[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47890-47904]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20368]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 380 and 391

[Docket FMCSA-97-2176]
RIN 2126-AA08


Minimum Training Requirements for Longer Combination Vehicle 
(LCV) Operators and LCV Driver-Instructor Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FMCSA is proposing standards for minimum training 
requirements for the operators of longer combination vehicles (LCVs) 
and requirements for the instructors who train these operators. This 
action is in response to section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, which directed that training for 
the operators of LCVs include certification of an operator's 
proficiency by an instructor who has met the requirements established 
by the Secretary. The purpose of this proposal is to enhance the safety 
of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our nation's highways.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You can mail, fax, hand deliver or electronically submit 
written comments to the Docket Management Facility, U. S. Department of 
Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, FAX (202) 493-2251, on-line at 
http://dms.dot.gov/submit. You must include the docket number that 
appears in the heading of this document in your comment. You can 
examine and copy all comments at the above address from 9 a.m. to 5 
p.m., EST, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You can also 
view all comments or download an electronic copy of this document from 
the DOT Docket Management System (DMS) at http://dms.dot.gov/search.htm 
by typing the last four digits of the docket number appearing at the 
heading of this document. The DMS is available 24 hours each day, 365 
days each year. You can get electronic submission and retrieval help 
and guidelines under the ``help'' section of the Web site. If you want 
us to notify you that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement 
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included 
in the docket, and we will consider late comments to the extent 
practicable. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Redmond, Office of Safety 
Programs, (202) 366-9579, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20590. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST, Monday 
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4007(b) of the Motor Carrier Act of 
1991 (Title IV of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 
of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; 49 U.S.C. 
31307) directs the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish 
Federal minimum training requirements for drivers of LCVs. The ISTEA 
also requires that the certification of these drivers' proficiency be 
accomplished by instructors who meet certain Federal minimum 
requirements to ensure an acceptable degree of quality control and 
uniformity. Section 4007(f) of the ISTEA defines an LCV as any 
combination of a truck-tractor and two or more trailers or semi-
trailers with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater than 80,000 pounds 
(36,288 kilograms) which are operated on the Interstate Highway System. 
The FMCSA is proposing definitions to identify the various 
configurations being operated on the nation's highways that would be 
included in the final rule; they will be discussed later in this 
document.

Background

    In the early 1980's, the FHWA \1\ determined that a need existed 
for

[[Page 47891]]

technical guidance in the area of truck driver training. Research at 
that time had shown that many driver-training schools offered little or 
no structured curricula or uniform training programs for any type of 
CMV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On October 9, 1999, the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) rescinded the authority previously delegated to the 
Federal Highway Administrator to perform motor carrier functions and 
operations, and to carry out the duties and powers related to motor 
carrier safety and redelegated that authority to the Director, 
Office of Motor Carrier Safety, a new office within the Department 
of Transportation (Department). On December 9, 1999, the Motor 
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 established a new 
administration--the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA)--within the Department to improve the motor carrier safety 
program, effective January 1, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help correct this problem, the agency developed, and in 1985 
issued, the ``Model Curriculum for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' 
(1985, GPO Stock No. 050-001-00293-1), which incorporated the agency's 
``Proposed Minimum Standards for Training Tractor Trailer Drivers'' 
(1984). The Model Curriculum, as it is known in the industry, is a 
broad set of recommendations that incorporates standardized minimum 
core curriculum guidelines and training materials, as well as 
guidelines pertaining to vehicles, facilities, instructor hiring 
practices, graduation requirements, and student placement. Curriculum 
content includes the following areas: basic operation, safe operating 
practices, advanced operating practices, vehicle maintenance, and non-
vehicle activities.
    The Professional Truck Driver Institute (PTDI) was created in 1986 
by the motor carrier industry to certify training programs offered by 
the truck-driver training schools. (Originally named the Professional 
Truck Driver Institute of America (PTDIA), the group changed its name 
to reflect the addition of Canada to the organization.) The Model 
Curriculum is the base from which the PTDI's certification criteria 
were derived. The PTDI, in mid-1988, began certifying truck-driver 
training programs across the country. As of February 2003, 
approximately 64 schools in 27 States and Canada have received the PTDI 
certification. Although many schools have a number of truck driving 
courses, most have only one course certified by PTDI.
    The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 
31301 et seq.), although not directly targeted at driver-training, is 
intended to improve highway safety. Its goal is to ensure that drivers 
of large trucks and buses possess the knowledge and skills necessary to 
safely operate those vehicles on public highways. The CMVSA established 
the commercial driver's license (CDL) program and directed the FMCSA to 
establish minimum Federal standards which States must meet when 
licensing CMV drivers. The CMVSA applies to virtually anyone who 
operates a CMV in interstate or intrastate commerce, including 
employees of Federal, State, and local governments. As defined by the 
implementing regulation (49 CFR 383.5), a CMV is a motor vehicle or 
combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to transport passengers 
or property if the vehicle--
    (a) Has a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of 11,794 or more 
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds) inclusive of a towed unit with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds); or
    (b) Has a GVWR of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 or more pounds); 
or
    (c) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the 
driver; or
    (d) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of hazardous 
materials as defined in this section.
    In accordance with the CMVSA, all drivers of CMVs must possess a 
valid CDL in order to be properly qualified to operate the vehicle(s) 
they drive. In addition to passing the CDL knowledge and skills tests 
required for the basic vehicle group, all persons who operate or expect 
to operate the following vehicles, which have special handling 
characteristics, must obtain endorsements under 49 CFR 383.93:
    (a) Double/triple trailers;
    (b) Passenger vehicles;
    (c) Tank vehicles; or
    (d) Vehicles required to be placarded for hazardous materials.
    For all endorsements, the driver is required to pass a knowledge 
test. The driver must also pass a skills test to obtain a passenger 
endorsement.
    The CDL standards do not require the comprehensive driver-training 
proposed in the Model Curriculum since the CDL is a ``licensing 
standard'' as opposed to a ``training standard.'' Accordingly, there 
are no prerequisite Federal or State training requirements to obtain a 
CDL.
    In 1990, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 
recommended that drivers of specialized vehicles, including drivers of 
twin trailer vehicles, be knowledgeable about the special handling 
characteristics and other variables that influence the controllability 
and maneuverability of multiple-trailer configurations, and how these 
variables compare to, and contrast with, those that affect the 
operation of a semi-trailer combination.
    Subsequently, the agency awarded a contract in February 1991 to the 
PTDI to develop voluntary criteria for training drivers in the safe 
operation of twin 8.534-meter (28-foot) trailer combination vehicles. 
The result of this contract was the development of a ``Twin Trailer 
Driver Curriculum'' which outlines how drivers should be trained in the 
safe operation of these vehicles. This document is available for review 
in the public docket.
    The ``Twin Trailer Driver Curriculum'' outline was developed with 
the assistance of subject matter experts from motor carrier fleets, 
industry associations, training institutions and governmental 
organizations. The resulting curriculum is a training program that 
consists of 115 clock-hours of direct driver participation, including a 
minimum of 56 hours of behind-the-wheel training.
    The agency awarded two additional contracts to the PTDI to develop 
curriculum outlines to address triple-trailer combination vehicles and 
Rocky Mountain/Turnpike Doubles combination vehicles. Ultimately, the 
curriculum outlines for twin trailers, Rocky Mountain/Turnpike Doubles 
and triple-trailer combinations were merged into a single document, 
entitled ``Multiple Trailer Combination Vehicle (MTCV) Driver Training 
Guide: Suggested Units of Instruction and Curriculum Outline.'' The 
PTDI was selected to develop a composite modular training curriculum 
outline embracing both the LCV driver and instructor.
    Upon completion of the curricula, the agency coordinated with the 
U.S. Department of Education (Education) to ensure that the proposed 
training requirements are in concert with its accreditation 
requirements. The agency representatives agreed that the proposed 
training requirements would be eligible for accreditation by any group 
that met the criteria and procedures described in the publication 
``Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies and Associations, Criteria 
and Procedures for Listing by the U.S. Secretary of Education and 
Current List.'' This document is available for review in the public 
docket.
    The agency also completed two projects that contributed to an 
enhanced understanding of driver training. Although they were not 
specifically designed to address one type of driver training versus 
another or to address specific items that would be included in a 
minimum training standard, they do provide perspective on the 
importance of driver training and the need for minimum training 
requirements. The following summarizes these projects:
    The first project took place during December 1994 when the agency 
conducted focus groups to obtain information about highway safety 
issues relating to commercial motor carriers (trucks and buses). The 
sessions were conducted with representatives of three

