total costs
of the final rule.
This final rule will result in benefits to CMV operators, the
transportation industry, the traveling public, and the environment.
FMCSA estimated benefits in two broad categories: Safety benefits and
non-safety benefits. Training related to the performance of complex
tasks may improve performance; in the context of the training required
by this final rule, improvement in task performance constitutes
adoption of safer driving practices that the Agency believes will
reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, thereby resulting in
safer roadways for all. The training related to fuel efficient driving
practices that will be taught under the `speed management' and `space
management' sections of the curriculum reduce fuel consumption and
consequently lower environmental impacts associated with carbon dioxide
emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 of the RIA for today's rule,
FMCSA does not believe that the training in fuel efficient driving
practices addressed by this rule will contribute to measurably longer
trip times, as the curricula focus on factors such as maintaining safe
distances between vehicles and avoiding hard acceleration and braking,
rather than reducing vehicle speed. The Agency therefore assumes in its
analysis that these fuel efficient driving practices will not
contribute to measurably longer trip times.
Safer driving will reduce maintenance and repair costs. Table 2
below presents the directly quantifiable benefits that FMCSA projects
will result from this final rule (all in 2014 dollars, values rounded
to the nearest million). Due to wide ranges of estimates in studies
relevant to the quantified benefits of the rule and the lack of studies
that specifically focus on the curricula prescribed by this rule,\31\
the Agency presents benefits estimated under alternate benefit
scenarios in Table 3 and Table 4. These alternate scenarios are derived
from the low and high benefit cases (see sensitivity analyses in
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA) in which the fuel savings,
CO2 emissions reductions, and maintenance and repair cost
savings are 50 percent lower (low benefits case) and 50 percent greater
(high benefits case) than the central estimates that the Agency relied
on in developing the values presented in Table 2. Further discussion of
the low and high benefits cases is reserved to the RIA for the final
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3, the Agency
identified a variety of relevant studies related to each of the
quantified benefits. With particular respect to the estimated fuel
and CO2 savings the Agency was unable to identify any
studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this rule.
Table 2--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Maintenance
Value of fuel Value of CO2 and repair Total \b\ Discounted at Discounted at
savings reduction \a\ cost savings 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................... $89 $15 $13 $117 $117 $117
2021.................................................... 151 26 22 198 192 186
2022.................................................... 186 31 26 243 229 214
2023.................................................... 190 32 27 248 227 206
2024.................................................... 194 32 27 253 225 197
2025.................................................... 197 33 27 257 222 188
[[Page 88785]]
2026.................................................... 202 34 28 263 220 181
2027.................................................... 205 34 28 266 217 172
2028.................................................... 207 35 28 270 214 165
2029.................................................... 211 35 28 274 210 157
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 1,830 306 253 2,389 2,073 1,783
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 239 236 237
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and ``discounted at 7%''
columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO2
reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in Section 4.1.2 of
the RIA.
\b\ Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
Table 3--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Low benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Maintenance
Value of fuel Value of CO2 and repair Total \b\ Discounted at Discounted at
savings reduction \a\ cost savings 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................... $44 $8 $6 $58 $58 $58
2021.................................................... 75 13 11 99 96 93
2022.................................................... 93 16 13 121 114 107
2023.................................................... 95 16 13 124 114 103
2024.................................................... 97 16 13 127 112 99
2025.................................................... 99 17 14 129 111 94
2026.................................................... 101 17 14 131 110 90
2027.................................................... 102 17 14 133 108 86
2028.................................................... 104 17 14 135 107 82
2029.................................................... 106 17 14 137 105 78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 915 153 127 1,195 1,036 891
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 119 118 119
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and
``discounted at 7%'' columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on
monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in
Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
\b\ Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
Table 4--Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undiscounted Discounted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Maintenance
Value of fuel Value of CO2 and repair Total \b\ Discounted at Discounted at
savings reduction \a\ cost savings 3% 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.................................................... $133 $23 $19 $175 $175 $175
2021.................................................... 226 38 32 295 287 278
2022.................................................... 278 47 38 363 343 321
2023.................................................... 285 48 39 371 340 308
2024.................................................... 291 49 40 379 337 295
2025.................................................... 296 50 40 385 332 282
2026.................................................... 302 50 41 393 329 271
2027.................................................... 307 51 41 399 324 258
2028.................................................... 311 52 41 405 320 246
2029.................................................... 316 52 42 410 314 235
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 88786]]
Total............................................... 2,745 459 372 3,576 3,100 2,668
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized.............................................. .............. .............. .............. 358 353 355
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO2 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ``discounted at 3%'' and
``discounted at 7%'' columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on
monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are presented in
Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
\b\ Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
components).
While FMCSA believes that this final rule will at a minimum achieve
cost-neutrality, the net of quantified costs and benefits (presented in
Table 5 below) results in an annualized net cost of $131 million at a 7
percent discount rate. This estimate is based only on quantifiable
costs and benefits (central case) attributable to this rule. Safety
benefits are assessed separately via a threshold analysis discussed in
detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA.
Table 5--Net Cost of the Final Rule (Central Case), Absent Quantifiable
Safety Benefits
[In millions of 2014$]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% 7%
Year Discount Discount
rate rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.............................................. $298 $298
2021.............................................. 151 144
2022.............................................. 107 97
2023.............................................. 100 85
2024.............................................. 94 77
2025.............................................. 89 69
2026.............................................. 84 61
2027.............................................. 79 55
2028.............................................. 77 49
2029.............................................. 73 44
---------------------
Total......................................... 1,152 979
---------------------
Annualized........................................ 131 131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the absence of a clear link between training and safety, FMCSA
followed the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in
its Circular A-4 to perform a threshold analysis to determine the
degree of safety benefits that will need to occur as a consequence of
this final rule in order for the rule to achieve cost-neutrality.\32\
As presented and discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA, the
central estimate of this analysis is that a 3.61 percent improvement in
safety performance (that is, a 3.61 percent reduction in the frequency
of crashes involving those entry-level drivers who will receive
additional pre-CDL training as a result of this final rule during the
period for which the benefits of training are estimated to remain
intact) is necessary to offset the $142 million (annualized at 7
percent) net cost of this final rule. Note that under the low and high
benefits cases presented in Table 3 and Table 4, the net cost of this
final rule ranges from $13 million to $250 million (annualized at 7
percent), suggesting the improvement in safety performance necessary to
offset the rule's costs may be as low as 0.36 percent and as high as
6.89 percent (see Section 4.2 of the RIA for the final rule for further
detail).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4. Regulatory
Analysis. September 17, 2003. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf (accessed July 25, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 below presents the projected number of crash reductions
involving entry-level drivers that must occur in each of the 10 years
following this final rule's implementation and in the aggregate, in
order to offset the net cost ($131 million annualized at 7
percent).\33\ To be clear, it is the sum of the monetized value of all
columns of Table 6--not the sum of the monetized value of any
individual column--that results in cost-neutrality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Some commenters to the RIA that was performed for the NPRM
for this rule incorrectly interpreted the breakeven percentage
reduction in crashes estimated here as being relative to all CMV
crashes industry-wide, rather than being relative to only to the
much smaller sub-set of crashes involving entry-level drivers that
are affected by the rule. Note that with respect to the magnitude of
the reduction in the frequency of all crashes involving large trucks
and buses that the annual average crash reductions presented in
Table 6 represent, the Agency notes that there were an estimated
total 3,649 fatal, 93,000 injury, and 379,000 PDO crashes in 2014
(see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), 2016 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics, May 2016, pages 33 and 34, available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59100/59189/2016_Pocket_Guide_to_Large_Truck_and_Bus_Statistics.pdf (accessed
July 1, 2016)). Therefore, viewed in this manner, based on the
annual average number of crash reductions necessary for this final
rule to achieve cost-neutrality (shown in the second row from the
bottom of Table 6), this equates to a reduction of only 0.14% of
fatal, 0.11% of injury, and 0.11% of PDO crashes, respectively
(relative to calendar year 2014). These percentage reductions are
calculated as follows: Fatal = 5 / 3,649; Injury = 102 / 93,000; PDO
= 432 / 379,000. It should be re-emphasized, however, that this view
of the data taken by some of the commenters is incorrect, and that
the breakeven percentage reduction in crashes estimated here is
relative to only the much smaller sub-set of crashes involving
entry-level drivers that are affected by the rule.
[[Page 88787]]
Table 6--Crash Reductions Involving Entry-Level Drivers, by Type, Necessary To Achieve Cost-Neutrality
[For the Central Case]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Number of Number of property
Year fatal crashes injury damage only
crashes (PDO) crashes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................................................ 3 59 251
2021............................................................ 5 98 418
2022............................................................ 6 118 502
2023............................................................ 6 118 502
2024............................................................ 6 118 502
2025............................................................ 6 118 502
2026............................................................ 6 118 502
2027............................................................ 6 118 502
2028............................................................ 6 118 502
2029............................................................ 6 118 502
-----------------------------------------------
Annual Average \a\.............................................. 5 110 468
-----------------------------------------------
Total \b\................................................... 53 1,102 4,682
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\a\ Rounded to the nearest whole number.
\b\ The individual values shown may not sum to the totals shown due to rounding.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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 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. Additionally, 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.
Accordingly, FMCSA prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) for the NPRM and a Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) for the Final Rule. This rule will affect all entities
that choose to become training providers. As shown in the FRFA (see
Section 5 of the RIA), FMCSA estimated that approximately 4.6 million
small entities could employ entry-level drivers, but that only 22,000
entities will register with FMCSA to become training providers. The
impact on those entities that choose to become training providers will
be less than $500 in the first year of the analysis, which is less than
1% of revenue for entities in any of the potentially affected
industries. Therefore, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If
the final rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance; please consult the FMCSA point of
contact, Richard Clemente, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this final rule.
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy regarding the rights
of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit
policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the
value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2013 levels) or more in any one year. This rulemaking would result in
private sector expenditures in excess of the $155 million threshold.
Gross costs, however, are expected to be offset by fuel, carbon
dioxide, and maintenance and repair savings, making this final rule
cost-neutral based on reduced instances of crashes, as further
discussed in the threshold-based analysis described in the RIA.
A written statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not
required for regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set
forth in law (2 U.S.C. 1531). MAP-21 mandated that FMCSA issue
regulations to establish minimum entry-level training requirements for
all first-time CDL applicants, CDL holders seeking a license upgrade
from one class of CDL to another, and applicants for the passenger (P)
or hazardous materials (H) endorsements.\34\ Accordingly, because
[[Page 88788]]
this rule implements the direction of Congress in mandating ELDT, a
written statement under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not
required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ As explained above and discussed in the RIA, mandatory
school bus (S) endorsement training is also included in the final
rule. While not specifically mandated by MAP-21, the Agency believes
the inclusion of an S endorsement curriculum is entirely consistent
with MAP-21's recognition of the importance of ELDT in the operation
of passenger-carrying CMVs. FMCSA notes that the S endorsement
training requirement increases the cost of the final rule by a
negligible amount (approximately 0.82%), due primarily to the fact
that about 95% of entry-level school bus drivers currently receive
training that is at least equal to the minimum standard established
in today's rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
These amended regulations require training providers to obtain,
collect, maintain, and in some cases transmit, information about their
facilities, curricula, and the individuals who complete entry-level
driver training. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), FMCSA has analyzed the need for these
information-collection (IC) activities and how the information will be
managed. On March 7, 2016, the Agency provided a preliminary estimate
of the time burden that would be imposed on training providers under
the proposed rules and asked for public comment (81 FR 11967). No
comments were received.
The compliance date for the amended training rules is three years
after the effective date of this final rule. For the next three years,
the Agency's current regulations pertaining to the training of entry-
level drivers (49 CFR Subpart E) will remain in place. OMB approves
information-collection activities for a maximum period of 3 years.
Thus, the Agency's estimate of IC burden must be based upon the current
regulations. That burden was approved by OMB on December 23, 2015,
after public notice and comment (80 FR 53385). The Agency at this time
does not amend that approved estimate: 66,250 hours. Formal OMB
approval of the IC collection to be conducted under the amended rules
must be obtained before the compliance date of those rules. Therefore,
in approximately two years, the Agency will submit its estimate of the
burden of the amended rules to OMB for approval and provide notice and
an opportunity for public comment on the estimate.
