[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48863-48875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-20888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 380

[Docket No. FMCSA-97-2199]
RIN 2126-AA09


Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor 
Vehicle Operators

August 4, 2003.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is 
proposing standards for mandatory training requirements for entry-level 
operators of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) who are required to hold 
or obtain a commercial driver's license (CDL). This action responds to 
a study mandated by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act of 1991 that found the training of entry-level drivers in the heavy 
truck, motorcoach, and school bus industries was not adequate. The 
purpose of this proposal is to enhance the safety of CMV operations on 
our nation's highways.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 14, 2003.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT DMS Docket Number 
FMCSA-1997-2199 by any of the following methods:
    [sbull] Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for 
submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
    [sbull] Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    [sbull] Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [sbull] Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif 
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [sbull] Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and 
docket number or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for this 
rulemaking. Note that all comments received will be posted without 
change to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information 
provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to http://dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL-
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street SW., 
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all 
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual 
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf 
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's 
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on 
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit 
http://dms.dot.gov.
    Comments received after the comment closing date will be included 
in the docket and we will consider late comments to the extent 
practicable. The FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule at any time 
after the close of the comment period.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ronald Finn, Office of Safety 
Programs, (202) 366-0647, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 
7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

Training Curricula

    In the early 1980's, the agency determined that there was a need 
for technical guidance in the area of truck driver training. Research 
showed that few driver training institutions offered a structured 
curriculum or a standardized training program for any type of CMV.
    In 1984, the agency developed the ``Proposed Minimum Standards for 
Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' as a curriculum standard based upon 
research conducted by the agency. The proposed minimum curriculum 
standards were used by the agency to produce a curriculum for the heavy 
truck industry. This Model Curriculum contains standardized minimum 
core curriculum requirements and training materials as well as 
guidelines pertaining to vehicles, facilities, instructor hiring 
practices, graduation requirements, and student placement. Curriculum 
content addresses the following areas: basic operation, safe operating 
practices, vehicle maintenance, and non-vehicle activities. In 1995, 
the agency created a similar curriculum, the ``Model Curriculum for 
Training Motorcoach Drivers,'' that can be used to train motorcoach 
drivers.
    In 1986, the motor carrier, truck driver training school, and 
insurance industries created the Professional Truck Driver Institute 
(PTDI) to certify training programs offered by training institutions. 
The PTDI used the truck driver Model Curriculum as the basis for its 
training institute certification criteria and has recently made major 
revisions to its curriculum. As of December 2002, 71 training schools 
were PTDI certified.

The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 and the CDL Program

    The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 
31301 et seq.) established national minimum testing and licensing 
standards for operators of CMVs. The goal was to ensure that drivers of 
large trucks and buses possess the knowledge and skill necessary to 
safely operate on public highways. The CMVSA established the CDL 
program and directed the agency to establish minimum Federal standards 
that States must meet when licensing CMV drivers. The CMVSA applies to 
anyone who operates a CMV in interstate or intrastate commerce, 
including employees of Federal, State, and local governments. As 
defined by the implementing regulation in 49 CFR 383.5, a CMV is a 
motor vehicle or combination of motor vehicles used in commerce to 
transport passengers or property if the vehicle:
    (a) Has a gross combination weight rating (GCWR) of 11,794 or more 
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds) inclusive of a towed unit with a 
gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 
pounds); or
    (b) Has a GVWR of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001 or more pounds); 
or
    (c) Is designed to transport 16 or more passengers, including the 
driver; or
    (d) Is of any size and is used in the transportation of hazardous 
materials as defined in this section.
    See the FMCSA's recently published interim final rule entitled 
``Limitations on the Issuance of Commercial Driver's Licenses with a 
Hazardous Materials Endorsement'' (68 FR 23844, 23849; May 5, 2003) 
implementing certain requirements in section 1012 of the Uniting and 
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) [Pub. L.

[[Page 48864]]

107-56, October 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 272]. The definition of the term 
``hazardous of materials'' was changed to include any material listed 
as a select agent or toxin by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) in 42 CFR part 73.
    In accordance with the CMVSA, all drivers of CMVs must possess a 
valid CDL in order to be properly qualified to operate the vehicle(s) 
they drive. In addition to passing the CDL knowledge and skill tests 
required for the basic vehicle group, all persons who operate or 
anticipate operating the following vehicles, which have special 
handling characteristics, must obtain endorsements under Sec.  383.93:
    (a) Double/triple trailers;
    (b) Passenger vehicles;
    (c) Tank vehicles; or
    (d) Vehicles required to be placarded for hazardous materials.
    The driver is required to pass a knowledge test for all 
endorsements. The driver must also pass a skill test to obtain a 
passenger vehicle endorsement.
    The CDL requirements address driver testing and licensing. The 
CMVSA does not contain any provisions specifically addressing driver 
training. Accordingly, there are no prerequisite Federal training 
requirements to obtain a CDL. Generally, drivers individually prepare 
for the CDL tests by studying such areas as vehicle inspection 
procedures, off-road vehicle maneuvers and operating a CMV in traffic.
    The agency here is proposing required training in the following 
four additional areas: driver qualifications, hours of service of 
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle blower protection. The CDL tests 
do not cover these subject areas and the agency believes that a 
driver's knowledge of these areas is vital to large truck and bus 
safety.
    This proposal is part of an overall FMCSA effort to improve the CDL 
program, which also involves improvements to the CDL tests, and a 
graduated licensing study. Section 4019 of the Transportation Equity 
Act for the 21st Century (Pub.L. 105-178; June 9, 1998) required the 
agency to determine if the current system of CDL testing is an accurate 
measure of an applicant's knowledge and skill needed to operate a CMV. 
As a result, the questions used in the CDL knowledge tests are 
currently being revised to insure that test questions and answers 
adequately cover the required knowledge the driver needs to operate a 
CMV.
    The agency is examining the various skill test components to 
determine whether testing modifications are necessary. If testing 
modifications are needed, the agency may develop a future rulemaking, 
which modifies the testing procedures. Section 4019 also required the 
agency to identify the costs and benefits of a graduated licensing 
system. The agency published a notice in the Federal Register on 
February 25, 2003, asking for public comment on whether a graduated 
licensing system for CMV operators is a workable concept (68 FR 8798). 
The agency plans to use this information to help determine the costs 
and benefits of the graduated CDL.