[[Page 47892]]

populations that have an interest in the safety of commercial vehicles: 
commercial drivers (holders of CDLs), police officers who deal at least 
in part with traffic enforcement, and the general public. As described 
in the ``Focus Group Report,'' all three groups reported that driver 
error is the most important cause of safety problems. All groups said 
that there is a need to upgrade the CDL through longer training, 
certification of instructors, higher performance standards and periodic 
re-testing. This document is available for review in the public docket.
    The second project occurred in March 1995 when the FHWA sponsored 
the first National Truck and Bus Safety Summit. More than 200 experts 
attended it from all facets of the motor carrier community including 
Federal, State and local enforcement and legal communities, carriers, 
drivers, heavy vehicle manufacturers and suppliers, shippers, highway 
safety researchers, insurers, and other professional organizations. 
These truck and bus safety experts met for three days to share their 
views on significant truck and bus safety issues. As described in the 
``1995 Truck and Bus Safety Summit, Report of Proceedings'', overall 
driver training and continuing education (for commercial drivers and 
the general motoring public) ranked number three out of seventeen 
safety issues identified by the participants. This document is 
available for review in the public docket.
    The agency has utilized these projects, the research conducted over 
the past several years and the comments to the 1993 advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on training of LCV drivers to develop the 
proposals in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

Comments to the ANPRM

    On January 15, 1993, the FHWA published an ANPRM in the Federal 
Register (58 FR 4638) seeking comments and responses to 13 specific 
questions. The FMCSA received 24 comments which are discussed below.
    Question 1: Should the definition of LCV that will be used to 
develop a training requirement be expanded to include vehicles not 
covered by the ISTEA, such as multiple-trailer combinations operating 
with a gross weight of less than 36,288 kilograms (80,000 pounds), 
i.e., ``twin trailers'' or ``western doubles''?
    Comments: Of the 13 commenters that provided a response to this 
question, 6 were in favor of expanding the definition of an LCV to 
include multiple-trailer combination vehicles with a GCWR of less than 
36,288 kilograms (80,000 pounds). They believed that the number and 
size of the trailers are more important than weight and that LCVs 
should be easily identifiable for enforcement purposes.
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (AHAS) and the Owner-
Operators Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) supported a training 
requirement that is expanded to include vehicles not covered by the 
ISTEA definition of LCV. OOIDA believes that the number and size of the 
cargo carrying units primarily determine the handling characteristics 
and overall operational safety of the vehicle as opposed to the gross 
operating weight and length.
    Those commenters opposing the expansion of the definition, 
including the American Trucking Associations (ATA), the Specialized 
Carriers and Rigging Association (SCRA), the National Private Truck 
Council (NPTC), Yellow Freight Systems, Inc. (Yellow Freight), and 
United Parcel Service (UPS), generally emphasized the importance of a 
consistent LCV definition and the possibility of expanding the 
definition at a later date. The ATA and Yellow Freight each submitted a 
second comment to the docket to reaffirm their opposition to any 
possible plans to include twins in the definition of LCV. Definition 
consistency and possible cost considerations, respectively, were the 
reasons cited.
    Question 2: What difficulties would the ISTEA definition create, 
from an enforcement standpoint, in distinguishing which vehicles meet 
the definition and in determining which drivers must comply with any 
LCV training requirements?
    Comments: Ten commenters responded to this question. Seven 
respondents indicated that the ISTEA definition of an LCV would create 
enforcement difficulties primarily because the weight aspect of the 
definition would make LCVs difficult to distinguish from a similar 
vehicle which does not meet the weight requirement. The Colorado DOT 
was concerned that it may be impossible for enforcement personnel, by 
merely viewing the combinations, to distinguish which vehicles are 
operating at greater than 36,288 kilograms (80,000 pounds) and 
therefore which drivers should have the LCV driving requirements and 
which should not. Pennzoil went further by recommending that a 
definition of LCV should ``not require the measuring and weighing of 
LCVs.''
    Three commenters stated that the ISTEA definition would not cause 
enforcement difficulties. The SCRA reflected the general view of the 
commenters by stating that ``[if] the LCV definition in the ISTEA of 
1991 is adopted by FMCSA we believe that enforcement people will have 
very little difficulty identifying longer combination vehicles * * *. 
They should be able to determine gross vehicle weight from shipping 
papers, manifest and/or weight tickets.''
    Question 3: Once the training requirements for LCV drivers are 
established, what should the FHWA's role be in assuring that the 
training is actually carried out according to the minimum standards?
    Comments: Thirteen respondents commented on this question. 
Responses were diverse. Some argued that the agency should use the 
Safety Review/Compliance Review (SR/CR) process to assure programmatic 
compliance (ATA, OOIDA, PTDI, UPS, Yellow Freight); others said the 
agency should make those State agencies that receive Motor Carrier 
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funding responsible for monitoring 
the LCV training requirements. The NPTC suggested that the ``FHWA 
should enhance CDL tests by including skills testing for LCV 
operators.'' Pennzoil recommended that once the FHWA defines the LCV 
training requirements, it should require LCV driver applicants to 
provide proof of training when applying for and renewing their CDLs. In 
addition, Pennzoil recommended that the FHWA and State agencies 
establish an instructor file record.
    Question 4: What standards are necessary to ensure that instructors 
have been adequately and properly trained and are carrying out their 
training responsibilities in an acceptable manner?
    Comments: Thirteen respondents provided comments to this question. 
Their underlying theme was that instructors should be fully experienced 
LCV drivers and be held to a higher standard than the LCV drivers they 
will train. In addition, comments emphasized that the LCV instructors 
should be qualified and capable vocational instructors who are 
thoroughly familiar with course content. Pennzoil recommended that 
instructors be recertified every one to three years. The Maine DOT 
recommended instructor certification.
    Question 5: Should the initial licensing of LCV instructors and 
certification of LCV drivers be accomplished by a Federal (FMCSA or 
other) or State agency? How should this be accomplished?

[[Page 47893]]

    Comments: Twelve respondents provided comments to this question. 
The commenters were almost equally divided on the question whether LCV 
instructor certification should be accomplished by the FMCSA, rather 
than a motor carrier or a State, to ensure that the instructor met 
Federal minimum requirements. On the other hand, the commenters tended 
to prefer State certification of LCV drivers to certification by an LCV 
instructor, motor carrier, the FMCSA, or self-certification.
    With regard to the certification method, the ATA suggested ``LCV 
instructors should go through a carrier managed certification program 
much like the certification process for vehicle and brake inspectors. 
The licensing of drivers should be tied to the CDL testing process.''
    The AHAS expressed the opinion ``that uniformity of instruction, 
certification, and licensure can only be accomplished by Federal 
Standards through state licensing agencies and must supersede voluntary 
standards-setting organization and their system of certification.'' 
Conversely, ``UPS believes that each carrier should be held responsible 
for certification and recertification of their triples drivers and 
driver trainers. * * * As a practical matter, the expertise in LCV 
driver-training resides with motor carriers. We feel that Federal or 
State certification of LCV driver training is unworkable and 
unnecessary.'' Essentially, Yellow Freight shares the same position as 
UPS.
    Question 6: What specific Federal, State or local agency should 
have the responsibility for assuring that the requirements of LCV 
training are met, and what form of documentation should be established 
to prove to prospective employers that adequate LCV training has been 
successfully completed by a driver? Who should be held accountable if 
the training requirements are not met?
    Comments: This question has three distinct parts: responsibility, 
documentation and accountability. Thirteen respondents provided 
comments to this question.
    Eleven commenters addressed the responsibility aspect of the 
question. Eight were proponents of State agencies accepting the 
responsibility and/or linking the training requirement to the CDL 
program. Three commenters recommended that the FMCSA CR process be 
employed to further enforce this requirement. With regard to 
documentation of training, five of 11 commenters were in favor of a 
certificate issued either by a training institution or the FMCSA. Three 
other commenters suggested that completion of LCV training be 
integrated into the CDL process through the use of an appropriate 
endorsement.
    Seven commenters addressed the accountability aspect of the 
question. Five of the commenters argued that both the motor carrier and 
the driver should be held accountable. The other two respondents were 
of the opinion that the driver alone should be held accountable for 
obtaining the required training.
    Question 7: Should nonprofit, private organizations, such as PTDI, 
be authorized to evaluate and certify the adequacy of LCV training 
programs?
    Comments: Of the fourteen commenters that responded, five opposed 
private organizations evaluating and certifying LCV training programs. 
Of these, three believed that this should be a Federal or State 
governmental function. Nine favored evaluation and certification by 
private organizations.
    Question 8: What types of LCV driver-training programs exist?
    Comments: Eight respondents provided comments on this question. The 
ATA stated that ``[m]ost fleets that operate LCVs have established 
their own in-house training programs. These carrier-directed programs 
generally require certain levels of experience and excellent driving 
records prior to driving LCVs. Key eligibility criteria motor carriers 
impose upon drivers prior to [their] operating LCVs include no moving 
violations or accidents within a specified time frame (generally three 
years). Many carriers that operate LCVs also have age minimums for LCV 
drivers--typically age 25 as a minimum.'' The PTDI stated that, ``[t]o 
our knowledge, there are no 'schools'' that teach a specific LCV 
course.'' Current cost estimates to train an LCV driver range from $400 
(ATA and Yellow Freight) to $6,445 per trainee (UPS).
    Question 9: Should the implementation of minimum training 
requirements for LCV operators be ``phased in'' over a certain period 
of time?
    Comments: Ten of the 12 respondents supported a ``phased in'' 
implementation of a minimum training requirement. The suggested ``phase 
in'' period ranged from one to four years. The ATA specifically 
supports the phase-in concept to give smaller motor carriers adequate 
time to plan and implement the program without undue financial hardship 
and because of the excellent safety record of the LCV segment of the 
industry.
    The AHAS did not support the phasing-in of LCV training 
requirements. Instead, it ``strongly favors a specific date by which 
all drivers of LCVs, western doubles and other multi-unit trucks can 
take the CDL LCV endorsement only with state-approved certification in 
hand showing successful completion of an LCV training program based on 
FMCSA standards.'' The AHAS also suggested that the FMCSA require that 
the LCV training infrastructure (e.g., certification of instructors and 
training programs and oversight systems) be in place in advance of any 
actual driver-training. The NPTC suggested linkage of the LCV training 
requirements to the CDL program by the introduction of a CDL 
endorsement for LCVs.
    Question 10: Should LCV training be a prerequisite for a double/
triple trailer endorsement on a CDL?
    Comments: Eleven of the 14 commenters generally supported a 
training prerequisite.
    The SCRA argued that such a prerequisite could cause confusion 
since it would broaden the definition of LCV to include combination 
vehicles having a GVWR of less than 36,288 kilograms (80,000 pounds). 
Yellow Freight stated that ``(t)riple trailer combinations specifically 
are only authorized in 16 States. It would be an enormous waste of 
motor carrier time and money to require triples driver-training of 
drivers in the other 34 States or of drivers, such as city drivers, who 
may never operate triples.'' The UPS voiced a similar opinion.
    Question 11: Should all LCV drivers be required to have previous 
experience with single trailer vehicles?
    Comments: Ten of the 13 respondents contend that an individual 
should have CMV experience prior to becoming an LCV driver. Eight of 
these 10 believe that this experience should be in single-trailer 
vehicles. The minimum amount of single-trailer experience that was 
recommended ranged from one to five years. Two years was specified most 
often. Only two commenters (PTDI and SCRA) disagreed with the 
experience requirement; they contend that if a driver has a CDL and 
completes the required LCV training, experience should not be a factor.
    Question 12: How often should LCV training be offered/repeated for 
both instructors and drivers?
    Comments: Thirteen commenters addressed this question. Comments 
ranged from the suggestion that driver training be repeated whenever 
new equipment is introduced into the industry (ATA and Yellow Freight), 
to the proposal that it be repeated only if the driver is disengaged 
from LCV activity for more than a year (SCRA). The Colorado DOT and the 
New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) were