Preliminary Estimate
FMCSA offers the following preliminary estimate of the IC burden it
foresees the amended training rules will impose on the compliance date
three years hence.
Summary of the Collection of Information: Training providers must
register each training location with the TPR by electronically
submitting an initial TPRF. Training providers must also submit an
updated TPRF for each training location to the TPR every two years. In
addition, training providers must electronically submit training
certification information to the TPR for each individual who completes
entry-level driver training.
Need for Information: The Agency must be able to assess the
qualifications of training providers in order to list them on the TPR,
and the identity of training locations is needed for FMCSA to be able
to visit the sites to verify compliance. Finally, information about
individuals who complete ELDT is needed so the Agency can inform SDLAs
that CDL applicants completed the required training.
Proposed Use of Information: The Agency will monitor training
providers to ensure that they conduct training in accordance with these
rules. Monitoring will include on-site audits of the operations of
training providers. Further, the Agency will monitor the safety
performance of drivers who complete entry-level training in order to
assess the efficacy of the training required by the amended
regulations.
Description of the Respondents: Training providers.
Number of Respondents: 20,510.
Frequency of Response: Training providers must initially register
each training location with the TPR by submitting an initial TPRF.
Training providers must also submit an updated TPRF for each training
location to the TPR every two years. Finally, on an irregular basis,
training providers must electronically submit training certification
information to the TPR for each individual who completes entry-level
driver training.
Burden of Response: Over the first three years of the new rules,
the Agency estimates that training providers will require 20,405 hours
annually to register their training locations with FMCSA. Training
providers will also require 38,625 hours annually to electronically
submit training certification information to the TPR for each
individual who completes entry-level driver training.
Preliminary Estimate of the Total Annual Burden of the Revised
Rules on the Compliance Date (three years from this date): 59,030 hours
(20,405 + 38,625).
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. FMCSA has analyzed this rule in
accordance with E.O. 13132 and has determined that it does not have
federalism implications.
The key concept here is ``substantial direct effects on the
States.'' Sec. 3(b) of the Federalism Order provides that ``[n]ational
action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for
the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the
presence of a problem of national significance.'' The rule amends the
current entry-level driver training requirements in 49 CFR part 380, as
required by the MAP-21 amendment to 49 U.S.C. 31305, the training
section of the CDL statute. The CDL program does not have preemptive
effect. It is voluntary; States may withdraw at any time, although
doing so will result in the loss of certain Federal aid highway funds
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31314. Because this rule makes conforming, and
not substantive, changes to the requirements already imposed on
participating States, FMCSA has determined that it does not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the Federal and State governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Nonetheless, FMCSA recognizes that, as a practical matter, this
rule may have some impact on the States. Accordingly, the Agency sought
advice from the National Governors Association (NGA), the National
Conference of State legislatures (NCSL), the American Association of
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), and the National Association of
Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools (NAPFTDS) on the topic of entry-
level driver training, by letters to each organization, dated July 6,
2015. (Copies of these letters are available in the docket for this
rulemaking.) FMCSA offered NGA, NCSL, AAMVA, and NAPFTDS officials the
opportunity to meet and discuss issues of concern to the States. It
should also be noted that AAMVA and NAPFTDS were members of the ELDTAC,
whose consensus recommendations formed the basis of the NPRM. State and
local governments were also able to raise Federalism issues during the
NPRM comment period.
Furthermore, FMCSA sent follow-up letters to NGA, NCSL, AAMVA, and
NAPFTDS on March 18, 2016, notifying them that the NPRM had been
published.
[[Page 88789]]
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminates ambiguity, and reduce burden.
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation also
concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. Although FMCSA has determined that this in an economically
significant rule, the Agency concludes, as noted in the response to
comments, that this regulatory action does not present ``environmental
health risks and safety risks,'' as that term is defined in E.O. 13045,
which could disproportionately affect children.
I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.
J. Privacy
FMCSA conducted a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of this rule as
required by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the FY 2005 Omnibus
Appropriations Act, Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat. 3268 (Dec. 8, 2004).
The assessment considered impacts of the final rule on the privacy of
information in an identifiable form and related matters. The final rule
will impact the handling of personally identifiable information (PII).
FMCSA has evaluated the risks and effects the rulemaking might have on
collecting, storing, and sharing PII and has evaluated protections and
alternative information handling processes in developing the final rule
in order to mitigate potential privacy risks.
For the purposes of both transparency and efficiency, the privacy
analysis conforms to the DOT standard Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
and will be published on the DOT Web site, http://www.transportation.gov/privacy, concurrently with the publication of
the rule. The PIA addresses the rulemaking, associated business
processes contemplated in the rule, and any information known about the
systems or existing systems to be implemented in support of the final
rulemaking. While a PIA for the Entry Level Driver Training NPRM was
not required, due to changes in the rulemaking and associated business
processes during the final rule stage, this effort will now require the
publication of a PIA. FMCSA will not be directly collecting information
from individuals, but the agency will be storing and using PII
collected by the training providers about individuals that received
training at the facilities.
As required by the Privacy Act, FMCSA and the Department will
publish, with request for comment, a system of records notice (SORN)
that will describe FMCSA's maintenance and electronic transmission of
information affected by this final rule and covered by the Privacy Act.
This SORN will be developed to reflect the new storage and electronic
transmission of information and published in the Federal Register not
less than 30 days before the Agency is authorized to collect or use PII
retrieved by unique identifier.
K. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
program.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.
M. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use
technical standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of
voluntary consensus standards.
If you disagree with our analysis of the voluntary consensus
standards or are aware of voluntary consensus standards that might
apply but are not listed here, please send a comment to the docket
using one of the methods under ADDRESSES. In your comment, please
explain why you disagree with our analysis and/or identify voluntary
consensus standards FMCSA has not listed that might apply.
O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to integrate environmental
values into their decision-making processes by requiring Federal
agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their
actions. In accordance with NEPA, FMCSA's NEPA Order 5610.1 (NEPA
Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental
Impacts), and other applicable requirements, FMCSA prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA) to review the potential impacts of the
rule. Because the implementation of this action would only impose new
training standards for certain individuals applying for their CDL, an
upgrade of their CDL, or hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus
endorsement for their license, FMCSA has tentatively found that noise,
endangered species, cultural resources protected under the National
Historic Preservation Act, wetlands, and resources protected under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C.
303, as amended by Public Law 109-59, would not be impacted. The impact
areas that may be affected and will be evaluated in this EA
[[Page 88790]]
include air quality, hazardous materials transportation, solid waste,
and public safety. But the impact area of focus for the EA will be air
quality. Specifically, as outlined in the RIA for this rulemaking,
FMCSA anticipates that an increase in driver training to result in
improved fuel economy based on changes to driver behavior, such as
smoother acceleration and braking practices. Such improved fuel economy
is anticipated to result in lower air emissions and improved air
quality for gases including carbon dioxide. FMCSA expects that all
negative impacts, if any, will be negligible. However, we expect the
overall environmental impacts of this action to be beneficial. The EA
will be available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web
site listed under ADDRESSES.
FMCSA also analyzed this final rule under the Clean Air Act, as
amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and regulations
promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (40 CFR part 93,
subpart B). Under the General Conformity Rule, a conformity
determination is required where a Federal action would result in total
direct and indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or precursor
originating in nonattainment or maintenance areas equaling or exceeding
the rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1) and (2). As noted in the
NEPA discussion above, however, FMCSA expects a net decrease in air
emissions as a result of this final rule. Consequently, approval of
this action is exempt from the CAA's General Conformity Requirement
since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria
pollutants.
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this rule in accordance with the Executive Order,
and has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated
with this rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact that
would result from its promulgation.
List of Subjects
49 CFR Part 380
Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
49 CFR Part 383
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
49 CFR Part 384
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR
parts 380, 383, and 384 as follows:
PART 380--SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 380 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 31307, 31308, and
31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2151-
2152); sec. 32304 of Pub. L. 112-141; and 49 CFR 1.87.
Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements Before February
7, 2020
0
2. Revise subpart E to read as set forth above.
0
3. Add subpart F to read as follows:
Subpart F--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements On and After
February 7, 2020
Sec.
380.600 Compliance date for training requirements for entry-level
drivers.
380.601 Purpose and scope.
380.603 Applicability.
380.605 Definitions.
380.609 General entry-level driver training requirements.
Sec. 380.600 Compliance date for training requirements for entry-
level drivers.
Compliance with the provisions of this subpart is required on or
after February 7, 2020.
Sec. 380.601 Purpose and scope.
This subpart establishes training requirements for entry-level
drivers, as defined in this subpart, and minimum content for theory and
Behind-the-Wheel (BTW) training curricula. Entry-level driver training,
as defined in this subpart, applies only to those individuals who apply
for a commercial driver's license (CDL) or a CDL upgrade or endorsement
and does not otherwise amend substantive CDL requirements in part 383
of this chapter.
Sec. 380.603 Applicability.
(a) The rules in this subpart apply to all entry-level drivers, as
defined in this subpart, who intend to drive CMVs as defined in Sec.
383.5 of this chapter in interstate and/or intrastate commerce, except:
(1) Drivers excepted from the CDL requirements under Sec.
383.3(c), (d), and (h) of this chapter;
(2) Drivers applying for a restricted CDL under Sec. 383.3(e)
through (g) of this chapter;
(3) Veterans with military CMV experience who meet all the
requirements and conditions of Sec. 383.77 of this chapter; and
(4) Drivers applying for a removal of a restriction in accordance
with Sec. 383.135(b)(7).
(b) Drivers who hold a valid Class A or Class B CDL, or a passenger
(P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement, issued
before February 7, 2020, are not required to comply with this subpart
pertaining to that CDL or endorsement.
(c)(1) Individuals who obtain a CLP before February 7, 2020, are
not required to comply with this subpart if they obtain a CDL before
the CLP or renewed CLP expires.
(2) Individuals who obtain a CLP on or after February 7, 2020, are
required to comply with this subpart.
(3) Except for individuals seeking the H endorsement, individuals
must complete the theory and BTW (range and public road) portions of
entry-level driver training within one year of completing the first
portion.
Sec. 380.605 Definitions.
(a) The definitions in parts 383 and 384 of this subchapter apply
to this subpart, except as stated below.
(b) As used in this subpart:
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor means an individual who provides
BTW training involving the actual operation of a CMV by an entry-level
driver on a range or a public road and meets one of these
qualifications:
(i) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher) class and with all
endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided and has at least two years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the same endorsement
and meets all applicable State qualification requirements for CMV
instructors; or
(ii) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher) class and with all
endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided and has at least two years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor and meets all applicable State qualification requirements
for CMV instructors.
Exception: A BTW instructor who provides training solely on a range
which is not a public road is not required to hold a CDL of the same
(or higher) class and with all endorsements
[[Page 88791]]
necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be provided, as
long as the instructor previously held a CDL of the same (or higher)
class and with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, and complies with the other requirements
set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), or (3) of this definition.
(iii) If an instructor's CDL has been cancelled, suspended, or
revoked due to any of the disqualifying offenses identified in Sec.
383.51, the instructor is prohibited from engaging in BTW instruction
for two years following the date his or her CDL is reinstated.
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) range training means training provided by a
BTW instructor when an entry-level driver has actual control of the
power unit during a driving lesson conducted on a range. BTW range
training does not include time an entry-level driver spends observing
the operation of a CMV when he or she is not in control of the vehicle.
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) public road training means training provided
by a BTW instructor when an entry-level driver has actual control of
the power unit during a driving lesson conducted on a public road. BTW
public road training does not include the time that an entry-level
driver spends observing the operation of a CMV when he or she is not in
control of the vehicle.
Entry-level driver means an individual who must complete the CDL
skills test requirements under Sec. 383.71 prior to receiving a CDL
for the first time, upgrading to a Class A or Class B CDL, or obtaining
a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement for the
first time. This definition does not include individuals for whom
States waive the CDL skills test under Sec. 383.77 or individuals
seeking to remove a restriction in accordance with Sec. 383.135(b)(7).