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Pursuant to Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the agency began a 
rulemaking proceeding on the need to require training of all entry-
level CMV drivers. On June 21, 1993, the agency published in the 
Federal Register an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
entitled ``Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level 
Drivers'' (58 FR 33874). The agency asked 13 questions, which addressed 
training adequacy standards, curriculum requirements, the CDL, the 
definition of ``entry-level driver;'' and training, pass rates and 
costs. There was no consensus on the issue of mandated entry-level 
driver training. The heavy truck and bus industries were against 
mandated training; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was in 
favor.
    The agency received a total of 104 comments. When the agency 
published a notice on April 25, 1996, reopening the docket (61 FR 
18355), it received 48 additional comments on an adequacy study, and 
cost-benefit analysis, both of which are discussed below. On November 
13, 1996, the agency held a public meeting at the Department of 
Transportation headquarters in Washington, DC, to discuss mandatory 
training for entry-level CMV drivers. There were 26 persons who 
participated at the public meeting.
    A detailed analysis of the questions and comments appears later in 
this document under the heading, ``Information from the ANPRM and the 
Public Meeting.''

Training Adequacy Study

    Concurrent with the development of the ANPRM, the agency conducted 
a study, as required by Section 4007(a)(1) of the ISTEA, on the 
effectiveness of private sector efforts to train entry-level drivers in 
the heavy truck, motorcoach, and school bus industries. The first step 
of the study involved development of a baseline training standard for 
both the cargo and passenger-transporting segments of the CMV industry. 
The next step involved collecting information on training currently 
being offered by the cargo and passenger-transporting segments of the 
CMV industry. A comparison of current training to the baseline 
standards was then made to determine if employer-provided training was 
adequate. In the final step of the study, driver and employer surveys 
were performed to determine what percentage of drivers were adequately 
trained by employers. Drivers were also asked what percentage of 
drivers were adequately trained by training schools.
    The agency assembled two groups of experts: one from the trucking 
sector and the other from the motorcoach and school bus sectors. The 
experts identified driver training baselines. The truck experts 
selected the Model Curriculum as a baseline. The bus experts selected a 
combination of the Model Curriculum and the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) ``School Bus Driver Instructional 
Program,'' developed in 1974 and currently being updated. The experts 
reached a consensus on minimum requirements for the numbers of class 
and practice driving hours, student/teacher ratios, and course topics. 
They then developed an algorithm to quantitatively compare existing 
driver training with the baselines. An overall negative score 
demonstrated that the program was judged to be less effective than the 
baseline. An overall positive score showed that the program was judged 
to be more effective. Based on this analysis, the percentage of 
employers that provide entry-level drivers with adequate training was: 
heavy truck employers (8 percent), motorcoach employers (19 percent), 
and school bus operators (24 percent).
    One-hundred ninety-two (192) drivers were surveyed to determine the 
adequacy of training provided by training schools in the opinion of the 
drivers. Based on this survey, the percentage of drivers adequately 
trained by heavy truck training schools was 31 percent. The survey 
found that no heavy truck training school adequately trained drivers to 
operate school buses, and that the motor coach industry had no training 
school for motor coach drivers. According to the survey, the percentage 
of heavy truck training schools providing adequate training was 50 
percent.
    The agency also surveyed a total of 641 employers. The percentage 
of employers who train drivers, according to the employer survey, was 
as follows: heavy truck 39 percent, motor coach 37.4 percent, and 
school bus 93.5 percent.

[[Page 48865]]

    The conclusion of both the training analysis and the driver survey, 
using this methodology, was that neither the heavy truck, motorcoach, 
nor school bus segments of the CMV industry were providing adequate 
entry-level driver training. At the same time, the adequacy study found 
that the only research-based evidence on the relationship between 
training and accident reduction indicated that drivers with formal 
training are somewhat more likely to have accidents. However, the 
researchers concluded that the lack of uniform training standards may 
have masked the real effects of good training.
    The adequacy study found few studies within the motor carrier 
industry that had examined the relationship between training and 
accident reduction. However, Builder's Transport, Inc., a motor 
carrier, did a study of 2,600 trained drivers in 1994, that showed a 
two percent reduction in accidents per million miles driven in contrast 
to drivers who had no training. Schneider National, Inc., a motor 
carrier, also performed a study involving its training on hazard-
driving conditions, and found a 40 percent reduction in accidents. In 
both of these studies, drivers with training had fewer accidents.

Adequacy Study Cost-Benefit Analysis

    As part of the adequacy study, the agency performed a cost-benefit 
analysis of training in the heavy truck industry. The analysis was 
limited to heavy trucks due to a scarcity of available cost data among 
motorcoach and school bus training programs. However, the agency 
believes that the findings are generally applicable to the other 
industries, because motor coaches and most school buses are over 11,794 
kilograms (26,001 pounds), and the drivers of all three have similar 
responsibilities. The cost benefit analysis applied the definition of 
CMV contained in the CMVSA, but did not include placarded hazardous 
material vehicles with a GVWR less than 11,794 kilograms (26,001 
pounds). The results of this earlier analysis showed a much higher cost 
than today's proposal, because it was based on 65.8 hours of required 
training. This NPRM, however, does not specify a minimum number of 
hours. The regulatory evaluation for this proposal is based on a total 
of 10\1/2\ hours of training for heavy truck and motorcoach drivers, 
and 4.5 hours for school bus drivers, as discussed later in this 
proposal.

Report to Congress

    The Secretary of Transportation submitted the adequacy study 
entitled, Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver 
Training: Final Report and the first Cost-Benefit analysis to the U.S. 
Congress on February 5, 1996, as required by the ISTEA.