[[Page 47894]]

proponents of driver retraining at the time of license renewal. Other 
respondents suggested retraining on a 4-to 10-year cycle, or as needed. 
The Maine State Police believes that once training and certification 
are obtained for the operation of LCVs, repeat training is not 
necessary. The UPS requires each of its LCV drivers to be accompanied 
by a UPS driver-trainer for a ``certification ride'' which is conducted 
for a period of 8 to 10 hours every 3 months. The driver is notified of 
any deficiency or discrepancy noted by the driver-trainer and must take 
immediate corrective action.
    With regard to instructor training, suggestions ranged from never 
to every 10 years. Among the reasons commenters gave for requiring 
retraining were: that the instructor had not taught for more than a 
specified time (often one year); that the curriculum requirements had 
changed; or that industry technology had changed, since the instructor 
became qualified.
    Question 13: Do specialized vehicle combinations such as triples or 
those handling special cargo require different training standards?
    Comments: Nine of the twelve commenters supported different 
training requirements for specialized vehicle combinations. It was 
generally agreed that the focus should be upon the handling 
characteristics of the vehicle except when special commodities (liquids 
in bulk, hanging meat, etc.) are being transported. The Specialized 
Carriers and Rigging Association believes `` * * * Training should 
focus on vehicle handling characteristics and not on type of cargo 
being transported. Vehicle combinations that are overweight or 
overlength because of special cargo do not require different training 
standards. All LCV drivers should have training which focuses on 
vehicle handling characteristics (not on types of cargo being 
transported) and that the driver will have basic knowledge and 
operating skills necessary for awareness that vehicle handling 
characteristics change with variations in size, weight and nature of 
the load being transported.''

Section Analysis

    This section of the Supplementary Information discusses only those 
sections of the proposed rule for which the FMCSA believes additional 
information may be required to facilitate an understanding of this 
NPRM.

Rule Effective Date

    Question 9 in the ANPRM asked whether a phase-in period would be 
necessary. This question anticipated the need for States to adopt 
enabling legislation to implement the new requirements. Because this 
proposal includes no requirement applicable to States, the agency 
believes that a 2-month phase-in period is adequate and would provide 
sufficient time to develop the required training curriculum. The 
effective date of the rule would be 2 months after its publication in 
the Federal Register.

Subpart A--Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver-Training and Driver-
Instructor Requirements--General

Section 380.105 Definitions

    Six of 13 respondents to Question 1 recommended that the agency 
amend the definition of an LCV to include multiple-trailer combinations 
operating with a GVW less than 80,000 pounds. They believe that the 
number and size of the trailers are more important than weight and that 
LCVs should be easily identifiable for enforcement purposes. The ISTEA 
LCV definition would subject a relatively small segment of multiple-
trailer combination vehicle drivers (approximately 35,000) to the LCV 
training requirements. The most commonly operated MTCVs are twin 
trailers, also known as ``Western doubles,'' and they are usually not 
operated at a GVW greater than 80,000 pounds. Revising the definition 
of an LCV to embrace only the number and size of trailers would 
significantly increase the number of drivers who are subject to this 
rule. Because agency research has not indicated a significant safety 
problem in LCVs or multiple trailer combination vehicles, the FMCSA is 
not proposing here to require such training for a larger vehicle 
population. FMCSA believes it can ensure a minimum level of safety by 
fulfilling the statutory requirement to publish minimum standards for 
operators of LCVs with a GVW greater than 80,000 pounds and instructors 
of these drivers.
    In 1996, the agency conducted a study to determine, among other 
things, the relative accident rates, in accidents per million vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT), of LCVs and non-LCVs. The study findings were 
published in a final report entitled, Accident Rates for Longer 
Combination Vehicles, Publication No. FHWA-MC-97-003. A copy of the 
report is in the public docket. Seventy-five commercial motor carriers 
participated in this study. All participants operated both LCVs and 
non-LCVs. Significant findings were as follows:
    [sbull] For the 75 carriers examined in the study, LCVs were much 
less likely than non-LCVs to be involved in accidents. These findings 
pertain only to the carrier population from which the study sample was 
drawn.
    [sbull] Among study participants, the mean accident rate was 0.88 
accidents per million VMT for LCVs versus 1.79 accidents for non-LCVs; 
in other words, non-LCVs were more than twice as likely as LCVs to be 
involved in accidents. The difference in the mean accident rates was 
found to be statistically significant.
    [sbull] LCVs and non-LCVs had nearly equal probabilities of 
involvement in fatal crashes. When fatal and injury crashes were 
examined in tandem, however, the LCV accident rate was 50 percent lower 
than the non-LCV rate.
    [sbull] Non-LCVs were 1.1 times more likely than LCVs to be 
involved in collisions, and 1.8 times more likely to be involved in 
non-collisions \2\; these differences were statistically significant. 
Rocky Mountain Doubles were less likely than Turnpike Doubles and STAA 
Doubles/GVW Over 80,000 pounds to be involved in collisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A non-collisiion is a commercial vehicle accident in which 
the primary event does not involve hitting another object. Non-
collision accidents include jackknifes, overturns, fires, cargo 
shifts and spills, and running off the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [sbull] LCVs were almost twice as likely as non-LCVs to overturn, 
and LCV Doubles were more likely than tractors-semi-trailers to 
jackknife.
    In September 1999, the agency published an Analysis Brief entitled 
``Longer Combination Vehicles Involved in Fatal Crashes, 1991-1996,'' 
FHWA-MCRT-99-018. Based on the data presented in the brief, no 
conclusions could be made on the relative safety of LCVs compared to 
other truck combinations. First, the data on mileage driven is based 
partly on weight. Second, since travel by LCVs is rare, it is difficult 
to calculate the precise number of miles driven. Similarly, LCV fatal 
crashes are so infrequent that the number varies greatly from year to 
year. For example, LCV crashes dropped from 46 in 1992 to 31 in 1993 
(down 33 percent), then rose to 43 in 1994 (up 39 percent). Based on 
the existing data, LCVs do not appear to be considerably more or less 
safe than other combination trucks. A more definitive conclusion would 
require further collection of data and additional analysis.
    FMCSA recognizes that there are different names for different 
multiple trailer combinations in different parts of the country. The 
research completed under contract to the FMCSA to develop the 
``Multiple-Trailer Combination

[[Page 47895]]

Vehicle Driver-Training Guide,'' and the ``Multiple-Trailer Combination 
Vehicle Driver-Training Instructor Guide'' was the result of the 
efforts of the PTDI, and experts from the trucking industry, labor, and 
government. This group reached consensus on how to best identify and 
refer to the various combination vehicles. Accordingly, FMCSA has 
incorporated many of those terms into this proposed rule. In some 
instances, the agency proposes a different term than the PTDI-
recommended one (i.e., longer double trailers would be called an LCV 
double; a triple trailer would be called an LCV triple.). The agency 
recognizes that the dynamic nature of the trucking industry may result 
in the development and operation of combinations that qualify as LCVs 
but may not be described here. We invite comment on the question of 
whether additional clarifying information should be added to the final 
rule.