Entry-level driver training means training an entry-level driver
receives from an entity listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry
prior to:
(i) Taking the CDL skills test required to receive the Class A or
Class B CDL for the first time;
(ii) Taking the CDL skills test required to upgrade to a Class A or
Class B CDL; or
(iii) Taking the CDL skills test required to obtain a passenger
and/or school bus endorsement for the first time or the CDL knowledge
test required to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement for the first
time.
Range means an area that must be free of obstructions, enables the
driver to maneuver safely and free from interference from other
vehicles and hazards, and has adequate sight lines.
Theory instruction means knowledge instruction on the operation of
a CMV and related matters provided by a theory instructor through
lectures, demonstrations, audio-visual presentations, computer-based
instruction, driving simulation devices, online training, or similar
means.
Theory instructor means an individual who provides knowledge
instruction on the operation of a CMV and meets one of these
qualifications:
(i) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher) class and with all
endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided and has at least two years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of the same (or higher) class and/or the same
endorsement and meets all applicable State qualification requirements
for CMV instructors; or
(ii) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher) class and with all
endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided and has at least two years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor and meets all applicable State qualification requirements
for CMV instructors.
Exception: An instructor is not required to hold a CDL of the same
(or higher) class and with all endorsements necessary to operate the
CMV for which training is to be provided, if the instructor previously
held a CDL of the same (or higher) class and complies with the other
requirements set forth in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
definition.
(iii) If an instructor's CDL has been cancelled, suspended, or
revoked due to any of the disqualifying offenses identified in Sec.
383.51, the instructor is prohibited from engaging in theory
instruction for two years following the date his or her CDL is
reinstated.
(iv) Exception. Training providers offering online content
exclusively are not required to meet State qualification requirements
for theory instructors.
Training provider means an entity that is listed on the FMCSA
Training Provider Registry, as required by subpart G of this part.
Training providers include, but are not limited to, training schools,
educational institutions, rural electric cooperatives, motor carriers,
State/local governments, school districts, joint labor management
programs, owner-operators, and individuals.
Sec. 380.609 General entry-level driver training requirements.
(a) An individual who applies, for the first time, for a Class A or
Class B CDL, or who upgrades to a Class A or B CDL, must complete
driver training from a provider listed on the Training Provider
Registry (TPR), as set forth in subpart G.
(b) An individual seeking to obtain a passenger (P), school bus
(S), or hazardous materials (H) endorsement for the first time, must
complete the training related to that endorsement from a training
provider listed on the TPR, as set forth in subpart G.
0
5. Subpart G is added to read as follows:
Subpart G--Registry of Entry-Level Driver Training Providers
Sec.
380.700 Scope.
380.703 Requirements for listing on the training provider registry
(TPR).
380.707 Entry-level training provider requirements.
380.709 Facilities.
380.711 Equipment.
380.713 Instructor requirements.
380.715 Assessments.
380.717 Training certification.
380.719 Requirements for continued listing on the training provider
registry (TPR).
380.721 Removal from Training Provider Registry: factors considered.
380.723 Removal from Training Provider Registry: procedure.
380.725 Documentation and record retention.
Sec. 380.700 Scope.
The rules in this subpart establish the eligibility requirements
for listing on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR). In order to
provide entry-level driver training in compliance with this part,
training providers must be listed on the TPR.
Sec. 380.703 Requirements for listing on the training provider
registry (TPR).
(a) To be eligible for listing on the TPR, an entity must:
(1) Follow a curriculum that meets the applicable criteria set
forth in appendices A through E of part 380,
(2) Utilize facilities that meet the criteria set forth in Sec.
380.709;
(3) Utilize vehicles that meet the criteria set forth in Sec.
380.711;
(4) Utilize driver training instructors that meet the criteria set
forth in Sec. 380.713;
(5)(i) Be licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide
training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations of any
State where in-person training is conducted.
(ii) Exception: State qualification requirements otherwise
applicable to theory instruction do not apply to providers offering
such instruction only online.
(6) Allow FMCSA or its authorized representative to audit or
investigate the
[[Page 88792]]
training provider's operations to ensure that the provider meets the
criteria set forth in this section.
(7) Electronically transmit an Entry-Level Driver Training Provider
Registration Form through the TPR Web site maintained by FMCSA, which
attests that the training provider meets all the applicable
requirements of this section, to obtain a unique TPR number. If a
training provider has more than one campus or training location, the
training provider must electronically transmit an Entry-Level Driver
Training Provider Registration Form for each campus or training
location in order to obtain a unique TPR number for each location.
(b) When a provider meets the requirements of Sec. Sec. 380.703
and 380.707, FMCSA will issue the provider a unique TPR number and, as
applicable, add the provider's name and/or contact information to the
TPR Web site.
Sec. 380.707 Entry-level training provider.
(a) Training providers must require all accepted applicants for
behind-the-wheel (BTW) training to certify that they will comply U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations in parts 40, 382, 383, and
391, as well as State and/or local laws, related to controlled
substances testing, age, medical certification, licensing, and driving
record. Training providers must verify that all accepted BTW applicants
hold a valid commercial learner's permit or commercial driver's
license, as applicable.
(b) Training providers offering online training must ensure that
the content is prepared and/or delivered by a theory instructor, as
defined in Sec. 380.605.
(c) Separate training providers may deliver the theory and BTW
portions of the training, but both portions (range and public road) of
the BTW training must be delivered by the same training provider.
Sec. 380.709 Facilities.
The training provider's classroom and range facilities must comply
with all applicable Federal, State, and/or local statutes and
regulations.
Sec. 380.711 Equipment.
(a) All vehicles used in the behind-the-wheel training must comply
with applicable Federal and State safety requirements.
(b) Training vehicles must be in the same group and type that
driver-trainees intend to operate for their CDL skills test.
Sec. 380.713 Instructor requirements.
(a) Theory training providers must utilize instructors who are a
theory instructor as defined in Sec. 380.605.
(b) BTW training providers must utilize instructors who are a BTW
instructors as defined in Sec. 380.605.
Sec. 380.715 Assessments.
(a) Training providers must use assessments (in written or
electronic format) to determine driver-trainees' proficiency in the
knowledge objectives in the theory portion of each unit of instruction
in appendices A through E of part 380, as applicable. The driver-
trainee must receive an overall minimum score of 80 percent on the
theory assessment.
(b) Training instructors must evaluate and document a driver-
trainee's proficiency in BTW skills in accordance with the curricula in
appendices A through D of part 380, as applicable.
Sec. 380.717 Training certification.
After an individual completes training administered by a provider
listed on the TPR, that provider must, by midnight of the second
business day after the driver-trainee completes the training,
electronically transmit training certification information through the
TPR Web site including the following:
(a) Driver-trainee name, number of driver's license/commercial
learner's permit/commercial driver's license, as applicable, and State
of licensure;
(b) Commercial driver's license class and/or endorsement and type
of training (theory and/or BTW) the driver-trainee completed;
(c) Total number of clock hours the driver-trainee spent to
complete BTW training, as applicable;
(d) Name of the training provider and its unique TPR identification
number; and
(e) Date(s) of successful training completion.
Sec. 380.719 Requirements for continued listing on the training
provider registry (TPR).
(a) To be eligible for continued listing on the TPR, a provider
must:
(1) Meet the requirements of this subpart and the applicable
requirements of Sec. 380.703.
(2) Biennially update the Entry-Level Driver Training Provider
Registration Form.
(3) Report to FMCSA changes to key information, as identified in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) of this section, within 30 days of the change.
(i) Key information is defined as training provider name, address,
phone number, type(s) of training offered, training provider status,
and, if applicable, any change in State licensure, certification, or
accreditation status.
(ii) Changes must be reported by electronically transmitting an
updated Entry-Level Driver Training Provider Registration Form.
(4) Maintain documentation of State licensure, registration, or
certification verifying that the provider is authorized to provide
training in that State, if applicable.
(5) Allow an audit or investigation of the training provider to be
completed by FMCSA or its authorized representative, if requested.
(6) Ensure that all required documentation, as set forth in Sec.
380.725, is available to FMCSA or its authorized representative, upon
request. The provider must submit this documentation within 48 hours of
the request.
(b) [Reserved]
Sec. 380.721 Removal from training provider registry: factors
considered.
FMCSA may remove a provider from the TPR when a provider fails to
meet or maintain any of the qualifications established by this subpart
or the requirements of other State and Federal regulations applicable
to the provider. If FMCSA removes a provider from the TPR, any training
conducted after the removal date will be considered invalid.
(a) The factors FMCSA may consider for removing a provider from the
TPR include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The provider fails to comply with the requirements for
continued listing on the TPR, as described in Sec. 380.719.
(2) The provider denies FMCSA or its authorized representatives the
opportunity to conduct an audit or investigation of its training
operations.
(3) The audit or investigation conducted by FMCSA or its authorized
representatives identifies material deficiencies, pertaining to the
training provider's program, operations, or eligibility.
(4) The provider falsely claims to be licensed, certified,
registered, or authorized to provide training in accordance with the
applicable laws and regulations in any State where in-person training
is provided.
(5) The State-administered CDL skills examination passage rate for
applicants for the Class A CDL, Class B CDL, passenger endorsement,
and/or school bus endorsement who complete the provider's training and
the CDL knowledge test passage rate for applicants for the hazardous
materials endorsement who complete the provider's training.
(b) In instances of fraud or other criminal behavior by a training
provider in which driver-trainees have
[[Page 88793]]
knowingly participated, FMCSA reserves the right, on a case-by-case
basis, to retroactively invalidate training conducted under this
subpart .
Sec. 380.723 Removal from training provider registry: procedure.
(a) Voluntary removal. To be voluntarily removed from the Training
Provider Registry (TPR), a provider must submit written notice to
FMCSA's Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety
Standards (Director). Upon receiving the written notice, FMCSA will
remove the training provider from the TPR. On and after the date of
issuance of a notice of proposed removal from the TPR issued in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, such a voluntary removal
notice will not be effective.
(b) Involuntary removal; Notice of proposed removal. Except as
provided by paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section, FMCSA initiates the
process for involuntary removal of a provider from the TPR by issuing a
written notice to the provider, stating the reasons for the proposed
removal and setting forth any corrective actions necessary for the
provider to remain listed on the TPR. If a notice of proposed removal
is issued, the provider must notify current driver-trainees and driver-
trainees scheduled for future training of the proposed removal. If a
notice of proposed removal is issued to a training provider listed on
the TPR Web site, FMCSA will note on the TPR Web site that such notice
has been issued. FMCSA will remove the notation if the notice is
withdrawn.
(c) Response to notice of proposed removal and corrective action. A
training provider that has received a notice of proposed removal and
wishes to remain on the TPR must submit a written response to the
Director no later than 30 days after the date of issuance of the notice
explaining why it believes that decision is not proper, as described in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Alternatively, the provider will set
forth corrective actions taken in response to FMCSA's notice of
proposed removal, as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(1) Opposing a notice of proposed removal. If the provider believes
FMCSA has relied on erroneous information in proposing removal from the
TPR, the provider must explain the basis for that belief and provide
supporting documentation. The Director will review the explanation.
(i) If the Director finds that FMCSA has relied on erroneous
information to propose removal of a training provider from the TPR, the
Director will withdraw the notice of proposed removal and notify the
provider of the withdrawal in writing.
(ii) If the Director finds that FMCSA has not relied on erroneous
information in proposing removal, the Director will affirm the notice
of proposed removal and notify the provider in writing of the
determination. No later than 60 days after the date the Director
affirms the notice of proposed removal, or as otherwise agreed to by
the provider and the Director, the provider must comply with this
subpart and correct the deficiencies identified in the notice of
proposed removal as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) If the provider does not respond in writing within 30 days of
the date of issuance of a notice of proposed removal, the removal
becomes effective immediately and the provider will be removed from the
TPR. Any training conducted after the removal date is invalid.
(2) Corrective action. (i) The provider must comply with this
subpart and complete the corrective actions specified in the notice of
proposed removal no later than 60 days after either the date of
issuance of the notice of proposed removal or the date the Director
subsequently affirms or modifies the notice of proposed removal. The
provider must provide documentation of completion of the corrective
action(s) to the Director. The Director may conduct an investigation
and request any documentation necessary to verify that the provider has
complied with this subpart and completed the required corrective
action(s). The Director will notify the provider in writing whether it
has met the requirements for continued listing on the TPR.