Information from the ANPRM and the Public Meeting

    The agency received a total of 154 comments to the ANPRM and the 
public meeting. Some commenters responded more than once, and some 
commenters provided more than one answer to a particular question.
Question 1: How Can the Adequacy of Training Be Defined? What 
Mechanisms Exist to Measure Adequacy?
    A total of forty-seven comments were received regarding Question 1.
    Defining Adequacy: Sixteen commenters, including the PTDI, stated 
that adequacy was defined either by the PTDI tractor-trailer curriculum 
or the Model Curriculum referenced above. Fourteen commenters, 
including the National Private Truck Council, stated that either the 
CDL in general, or the CDL tests in particular, define adequate 
training. The remaining comments included statements that training 
adequacy is defined by a job skills analysis, or that it is defined by 
the Model Curriculum modified for straight trucks.
    Measuring Adequacy: Seven commenters, including the ATA, stated 
that the PTDI Model Curriculum is a measurement of training adequacy. 
Nine commenters, including the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 
stated that training adequacy is measured by the CDL tests. The 
remaining comments included statements that training adequacy is 
determined by comparing accident rates of trained versus untrained 
drivers, or that it is determined by gaining employment as a CDL 
driver.
    The agency believes that the Model Curriculum represents the basis 
for training adequacy. It is based on minimum training standards that 
were adopted by the agency after an analysis of heavy truck driver 
training being provided by the industry in the 1980's. Likewise, both 
the PTDI curriculum and the Model Curriculum for Training Motorcoach 
Drivers are adequate because they are based on the Model Curriculum. 
Finally, the agency believes that the NHTSA School Bus Driver 
Instructional Program is adequate. It was developed by school bus 
driver employers in conjunction with NHTSA. The school bus driver 
employers and NHTSA periodically meet to review the instructional 
program and make any necessary revisions. Moreover, all of the above 
curricula were selected as training program baselines by experts in the 
adequacy study. They were also developed based on the regulations and 
technology current at the time of development. However, the agency 
disagrees with commenters indicating that the knowledge to pass the CDL 
test is sufficient to determine training adequacy.
    Finally, the agency believes employers that wish to train entry-
level drivers should ensure that the curriculum is suitable for the 
type of vehicle the driver intends to operate. For example, a modified 
Model Curriculum could be used to train drivers who operate straight 
trucks exclusively.
Question 2: What Standards Exist to Ensure That Training Provided by 
Schools and Employers Is Adequate for Entry-Level Truck Driver 
Training?
    A total of forty-three commenters responded to this question. 
Thirteen commenters, including the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association, cited either the PTDI organization or the PTDI 
certification process, as a standard to ensure that training provided 
by schools is adequate. Again, eight commenters, including the American 
Bus Association, cited the CDL tests. The remaining comments cited the 
Model Curriculum as an adequate training standard, or stated that no 
standard exists.
    The discussion to Question 1 also contains relevant information on 
the adequacy of driver training. In addition, the agency agrees with 
commenters that although the CDL requirements are a licensing standard 
and not a training standard, the driver must study to pass the CDL 
tests.
Question 3: What Should an Adequate Truck Driver Training Program 
Include (e.g. Night Driving, Behind-the-Wheel Training, and Classroom 
Instruction)? What Is the Minimum Amount of Time or Number of Hours 
That Should Be Devoted to Each of These Components?
    A total of seventy-one commenters addressed this question.
    Eight commenters, including the ATA, stated that the training 
should be the PTDI curriculum for both course content and length. Three 
commenters, including the American Bakers Association, cited the Model 
Curriculum as the standard for both course content and length. The 
remaining comments recommend specific topics for classroom, off-road 
maneuvers, or on-road driving, which included down hill speed control 
for

[[Page 48866]]

automatic transmission-equipped vehicles, railroad grade crossing 
safety, and work zone safety.
    The ATA and the American Bakers Association stated that both the 
PTDI curriculum and Model Curriculum have acceptable course content and 
length for heavy truck drivers. The agency agrees that both curricula 
are acceptable because experts use the agency's Model Curriculum as a 
training standard in the adequacy study.
    In addition, all drivers who wish to obtain a CDL are required to 
pass specified knowledge tests. The agency and the American Association 
of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) have developed a Commercial 
Driver's Manual to assist drivers in passing these tests. The manual 
instructs drivers to shift to a lower gear before starting down a steep 
grade in order to maintain a safe speed. The manual also has a section 
for railroad highway grade crossing safety, as well as work zones where 
the work can create a distraction for drivers and the workers may not 
see the driver.
Question 4: Can Government or Private Standards That Guide the Training 
of Entry-Level Drivers Be Used To Determine the Adequacy of Entry-level 
Driver Training? Why Are These Standards Appropriate?
    A total of forty-five commenters responded to this question.
    Eight commenters, including the ATA, mentioned either the PTDI 
organization or the PTDI certification process as standards for 
determining the adequacy of entry-level driver training. Two 
commenters, including the Michigan Truck Safety Commission, cited the 
Model Curriculum, and again, six commenters, including the American Bus 
Association, cited the CDL test as a standard for determining the 
adequacy of entry-level driver training. One employer, ITC, stated that 
a motor carrier approves of a training institution by hiring its 
students. The remaining commenters stated that the agency should 
establish minimum entry-level training standards and that no standard 
exists.
    As discussed above, the agency agrees with commenters that the PTDI 
curriculum and Model Curriculum are both voluntary government-industry 
developed standards that can be used to determine the adequacy of 
entry-level driver training.
Question 5: To Obtain a CDL, a CMV Driver Must Demonstrate Knowledge 
and Skill Needed To Operate a CMV. Are These Tests Sufficiently 
Comprehensive To Accurately Measure a Driver's Performance? Please 
Explain Why or Why Not. Provide Information of Specific Deficiencies.
    A total of eighty-one commenters responded to this question. Forty-
two commenters, including the ATA, stated that the CDL accurately 
measures a driver's performance. Thirty-nine commenters, including the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, stated that the CDL does not 
accurately measure a driver's performance. The Teamsters stated further 
that mere possession of a CDL does not guarantee that the driver has 
the necessary experience and skill.
    The agency believes that the CDL gives the novice driver the basic 
knowledge and skill necessary to operate a CMV. However, the employer 
may have to provide additional safety training, or allow the driver to 
gain CMV-operating experience before permitting the driver to drive, 
for example, in hazardous weather conditions. Because of the 
differences in operating practices among various CMV industries, the 
employer should be responsible for ensuring that the driver receives 
the appropriate training.
Question 6: Should Training Requirements for Entry-Level CMV Drivers be 
Federally Mandated?
    A total of one hundred and fifty-one commenters responded to this 
question. Fifty-one commenters, including the Fox Valley Technical 
College, stated that training should be mandated. The Fox Valley 
Technical College stated that if training were not federally mandated, 
many companies would not comply. Sysco Food Services stated that 
training should only be mandated for companies with 50 or more new 
drivers. Ninety-two commenters, including the National Private Truck 
Council, stated that training should not be federally mandated. The 
National Private Truck Council stated that because the CDL is a 
performance based standard, training should not be mandated. Citizens 
Gas and Coke Utility stated that training should only be required for 
combination vehicles.
    The agency believes that mandating training only for groups of 50 
or more new drivers is not consistent with the need to train all entry-
level drivers. A large majority of motor carriers have six or fewer 
power units, and would therefore be excluded from a 50 or more driver 
mandate. Moreover, larger employers could limit the number of drivers 
hired at one time to less than 50 to avoid being subject to mandatory 
entry-level training requirements. The adequacy study found that 
neither the heavy truck, motorcoach, nor the school bus industries 
provided adequate entry-level driver training. As the study surveyed 
drivers and employers that use both single and combination vehicles, 
its findings lead the agency to conclude that training should be 
mandatory for all entry-level drivers, irrespective of the kind of 
vehicle they drive or the size of the employing carrier.
Question 7: What Is an Entry-Level Driver?
    A total of forty-four commenters responded to this question. 
Eighteen commenters, including the PTDI, stated that an entry-level 
driver is one who has never driven a CMV. The adequacy study found that 
entry-level training is training received in the first three years of 
driving. However, the Truckload Carriers Association and ATA indicated 
three years was too long. A representative of the Truckload Carriers 
Association stated during the public meeting that the term ``entry 
level'' is limited to the driver's first six months of driving. A 
representative of the ATA indicated during the public meeting that an 
``entry-level driver'' is a person who has ``a couple of years of 
experience.'' In written comments, the ATA stated that the definition 
of an entry-level driver should include a driver who moves to a higher 
class of CMV.
    The agency agrees with the ATA and the Truckload Carriers 
Association that the three-year experience requirement cited in the 
adequacy study is too long, because operating experience helps CMV 
drivers reduce accidents caused by driver error. This rule proposes to 
define entry-level driver as a driver with less than two years 
experience operating a CMV with a CDL.
Question 8: What Industry-Wide Initiatives or Policies, If Any, Assure 
That the Majority of All Entry-Level Drivers Are Trained?
    A total of thirty-five commenters responded to this question.
    Twelve commenters, including the Distribution LTL Association, 
cited the PTDI curriculum, the Model Curriculum or both. Fifteen 
commenters, including Schneider National, cited the CDL license. Three 
commenters, including the Washington Department of Licensing, stated 
that no such initiatives or policies exist. Five commenters, including 
the ATA, cited insurance companies, which promote training programs for 
entry-level drivers.