Section 380.109 Driver testing

    This section proposes general requirements pertaining to LCV 
driver-training tests--comprised of both a knowledge and skills 
assessment--for all students wishing to obtain an LCV Driver-Training 
Certificate. It would require the tests to reflect solely the 
information contained in the LCV driver-training programs offered and 
that the tests be valid and reliable student assessment tools. This 
section would also establish 80 percent as the minimum passing score 
for the knowledge tests, as is the current standard for the CDL 
knowledge tests offered by the States. If, during the skills portion of 
the test, the student fails to obey traffic laws or is involved in a 
preventable accident, he/she would automatically fail the LCV driver-
training test.

Section 380.111 Substitute for driver training

    FMCSA believes that for many current LCV drivers, the combination 
of a good driving record and experience with a representative vehicle 
of the specific LCV category is an appropriate indication that the 
individual has the minimum knowledge and driving skills to operate such 
a vehicle. Accordingly, the FMCSA would allow certain drivers to 
substitute a good driving record and experience for the completion of 
the LCV driver-training requirements. FMCSA believes grandfathering 
such drivers would not diminish public safety or overall safe operation 
of CMVs. The driver would have to provide the employing motor carrier 
evidence of safely operating those vehicles for a period of at least 2 
years prior to application.
    The FMCSA is proposing that a motor carrier issue a Certificate of 
Grandfathering to those drivers who meet the knowledge and experience 
requirements established in this section. A copy of the certificate 
would be filed in the Driver Qualification file. Grandfathered drivers 
would be excluded from the training requirements of this part. This 
action is consistent with that taken when the agency grandfathered 
certain drivers from the CDL skills tests contained in part 383. 
Current drivers could only be grandfathered for a one-year period 
immediately after the effective date of the final rule. After the one-
year period, only those drivers who present an employer with a 
Certificate of Grandfathering would be exempted from LCV driver-
training requirements.

Section 380.113 Employer responsibilities

    This section would expressly prohibit a motor carrier from using an 
individual to operate an LCV unless he/she has first met the 
requirements under part 380. Section 380.113(b) would address ANPRM 
Question 2 regarding roadside enforcement challenges and Question 3 
regarding the FMCSA role in enforcement. Under the current proposal, 
FMCSA or MCSAP State enforcement officials would verify compliance with 
the LCV driver-training and driver-instructor requirements at the 
carrier's place of business during the compliance review, rather than 
at the roadside. The enforcement official would not be burdened with 
trying to determine at roadside whether or not a CMV driver is subject 
to the LCV training requirement. This enforcement approach would also 
emphasize that both the motor carrier and the driver have a 
responsibility for the LCV training requirement. The driver would have 
to obtain the necessary LCV training and the carrier would have to 
prohibit a driver from operating an LCV without it.

Subpart B--LCV Driver-Training Program

    Sections 380.203 and 380.205 set forth the specific conditions that 
one would have to meet to qualify for LCV driver training. The 
individual seeking LCV training would have to possess a valid CDL with 
a double/triple trailer endorsement, have only one driver's license, 
have a good driving record, and provide evidence of experience in 
operating the prerequisite type of vehicle to qualify for the desired 
LCV training. Evidence of driving experience would consist of a 
statement from an employer(s) stating the type and amount of driving 
experience while employed by that motor carrier.

Subpart C--LCV Driver-Instructor Requirements

Section 380.301 General requirements

    The FMCSA believes that, initially, persons who are currently 
conducting double/triple trailer combination vehicle training would 
become the qualified LCV instructors under the proposed grandfather 
requirements. Subsequently, when the need arises for new instructors, 
those qualified (grandfathered) LCV instructors would train new 
instructors, who would then be qualified to train drivers.
    Each instructor that is employed by a training institution offering 
LCV training would have to meet all State requirements for a vocational 
education instructor. While the States assume varying degrees of 
control over education, institutions of post-secondary education are 
permitted to operate with considerable independence and autonomy. As a 
consequence, educational institutions can vary widely in the quality 
and adequacy of their programs. In order to ensure a basic level of 
quality and adequacy, the Department of Education established 
accreditation requirements. The FMCSA, therefore, proposes that any 
entity, for-profit or not-for-profit, private or public, that meets the 
accreditation requirements of the Department of Education would be 
allowed to offer the training.

Section 380.303 Substitute for instructor requirements

    As is the case for LCV drivers, certain current driver-instructors 
would be grandfathered from the instructional skills requirements. 
Those instructors desiring to be grandfathered would provide evidence 
of eligibility to the motor carrier. The motor carrier would file the 
proof of eligibility in the LCV instructor qualification file proposed 
under Sec.  391.53.

Subpart D--Driver-Training Certification

Section 380.401 Certification document

    The FMCSA proposes to require a certifying official of the training 
entity to issue a certificate to each driver who successfully completes 
LCV driver-training. The driver would provide the motor carrier a copy 
of the LCV Driver-Training Certificate as proof of eligibility to 
operate an LCV. The certificate would indicate the type(s) of

[[Page 47896]]

LCV which the driver is qualified to operate.
    The motor carrier must file the copy of the certificate in the 
Driver Qualification file and present it to an authorized FMCSA, State 
or local official, upon request. The driver would need to safeguard the 
original certificate, as it is proof to future employers of eligibility 
to operate an LCV.

Appendix to Part 380

    The FMCSA believes that specialized vehicle combinations require 
somewhat different training requirements because of differing operating 
characteristics. Therefore, the FMCSA proposes two separate training 
courses for LCV drivers: LCV Doubles and LCV Triples. The proposed 
curriculum would be identical but must be customized to address the 
unique operational and handling characteristics of the specific LCV 
category. Specialized commodity training could be addressed as 
necessary by training institutions or carriers.
    In developing the proposed course content, the FMCSA considered 
research conducted by the PTDI while under contract to the agency. The 
FMCSA acknowledges that the actual training materials will be developed 
by the motor carrier industry or other commercial training entities. 
Such training materials would have to meet the minimum requirements set 
forth in the appendix to part 380. This action would allow the training 
entities a degree of flexibility in the development of specific 
materials to meet their individual needs.
    The FMCSA is seeking very specific comments on whether you consider 
the topics of instruction described in the appendix to part 380 as 
adequate, requiring modification or needing to be eliminated. Please 
submit reasons supporting your response. Comments should address 
specific subject areas (training units) and include rationale 
supporting each recommendation with regard to course content. Any 
recommendations to add to the curriculum outline, with regard to course 
content, should also be addressed in a similar manner.

Part 391--Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle 
(LCV) Driving Instructors

    The FMCSA would amend 49 CFR part 391 to add new requirements under 
Sec.  391.53 for a motor carrier to maintain a qualification file for 
LCV driver instructors and rename part 391 to reflect these new 
requirements.

Summary of the Proposed Regulatory Evaluation

    In accordance with a Congressional mandate, this NPRM proposes 
minimum training requirements for operators of certain multiple trailer 
vehicles. The NPRM proposes, with limited exceptions, that drivers who 
do not currently operate these vehicles would complete training before 
operating double- or triple-trailer commercial motor vehicles. Most 
drivers who currently operate these vehicles will be exempted from 
these training requirements. The NPRM also outlines requirements for 
employers of drivers, LCV driver-instructors, and enforcement and 
administrative personnel. This preliminary regulatory evaluation 
analyzes the costs and benefits of the NPRM.
    Congress directed the FMCSA to publish regulations concerning 
training of a driver of an LCV, which it defined as ``any combination 
of a truck tractor and 2 or more trailers or semi-trailers which 
operate on the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with 
a gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000 pounds.''
    Approximately 35,000 drivers currently operate LCVs, most of whom 
will be grandfathered. Approximately 1,200 LCV drivers would require 
training annually. ANPRM docket comments and information from industry 
representatives and analysts suggest that LCV drivers are currently 
obtaining about half the estimated amount of training, approximately 50 
hours. The net cost of training (including drivers' wages) is $45.50 an 
hour. This results in a ten-year cost of approximately $28 million.
    Precisely quantifying the benefits of this rule is difficult. 
Congress clearly assumed that increased training reduces accident 
rates, and many analysts agree with this position. However, 
quantitative data examining the relationship between training and 
accident rates is not plentiful, and those studies we have located have 
not found a strong and consistent relationship. Therefore, we performed 
sensitivity analysis, estimating the benefits from a range of 
reductions in drivers' accident rates for those who have received 
training. Net benefits ranged from -$10 million for a 5% reduction in 
the accident rate to $144 million for a 50% reduction. Table 1 presents 
the results for a number of possible deterrence levels.