(ii) If the provider fails to complete the proposed corrective
action(s) within the 60-day period, the provider will be removed from
the TPR. The Director will notify the provider in writing of the
removal.
(d) Request for administrative review. If a provider has been
removed from the TPR under paragraph (c)(1)(iii), (c)(2)(ii), or (e) of
this section, the provider may request an administrative review. The
request must be submitted in writing to the FMCSA Associate
Administrator for Policy (Associate Administrator) no later than 30
days after the effective date of the removal. The request must explain
the alleged error(s) committed in removing the provider from the TPR,
and include all factual, legal, and procedural issues in dispute, as
well as any supporting documentation.
(1) Additional procedures for administrative review. The Associate
Administrator may ask the provider to submit additional information or
attend a conference to discuss the removal. If the provider does not
provide the information requested, or does not attend the scheduled
conference, the Associate Administrator may dismiss the request for
administrative review.
(2) Decision on administrative review. The Associate Administrator
will complete the administrative review and notify the provider in
writing of the decision. The decision constitutes final Agency action.
If the Associate Administrator deems the removal to be invalid, FMCSA
will reinstate the provider's listing on the TPR.
(e) Emergency removal. In cases of fraud, criminal behavior, or
willful disregard of the regulations in this subpart or in which public
health, interest, or safety requires, the provisions of paragraph (b)
of this section are not applicable. In these cases, the Director may
immediately remove a provider from the TPR. In instances of fraud or
other criminal behavior by a training provider in which driver-trainees
have knowingly participated, FMCSA reserves the right to retroactively
invalidate training conducted under this subpart. A provider who has
been removed under the provisions of this paragraph may request an
administrative review of that decision as described under paragraph (d)
of this section.
(f) Reinstatement to the Training Provider Registry. (1) Any time
after a training provider's voluntary removal from the TPR, the
provider may apply to the Director to be reinstated.
(2) No sooner than 30 days after the date of a provider's
involuntary removal from the TPR, the provider may apply to the
Director to be reinstated. The provider must submit documentation
showing completion of any corrective action(s) identified in the notice
of proposed removal or final notice of removal, as applicable.
Sec. 380.725 Documentation and record retention.
(a) Applicability. The documentation and retention of records
required by this subpart apply to entities that meet the requirements
of subpart F of this part and are eligible for listing on the Training
Provider Registry (TPR).
(b) Document retention. All training providers on the TPR must
retain the following:
(1) Self-certifications by all accepted applicants for behind-the-
wheel (BTW) training attesting that they will comply with U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations in parts 40, 382, 383 and 391,
as well as State and/or local laws,
[[Page 88794]]
related to alcohol and controlled substances testing, age, medical
certification, licensing, and driver records, as required in
380.707(a). (2) A copy of the driver-trainee's commercial learner's
permit(s) or commercial driver's license, as applicable, as required in
380.707(a).
(3) Instructor qualification documentation indicating driving and/
or training experience, as applicable, for each instructor and copies
of commercial driver's licenses and applicable endorsements held by BTW
instructors or theory instructors, as applicable.
(4) The Training Provider Registration Form submitted to the TPR.
(5) The lesson plans for theory and BTW (range and public road)
training curricula, as applicable.
(6) Records of individual entry-level driver training assessments
as described in Sec. 380.715.
(c) Retention of records. Training providers listed on the TPR must
retain the records identified in paragraph (b) of this section for a
minimum of three years from the date each required record is generated
or received, unless a record, such as a BTW instructor's CDL, has
expired or been canceled, in which case the most recent, valid CDL
should be retained, if applicable. The provisions of this part do not
affect a training provider's obligation to comply with any other local,
State, or Federal requirements prescribing longer retention periods for
any category of records described herein.
Appendix to Part 380 [Redesignated as Appendix F to Part 380]
0
6. The appendix to part 380 is redesignated as appendix F to part 380.
0
7. Add appendices A through E to part 380 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 380--Class A--CDL Training Curriculum
Class A CDL applicants must complete the Class A CDL curriculum
outlined in this Appendix. The curriculum for Class A applicants
pertains to combination vehicles (Group A) as defined in 49 CFR
383.91(a)(1). There is no required minimum number of instruction
hours for theory training, but the training instructor must cover
all topics set forth in the curriculum. There is no required minimum
number of instruction hours for BTW (range and public road)
training, but the training instructor must cover all topics set
forth in the BTW curriculum. BTW training must be conducted in a CMV
for which a Class A CDL is required. The instructor must determine
and document that each driver-trainee has demonstrated proficiency
in all elements of the BTW curriculum, unless otherwise noted.
Consistent with the definitions of BTW range training and BTW public
road training in Sec. 380.605, a simulation device cannot be used
to conduct such training or to demonstrate proficiency. Training
instructors must document the total number of clock hours each
driver-trainee spends to complete the BTW curriculum. The Class A
curriculum must, at a minimum, include the following:
Theory Instruction
Section A1.1 Basic Operation
This section must cover the interaction between driver-trainees
and the CMV. Driver-trainees will receive instruction in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and will be introduced to
the basic CMV instruments and controls. Training providers will
teach driver-trainees the basic operating characteristics of a CMV.
This section must also teach driver-trainees how to properly perform
vehicle inspections, control the motion of CMVs under various road
and traffic conditions, employ shifting and backing techniques, and
properly couple and uncouple combination vehicles. Driver-trainees
must familiarize themselves with the basic operating characteristics
of a CMV.
Unit A1.1.1 Orientation
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the combination
vehicle driver training curriculum and the components of a
combination vehicle. The training providers must teach the safety
fundamentals, essential regulatory requirements (e.g., overview of
FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials Regulations), and driver-trainees'
responsibilities not directly related to CMV driving, such as proper
cargo securement. This unit must also cover the ramifications,
including driver disqualification provisions and fines, for non-
compliance with parts 380, 382, 383, and 390 through 399 of the
FMCSRs. This unit must also include an overview of the applicability
of State and local laws relating to the safe operation of the CMV,
stopping at weigh stations/scales, hazard awareness of vehicle size
and weight limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV height
restrictions), and bridge formulas.
Unit A1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to vehicle instruments,
controls, and safety components. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees to read gauges and instruments correctly and the
proper use of vehicle safety components, including safety belts and
mirrors. The training providers must teach driver-trainees to
identify, locate, and explain the function of each of the primary
and secondary controls including those required for steering,
accelerating, shifting, braking systems (e.g., ABS, hydraulic, air),
as applicable, and parking.
Unit A1.1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
This unit must teach the driver-trainees to conduct pre-trip and
post-trip inspections as specified in Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11,
including appropriate inspection locations. Instruction must also be
provided on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit A1.1.4 Basic Control
This unit must introduce basic vehicular control and handling as
it applies to combination vehicles. This unit must include
instruction addressing basic combination vehicle controls in areas
such as executing sharp left and right turns, centering the vehicle,
maneuvering in restricted areas, and entering and exiting the
interstate or controlled access highway.
Unit A1.1.5 Shifting/Operating Transmissions
This unit must introduce shifting patterns and procedures to
driver-trainees to prepare them to safely and competently perform
basic shifting maneuvers. This unit must include training driver-
trainees to execute up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed
dual range transmissions, if appropriate. The training providers
must teach the importance of increased vehicle control and improved
fuel economy achieved by utilizing proper shifting techniques.
Unit A1.1.6 Backing and Docking
This unit must teach driver-trainees to back and dock the
combination vehicle safely. This unit must cover ``Get Out and
Look'' (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading facilities, knowledge
of backing set ups, as well as instruction in how to back with the
use of spotters.
Unit A1.1.7 Coupling and Uncoupling
This unit must provide instruction for driver-trainees to
develop the skills necessary to conduct the procedures for safe
coupling and uncoupling of combination vehicle units, as applicable.
Section A1.2 Safe Operating Procedures
This section must teach the practices required for safe
operation of the combination vehicle on the highway under various
road, weather, and traffic conditions. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the Federal rules governing the proper use of
seat belt assemblies (Sec. 392.16).
Unit A1.2.1 Visual Search
This unit must teach driver-trainees to visually search the road
for potential hazards and critical objects, including instruction on
recognizing distracted pedestrians or distracted drivers.
Unit A1.2.2 Communication
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on how to communicate
their intentions to other road users. Driver-trainees must be
instructed in techniques for different types of communication on the
road, including proper use of headlights, turn signals, four-way
flashers, and horns. This unit must cover instruction in proper
utilization of eye contact techniques with other drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Unit A1.2.3 Distracted Driving
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in FMCSRs related to
distracted driving and other key driver distraction driving issues,
including improper cell phone use, texting, and use of in-cab
technology (e.g., Sec. Sec. 392.80 and 392.82). This instruction
will include training in the following aspects: visual attention
(keeping eyes on the road); manual control (keeping hands on the
wheel); and cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the task and safe
operation of the CMV).
[[Page 88795]]
Unit A1.2.4 Speed Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to manage speed
effectively in response to various road, weather, and traffic
conditions. The instruction must include methods for calibrating
safe following distances taking into account CMV braking distances
under an array of conditions including traffic, weather, and CMV
weight and length.
Unit A1.2.5 Space Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees about the importance of
managing the space surrounding the vehicle under various traffic and
road conditions.
Unit A1.2.6 Night Operation
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in the factors affecting
the safe operation of CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally,
driver-trainees must be instructed in changes in vision,
communications, speed space management, and proper use of lights, as
needed, to deal with the special problems night driving presents.
Unit A1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions
This unit must teach driver-trainees about the specific problems
presented by extreme driving conditions. The training provide will
emphasize the factors affecting the operation of CMVs in cold, hot,
and inclement weather and on steep grades and sharp curves. The
training provider must teach proper tire chaining procedures.
Section A1.3 Advanced Operating Practices
This section must introduce higher-level skills that can be
acquired only after the more fundamental skills and knowledge taught
in the prior two sections have been mastered. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees about the advanced skills necessary to
recognize potential hazards and must teach the driver-trainees the
procedures needed to handle a CMV when faced with a hazard.
Unit A1.3.1 Hazard Perception
The unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize potential
hazards in the driving environment in order to reduce the severity
of the hazard and neutralize possible emergency situations. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a potential threat to the
safety of the combination vehicle and suggest appropriate
adjustments. The instruction must emphasize hazard recognition,
visual search, adequate surveillance, and response to possible
emergency-producing situations encountered by CMV drivers in various
traffic situations. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees to recognize potential dangers and the safety procedures
that must be utilized while driving in construction/work zones.
Unit A1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery, Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
This unit must teach the causes of skidding and jackknifing and
techniques for avoiding and recovering from them. The training
providers must teach the importance of maintaining directional
control and bringing the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible
distance while operating over a slippery surface. This unit must
provide instruction in appropriate responses when faced with CMV
emergencies. This instruction must include evasive steering,
emergency braking, and off-road recovery, as well as the proper
response to brake failures, tire blowouts, hydroplaning, and
rollovers. The instruction must include a review of unsafe acts and
the role the acts play in producing or worsening hazardous
situations.
Unit A1.3.3 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
This unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize potential
dangers and the appropriate safety procedures to utilize at railroad
(RR)-highway grade crossings. This instruction must include an
overview of various Federal/State RR grade crossing regulations, RR
grade crossing environments, obstructed view conditions, clearance
around the tracks, and rail signs and signals. The training
providers must instruct driver-trainees that railroads have
personnel available (``Emergency Notification Systems'') to receive
notification of any information relating to an unsafe condition at
the RR-highway grade crossing or a disabled vehicle or other
obstruction blocking a railroad track at the RR-highway grade
crossing.
Section A1.4 Vehicle Systems and Reporting Malfunctions
This section must provide entry-level driver-trainees with
sufficient knowledge of the combination vehicle and its systems and
subsystems to ensure that they understand and respect their role in
vehicle inspection, operation, and maintenance and the impact of
those factors upon highway safety and operational efficiency.