[[Page 48867]]

Question 9: How Many Truck Driver Training Schools and Motor Carrier 
Programs Train Entry-Level Drivers? What Percentage of Those Enrolled, 
Successfully Complete Such Training?
    A total of thirty commenters responded to this question.
    The Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools stated 
that there are approximately 85 such schools in the country, and that 
88 to 92 percent of students successfully complete training. The ATA 
stated that there are 150 to 300 training schools nationwide, and that 
60 to 70 percent of students successfully complete training. Mike 
Byrnes and Associates stated that there are approximately 375 training 
schools and motor carrier training programs in the United States. A 
representative of Robert Forman Associates stated at the public meeting 
that there were no motorcoach training schools in the country.
Question 10: Is the Successful Completion of an Entry-Level CMV Driver 
Training Program (Either Before or After Hiring) a Requirement for the 
Drivers Employed by Your Company?
    A total of thirty commenters responded to this question.
    The ATA stated that company policies generally require that new 
drivers receive additional training relating to the motor carrier's 
specific equipment and type of operation. Federal Express requires its 
entry-level drivers to complete a 3-week training program. Eleven 
commenters cited the PTDI standard. Eight commenters stated that motor 
carriers trained drivers to motor carrier's own standards. One 
commenter stated that its insurance company set training standards.
Question 11: Describe the Training Opportunities Available for Drivers 
of Smaller Trucking Companies/Owner-Operators. What Percentage of Those 
Enrolled Successfully Completes Such Training?
    A total of twenty commenters responded to this question.
    The National Solid Waste Management Association stated that small 
companies rely primarily on supervised on-the-job training to qualify 
new drivers. Mike Byrnes and Associates stated that some trucking 
schools offer weekend training for drivers of small trucking companies. 
The ATA believes that the percentage of truck drivers employed by small 
employers, who complete training, is 60 to 70 percent; the same 
percentage as for large employers.
Question 12: Describe the Expected Benefits and Estimated Dollar Costs 
for the Following Types of Training: Residential Training at Public and 
Private Truck Driver Training School (e.g. Trade, Vocational, and 
Community College Program); a Combination of a Home Study Course and 
Behind-the-Wheel Training; Formal School Training; and Externships 
(i.e. Combination Truck Driver Training School and Motor Carrier 
Operation)?
    A total of twenty-eight persons responded to this question.
    The Michigan Truck Safety Commission stated that it did not endorse 
home study training. The International Trucking School stated that an 
externship, involving both a truck driver school and a motor carrier, 
is the best form of training available to the student. The Association 
of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools agreed with this comment. The 
PTDI stated that the cost of both private schools and motor carrier 
training ranges from $1,500 to $6,000. The ATA stated that the costs of 
motor carrier-run training programs range from $3,000 to $5,000; 
externships cost between $3,000 and $6,000. The other cost comments 
were similar. At the public meeting, Northeast Career Schools stated 
that longer entry-level training courses involve better equipment and 
more qualified instructors.
Question 13: Although the Primary Purpose of This ANPRM Is to Gather 
Information on Entry-Level Truck Driver Training, the Agency Would Like 
To Collect Some Information on the Training Experienced Drivers 
Receive. Please Describe the Type and Frequency of Training, If Any, 
That You Offer or Financially Support for the More Experienced CMV 
Drivers of Your Company: Is This Training Required at Certain Specific 
Intervals or Provided Only on an ``as Needed'' Basis?
    A total of 18 comments responded to this question.
    The Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools stated 
that their members teach defensive driving courses, advanced driving 
techniques, and specialized training. Schneider National offers 
training in preparing logs, backing, defensive driving, injury 
prevention, trip planning, and efficient driving. CRST, Inc. requires 
all experienced drivers to be trained in a 2-day program. The ATA 
stated that the training for experienced drivers varies significantly 
from fleet to fleet. Fox Valley Technical College stated that the 
industry generally provides no formal training for its experienced 
truck drivers. The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated 
training should be given every five years. The ATA and J.B. Hunt stated 
that training should be given either after accident involvement or to 
correct hours of service problems.