  Table 1.--Benefit Cost Ratio with Different Accident Rate Reductions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Crash reduction                5%      10%     15%     20%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B/C Ratio...............................    0.6     1.2     1.8     2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 shows costs, benefits, and the number of accidents and 
drivers that would be affected by these proposals, with an assumed 10% 
reduction in accidents.

                                               Table 2.--Summary Results with 10% Accident Rate Reductions
                                                                  [millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          10-Year                                            Crashes
                      Trained annually                       10-Year costs       benefits       Net benefits      B/C ratio        prevented
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,172..............................................................           $28.0            $34.4             $6.4              1.2              315
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis assumes that the proposal will require that 
prospective LCV drivers obtain an additional 50 hours of training. This 
is a conservative estimate, in that it is on the high end of the range 
of likely training time. Nonetheless, because of uncertainty over how 
many hours of training will be required, we performed sensitivity 
analysis for different assumed hours of training. As expected, the 
sensitivity analysis shows that net benefits move in the opposite 
direction of the number of hours. We invite comments from reviewers 
about the amount of training needed to meet the requirements of this 
proposal, including supporting rationale.
    All costs and benefits are over a ten-year period, and are 
discounted at a 7% rate. The agency has placed a copy of the full 
Regulatory Evaluation in the public docket.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The FMCSA has determined that this action is a significant 
regulatory action

[[Page 47897]]

within the meaning of E.O. 12866, and is significant within the meaning 
of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and 
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 
26, 1979) because of significant public interest in the issues relating 
to CMV safety and training of certain CMV drivers. This proposed rule 
has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 
12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), an agency 
is required to evaluate proposed rulemakings to determine the effects 
of its action upon small entities. FMCSA does not believe that these 
proposals meet the threshold values for requiring a full-blown 
regulatory analysis, since the anticipated impact is relatively small. 
Nonetheless, because of the public interest in these proposals, we have 
prepared a regulatory analysis and placed a copy in the docket to this 
IFR. The mandatory topics to be considered in a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis and agency findings are as follows.
    (1) A description of the reasons why the action by the Agency is 
being considered. This action is being considered in response to 
Congressional direction. Specifically, section 4007 of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 directed the Secretary of 
Transportation to promulgate regulations requiring training for LCV 
drivers.
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule. The objective for this action is to reduce the 
number of crashes caused by drivers of LCVs. Congress was specifically 
concerned about the number of LCV crashes caused by inadequate driver 
training, and believes that better training will reduce these types of 
crashes. As noted above, the legal basis for this rule is section 4007 
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
    (3) A description and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed rule will apply. This action would 
apply to relatively few small entities that own or operate LCVs, and to 
drivers that drive LCVs.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record. This action would impose a very 
modest burden on small entities, since it largely regulates the actions 
of drivers rather than motor carriers. Nonetheless, this action does 
impose some reporting and recordkeeping requirements on motor carriers. 
The primary carrier requirement would be to verify drivers' eligibility 
before allowing them to operate an LCV. In addition, carriers must 
maintain in the driver qualification (DQ) file a copy of the required 
driver-training certificate. Carriers are currently required to 
maintain a DQ file for each driver, as outlined in Part 391 of the 
FMCSRs. No special skills are required to verify eligibility to operate 
an LCV or to place a driver training certificate in a DQ file.
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule. The FMCSA is not aware of any other rules which 
duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the FMCSA hereby certifies that the proposed action 
discussed in this document will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and 
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. It has been determined 
that this rulemaking does not have a substantial direct effect on 
States, nor would it limit the policy-making discretion of the States. 
Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.217, Motor 
Carrier Safety. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 
regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and 
activities do not apply to this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. An analysis of this 
proposal was made by the FMCSA, and it has determined that the final 
rule, when promulgated, would create a new collection of information 
requiring OMB's approval. This PRA section addresses the information 
collection burden for certifying new LCV drivers, as well as the burden 
associated with grandfathering, via certification, most current LCV 
drivers.
    The FMCSA estimates that there are 35,000 LCV drivers currently 
operating, the vast majority of whom would be eligible to be 
grandfathered under the new training requirements set forth in this 
NPRM. The agency also estimates that approximately 1,200 new LCV 
drivers would require training each year. There would be a burden to 
the motor carrier or other training entity to complete, photocopy, and 
file the certification form. FMCSA estimates this will take 10 minutes, 
resulting in an annual burden of 200 hours [1,200 drivers x 10 minutes 
per motor carrier/training entity, divided by 60 minutes = 200].
    For grandfathering the current 35,000 drivers, there would be a 
one-time burden, since drivers could only be grandfathered during the 
first year after the rule becomes effective. There are two parts to the 
burden for these 35,000 drivers: the burden for the driver to collect 
and provide the information to the motor carrier and the burden for the 
motor carrier to review the documents, complete, duplicate, and file 
the certification form. FMCSA estimates that it would take 
approximately 15 minutes for a driver to collect the necessary 
information and provide the document to the motor carrier, and 15 
minutes for the motor carrier to review the information, complete the 
certification, and duplicate and file the document. Therefore, the 
burden associated with grandfathering the 35,000 drivers would be 
17,500 burden hours [(35,000 x 15 minutes per driver, divided by 60 
minutes = 8,750) + (35,000 x 15 minutes per motor carrier, divided by 
60 minutes = 8,750) = 17,500].
    The first-year burden associated with this rule, when promulgated, 
is 17,700 burden hours [200 + 17,500]. After the first year, the burden 
would drop to 200 burden hours per year.
    Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any 
aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not 
limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the performance of the functions of the FMCSA, including whether the 
information has practical utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated 
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
collected information, and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden 
without reducing the quality of the information collected.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The FMCSA is a new administration within the Department of

[[Page 47898]]

Transportation (DOT). The agency is striving to meet all of the 
statutory and executive branch requirements on rulemaking. The FMCSA is 
currently developing an agency order that will comply with all 
statutory and regulatory policies under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The agency expects 
the draft FMCSA Order to appear in the Federal Register for public 
comment in the near future. The framework of the FMCSA Order is 
consistent with and reflects the procedures for considering 
environmental impacts under DOT Order 5610.1C. The FMCSA analyzed this 
NPRM under the NEPA and DOT Order 5610.1C. Since this action relates 
only to driver-training and instructor-qualification standards, the 
agency believes that it would be among the type of regulations that 
would be categorically excluded from any environmental assessment.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use. This action is not a significant energy action 
within the meaning of Section 4(b) of the Executive Order because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule establishes training 
requirements for operators of LCVs and sets forth requirements for 
trainers of such operators. This action has no effect on the supply or 
use of energy, nor do we believe it will cause a shortage of drivers 
qualified to distribute energy (e.g., gasoline, fuel oil, etc.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not impose a Federal mandate resulting in 
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one 
year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) Under this proposal, there are no costs 
to States, and costs to the private sector should be minimal. This 
action proposes minimum training standards for operators of LCVs. 
Although not required to do so under the FMCSRs, motor carriers 
routinely provide similar training to their drivers who operate LCVs. 
The proposal would not stipulate that motor carriers must provide such 
training, but requires them to use only those drivers and driver-
instructors who have met the proposed standards. LCV drivers and 
driver-instructors would be responsible for the cost of meeting the 
requirements.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise 
have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutional Protected Property Rights.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of E.0. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate 
ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    We have analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, 
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks. This rule sets forth training requirements for LCV drivers and 
sets standards for instructors of such drivers. Therefore, the FMCSA 
certifies that this action is not an economically significant rule and 
does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may 
disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects

49 CFR part 380

    Driver training, instructor requirements.

49 CFR part 391

    Highways and roads, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA hereby proposes to 
amend title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, 
as set forth below.
    1. Chapter III is amended by adding part 380 to read as follows:

PART 380--SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Subpart A--Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver-Training and Driver-
Instructor Requirements--General
Sec.
380.101 Purpose and scope.
380.103 Applicability.
380.105 Definitions.
380.107 General requirements.
380.109 Driver testing.
380.111 Substitute for driver training.
380.113 Employer responsibilities.
Subpart B--LCV Driver-Training Program
380.201 General requirements.
380.203 LCV Doubles.
380.205 LCV Triples.
Subpart C--LCV Driver-Instructor Requirements
380.301 General requirements.
380.303 Substitute for instructor requirements.
380.305 Employer responsibilities.
Subpart D--Driver-Training Certification
380.401 Certification document.
Appendix to Part 380--LCV Driver Training Programs, Required 
Knowledge and Skills

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31307, and 31502; Sec. 4007(b) of 
Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2152); 49 CFR 1.73.

Subpart A--General


Sec.  380.101  Purpose and scope.

    (a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to establish minimum 
requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles (LCVs) and 
LCV driver-instructors.
    (b) Scope. This part establishes:
    (1) Minimum training requirements for operators of LCVs;
    (2) Minimum qualification requirements for LCV driver-instructors; 
and
    (3) Procedures for determining compliance with this part by 
operators, instructors, training institutions, and employers.