Unit A1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis of Malfunctions
This unit must teach driver-trainees to identify major
combination vehicle systems. The goal is to explain their function
and how to check all key vehicle systems, (e.g., engine, engine
exhaust auxiliary systems, brakes, drive train, coupling systems,
and suspension) to ensure their safe operation. Driver-trainees must
be provided with a detailed description of each system, its
importance to safe and efficient operation, and what is needed to
keep the system in good operating condition.
Unit A1.4.2 Roadside Inspections
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on what to expect during
a standard roadside inspection conducted by authorized personnel.
The training providers must teach driver-trainees on what vehicle
and driver violations are classified as out-of-service (OOS),
including the ramifications and penalties for operating a CMV when
subject to an OOS order as defined in section 390.5.
Unit A1.4.3 Maintenance
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the basic servicing
and checking procedures for various engine and vehicle components
and to help develop their ability to perform preventive maintenance
and simple emergency repairs.
Section A1.5 Non-Driving Activities
This section must teach driver-trainees the activities that do
not involve actually operating the CMV.
Unit A1.5.1 Handling and Documenting Cargo
This unit must teach the basic theory of cargo weight
distribution, cargo securement on the vehicle, cargo covering, and
techniques for safe and efficient loading/unloading. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the basic cargo security/cargo
theft prevention procedures. The training provider must teach
driver-trainees the basic information regarding the proper handling
and documentation of HM cargo.
Unit A1.5.2 Environmental Compliance Issues
This unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize environmental
hazards and issues related to the CMV and load, and also make the
driver-trainee aware that city, county, State, and Federal
requirements may apply to such circumstances.
Unit A1.5.3 Hours of Service Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees to understand that there
are different hours-of-service (HOS) requirements applicable to
different industries. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees all applicable HOS regulatory requirements. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees to complete a Driver's Daily
Log (electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. The training providers must teach driver-trainees the
consequences (safety, legal, and personal) of violating the HOS
regulations, including the fines and penalties imposed for these
types of violations.
Unit A1.5.4 Fatigue and Wellness Awareness
This unit must teach driver-trainees about the issues and
consequences of chronic and acute driver fatigue and the importance
of staying alert. The training providers must teach driver-trainees
wellness and basic health maintenance information that affect a
driver's ability to safely operate a CMV.
Unit A1.5.5 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees appropriate post-crash
procedures, including the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition immediately after the crash and
notify authorities or assign the task to other individuals at the
crash scene. The training providers must teach driver-trainees how
to protect the area; obtain emergency medical assistance; move on-
road vehicles off the road in minor crashes so as to avoid
subsequent crashes or injuries; engage flashers; place reflective
triangles and other warning devices for stopped vehicles; and
properly use a fire extinguisher, if necessary. The training
providers must instruct driver-trainees in post-crash testing
requirements related to controlled substances and alcohol.
Unit A1.5.6 External Communications
This unit must teach driver-trainees in the value of effective
interpersonal communication techniques/skills to interact
[[Page 88796]]
with enforcement officials. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the specifics of the roadside vehicle inspection
process, and what to expect during this activity. Driver-trainees
who are not English speakers must be instructed in FMCSA English
language proficiency requirements. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the impact that violating Federal and state
regulations has on their driving records and their employing motor
carrier's records.
Unit A1.5.7 Whistleblower/Coercion
This unit must teach the driver-trainees about the right of an
employee to question the safety practices of an employer without
incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject to reprisals
simply for stating a safety concern. The training providers must
instruct driver-trainees in the whistleblower protection regulations
in 29 CFR part 1978. The training providers must teach the
procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from motor
carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries.
Unit A1.5.8 Trip Planning
This unit must address the importance of and requirements for
planning routes and trips. This instruction must address planning
the safest route, planning for rest stops, heavy traffic areas,
railroad-highway grade crossing safe clearance and ground clearance
(i.e., ``high center''), the importance of Federal and State
requirements on the need for permits, and vehicle size and weight
limitations. The training providers must teach driver-trainees in
the correct identification of restricted routes, the pros and cons
of Global Positioning System (GPS)/trip routing software, and the
importance of selecting fuel-efficient routes.
Unit A1.5.9 Drugs/Alcohol
This unit must teach driver-trainees the rules applicable to
controlled substances (including prescription drugs) and alcohol use
and testing related to the operation of a CMV.
Unit A1.5.10 Medical Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the Federal rules on
medical certification, medical examination procedures, general
qualifications, responsibilities, and disqualifications based on
various offenses, orders, and loss of driving privileges (49 CFR
part 391, subparts B and E).
Behind-the-Wheel--Range
BTW range training must teach driving exercises related to basic
vehicle control skills and mastery of basic maneuvers, as covered in
Sec. Sec. 383.111 and 383.113 of this chapter, necessary to operate
the vehicle safely. The training providers will teach activities in
this unit on a driving range as defined in Sec. 380.605. The
training provider must teach ``Get Out and Look'' (GOAL) to the
driver-trainee as it applies to units A2.2-2.6.
Unit A2.1 Vehicle Inspection Pre-Trip/Enroute/Post-Trip
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in conducting pre-
trip and post-trip inspections as specified in Sec. Sec. 392.7 and
396.11, including appropriate inspection locations. Instruction must
also be provided on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit A2.2 Straight Line Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing various straight line backing maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.3 Alley Dock Backing (45/90 Degree)
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing 45/90 degree alley dock maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.4 Off-Set Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing off-set right and left backing maneuvers
to appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.5 Parallel Parking Blind Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing parallel parking blind side positions/
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.6 Parallel Parking Sight Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing sight side parallel parking maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.7 Coupling and Uncoupling
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for coupling, inspecting, and uncoupling combination
vehicle units, as applicable.
Behind-the-Wheel--Public Road
The instructor must engage in active two-way communication with
the driver-trainees during all active BTW public road training
sessions. Skills described in paragraphs A3.8 through 3.12 of this
section must be discussed during public road training, but not
necessarily performed. Driver-trainees are not required to
demonstrate proficiency in the skills described in paragraphs A3.8
through 3.12.
Unit A3.1 Vehicle Controls Including: Left Turn, Right Turns, Lane
Changes, Curves at Highway Speeds, and Entry and Exit on the
Interstate or Controlled Access Highway
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for initiating vehicle movement, executing left and right
turns, changing lanes, navigating curves at speed, entry and exit on
the interstate or controlled access highway, and stopping the
vehicle in a controlled manner.
Unit A3.2 Shifting/Transmission
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting.
Unit A3.3 Communications/Signaling
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for signaling intentions and effectively communicating
with other drivers.
Unit A3.4 Visual Search
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for visually searching the road for potential hazards and
critical objects.
Unit A3.5 Speed and Space Management
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper habits
and techniques for adjusting and maintaining vehicle speed, taking
into consideration various factors such as traffic and road
conditions. Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in
maintaining proper speed to keep appropriate spacing between the
driver-trainee's CMV and other vehicles. Instruction must include
methods for calibrating safe following distances under an array of
conditions including traffic, weather, and CMV weight and length.
Unit A3.6 Safe Driver Behavior
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in safe driver
behavior during their operation of the CMV.
Unit A3.7 Hours of Service (HOS) Requirements
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in the basic
activities required by the HOS regulations, such as completing a
Driver's Daily Log (electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook
recap, as appropriate.
Unit A3.8 Hazard Perception
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their ability to recognize
potential hazards in the driving environment in time to reduce the
severity of the hazard and neutralize possible emergency situations.
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the ability to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a potential threat to the
safety of the combination vehicle and suggest appropriate
adjustments.
Unit A3.9 Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade Crossing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the ability to recognize
potential dangers and to demonstrate appropriate safety procedures
when RR-highway grade crossings are reasonably available.
Unit A3.10 Night Operation
Driver-trainees must be familiar with how to operate a CMV
safely at night. Training providers must teach driver-trainees that
night driving presents specific circumstances that require
heightened attention on the part of the driver. Driver-trainees must
be taught special requirements for night vision, communications,
speed, space management, and proper use of lights.
Unit A3.11 Extreme Driving Conditions
Driver-trainees must be familiar with the special risks created
by, and the heightened precautions required by, driving CMVs under
extreme driving conditions, such as heavy rain, high wind, high
heat, fog, snow, ice, steep grades, and sharp curves. Driver-
trainees must demonstrate their ability to recognize the changes in
basic driving habits needed to deal with the specific challenges
[[Page 88797]]
presented by these extreme driving conditions.
Unit A3.12 Skid Control/Recovery, Jackknifing, and Other
Emergencies
Driver-trainees must know the causes of skidding and jackknifing
and techniques for avoiding and recovering from them. Driver-
trainees must know how to maintain directional control and bring the
CMV to a stop in the shortest possible distance while operating over
a slippery surface. Driver-trainees must be familiar with proper
techniques for responding to CMV emergencies, such as evasive
steering, emergency braking, and off-road recovery. They must also
know how to prevent or respond to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers.
Appendix B to Part 380--Class B--CDL Training Curriculum
Class B CDL applicants must complete the Class B CDL curriculum
outlined in this Appendix. The curriculum for Class B applicants
pertains to heavy straight vehicles (Group B) as defined in 49 CFR
383.91(a)(2). There is no required minimum number of instruction
hours for theory training, but the training instructor must cover
all the topics in curriculum. There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours required for BTW (range and public road) training,
but the training instructor must cover all topics set forth in the
BTW curriculum. BTW training must be conducted in a CMV for which a
Class B CDL is required. The instructor must determine and document
that each driver-trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum unless otherwise noted. Consistent
with the definitions of BTW range training and BTW public road
training in Sec. 380.605, a simulation device cannot be used to
conduct such training or to demonstrate proficiency. Training
instructors must document the total number of clock hours each
driver-trainee spends to complete the BTW curriculum. The Class B
curriculum must, at a minimum, include the following:
Theory Instruction
Section B1.1 Basic Operation
This section must cover the interaction between driver-trainees
and the CMV. Driver-trainees will receive instruction in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and will be introduced to
the basic CMV instruments and controls. This section must also teach
driver-trainees how to perform vehicle inspections, control the CMVs
under various road and traffic conditions, employ shifting and
backing techniques, and couple and uncouple, as applicable. Driver-
trainees must familiarize themselves with the basic operating
characteristics of a CMV.
Unit B1.1.1 Orientation
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the commercial motor
vehicle driver training curriculum and the components of a
commercial motor vehicle. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees the safety fundamentals, essential regulatory requirements
(i.e., overview of FMCSRs/hazardous materials (HM) regulations), and
driver-trainees' responsibilities not directly related to driving.
This unit must also cover the ramifications and driver
disqualification provisions and fines for non-compliance with parts
380, 382, 383, and 390 through 399 of the FMCSRs. This unit must
also include an overview of the applicability of State and local
laws relating to the safe operation of the CMV, stopping at weigh
stations/scales, hazard awareness of vehicle size and weight
limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV height restrictions),
and bridge formulas.
Unit B1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to vehicle instruments,
controls, and safety components. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees to read gauges and instruments correctly and the
proper use of vehicle safety components, including safety belts and
mirrors. The training providers must teach driver-trainees to
identify, locate, and explain the function of each of the primary
and secondary controls including those required for steering,
accelerating, shifting, braking systems (e.g., ABS, hydraulic, air),
as applicable, and parking.
Unit 1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
The training provider must teach the driver-trainees to conduct
pre-trip and post-trip inspections as specified in Sec. Sec. 392.7
and 396.11, including appropriate inspection locations. Instruction
must also be provided on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit B1.1.4 Basic Control
This unit must introduce basic vehicular control and handling as
it applies to commercial motor vehicles. This unit must include
instruction addressing basic CMV controls in areas such as executing
sharp left and right turns, centering the vehicle, maneuvering in
restricted areas, and entering and exiting the interstate or
controlled access highway.
Unit B1.1.5 Shifting/Operating Transmissions
This unit must introduce shifting patterns and procedures to
driver-trainees to prepare them to safely and competently perform
basic shifting maneuvers. This unit must teach driver-trainees to
execute up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual range
transmissions, if appropriate. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the importance of increased fuel economy achieved by
utilizing proper shifting techniques.
Unit B1.1.6 Backing and Docking
This unit must teach driver-trainees to back and dock the
combination vehicle safely. This unit must cover ``Get Out and
Look'' (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading facilities, knowledge
of backing set ups, as well as instruction in how to back with use
of spotters.