Other Issues Raised By Commenters

    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety stated that the adequacy 
study should not have excluded transit buses.
    Transportation performed by the Federal government, a State, or any 
political subdivision of a State, or an agency established under a 
compact between States that has been approved by the Congress of the 
United States, is exempt from parts 350 through 399 of the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. Transit bus operators are subject to 
the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and are 
generally local government employees. Transit systems utilize training 
materials developed by the FTA. These materials cover basic vehicle 
controls and vehicle maneuvers in traffic. Transit systems report total 
bus mileage to FTA as a condition for receiving Federal grants. These 
grantees operated CMVs approximately 1.8 billion miles in calendar year 
2000 according to the FTA's Transit Safety & Security Statistics & 
Analysis 2000 Annual Report. The report also states that there were 90 
total fatalities for transit buses in calendar year 2000. Therefore, 
the fatal accident frequency per million miles for calendar year 2000 
is approximately .048, which is very low. The agency believes that the 
FTA can effectively monitor transit bus system training. For these 
reasons, the agency is not including transit bus drivers in the 
proposed rule.
    The ATA also provided comments on the adequacy study-cost benefit 
analysis referenced above. ATA stated that the cost of providing 
adequate entry-level training exceeded the 450 million dollar per year 
estimate cited in that analysis.

Summary of NPRM Provisions

    This proposal is in response to a Congressional mandate in ISTEA, 
which directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate safety 
regulations for entry-level training of heavy truck, motorcoach, and 
school bus drivers. Congress was specifically concerned about the 
number of heavy truck crashes caused by inadequate driver training, and 
believed that better training would reduce these types of crashes. In 
addition, an agency study found that training for entry-level drivers 
in these industries was inadequate.
    Both the Model Curriculum and the Model Curriculum for Training

[[Page 48868]]

Motorcoach Drivers instruct drivers on the basic operational skills, 
such as vehicle inspection, vehicle backing, hazard perception, proper 
communications procedures, and speed and space management, which are 
necessary to operate CMVs on the public road, plus the specialized 
knowledge and skill a driver needs to obtain the passenger, double/
triple, tank vehicle, and hazardous materials endorsements. These 
curricula also contain instruction in vehicle inspection procedures, 
off-road skill test maneuvers, and operating CMVs in vehicular traffic. 
The CDL tests examine CMV drivers on the knowledge and skill the 
drivers learn in these curricula.
    The agency is not requiring entry-level drivers to receive training 
in areas that are covered in the CDL test. Such training would be 
redundant. Instead, the required training would address: (1) driver 
qualifications--medical, and drug and alcohol testing, (2) driver hours 
of service limitations, (3) driver wellness, and (4) whistle blower 
protection. These are training areas that are not covered in the 
current CDL test. The agency is only requiring drivers to be trained in 
the areas appropriate to their driving occupation as entry-level 
drivers. Each of these areas focuses on the commercial motor vehicle 
driver, who the agency believes is key to promoting motor carrier 
safety on our nation's highways. The agency believes that training in 
these four areas would serve to set a minimum floor of safety for 
entry-level CMV drivers, and at the same time not be overly burdensome 
for drivers or motor carriers to implement. Although the proposal does 
not specify a required number of hours for the training, the agency 
estimates that it would require approximately 10.5 hours for heavy 
truck and motorcoach drivers, and 4.5 hours for school bus drivers. The 
Texas Department of Public Safety stated in comments to the ANPRM that 
the State of Texas currently requires a school bus driver to receive 
twenty hours of initial training and 8 hours of refresher training 
every three years. The Michigan Department of Education requires a 
school bus driver to pass an initial training course and a road test. 
The State also requires the school bus driver to receive 6 hours of 
refresher training every two years. The NHTSA has developed the 
``School Bus Driver Instructional Program'' as a voluntary training 
standard. However, the NHTSA training standard does not cover either 
driver wellness or whistle blower protection. In addition, the agency's 
review of school bus driver training data indicates that school 
districts do not include instruction in driver wellness and whistle 
blower protection. The agency estimates that driver wellness and 
whistle blower training would mean an additional 4.5 hours of training 
for school bus drivers.
    The agency requests comments on whether entry-level training in 
other areas, such as fire extinguisher training, should be required.

Driver Qualification

    Examples of topics that could be covered are minimum vision and 
hearing standards, the recommended hypertension standard, the 
recommended monitoring practices for mild hypertension, and standards 
for other health-related problems. Emphasis could be placed on medical 
disqualification caused by illegal drug use, alcoholism, or epilepsy.

Hours of Service

    There is evidence that many crashes occur as a result of CMV driver 
error, and that driver error is often the result of inattention. 
Inattention can often be the result of fatigue, which may be related to 
sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation can often be related to working 
conditions.
    Examples of possible topics for hours of service would include 
awareness of the causes of fatigue, its effect on driving safety, sleep 
disorders, fatigue-prevention strategies (including good sleep 
hygiene), the procedures used to complete a driver's daily log 
including the use of quarter-hour increments to indicate time, the 
different types of duty statuses, the hours of service rules, and the 
importance of keeping up-to-date and accurate logs.

Driver Wellness

    According to Roberts and York, ``Design, Development and Evaluation 
of Truck and Bus Driver Wellness Programs,'' FMCSA, No. DOT-MC-00-200, 
June 2000, obesity, high blood pressure, alcohol and drug abuse, and 
stress are major health issues, among truck and bus drivers. The 
Roberts and York report cited a study by Stoohs, Guilleminault, and 
Dement, ``Sleep Apnea and Hypertension in Commercial Truck Drivers,'' 
Sleep, Vol. 16 No. 8 (1993) that 71 percent of the 125 drivers in the 
Stoohs, Guilleminault, and Dement study were obese because they had a 
body mass/fat index greater than 28. In addition, the Roberts and York 
report cited data from ``Heart and Stroke Facts, 1996 Statistical 
Supplement,'' American Heart Association, that nationally 26.3 percent 
of men and 25.0 percent of woman have blood pressures greater than 140 
over 90 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). Hypertension is defined as 
blood pressure greater than or equal to 140 over 90 mm Hg. 
Additionally, the Roberts and York report cited data from ``Accident 
Facts:'' 1996 edition that indicates that alcohol is a factor in 41 
percent of all traffic fatalities. Finally, the Roberts and York report 
cited data from Orris, et. al., ``Stress Among Package Truck Drivers,'' 
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 31, (1997), that 
indicates that the drivers in that study had higher stress levels than 
91 percent of the U.S. population.
    In light of these data, examples of topics that could be covered in 
driver wellness training include information on how to maintain healthy 
blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and weight, as well as the 
importance of periodic health monitoring and testing, diet, and 
exercise.