Sec.  380.103  Applicability.

    The rules in this part apply to all operators of LCVs in interstate 
commerce, employers of such persons, and LCV driver-instructors.


Sec.  380.105  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions in part 383 of this subchapter apply to this 
part, except where otherwise specifically noted.
    (b) As used in this part:
    Longer combination vehicle (LCV) means any combination of a truck-
tractor and two or more trailers or semi-trailers, which operate on the 
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a gross vehicle 
weight (GVW) greater than 36,288 kilograms (80,000 pounds).
    LCV Double means a Rocky Mountain double or a turnpike double.
    LCV Triple means an LCV consisting of a truck-tractor in 
combination with three trailers and/or semi-trailers.
    Qualified LCV driver-instructor means an instructor meeting the 
requirements contained in subpart B of this part.
    Rocky Mountain double means an LCV consisting of a truck-tractor in 
combination with a longer semi-trailer, usually 13.716 to 16.154 meters 
(45 to 53 feet) long, and a shorter trailer usually 8.230 to 8.687 
meters (27 to 28.5 feet) long.
    Training institution means any technical or vocational school

[[Page 47899]]

accredited by an accrediting institution recognized by the U.S. 
Department of Education.
    Turnpike double means an LCV consisting of a truck-tractor in 
combination with two trailers or semi-trailers, each 13.716 meters (45 
feet) or more in length.
    Twin trailers means a truck-tractor in combination with two 
trailers and/or semi-trailers of approximately equal lengths, each 
7.925 to 8.687 meters (26 to 28.5 feet) long and commonly referred to 
as ``twins'' or ``Western doubles.'' For the purposes of this part, 
this definition includes a truck in combination with two short 
trailers, each 7.925 to 8.687 meters (26 to 28.5 feet) long.
    Western double means the same thing as twin trailers.


Sec.  380.107  General requirements.

    (a) A driver who wishes to operate an LCV shall first take and 
successfully complete an LCV driver-training program that provides the 
knowledge and skills necessary to operate an LCV. The specific types of 
knowledge and skills that a training program shall include are outlined 
in the appendix to this part.
    (b) Before a person receives training:
    (1) That person shall present evidence to the LCV driver-instructor 
showing that he/she meets the general requirements set forth in subpart 
B of this part for the specific type of LCV training to be taken.
    (2) The LCV driver-instructor shall verify that each trainee 
applicant meets the general requirements for the specific type of LCV 
training to be taken.
    (c) Upon successful completion of the training requirement, the 
driver-student shall be issued an LCV driver-training certificate by a 
certifying official of the training entity in accordance with the 
requirements specified in subpart D of this part.


Sec.  380.109  Driver testing.

    (a) Testing Methods. A qualified LCV driver-instructor must 
administer to the driver-student knowledge and skills tests in 
accordance with the following requirements to determine whether a 
driver-student has successfully completed an LCV driver-training 
program, as specified in subpart B of this part.
    (1) All tests shall be constructed in such a way as to determine if 
the driver-student possesses the required knowledge and skills set 
forth in the appendix to this part for the specific type of LCV 
training program being taught.
    (2) Instructors shall develop their own tests for the specific type 
of LCV-training program being taught, but those tests must be at least 
as stringent as the requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (3) LCV driver-instructors shall establish specific methods for 
scoring the knowledge and skills tests.
    (4) Passing scores must meet the requirements of paragraph (b) of 
this section.
    (5) Knowledge and skills tests shall be based upon the information 
taught in the LCV training programs as set forth in the appendix to 
this part.
    (6) Each knowledge test shall address the training provided during 
both theoretical and behind-the-wheel instruction and include at least 
one question from each of the units listed in the Table to the appendix 
to this part, for the specific type of LCV training program being 
taught.
    (7) Each skills test shall include all the maneuvers and operations 
practiced during the Proficiency Development unit of instruction 
(behind-the-wheel instruction) as described in the appendix to this 
part, for the specific type of LCV training program being taught.
    (b) Proficiency determinations. The driver-student must meet the 
following conditions to be certified as an LCV driver:
    (1) Answer correctly at least 80 percent of the questions on each 
knowledge test; and
    (2) Demonstrate that he/she can successfully perform all of the 
skills addressed in paragraph (a)(7) of this section.
    (c) Automatic test failure. Failure to obey traffic laws or 
involvement in a preventable accident during the skills portion of the 
test will result in automatic failure.


Sec.  380.111  Substitute for driver-training.

    (a) Grandfather clause. The LCV driver-training requirements 
specified in subpart B of this part do not apply to an individual who 
meets the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this 
section. A motor carrier must ensure that an individual claiming 
eligibility to operate an LCV on the basis of this section meets these 
conditions before allowing him/her to operate an LCV.
    (b) An individual must certify that, during the 2-year period 
immediately preceding the date of application for a Certificate of 
Grandfathering, he/she had:
    (1) A valid Class A CDL with a ``double/triple trailers'' 
endorsement;
    (2) No more than one driver's license;
    (3) No suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his/her CDL;
    (4) No convictions for a major offense while operating a CMV as 
defined in Sec.  383.51(b) of this subchapter;
    (5) No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense 
while operating a CMV as defined in Sec.  383.51(d) of this subchapter;
    (6) No convictions for violating an out-of-service order as defined 
in Sec.  383.51(e) of this subchapter;
    (7) No more than one conviction for a serious traffic violation, as 
defined in Sec.  383.5 of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (8) No convictions for a violation of State or local law relating 
to motor vehicle traffic control arising in connection with any traffic 
accident while operating a CMV; and
    (9) No accident in which he/she was found to be at fault, while 
operating a CMV.
    (c) An individual must certify and provide evidence that he/she:
    (1) Is regularly employed in a job requiring the operation of a CMV 
that requires a CDL with a double/triple trailers endorsement; and
    (2) Has operated, for at least 2 years immediately preceding the 
date of application for a Certificate of Grandfathering, vehicles 
representative of the type of LCV that he/she seeks to continue 
operating.
    (d) A motor carrier must issue a Certificate of Grandfathering, 
which is substantially in accordance with the form below, to an 
individual that meets the requirements of this section and maintain a 
copy of the certificate in his/her Driver Qualification file.

[[Page 47900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU03.002

    (e) An applicant may only satisfy the conditions in this section as 
a substitute for the LCV driver-training requirements specified in 
subparts A and B of this part during one year after [The effective date 
of the final rule.].


Sec.  380.113  Employer responsibilities.

    (a) No motor carrier shall:
    (1) Allow, require, permit or authorize an individual to operate an 
LCV unless he/she meets the requirements in Sec. Sec.  380.203 and 
380.205 and has been issued the LCV driver-training certificate 
described in Sec.  380.401. This provision does not apply to 
individuals that are eligible for the substitute for driver training 
provision in Sec.  380.111.
    (2) Allow, require, permit or authorize an individual to operate an 
LCV which the LCV driver-training certificate, CDL and endorsement(s) 
do not authorize the driver to operate. This provision applies to 
individuals employed by or under contract to the motor carrier.
    (b) A motor carrier that employs or has under contract LCV drivers 
shall provide evidence of the certifications required by Sec.  380.401 
or Sec.  380.111 of this part when requested by an authorized FMCSA, 
State or local official in the course of a compliance review.

Subpart B--LCV Driver Training Program


Sec.  380.201  General requirements.

    (a) The LCV Driver-Training Program that is described in the 
appendix to this part requires training using an LCV Double or LCV 
Triple and must include the following general categories of 
instruction:
    (1) Orientation;
    (2) Basic operation;
    (3) Safe operating practices;
    (4) Advanced operations; and
    (5) Non-driving activities.
    (b) The LCV Driver-Training Program must include the minimum topics 
of training set forth in the appendix to this part and behind-the-wheel 
instruction that is designed to provide an opportunity to develop the 
skills outlined under the Proficiency Development unit of the training 
program.


Sec.  380.203  LCV Doubles.

    (a) To qualify for the training necessary to operate an LCV Double, 
a driver-student shall, for at least the 6 months immediately preceding 
application for training, have:
    (1) A valid Class A CDL with a double/triple trailer endorsement;
    (2) Driving experience in a Group A vehicle as described in Sec.  
383.91 of this subchapter. Evidence of driving experience shall be an 
employer's statement that the driver has for at least 6 months 
immediately preceding application operated a Group A vehicle while 
under his/her employ;
    (3) No more than one driver's license;
    (4) No suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his/her CDL;
    (5) No convictions for a major offense, as defined in Sec.  
383.51(b) of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (6) No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense, 
as defined in Sec.  383.51(d) of this subchapter, while operating a 
CMV;
    (7) No convictions for violating an out-of-service order as defined 
in Sec.  383.51(e) of this subchapter;
    (8) No more than one conviction for a serious traffic violation, as 
defined in Sec.  383.5 of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (9) No convictions for a violation of State or local law relating 
to motor vehicle traffic control arising in connection with any traffic 
accident while operating a CMV, and
    (10) No accident in which he/she was found to be at fault, while 
operating a CMV.
    (b) Driver-students meeting the preliminary requirements in 
paragraph (a) of this section shall successfully complete a training 
program that meets the minimum unit requirements for LCV Doubles as set 
forth in the appendix to this part.
    (c) Driver-students who successfully complete the Driver Training 
Program for LCV Doubles shall be issued a

[[Page 47901]]

certificate, in accordance with subpart D of this part, indicating the 
driver is qualified to operate an LCV Double.