Section B1.2 Safe Operating Procedures
This section must teach the practices required for safe
operation of the CMV on the highway under various road, weather, and
traffic conditions. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees the Federal rules governing the proper use of seat belt
assemblies (Sec. 392.16).
Unit B1.2.1 Visual Search
This unit must teach driver-trainees to visually search the road
for potential hazards and critical objects, including instruction on
recognizing distracted pedestrians or distracted drivers. This unit
must include instruction in how to ensure a driver-trainee's
personal security/general awareness in common surroundings such as
truck stops and/or rest areas and at shipper/receiver locations.
Unit B1.2.2 Communication
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to communicate their
intentions to other road users. Driver-trainees must be instructed
in techniques for different types of communication on the road,
including proper use of headlights, turn signals, four-way flashers,
and horns. This unit must cover instruction in proper utilization of
eye contact techniques with other drivers, bicyclists, and
pedestrians.
Unit B1.2.3 Distracted Driving
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in FMCSRs related to
distracted driving and other key driver distraction driving issues,
including improper cell phone use, texting, and use of in-cab
technology (e.g., Sec. Sec. 392.80 and 392.82). This instruction
will include training in the following aspects: Visual attention
(keeping eyes on the road); manual control (keeping hands on the
wheel); and cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the task and safe
operation of the CMV).
Unit B1.2.4 Speed Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to manage speed
effectively in response to various road, weather, and traffic
conditions. The instruction must include methods for calibrating
safe following distances under an array of conditions including
traffic, weather and CMV weight and length.
Unit B1.2.5 Space Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees about the importance of
managing the space surrounding the vehicle under various traffic and
road conditions.
Unit B1.2.6 Night Operation
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in the factors affecting
the safe operation of CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally,
driver-trainees must be instructed in changes in vision,
communications, speed, space management, and proper use of lights,
as needed, to deal with the special problems night driving presents.
Unit B1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions
This unit must teach driver-trainees the specific problems
presented by extreme driving conditions. The training will emphasize
the factors affecting the operation of CMVs in cold, hot, and
inclement weather and on steep grades and sharp curves. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the proper tire chaining
procedures in this unit.
Section B1.3 Advanced Operating Practices
This section must introduce higher-level skills that can be
acquired only after the more fundamental skills and knowledge taught
in the prior two sections have been mastered.
[[Page 88798]]
The training providers must teach driver-trainees the advanced
skills necessary to recognize potential hazards and must teach
driver-trainees the procedures needed to handle a CMV when faced
with a hazard.
Unit B1.3.1 Hazard Perception
The unit must provide instruction for recognizing potential
hazards in the driving environment in order to reduce the severity
of the hazard and neutralize possible emergency situations. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a potential threat to the
safety of the CMV and suggest appropriate adjustments. The
instruction must emphasize hazard recognition, visual search,
adequate surveillance, and response to possible emergency-producing
situations encountered by CMV drivers in various traffic situations.
The training providers must also teach driver-trainees to recognize
potential dangers and the safety procedures that must be utilized
while driving in construction/work zones.
Unit B1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery, Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
This unit must teach the causes of skidding and jackknifing and
techniques for avoiding and recovering from them. The training
providers must teach the importance of maintaining directional
control and bringing the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible
distance while operating over a slippery surface. This unit must
provide instruction in appropriate responses when faced with CMV
emergencies. This instruction must include evasive steering,
emergency braking, and off-road recovery, as well as the proper
response to brake failures, tire blowouts, hydroplaning, and
rollovers. The instruction must include a review of unsafe acts and
the role the acts play in producing or worsening hazardous
situations.
Unit B1.3.3 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
This unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize potential
dangers and appropriate safety procedures to utilize at railroad
(RR)-highway grade crossings. This instruction must include an
overview of various Federal/State RR grade crossing regulations, RR
grade crossing environments, obstructed view conditions, clearance
around the tracks, and rail signs and signals. The training
providers must instruct driver-trainees that railroads have
personnel available (``Emergency Notification Systems'') to receive
notification of any information relating to an unsafe condition at
the RR-highway grade crossing or a disabled vehicle or other
obstruction blocking a railroad track at the RR-highway grade
crossing.
Section B1.4 Vehicle Systems and Reporting Malfunctions
This unit must provide entry-level driver-trainees with
sufficient knowledge of the CMV and its systems and subsystems to
ensure that they understand and respect their role in vehicle
inspection, operation, and maintenance and the impact of those
factors upon highway safety and operational efficiency.
Unit B1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis of Malfunctions
This unit must teach driver-trainees to identify major vehicle
systems. The goal is to explain their function and how to check all
key vehicle systems, as appropriate (e.g., engine, engine exhaust
auxiliary systems, brakes, drive train, coupling systems, and
suspension) to ensure their safe operation. Driver-trainees must be
provided with a detailed description of each system, its importance
to safe and efficient operation, and what is needed to keep the
system in good operating condition.
Unit B1.4.2 Roadside Inspections
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on what to expect during
a standard roadside inspection conducted by authorized personnel.
The training providers must teach driver-trainees on what vehicle
and driver violations are classified as out-of-service (OOS),
including the ramifications and penalties for operating a CMV when
subject to an OOS order as defined in section 390.5.
Unit B1.4.3 Maintenance
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the basic servicing
and checking procedures for various engine and vehicle components
and to help develop their ability to perform preventive maintenance
and simple emergency repairs.
Section B1.5 Non-Driving Activities
This section must teach driver-trainees activities that do not
involve actually operating the CMV, e.g., proper cargo securement.
Unit B1.5.1 Handling and Documenting Cargo
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic theory of cargo
weight distribution, cargo securement on the vehicle, cargo
covering, and techniques for safe and efficient loading/unloading.
The training providers must also teach driver-trainees the basic
cargo security/cargo theft prevention procedures. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the basic information regarding
the proper handling and documentation of HM cargo.
Unit B1.5.2 Environmental Compliance Issues
This unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize environmental
hazards and issues related to the CMV and load, and also make aware
that city, county, State, and Federal requirements may apply to such
circumstances.
Unit B1.5.3 Hours of Service Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees to understand that there
are different hours-of-service (HOS) requirements applicable to
different industries. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees all applicable HOS regulatory requirements. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees to complete a Driver's Daily
Log (electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. The training providers must teach driver-trainees the
consequences (safety, legal, and personal) of violating the HOS
regulations, including the fines and penalties imposed for these
types of violations.
Unit B1.5.4 Fatigue and Wellness Awareness
The issues and consequences of chronic and acute driver fatigue
and the importance of staying alert will be covered in this unit.
The training providers must teach driver-trainees about wellness and
basic health maintenance information that affect a driver's ability
to safely operate a CMV.
Unit B1.5.5 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees the appropriate post-crash
procedures, including the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition immediately after the crash and
notify authorities, or assign the task to other individuals at the
crash scene. The training providers must teach driver-trainees how
to protect the area; obtain emergency medical assistance; move on-
road vehicles off the road in minor crashes so as to avoid
subsequent crashes or injuries; engage flashers; place reflective
triangles and other warning devices for stopped vehicles; and
properly use a fire extinguisher, if necessary. The training
providers must instruct driver-trainees in post-crash testing
requirements related to controlled substances and alcohol.
Unit B1.5.6 External Communications
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in the value of
effective interpersonal communication techniques/skills to interact
with enforcement officials. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the specifics of the roadside vehicle inspection
process, and what to expect during this activity. Driver-trainees
who are not native English speakers must be instructed in FMCSA
English language proficiency requirements and the consequences for
violations. The training providers must teach driver-trainees the
implications of violating Federal and state regulations will have on
their driving records and their employing motor carrier's records.
Unit B1.5.7 Whistleblower/Coercion
This unit must teach the driver-trainees about the right of an
employee to question the safety practices of an employer without
incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject to reprisals
simply for stating a safety concern. The training providers must
instruct driver-trainees in the whistleblower protection regulations
in 29 CFR part 1978. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees the procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion
from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation
intermediaries.
Unit B1.5.8 Trip Planning
This unit must address the importance of and requirements for
planning routes and trips. This instruction must address planning
the safest route, planning for rest stops, heavy traffic areas,
railroad-highway grade crossing safe clearance and ground clearance
(i.e., ``high center''), the importance of Federal and State
requirements on the need for permits, and vehicle size and weight
limitations. The training providers must teach driver-trainees the
correct
[[Page 88799]]
identification of restricted routes, the pros and cons of Global
Positioning System (GPS)/trip routing software, and the importance
of selecting fuel-efficient routes.
Unit B1.5.9 Drugs/Alcohol
This unit must teach driver-trainees the rules applicable to
controlled substances (including prescription drugs) and alcohol use
and testing related to the operation of a CMV.
Unit B1.5.10 Medical Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the Federal rules on
medical certification, medical examination procedures, general
qualifications, responsibilities, and disqualifications based on
various offenses, orders, and loss of driving privileges (49 CFR
part 391, subparts B and E).
Behind-the-Wheel Range
This unit must teach driving exercises related to basic vehicle
control skills and mastery of basic maneuvers, as covered in
Sec. Sec. 383.111 and 383.113 of this chapter necessary to operate
the vehicle safely. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees activities in this unit on a driving range as defined in
Sec. 380.605. The training provider must teach ``Get Out and Look''
(GOAL) to the driver-trainee as it applies to units B2.2-2.6.
Unit B2.1 Vehicle Inspection Pre-Trip/Enroute/Post-Trip
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in conducting pre-
trip and post-trip inspections as specified in Sec. Sec. 392.7 and
396.11, including appropriate inspection locations. Instruction must
also be provided on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit B2.2 Straight Line Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing various straight line backing maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.3 Alley Dock Backing (45/90 Degree)
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing 45/90 degree alley dock maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.4 Off-Set Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing off-set backing maneuvers to appropriate
criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.5 Parallel Parking Blind Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing parallel parking blind side positions/
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.6 Parallel Parking Sight Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing sight side parallel parking maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Behind-the-Wheel Public Road
The instructor must engage in active two-way communication with
the driver-trainees during all active BTW public road training
sessions. Skills described in paragraphs B3.8 through 3.12 of this
section must be discussed during public road training, but not
necessarily performed. Driver-trainees are not required to
demonstrate proficiency in the skills described in paragraphs B3.8
through 3.12.
Unit B3.1 Vehicle Controls Including: Left Turns, Right Turns, Lane
Changes, Curves at Highway Speeds, and Entry and Exit on the
Interstate or Controlled Access Highway
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for initiating vehicle movement, executing left and right
turns, changing lanes, navigating curves at speed, exiting and
entering the interstate, and stopping the vehicle in a controlled
manner.
Unit B3.2 Shifting/Transmission
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting.
Unit B3.3 Communications/Signaling
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for signaling intentions and effectively communicating
with other drivers.
Unit B3.4 Visual Search
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper
techniques for visually searching the road for potential hazards and
critical objects.
Unit B3.5 Speed and Space Management
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in proper habits
and techniques for adjusting and maintaining vehicle speed, taking
into consideration various factors such as traffic and road
conditions. Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in
maintaining proper speed to keep appropriate spacing between the
driver-trainee's CMV and other vehicles. Instruction must include
methods for calibrating safe following distances under an array of
conditions including traffic, weather, and CMV weight and length.
Unit B3.6 Safe Driver Behavior
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in safe driver
behavior during their operation of the CMV.
Unit B3.7 Hours of Service (HOS) Requirements
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in the basic
activities required by the HOS regulations, such as completing a
Driver's Daily Log (electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook
recap, as appropriate.
Unit B3.8 Hazard Perception
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their ability to recognize
potential hazards in the driving environment in time to reduce the
severity of the hazard and neutralize possible emergency situations.
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the ability to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a potential threat to
vehicle safety and suggest appropriate adjustments.
Unit B3.9 Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade Crossing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the ability to recognize
potential dangers and to demonstrate appropriate safety procedures
when RR-highway grade crossings are reasonably available.
Unit B3.10 Night Operation
Driver-trainees must be familiar with how to operate a CMV
safely at night. Training providers must teach driver-trainees that
night driving presents specific circumstances that require
heightened attention on the part of the driver. Driver-trainees must
be taught special requirements for night vision, communications,
speed, space management, and proper use of lights.