Whistleblower

    Topics that the agency anticipates would be covered include: the 
right of a driver to refuse to drive if there is an unsafe vehicle 
condition, the requirement for an employer to provide the driver a safe 
place to work, the prohibition against the motor carrier to pressure 
the driver to violate the hours-of-service requirements, and the 
complaint process of the U.S. Department of Labor if a driver feels 
that he or she has been discriminated against for filing a safety-
related complaint.
    Under the proposal, employers would have to ensure that new entry-
level drivers receive the required training before driving. The agency 
solicits comments on whether a 90-day period or some other time period 
would be more appropriate for new entry-level drivers. Commenters are 
requested to provide supporting rationale.
    Drivers with up to one year of driving experience would have 90 
days to complete the training. Drivers having between one to two years 
of experience who do not qualify for grandfathering would also have 90 
days to complete the required training. The agency solicits comments on 
whether the 90-day time period is appropriate for these two groups of 
drivers, and specifically whether a lesser period of time should be 
required. Commenters are requested to provide supporting rationale.
    The motor carrier, a training school, or a class conducted by a 
consortium or association of motor carriers could provide the training. 
Examples include a classroom setting and a professional instructor, a 
one-on-one office meeting between the entry-level driver and a 
representative of his or her employer working from a prepared outline, 
or

[[Page 48869]]

exposure of the entry-level driver to a professionally prepared video 
covering the required topics. In all cases, the motor carrier would 
have to maintain some evidence of the content of the instruction for a 
Safety Investigator seeking to verify that the requirements of the 
training have been met. Informal, unverifiable, or undocumented 
communication between the entry-level driver and his or her employer 
would not be acceptable. Evidence that a driver has received the 
training would be maintained in the driver's personnel file. An entry-
level driver would be one with less than two years of experience 
operating a CMV with a CDL. However, drivers with one year of 
experience operating a CMV with a CDL, who have a good driving record, 
would be grandfathered and therefore would not have to take the 
proposed training.
    The FMCSA believes that for many entry-level drivers, the 
combination of a good driving record and at least one year of 
experience operating a CMV with a CDL is an appropriate indication that 
the individual has the minimum knowledge and driving skills to operate 
such a vehicle. Accordingly, the FMCSA would allow certain drivers to 
substitute a good driving record and experience for the completion of 
the proposed driver-training requirements. The FMCSA believes 
grandfathering such drivers would not diminish public safety or overall 
safe operation of CMVs.
    The FMCSA is proposing that a motor carrier issue a Certificate of 
Grandfathering to those drivers whose experience and driving record 
qualify them to be grandfathered under this proposal. A copy of the 
certificate would be filed in the driver's personnel file. 
Grandfathered drivers would not be subject to the training requirements 
of this new subpart. This action is consistent with that taken when the 
agency grandfathered certain drivers from the CDL skills tests 
contained in part 383. Qualified drivers, who want to obtain a 
Certificate of Grandfathering, must do so within one year of the 
effective date of the final rule. After the one-year period, only those 
drivers who present an employer with a Certificate of Grandfathering 
would be exempted from entry-level driver training requirements.
    The agency recognizes that, in order to develop the training 
curriculum required by this proposal, a phase-in period would be 
necessary. The agency believes that a 2-month phase-in period is 
adequate and would provide sufficient time for motor carriers and 
training schools to develop the required training material. The 
effective date of the rule would be 2 months after its publication in 
the Federal Register.
    The FMCSA solicits comments on all aspects of this proposal.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

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

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

Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis for this Proposal

Background

    This proposed rule is required by the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. The FMCSA is proposing that 
entry-level commercial drivers receive mandatory training in the 
following content areas: driver qualifications, hours of service of 
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle blower rights. This NPRM would 
require an applicant to complete entry-level driver training that 
includes these four content areas and furnish a copy of the training 
certificate to the employer in cases where someone other than the 
employer provides the training. An employer could not allow a new 
entry-level driver to operate a CMV on the public road unless the 
driver has received the required training and documentation of training 
is in the employer's possession.
    The agency seeks to ensure high standards of safety among more 
experienced drivers without imposing an undue burden on these drivers 
by imposing an immediate training requirement. Such a requirement could 
mean an interruption of the driver's work schedule and a substantial 
loss in wages. In order to eliminate an overly burdensome approach to 
training, the NPRM proposes that drivers with up to one year of driving 
experience would have 90 days to complete the training. Drivers having 
between one to two years of experience who do not qualify for 
grandfathering would also have 90 days to complete the required 
training. The agency solicits comments on the economic impact of 
requiring training within the 90-day time period for these two groups 
of experienced drivers as well as the costs associated with a lesser 
period of time. Commenters are requested to provide supporting 
rationale.
    The FMCSA has conducted a regulatory evaluation of this proposed 
rule in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review.'' This rule is estimated to cost $25.1 million in the first 
year of implementation and $22.7 million annually thereafter 
(undiscounted). The higher costs in the first year are the result of 
this rule's effect on some existing drivers (i.e., those with less than 
two years of experience), where a certain percentage would be required 
to undertake the required training within the first 90 days of the 
rule's implementation. Total discounted costs of this rule are $173.3 
million over the 10-year period.
    Our analysis of this proposed rule indicates that it would have to 
prevent 315 truck-related crashes (i.e., combined fatal, injury-
related, and property-damage-only crashes) in the first year to be 
cost-beneficial (i.e., to offset the $25.1 million in first-year 
costs). The rule would have to prevent 285 crashes in each year 
thereafter to be cost-beneficial. The 285-315 truck-related crashes to 
be avoided represent less than seven one-hundredths of one percent (or 
0.07 percent) of the average total number of truck-related crashes 
reported annually (estimated at 445,000 in 1999 and 2000). This 0.07-
percent reduction in truck-related crashes is obviously much less than 
the size of crash reductions experienced in studies cited earlier in 
this NPRM, where case studies revealed crash reductions of 2 and 40 
percent from implementation of new driver training programs and is also 
well below the 15-percent reduction in crashes used in the regulatory 
evaluation prepared in 1995 for the ANPRM (which involved a more 
comprehensive training program than proposed here). A summary of costs 
is provided in the next section. For a complete discussion of the 
assumptions made, data used, and analysis performed in this regulatory 
evaluation, the reader is referred to the docket, where a copy of the 
full regulatory evaluation is contained.