Sec.  380.205  LCV Triples.

    (a) To qualify for the training necessary to operate an LCV Triple, 
a driver-student shall, for at least the 6 months immediately preceding 
application for training, have:
    (1) A valid Class A CDL with a double/triple trailer endorsement;
    (2) Experience operating the vehicle listed under paragraph 
(a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this section. Evidence of driving experience 
shall be an employer's statement that the driver has for at least 6 
months immediately preceding application operated the applicable 
vehicle(s).
    (i) Group A truck-tractor/semi-trailer combination as described in 
Sec.  383.91 of this subchapter; or
    (ii) Twin trailer as defined under Sec.  380.105;
    (3) No more than one driver's license;
    (4) No suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his/her CDL;
    (5) No convictions for a major offense, as defined in Sec.  
383.51(b) of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (6) No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense, 
as defined in Sec.  383.51(d) of this subchapter, while operating a 
CMV;
    (7) No convictions for violation of an out-of-service order, as 
defined in Sec.  383.51(e) of this subchapter;
    (8) No more than one conviction for a serious traffic violation, as 
defined in Sec.  383.5 of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (9) No convictions for a violation of State or local law relating 
to motor vehicle traffic control arising in connection with any traffic 
accident, while operating a CMV, and
    (10) No accident in which he/she was found to be at fault, while 
operating a CMV.
    (b) Driver-students meeting the preliminary requirements in 
paragraph (a) of this section shall successfully complete a training 
program that meets the minimum unit requirements for LCV Triples as set 
forth in the appendix to this part.
    (c) Driver-students who successfully complete the Driver Training 
Program for LCV Triples shall be issued a certificate, in accordance 
with subpart D of this part, indicating the driver is qualified to 
operate an LCV Triple.

Subpart C--LCV Driver-Instructor Requirements


Sec.  380.301  General requirements.

    Except as provided in Sec.  380.303, to qualify as an LCV driver-
instructor, a person shall:
    (a) Provide evidence of successful completion of the Driver-
Training Program requirements, as required in subpart B of this part, 
when requested by employers and/or an authorized FMCSA, State or local 
official in the course of a compliance review. The Driver-Training 
Program must be for the operation of CMVs representative of the subject 
matter that he/she will teach.
    (b) Meet all State requirements for a vocational instructor, if 
employed by a training institution;
    (c) Possess a valid Class A CDL with all endorsements necessary to 
operate the CMVs applicable to the subject matter being taught (LCV 
Doubles and/or LCV Triples); and
    (d) Have at least 2 years CMV driving experience in a vehicle 
representative of the type of Driver-Training to be provided (LCV 
Doubles or LCV Triples).


Sec.  380.303  Substitute for instructor requirements.

    Section 380.301 does not apply to a driver-instructor candidate 
who:
    (a) Meets all State requirements for a vocational instructor, if 
employed by a training institution;
    (b) Meets the conditions of Sec.  380.111(b);
    (c) Has CMV driving experience during the previous 2 years in a 
vehicle representative of the type of LCV that is the subject of the 
training course to be provided;
    (d) Has experience during the previous 2 years in teaching 
applicable programs similar in content to that set forth in the 
appendix to this part.


Sec.  380.305  Employer responsibilities.

    (a) No motor carrier shall:
    (1) Knowingly allow, require, permit or authorize a driver-
instructor in its employ or under contract to the motor carrier to 
provide LCV driver-training unless such person is a qualified LCV 
driver-instructor under the requirements of this subpart; or
    (2) Contract with a training institution to provide LCV driver-
training unless the institution:
    (i) Uses instructors who are qualified LCV driver-instructors under 
the requirements of this subpart;
    (ii) Is accredited by an accrediting institution recognized by the 
U.S. Department of Education;
    (iii) Is in compliance with all applicable State training school 
requirements; and
    (iv) Identifies drivers certified under Sec.  380.401 of this part, 
when requested by employers and/or an authorized FMCSA, State or local 
official in the course of a compliance review.
    (b) A motor carrier that employs or has under contract qualified 
LCV driver-instructors, shall provide evidence of the certifications 
required by Sec.  380.301 or Sec.  380.303 of this part, when requested 
by an authorized FMCSA, State or local official in the course of a 
compliance review.

Subpart D--Driver-Training Certification.


Sec.  380.401  Certification document.

    (a) A student who successfully completes LCV driver-training shall 
be issued a Driver-Training Certificate that is substantially in 
accordance with the following form.

[[Page 47902]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12AU03.003

    (b) An LCV driver must provide a copy of the Driver-Training 
Certificate to his/her employer to be filed in the Driver Qualification 
File.

Appendix to Part 380--LCV Driver Training Programs, Required Knowledge 
and Skills

    The following table lists topics of instruction required for 
drivers of longer combination vehicles pursuant to 49 CFR part 380, 
subpart B. The training courses for operators of LCV Doubles and LCV 
Triples must be distinct and tailored to address their unique operating 
and handling characteristics. Each course must include the minimum 
topics of instruction, including behind-the-wheel training designed to 
provide an opportunity to develop the skills outlined under the 
Proficiency Development unit of the training program.

          Table to the Appendix--Course Topics for LCV Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Section 1: Orientation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   1.1  LCVs in Trucking.
   1.2  Regulatory Factors.
   1.3  Driver Qualifications.
   1.4  Vehicle Configuration Factors.
-------
             Section 2: Basic Operation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   2.1  Inspection.
   2.2  Coupling and Uncoupling.
   2.3  Basic Control and Handling.
   2.4  Basic Maneuvers.
   2.5  Turning, Steering and Tracking.
   2.6  Proficiency Development.
-------
    Section 3: Safe Operating Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   3.1  Interacting with Traffic.
   3.2  Speed and Space Management.
   3.3  Night Operations.
   3.4  Extreme Driving Conditions.
   3.5  Security Issues.
   3.6  Proficiency Development.
-------
         Section 4: Advanced Operations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   4.1  Hazard Perception.
   4.2  Hazardous Situations.
   4.3  Maintenance and Troubleshooting.
-------
      Section 5: Non-Driving Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   5.1  Routes and Trip Planning.
   5.2  Cargo and Weight Considerations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 1--Orientation

    The units in this section shall provide an orientation to the 
training curriculum and shall cover the role LCVs play within the motor 
carrier industry, the factors that affect their operations, and the 
role the drivers play in the safe operation of LCVs.
    Unit 1.1--LCVs in Trucking. This unit must provide an introduction 
to the emergence of LCVs in trucking and serves as an orientation to 
the course content. Emphasis shall be placed upon the role the driver 
plays in transportation.
    Unit 1.2--Regulatory Factors. This unit must provide instruction 
addressing the Federal, State, and local governmental bodies that 
propose, enact, and implement the laws, rules, and regulations that 
affect the trucking industry. Emphasis must be placed on those 
regulatory factors that affect LCVs.
    Unit 1.3--Driver Qualifications. This unit must provide classroom 
instruction addressing the Federal and State laws, rules, and 
regulations that define LCV driver qualifications. It must also include 
a discussion on medical examinations, drug and alcohol tests, 
certification, and basic health and wellness issues. Emphasis must be 
placed upon topics essential to physical and mental health maintenance, 
including (1) diet, (2) exercise, (3) avoidance of alcohol and drug 
abuse, (4) the adverse effects of driver fatigue, and (5) effective 
fatigue countermeasures.

[[Page 47903]]

    Unit 1.4--Vehicle Configuration Factors. This unit must provide 
classroom instruction addressing the key vehicle components used in the 
configuration of combination vehicles. It also must provide 
familiarization with various vehicle combinations, as well as provide 
instruction about unique characteristics and factors associated with 
LCV configurations.

Section 2--Basic Operation.