Unit B3.11 Extreme Driving Conditions
Driver-trainees must be familiar with the special risks created
by, and the heightened precautions required by, driving CMVs under
extreme driving conditions, such as heavy rain, high wind, high
heat, fog, snow, ice, steep grades, and curves. Training providers
must teach driver-trainees the basic driving habits needed to deal
with the specific challenges presented by these extreme driving
conditions.
Unit B3.12 Skid Control/Recovery, Jackknifing, and Other
Emergencies
Driver-trainees must know the causes of skidding and jackknifing
and techniques for avoiding and recovering from them. Driver-
trainees must know how to maintain directional control and bring the
CMV to a stop in the shortest possible distance while operating over
a slippery surface. Driver-trainees must be familiar with proper
techniques for responding to CMV emergencies, such as evasive
steering, emergency braking, and off-road recovery. They must also
know how to prevent or respond to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers.
Appendix C to Part 380--Passenger Endorsement Training Curriculum
Passenger (P) endorsement applicants must complete the
curriculum outlined in this section, which applies to driver-
trainees who expect to operate CMVs in the any of the vehicle groups
defined in Sec. 383.91(a)(1)-(3) for which a P endorsement is
required.
There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for
theory training, but the training provider must cover all the topics
set forth in the curriculum. There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for BTW training, but training providers must
determine whether driver-trainees have demonstrated proficiency in
all elements of the BTW curriculum. Training instructors must
document the total number of clock hours each driver-trainee spends
to complete the BTW curriculum. The training must be conducted in a
passenger vehicle of the same vehicle group as the applicant intends
to drive. The passenger endorsement training must, at a minimum,
contain the following:
[[Page 88800]]
Theory Instruction
Unit C1.1 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees appropriate post-crash
procedures, including the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition immediately after the crash and
notify authorities, or assign the task to a passenger or other
individuals at the crash scene. Also, training providers must teach
driver-trainees how to obtain emergency medical assistance; move on-
road vehicles off the road in minor crashes so as to avoid
subsequent crashes or injuries; engage flashers, reflective
triangles and other warning devices for stopped vehicles; and
properly use a fire extinguisher if necessary.
Unit C1.2 Other Emergency Procedures
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in managing security
breaches, on-board fires, emergency exit and passenger evacuation
training, medical emergencies, and emergency stopping procedures
including the deployment of various emergency hazard signals.
Instruction must also include procedures for dealing with mechanical
breakdowns and vehicle defects while enroute.
Unit C1.3 Vehicle Orientation
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic physical and
operational characteristics of passenger-carrying CMV (e.g. bus and
motor coach), including overall height, length, width, ground
clearances, rear overhang, Gross Vehicle Weight and Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating, axle weights, wheels and rims, tires, tire ratings,
mirrors, steer wheels, lighting, windshield, windshield wipers,
engine compartments, basic electrical system, brake systems, as
applicable, and spare tire storage. Additionally, training providers
must instruct driver-trainees in techniques for proper driver seat
and mirror adjustments.
Unit C1.4 Pre-Trip, Enroute, and Post-Trip Inspection
This unit must teach the driver-trainee the importance of pre-
trip, enroute, and post-trip inspections; and provide instruction in
techniques for conducting such inspections as stated in Sec. Sec.
392.7 and 396.11, and demonstrate their ability to inspect the
following:
(1) Emergency exits;
(2) Passenger-carrying CMV interiors (including passenger seats
as applicable);
(3) Restrooms and associated environmental requirements;
(4) Temperature controls (for maintaining passenger comfort);
(5) Driver and passenger seat belts.
Additionally, training providers must instruct driver-trainees
in procedures, as applicable, in security-related inspections,
including inspections for unusual wires or other abnormal visible
materials, interior and exterior luggage compartments, packages or
luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or vehicle tampering.
Finally, training providers must instruct driver-trainees in
cycling-accessible lifts and procedures for inspecting them for
functionality and defects.
Unit C1.5 Fueling
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on the significance of
avoiding refueling a bus while passengers are onboard and the
imperative of avoiding refueling in an enclosed space.
Unit C1.6 Idling
This unit must teach driver-trainees the importance of
compliance with State and local laws and regulations, including for
example, idling limits, fuel savings; and the consequences of non-
compliance, including adverse health effects and penalties.
Unit C1.7 Baggage and/or Cargo Management
In this unit, training providers must teach driver-trainees:
(1) Proper methods for handling and securing passenger baggage
and containers, as applicable.
(2) Procedures for identifying and inspecting baggage and
containers for prohibited items, such as hazardous materials.
(3) Proper handling and securement of devices associated with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, including
oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other associated apparatuses.
Unit C1.8 Passenger Safety Awareness Briefing
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to brief passengers on
safety topics including fastening seat belts, emergency exits,
emergency phone contact information, fire extinguisher location,
safely walking in the aisle when the bus is moving, and restroom
emergency push button or switch.
Unit C1.9 Passenger Management
In this unit, training providers must teach driver-trainees:
(1) Proper procedures for safe loading and unloading of
passengers prior to departure, including rules concerning standing
passengers and the standee line.
(2) Procedures for dealing with disruptive passengers.
Unit C1.10 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance
Along with addressing the proper operation of accessibility
equipment (e.g., lifts), this must teach driver-trainees the
applicable regulations and proper procedures for engaging persons
with disabilities or special needs under the ADA. Training must
cover passengers with mobility issues, engaging passengers with
sight, hearing, or cognitive impairments, and recognizing the
permitted use of service animals.
Unit C1.11 Hours of Service (HOS) Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the HOS regulations that
apply to drivers for interstate passenger carriers. Training
providers must teach driver-trainees the basic activities required
by the HOS regulations, such as completing a Driver's Daily Log
(electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. Training providers must teach driver-trainees how to
recognize the signs of fatigue and basic fatigue countermeasures as
a means to avoid crashes.
Unit C1.12 Safety Belt Safety
This unit must teach driver-trainees the Federal rules governing
the proper use of safety restraint systems by CMV drivers, as set
forth in Sec. 392.16.
Unit C1.13 Distracted Driving
This unit must teach driver-trainees FMCSA regulations that
prohibit drivers from texting or using hand-held mobile phones while
operating their vehicles (e.g., Sec. Sec. 392.80 and 392.82); and
must teach the serious consequences of violations, including
crashes, heavy fines, and impacts on a motor carrier's and/or
driver's safety records, such as driver disqualification.
Unit C1.14 Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade Crossings and Drawbridges
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in applicable
regulations, techniques, and procedures for navigating RR-highway
grade crossings and drawbridges appropriate to passenger buses.
Unit C1.15 Weigh Stations
This unit must teach driver-trainees the weigh-station
regulations that apply to buses.
Unit C1.16 Security and Crime
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic techniques for
recognizing and minimizing physical risks from criminal activities.
Unit C1.17 Roadside Inspections
This unit must teach driver-trainees what to expect during a
standard roadside inspection conducted by authorized personnel.
Training providers must teach driver-trainees what passenger-
carrying vehicle and driver violations are classified as out-of-
service (OOS), including the ramifications and penalties for
operating a CMV when subject to an OOS order as defined in Sec.
390.5.
Unit C1.18 Penalties and Fines
This unit must teach driver-trainees the potential consequences
of violating driver-related regulations, including impacts on driver
and motor carrier safety records, adverse impacts on the driver's
Pre-employment Screening Program record; financial penalties for
both the driver and carrier; and possible loss of CMV driving
privileges.
Behind the Wheel--Range and Public Road
This BTW training consists of exercises related to basic vehicle
control skills and mastery of basic maneuvers necessary to operate
the vehicle safely. Activities in this unit will take place on a
driving range or a public road as defined in Sec. 380.605. The
instructor must engage in active communication with the driver-
trainees during all BTW training sessions.
Unit C2.1 Vehicle Orientation
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their familiarity with basic
passenger-carrying CMV physical and operational characteristics
including overall height, length, width,
[[Page 88801]]
ground clearances, rear overhang, gross vehicle weight and gross
vehicle weight rating, axle weights, wheels and rims, tires, tire
ratings, mirrors, steer wheels, lighting, windshield, windshield
wipers, engine compartments, basic electric system, and spare tire
storage. Additionally, driver-trainees must demonstrate techniques
for proper driver's seat and mirror adjustments.
Unit C2.2 Pre-Trip, Enroute, and Post-Trip Inspection
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in conducting such
pre-trip, enroute and post-trip inspections of buses and key
components of Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11, and demonstrate their
ability to inspect the following:
(1) Emergency exits;
(2) Passenger-carrying CMV interiors (including passenger seats
as applicable);
(3) Restrooms and associated environmental requirements;
(4) Temperature controls (for maintaining passenger comfort);
and
(5) Driver and passenger seat belts.
Additionally, driver-trainees must demonstrate their knowledge
of procedures, as applicable, in security-related inspections,
including inspections for unusual wires or other abnormal visible
materials, interior and exterior luggage compartments, packages or
luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or vehicle tampering.
Driver-trainees must be familiar with the operation of cycling-
accessible lifts and the procedures for inspecting them for
functionality and defects. For passenger-carrying vehicles equipped
with said lifts and tie-down positions, trainee must demonstrate
their ability to operate the cycling-accessible lifts.
Unit C2.3 Baggage and/or Cargo Management
In this unit, driver-trainees must demonstrate their ability to:
(1) Properly handle passenger baggage and containers to avoid
worker, passenger, and non-passenger related injuries and property
damage;
(2) Visually inspect baggage and containers for prohibited
items, such as hazardous materials and identify such items;
(3) Properly handle and secure devices associated with ADA
compliance including oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other
associated apparatuses.
Unit C2.4 Passenger Safety Awareness Briefing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their ability to brief
passengers on safety on topics including: Fastening seat belts,
emergency exits, emergency phone contact information, fire
extinguisher location, safely walking in the aisle when the bus is
moving, and restroom emergency push button or switch.
Unit C2.5 Passenger Management
In this unit, driver-trainees must demonstrate their ability to
safely load and unload passengers prior to departure and to deal
with disruptive passengers.
Unit C2.6 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proper procedures for safely
navigating railroad-highway grade crossings in a passenger-carrying
CMV.
Appendix D to Part 380--School Bus Endorsement Training Curriculum
School bus (S) endorsement applicants must complete the
curriculum outlined in this section, which applies to driver-
trainees who expect to operate a ``school bus'' as defined in Sec.
383.5. There is no required minimum number of instruction hours for
theory training, but the training provider must cover all the topics
set forth in the curriculum. There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for BTW training, but the training provider must
determine whether driver-trainees have demonstrated proficiency in
all elements of the BTW curriculum. Training instructors must
document the total number of clock hours each driver-trainee spends
to complete the BTW curriculum. The training must be conducted in a
school bus of the same vehicle group as the applicant intends to
drive. The school bus endorsement training must, at a minimum,
include the following:
Theory Instruction
Unit D1.1 Danger Zones and Use of Mirrors
This unit must teach driver-trainees the danger zones that exist
around the school bus and the techniques to ensure the safety of
those around the bus. These techniques include correct mirror
adjustment and usage. The types of mirrors and their use must be
discussed, as well as the requirements found in Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 (49 CFR 571.111). Training
providers must teach driver-trainees the dangers of ``dart-outs.''
Training providers must teach driver-trainees the importance of
training students how to keep out of the danger zone when around
school buses and the techniques for doing so.
Unit D1.2 Loading and Unloading
This unit must be instruct driver-trainees on the laws and
regulations for loading and unloading, as well as the required
procedures for students waiting at a bus stop and crossing the
roadway at a bus stop. Special dangers involved in loading and
unloading must be specifically discussed, including procedures to
ensure the danger zone is clear and that no student has been caught
in the doorway prior to moving the vehicle. Instruction also must be
included on the proper use of lights, stop arms, crossing gates, and
safe operation of the door during loading and unloading; the risks
involved with leaving students unattended on a school bus; and the
proper techniques for checking the bus for sleeping children and
lost items at the end of each route.