Costs

    The largest cost component of this rule is the cost of providing 
training to entry-level operators of heavy trucks, school buses, and 
motor coaches. Training costs include both the direct cost to train 
drivers and the (opportunity) cost of drivers' time. The two key 
factors in estimating the

[[Page 48870]]

training costs are the number of drivers who will need training and the 
hours of training they will have to undertake.
    The FMCSA estimates that the proposed rule would require 10.5 hours 
of training of the entry-level drivers of heavy trucks in the proposed 
four subject areas. The two content areas of driver qualifications and 
hours of service together would require about 6 hours of training. The 
driver wellness training would also require about 4 hours, while 
training on whistle blower protection is estimated at 30 minutes. 
However, the FMCSA believes that the entry-level drivers of school 
buses would only require 4.5 hours of training, comprised of 4 hours of 
driver wellness instruction and 30 minutes of whistle blower protection 
training (given that the Federal driver qualifications and hours-of-
service content would not apply). The FMCSA also estimates that the 
proposed rule would require 10.5 hours of training of the entry-level 
drivers of motorcoaches. The training hours estimate for heavy truck 
drivers was based on information provided in the instructor's guide for 
the Professional Truck Drivers Institute's (PTDI) accredited training 
courses and discussions held with FMCSA CDL Program staff. The training 
hours estimate for motor coach drivers was estimated using the 
instructor's guide for the Model Curriculum for motor coach drivers and 
discussions with FMCSA CDL Program staff.
    Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the total number of 
entry-level truck drivers is estimated at 58,600 per year for the next 
10 years, while the entry-level drivers required for growth and 
replacement for the school bus and motorcoach industry are estimated at 
17,800 and 2,100 per year, respectively, also over the next 10 years.
    In this analysis, we assumed that 30 percent of the entry-level 
heavy truck drivers, or 17,580, would not need any additional training, 
as they are assumed to attend a PTDI or similar accredited training 
program (i.e., PTDI accredited courses already include these content 
areas in their curriculum). This assumption is based on information 
obtained regarding the number of accredited programs as a percent of 
total driver training programs. For the remaining 70 percent (or 
41,020, entry-level drivers), we assumed that they either receive 
training from a non-accredited training program or they receive 
informal training from their employer. Therefore, this 70 percent of 
entry-level drivers would require 10.5 hours of training per driver on 
the four subject areas mentioned above. Therefore, the total hours of 
training required by the proposed rule for the entry-level heavy truck 
drivers is estimated at 430,710 hours per year. For those drivers who 
already receive some type of formal (yet non-accredited) employer-or 
third-party training, it is quite possible that employers (or third-
party training providers) might reduce the amount of training time 
spent on other, non-required subject matter, so that the net increase 
in training per truck driver would be less than 10.5 hours. However, in 
the absence of specific information on the types of subject matter than 
might be omitted from these driver training programs to offset the new 
training costs, we assumed a net increase of 10.5 hours for estimating 
the costs of this rule.
    Regarding school bus driver training, neither the Federal driver 
qualifications nor the Federal Hours of Service rules are applicable to 
these drivers. Therefore, this entry-level training rulemaking will 
result in only 4.5 hours of additional training for each entry-level 
driver, since these training programs would include primarily driver 
wellness (4 hours) as well as whistle blower protection (0.5 hours). 
States have long required school bus drivers to take written exams 
designated to test an entry-level driver's knowledge of state laws and 
regulations affecting school transportation. Additionally, behind-the-
wheel road tests are used to evaluate an applicant's driving skills. 
For example, as a comment to the ANPRM, the Texas Department of Public 
Safety stated that Texas requires classroom and behind-the-wheel 
training totaling 20 hours. In our review of the school bus driver 
training information, we concluded that no districts were providing 
instruction in driver wellness and whistle blower protection, since the 
NHTSA voluntary training standard, known as the School Bus Driver 
Training Program, did not include such content. Therefore, FMCSA 
estimates that all 17,800 entry-level school bus drivers would need an 
additional 4.5 hours of training for a total of 80,100 hours of 
training per year.
    FMCSA assumes that the additional hours of training for an entry-
level motorcoach driver would be 10.5 hours. The instructor's guide to 
the model curriculum for training motor coach drivers includes 5 hours 
of logbook training but only about an hour on safety and wellness 
issues (including topics such as the correct lifting of heavy objects 
and identifying prohibited cargo). The FMCSA does not have information 
on the proportion of entry-level motorcoach drivers following training 
as per the model curriculum. Therefore, the FMCSA estimates that 2,100 
entry-level drivers of motorcoaches would require 10.5 hours of 
training on driver qualifications, hours of service for drivers, driver 
wellness and whistle blower protection for a total of 22,050 hours of 
training per year.
    To be conservative, a figure of $25 per hour of training was used 
in this analysis to calculate the direct costs of training (calculated 
via an average cost of $4,000 per training course divided by 4 weeks 
divided by 40 hours per week). This translates into $262.50 of direct 
training costs for a 10.5-hour course and $112.50 for 4.5-hour course. 
The agency believes that this was a reasonable estimate of the total 
hourly cost to train drivers (whether or not the training is provided 
by the employer or a third party) because it falls well within the 
range of training cost estimates provided in comments to the ANPRM. In 
reality, employer-based training could very well be less than $25/hour 
in certain cases (i.e., assuming new physical space is not leased by 
the employer to conduct the training, or the training is self-directed 
by the driver), but to be conservative the agency used the same figure 
whether the training was employer-or third party-based so as to ensure 
not underestimating employer and/or driver costs.
    To arrive at a truck driver's wage rate, we use a figure of $14.75 
per hour, which is an average from three recent national wage/
employment surveys (including the Current Population Survey). We added 
31 percent to cover the cost of fringe benefits, an estimate developed 
in the Hours of Service regulatory evaluation. (It is a weighted 
average of the fringe benefits for private and for-hire carriers, based 
on data from the ATA and the BLS.) The 31 percent increase brings total 
compensation to $19.32.
    Regarding a school bus driver's wage, we use a figure of $7.67 per 
hour obtained from the BLS 2001 National Occupational Employment and 
Wage survey. This figure represents the 25th percentile wage estimate 
for an entry-level school bus driver and we used it because entry-level 
drivers generally earn at the low range of the industry wage standards. 
Again, 31 percent is added to cover the cost of fringe benefits, 
resulting in a total hourly wage estimate of $10.05 per hour.
    Regarding a motorcoach driver's wage, we use a figure of $9.98 per 
hour obtained from the BLS 2001 National Occupational Employment and 
Wage survey. This figure represents the 25th percentile wage estimate 
for an entry-level motorcoach driver and we used it