    The units in this section cover the interaction between the driver 
and the vehicle. They are intended to teach driver-trainees how to 
inspect, couple and uncouple LCVs, ensure the vehicles are in the 
proper operating condition, and control the motion of LCVs under 
various road and traffic conditions.
    During the driving exercises at off-highway locations required by 
this section, the driver-trainee must first familiarize himself/herself 
with basic operating characteristics of an LCV. Utilizing an LCV, the 
students must be able to perform the skills learned in each unit to a 
level of proficiency required to permit safe transition to on-street 
driving.
    Unit 2.1--Inspection. This unit must provide instruction addressing 
the systematic vehicle inspection of LCV tractor-trailer combinations, 
including pre-trip, en route, and post-trip inspection procedures. 
While vehicle inspections are common in all CMV operations, some 
factors are peculiar to LCVs. Emphasis must be placed upon component 
failure recognition.
    Unit 2.2--Coupling and Uncoupling. This unit must provide 
instruction addressing the procedures for coupling and uncoupling LCVs. 
While vehicle coupling and uncoupling procedures are common with all 
truck-tractor/semitrailer operations, some factors are peculiar to 
LCVs. Emphasis must be placed upon preplanning and safe operating 
procedures.
    Unit 2.3--Basic Control and Handling. This unit must provide an 
introduction to basic vehicular control and handling as it applies to 
LCVs. This must include instruction addressing brake performance, 
handling characteristics and factors affecting LCV stability while 
braking, turning, and cornering. Emphasis must be placed upon safe 
operating procedures.
    Unit 2.4--Basic Maneuvers. This unit must provide instruction 
addressing the basic vehicular maneuvers that will be encountered by 
LCV drivers. This must include instruction relative to backing, lane 
positioning and path selection, merging situations, and parking LCVs. 
Emphasis must be placed upon safe operating procedures as they apply to 
brake performance and directional stability while accelerating, 
braking, merging, cornering, turning, and parking.
    Unit 2.5--Turning, Steering, and Tracking. This unit must provide 
instruction addressing turning situations, steering maneuvers, and the 
tracking of LCV trailers. This must include instruction relative to 
trailer sway and off-tracking. Emphasis must be placed on maintaining 
directional stability.
    Unit 2.6--Proficiency Development: Basic Operations. The purpose of 
this unit is to enable driver-students to gain the proficiency in basic 
operation needed to safely undertake on-street instruction in the Safe 
Operations Practices section of the curriculum.
    The activities of this unit must consist of driving exercises that 
provide practice for the development of basic control skills and 
mastery of basic maneuvers. Driver-students practice skills and 
maneuvers learned in the Basic Control and Handling; Basic Maneuvers; 
and Turning, Steering and Tracking Units. A series of basic exercises 
are practiced on off-highway locations until students develop 
sufficient proficiency for transition to on-street driving.
    Once the driver-student's skills have been measured and found to be 
adequate, the driver-student must be allowed to move to on-the-street 
driving.
    Nearly all activity in this unit will take place on the driving 
range or on streets or roads that have low-density traffic conditions.

Section 3--Safe Operating Practices

    The units in this section must cover the interaction between 
student drivers, the vehicle, and the traffic environment. They must 
teach driver-students how to apply their basic operating skills in a 
way that ensures their safety and that of other road users under 
various road, weather, and traffic conditions.
    Unit 3.1--Interacting with Traffic. This unit must provide 
instruction addressing the principles of visual search, communication, 
and sharing the road with other traffic. Emphasis must be placed upon 
visual search, mirror usage, signaling and/or positioning the vehicle 
to communicate, and understanding the special situations encountered by 
LCV drivers in various traffic situations.
    Unit 3.2--Speed and Space Management. This unit must provide 
instruction addressing the principles of speed and space management. 
Emphasis must be placed upon maintaining safe vehicular speed and 
appropriate space surrounding the vehicle under various traffic and 
road conditions. Special attention must be placed upon understanding 
the special situations encountered by LCVs in various traffic 
situations.
    Unit 3.3--Night Operations. This unit must provide instruction 
addressing the principles of Night Operations. Emphasis must be placed 
upon the factors affecting operation of LCVs at night. Night driving 
presents specific factors that require special attention on the part of 
the driver. Changes in vehicle safety inspection, vision, 
communications, speed management, and space management are needed to 
deal with the special problems night driving presents.
    Unit 3.4--Extreme Driving Conditions. This unit must provide 
instruction addressing the driving of LCVs under extreme driving 
conditions. Emphasis must be placed upon the factors affecting the 
operation of LCVs in cold, hot, and inclement weather and in the 
mountains and the desert. Changes in basic driving habits are needed to 
deal with the specific problems presented by these extreme driving 
conditions.
    Unit 3.5--Security Issues. This unit must provide an understanding 
of the driver's role in America's war on terrorism as it relates to: 
(1) The driver's role in reducing the risk of LCV hijacking, (2) the 
importance of notifying the authorities concerning potentially 
dangerous situations; and (3) the need for heightened vigilance in 
preparation of travel, while on the road, and when stopping.
    Unit 3.6--Proficiency Development. This unit must provide driver-
students an opportunity to refine, within the on-street traffic 
environment, their vehicle handling skills learned in the first three 
sections. Driver-student performance progress must be closely monitored 
to determine when the level of proficiency required for carrying out 
the basic traffic maneuvers of stopping, turning, merging, straight 
driving, curves, lane changing, passing, driving on hills, driving 
through traffic restrictions and parking has been attained. The driver-
student must also be assessed for regulatory compliance with all 
traffic laws.
    Nearly all activity in this unit will take place on public roadways 
in a full range of traffic environments applicable to this vehicle 
configuration. This must include urban and rural uncontrolled roadways, 
expressways or freeways, under light, moderate and heavy traffic 
conditions. There must be a brief classroom session to familiarize 
driver-students with the type of on-street

[[Page 47904]]

maneuvers they will perform and how their performance will be rated.
    The instructor must assess the level of skill development of the 
driver-student and increase, in difficulty, the types of maneuvers, 
roadways and traffic conditions the driver-student is exposed to based 
upon the level of skill attained.

Section 4--Advanced Operations

    The units in this section must introduce higher-level skills that 
can be acquired only after the more fundamental skills and knowledge 
taught in sections two and three have been mastered. The purpose of 
this section is to teach the perceptual skills necessary to recognize 
potential hazards and to demonstrate the procedures needed to handle an 
LCV when faced with a hazard.
    The Maintenance and Troubleshooting Unit must provide instruction 
that addresses how to keep the vehicle in safe and efficient operating 
condition. The purpose of this unit is to teach the correct way to 
perform simple maintenance tasks and how to troubleshoot and report 
those vehicle discrepancies or deficiencies that must be repaired by a 
qualified mechanic.
    Unit 4.1--Hazard Perception. This unit must provide instruction 
addressing the principles of recognizing hazards in sufficient time to 
reduce the severity of the hazard and neutralize a possible emergency 
situation. While hazards are present in all motor vehicle traffic 
operations, some are peculiar to LCV. Emphasis must be placed upon 
hazard recognition, visual search, and response to possible emergency 
producing situations encountered by LCV drivers in various traffic 
situations.
    Unit 4.2--Hazardous Situations. This unit must address dealing with 
specific procedures, appropriate for LCV emergencies. These must 
include evasive steering, emergency braking, off-road recovery, brake 
failures, tire blowouts, rearward amplification, hydroplaning, 
skidding, jackknifing and the rollover phenomenon. The discussion must 
include a review of unsafe acts and the role they play in producing 
hazardous situations.
    Unit 4.3--Maintenance and Troubleshooting. This unit must introduce 
driver-students to the basic servicing and checking procedures for the 
various vehicle components and how to help develop their ability to 
perform preventive maintenance functions, make simple emergency 
repairs, and diagnose and report vehicle malfunctions.

Section 5--Non-Driving Activities

    The units in this section must cover activities not directly 
related to the vehicle itself but that must be performed by an LCV 
driver. The units in this section must ensure that these activities are 
performed in a manner that ensures the safety of the driver, the 
vehicle, cargo, and other road users.
    Unit 5.1--Routes and Trip Planning. This unit must address the 
importance of and requirements for planning routes and trips. This must 
include classroom discussion of Federal and State requirements for a 
number of topics including, permits, vehicle size and weight 
limitations, designated highways, local access, the reasonable access 
rule, staging areas and access zones.
    Unit 5.2--Cargo and Weight Considerations. This unit must address 
the importance of proper cargo documentation, loading, securing and 
unloading cargo, weight distribution, load sequencing and trailer 
placement. Emphasis must be placed upon the importance of axle weight 
distribution, trailer placement and its effect on vehicle handling.

PART 391--QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE 
(LCV) DRIVING INSTRUCTORS

    2. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 391 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 322, 504, 31133, 31136 and 31502; Sec. 
4007(b) of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2152); and 49 CFR 1.73.
    3. Part 391 is amended by revising the part name and by adding a 
new Sec.  391.53 to subpart F to read as follows:


Sec.  391.53  LCV Instructor qualification files.

    (a) Each motor carrier shall maintain an LCV instructor 
qualification file for each LCV instructor it employs or uses. The LCV 
instructor qualification file may be combined with his/her personnel 
file.
    (b) The LCV instructor qualification file must include:
    (1) All applicable information required by Sec.  391.51;
    (2) Evidence that the instructor has met the requirements of 49 CFR 
Sec.  380.301 or Sec.  380.303;
    (3) The medical examiner's certificate of his/her physical 
qualification to drive a commercial motor vehicle or a legible 
photographic copy of the certificate; and
    (4) A photographic copy of the individual's currently valid CDL 
with the appropriate endorsements.

    Issued on: August 5, 2003.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-20368 Filed 8-12-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P