Unit D1.3 Vehicle Orientation
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic physical and
operational characteristics of school buses, including overall
height, length, width, ground clearances, rear overhang, Gross
Vehicle Weight and Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, axle weights, wheels
and rims, tires, tire ratings, mirrors, steer wheels, lighting,
windshield, windshield wipers, engine compartments, basic electrical
system, brake systems, as applicable, and spare tire storage.
Additionally, the training providers must instruct driver-trainees
in techniques for proper driver seat and mirror adjustments.
Unit D1.4 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on the proper procedures
following a school bus crash. The instruction must include use of
fire extinguisher(s), first aid kit(s), tending to injured
passengers, post-crash vehicle securement, notification procedures,
deciding whether to evacuate the bus, data gathering, and
interaction with law enforcement officials.
Unit D1.5 Emergency Exit and Evacuation
This unit must teach driver-trainees their role in safely
evacuating the bus in an emergency and planning for an emergency in
advance. Training must include proper evacuation methods and
procedures, such as the safe evacuation of students on field and
activity trips who only occasionally ride school buses and thus may
not be familiar with the procedures.
Unit D1.6 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
This unit must teach driver-trainees the dangers trains present
and the importance of the school bus driver and students strictly
following railroad crossing procedures. Instruction must be given on
the types of crossings, warning signs and devices, and State and
local procedures and regulations for school buses when crossing
railroad-highway grade crossings.
Unit D1.7 Student Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to manage student
behavior on the bus to ensure that safety is maintained and the
rights of others are respected. Specific student management
techniques must be discussed, including warning signs of bullying
and the techniques for managing student behavior and administering
discipline. Training providers must teach driver-trainees to avoid
becoming distracted by student behavior while driving, especially
when crossing railroad tracks and during loading and unloading.
Unit D1.8 Special Safety Considerations
This unit must teach the driver-trainees the special safety
considerations and equipment in school bus operations. Topics
discussed must include use of strobe lights, driving in high winds,
safe backing techniques, and preventing tail swing crashes.
Unit D1.9 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
This unit must teach the driver-trainees the importance of pre-
trip, enroute, and post-trip inspections; and provide instruction in
techniques for conducting such inspections of buses as stated in
Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11, and additionally demonstrate their
ability to inspect the following:
(1) Stop arms,
(2) Crossing arms,
[[Page 88802]]
(3) Emergency exits,
(4) Fire extinguishers,
(5) Passenger seats,
(6) First aid kits,
(7) Interior lights, and
(8) Temperature control (for maintaining passenger comfort).
Training providers must instruct driver-trainees in State and
local requirements, as applicable, for inspection of school bus
equipment.
Unit D1.10 School Bus Security
This unit must teach driver-trainees the security issues facing
school bus drivers. Training providers must also teach driver-
trainees potential security threats, techniques for preventing and
responding to security threats, how to recognize and report
suspicious behavior, and what to do in the event of a hijacking or
attack on a school bus.
Unit D1.11 Route and Stop Reviews
This unit must teach driver-trainees the importance of planning
their routes prior to beginning driving in order to avoid
distraction while on the road. The training provider must also teach
driver-trainees the techniques for reviewing routes and stops, as
well as State and local procedures for reporting hazards along the
route and at bus stops.
Behind the Wheel--Range and Public Road
This unit must consist of exercises related to basic vehicle
control skills and mastery of basic maneuvers. Activities in this
unit will take place on a driving range or a public road as defined
in Sec. 380.605. The instructor must engage in active communication
with the driver-trainees during all active training sessions.
Unit D2.1 Danger Zones and Use of Mirrors
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the techniques necessary to
ensure the safety of persons in the danger zone around the bus.
Driver-trainees must practice mirror adjustment and usage. The types
of mirrors and their use are shown, and cones used to demonstrate
the requirements of 49 CFR 571.111.
Unit D2.2 Loading and Unloading
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the loading and unloading
techniques learned in the theory portion of the training. Driver-
trainees must demonstrate checking the vehicle for sleeping children
and lost items at the end of the route.
Unit D2.3 Emergency Exit and Evacuation
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their role in safely evacuating
the bus in an emergency.
Unit D2.4 Special Safety Considerations
Driver-trainees must demonstrate safe backing techniques and
demonstrate their ability to avoid tail swing crashes by using
reference points when making turns.
Unit D2.5 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proficiency in conducting pre-
and post-trip inspections, as stated in Sec. Sec. 392.7 and 396.11,
and of school bus-specific equipment, such as mirrors, stop arms,
crossing arms, emergency exits, fire extinguishers, passenger seats,
first aid kits, interior lights, and temperature control.
Unit D2.6 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proper procedures for safely
navigating railroad-highway grade crossings in a school bus.
Appendix E to Part 380--Hazardous Materials Endorsement Training
Curriculum
Hazardous materials (H) endorsement applicants must complete the
Hazardous materials curriculum, which apply to driver-trainees who
intend to operate CMVs used in the transportation of hazardous
materials (HM) as defined in Sec. 383.5. Driver-trainees seeking an
H endorsement, as defined in Sec. 383.93(c)(4), must complete this
curriculum in order to take the State-administered knowledge test
for the H endorsement. There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for theory training, but the training provider
must cover all the topics in the curriculum. The HM curriculum must,
at a minimum, include the following:
Theory Instruction
Unit E1.1 Basic Introductory HM Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic HM competencies,
including applicable FMCSR requirements when HM is being
transported. The training provider must also teach driver-trainees
HM communication requirements including: Shipping paper
requirements, marking, labeling, placarding, emergency response
information, and shipper's responsibilities.
Unit E1.2 Operational HM Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the basic competencies for
transportation of HM.
Unit E1.3 Reporting HM Crashes and Releases
The unit must teach driver-trainees the proper procedures and
contacts for the immediate notification related to certain HM
incidents, including instruction in the proper completion and
submission of HM Incident Reports.
Unit E.4 Tunnels and Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade Crossing
Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper operation of an
HM vehicle at RR-highway grade crossings and in vehicular tunnels.
Unit E1.5 Loading and Unloading HM
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper loading and
unloading procedures for hazardous material cargo. Training
providers must also teach driver-trainees the requirements for
proper segregation and securement of HM, and the prohibitions on
transporting certain solid and liquid poisons with foodstuffs.
Unit E1.6 HM on Passenger Vehicles
This unit must teach driver-trainees the various requirements
for vehicles transporting passengers and property, and the types and
quantities of HM that can and cannot be transported in these
vehicles/situations.
Unit E1.7 Bulk Packages
This unit must teach driver-trainees the specialized
requirements for transportation of cargo in bulk packages, including
cargo tanks, intermediate bulk containers, bulk cylinders and
portable tanks. The unit must include training in the operation of
emergency control features, special vehicle handling
characteristics, rollover prevention, and the properties and hazards
of the HM transported. Training providers must teach driver-trainees
methods specifically designed to reduce cargo tank rollovers
including, but not limited to, vehicle design and performance, load
effects, highway factors, and driver factors.
Unit E1.8 Operating Emergency Equipment
This unit must teach driver-trainees the applicable requirements
of the FMCSRs and the procedures necessary for the safe operation of
the motor vehicle. This includes training in special precautions for
fires, loading and unloading, operation of cargo tank motor vehicle
equipment, and shut-off/shut-down equipment.
Unit E1.9 Emergency Response Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper procedures and
best practices for handling an emergency response and post-response
operations, including what to do in the event of an unintended
release of an HM. All training, preparation, and response efforts
must focus on the hazards of the materials that have been released
and the protection of people, property, and the environment.
Unit E1.10 Engine (Fueling)
This unit must teach driver-trainees the procedures for fueling
a vehicle that contains HM.
Unit E1.11 Tire Check
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper procedures for
checking the vehicle tires at the start of a trip and each time the
vehicle is parked.
Unit E1.12 Routes and Route Planning
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper routing
procedures that they are required to follow for the transportation
of radioactive and non-radioactive HM.
Unit E1.13 Hazardous Materials Safety Permits (HMSP)
This unit must teach driver-trainees the proper procedures and
operational requirements including communications, constant
attendance, and parking that apply to the transportation of HM for
which an HMSP is required.
PART 383--COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND
PENALTIES
0
8. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs.
214 and 215 of Pub. L.
[[Page 88803]]
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; and 49 CFR
1.87.
0
9. Amend Sec. 383.71 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(11), revising
paragraphs (e)(3) and (4), and adding paragraph (e)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 383.71 Driver application and certification procedures.
(a) * * *
(3) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a person must complete the
training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before
taking the skills test for a Class A or B CDL for the first time, or a
skills test for a passenger (P) or school bus (S) endorsement for the
first time, or the knowledge test for a hazardous materials (H)
endorsement for the first time. The training must be administered by a
provider listed on the Training Provider Registry.
(b) * * *
(11) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a person must complete the
training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before
taking the skills test for a Class A or B CDL, a passenger (P) or
school bus (S) endorsement for the first time or the knowledge test for
a hazardous materials (H) endorsement for the first time. The training
must be administered by a provider listed on the Training Provider
Registry.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (b)(8) of
this section to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement;
(4) Surrender the previous CDL; and
(5) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a person must complete the
training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of this chapter before
taking the skills test for upgrading to a Class A or B for the first
time; or adding a passenger or school bus endorsement to a CDL for the
first time; or knowledge test for hazardous materials endorsement for
the first time. The training must be administered by a provider on the
Training Provider Registry.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 383.73 by revising paragraph (b)(3) introductory text
and paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and by adding paragraphs (b)(10), (e)(8), and
(p) to read as follows:
Sec. 383.73 State procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) Initiate and complete a check of the applicant's driving record
to ensure that the person is not subject to any disqualification under
Sec. 383.51, or any license disqualification under State law, does not
have a driver's license from more than one State or jurisdiction, and
has completed the required training prescribed in subpart F of part 380
of this subchapter. The record check must include, but is not limited
to, the following:
* * * * *
(ii) A check with the CDLIS to determine whether the driver
applicant already has been issued a CDL, whether the applicant's
license has been disqualified, or if the applicant has been
disqualified from operating a commercial motor vehicle; and beginning
February 7, 2020, before an applicant is issued a Class A or Class B
CDL, or a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous materials (H)
endorsement, whether the applicant has completed the training required
by subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter;
* * * * *
(10) Beginning on February 7, 2020, not conduct a skills test of an
applicant for a Class A or Class B CDL, or a passenger (P) or school
bus (S) endorsement until the State verifies electronically that the
applicant completed the training prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of
this subchapter.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(8) Beginning on February 7, 2020, not issue an upgrade to a Class
A or Class B CDL, or a passenger (P), school bus (S), or hazardous
materials (H) endorsement, unless the applicant has completed the
training required by subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter.
* * * * *
(p) After February 7, 2020, the State must notify FMCSA that a
training provider in the State does not meet applicable State
requirements for CMV instruction.
PART 384--STATE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM
0
11. The authority citation for part 384 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301, et seq., and 31502; secs. 103
and 215 of Pub. L. 106-59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; sec. 32934 of Pub.
L. 112-141, 126 stat. 405, 830 and 49 CFR 1.87.
0
12. Add Sec. 384.230 to read as follows:
Sec. 384.230 Entry-level driver certification.
(a) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a State must comply with the
requirements of Sec. 383.73(b)(3)(ii), (b)(10), and (e)(8) to verify
that the applicant completed the training prescribed in subpart F of
part 380.
(b)(1) A State may issue a CDL to individuals who obtain a CLP
before February 7, 2020, who have not complied with subpart F of part
380 of this subchapter so long as they obtain a CDL before the CLP or
renewed CLP expires.
(2) A State may not issue a CDL to individuals who obtain a CLP on
or after February 7, 2020, unless they comply with subpart F of part
380 of this subchapter.
0
13. Add Sec. 384.235 to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 384.235 Entry-level driver training provider notification.
The State must meet the entry-level driver training provider
notification requirement of Sec. 383.73(p).
0
14. In Sec. 384.301, add paragraph (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 384.301 Substantial compliance--general requirements.
* * * * *
(j) A State must come into substantial compliance with the
requirements of subpart B of this part and part 383 of this chapter in
effect as of February 6, 2017, but not later than February 7, 2020.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87:
November 16, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-28012 Filed 12-7-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P