[[Page 48871]]

because entry-level drivers generally earn at the low range of the 
industry wage standards. Again, 31 percent is added to cover the cost 
of fringe benefits, resulting in a total hourly wage estimate of $13.07 
per hour.
    To get the total unit cost of training per hour (i.e., including 
both direct training costs and the drivers' cost of time), the relevant 
estimate of the driver's wage rate for truck, school bus, and motor 
coach drivers was added to the average hourly cost of training 
discussed earlier. For example, for an entry-level truck driver, the 
unit cost of training is $44.32 an hour ($19.32 of foregone driver 
wages plus $25 in actual training costs). For entry-level school bus 
drivers, the total training cost is estimated at $35.05 per hour 
($10.05 of foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual training costs), 
and for entry-level motor coach drivers, it is $38.07 per hour ($13.07 
of foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual training costs.
    Taking these hourly training costs for each type of entry-level 
driver (based on median wage rates and an average hourly cost of 
training) and applying them to the hours of required training for each 
type of driver (discussed earlier) and the number of entry-level 
drivers in each category, we can develop an estimate of total annual 
costs of this rule.
    To do so, we multiplied the hours of training required for each 
type of driver by the total number of drivers in that driver group per 
year by the applicable hourly wage rate to drivers in each group 
(including direct wage and costs of training). The result is a total 
first-year cost of $25.1 million and $22.7 million (undiscounted) 
annually in each subsequent year of the rule. Using the 7 percent 
discount rate recommended by the OMB, the present value of training 
costs of the proposed rule is calculated as $173.3 million over 10 
years, or a discounted average of $17.3 million per year for next 10 
years.
    The reason first year costs are higher than the annual costs in 
subsequent years is that within the first year (90 days to be exact), 
some portion of the entry level drivers who received training between 
12-24 months prior to implementation of this rule (i.e., those 
effectively with chargeable crashes) would be required to undertake 
training in these four content areas. Our analysis indicates that 
almost 6,000 drivers who received training between 12-24 months prior 
to the rule's implementation would have to undertake the training 
required under this rule. As such, first-year costs increase because a 
larger pool of drivers must initially undertake the required training. 
Full details of these costs are provided in the stand-alone regulatory 
evaluation contained in the docket.

Benefits

    The total number of accidents potentially avoided by the proposed 
rule is difficult to quantify largely because of the variability in 
study results on the impact of training on the truck crash reduction. 
This variability is most likely due to the wide variation in quality of 
driver training programs and the difficulty associated with estimating 
(statistically speaking) the relationship between a single input 
(training) and an output (safety) when working with very large data 
sets. However, several case studies, including two cited earlier in 
this NPRM, reveal that driver training programs reduced crashes by two 
to 40 percent. Because of the relatively modest costs (estimated at 
$22.7 million to $25.1 million annually (undiscounted)), this proposed 
rule would have to deter between 285 and 315 truck-related crashes 
(fatal, injury-related, and property-damage-only crashes combined) each 
year in order to be cost beneficial (i.e., where the rule's benefits 
exceed its costs).
    To develop the above estimate of the number of truck- and bus-
related crashes that must be avoided each year for the rule to be cost 
beneficial, the researchers used crash cost estimates from a recent 
study by Zaloshnja, et al., which estimated the average cost of a crash 
involving a large truck (i.e., those  10,000 lbs GVW) at 
almost $80,000 (in 2001 dollars). Dividing the annual costs of the rule 
($22.7 million to $25.1 million) by this average cost per truck-related 
crash ($80,000) allows us to arrive at the cost-beneficial threshold of 
285-315 annual crashes. This range (285-315 avoided crashes) represents 
less than seven one-hundredths of one percent (or 0.07 percent) of the 
total average number of truck-related crashes annually (estimated at 
445,000 using 1999-2000 data). This 0.07-percent reduction is obviously 
much smaller than the size of crash reductions experienced in studies 
cited earlier in this NPRM, where case studies revealed crash 
reductions of 2 and 40 percent from implementation of new driver 
training programs and is also well below the 15-percent reduction in 
crashes used in the regulatory evaluation prepared in 1995 for the 
ANPRM (which involved a more comprehensive training program than 
proposed here). Therefore, we believe the rule would be cost-beneficial 
upon implementation.
    A complete copy of the preliminary regulatory evaluation is in the 
public docket described above under ADDRESSES.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-
612), the agency has evaluated the effects of this rulemaking on small 
entities. In addition, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of 
all regulations (or proposals) on small entities, and mandates that 
agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses. The 
Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis must cover the following 
topics.
    (1) A description of the reasons why the action by the agency is 
being considered.
    (2) A succinct statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, 
the proposed rule.
    (3) A description, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of 
small entities to which the proposed rule would apply.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, record-keeping, and 
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an 
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the 
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for 
preparation of the report or record.
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant 
federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the 
proposed rule.

Reason the Action Is Being Considered

    This action is required by Congressional direction. Specifically, 
section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 directed the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate regulations 
requiring training for entry-level heavy truck, school bus, and 
motorcoach drivers.

Objective and Legal Basis for This Action

    The objective for this action is to reduce the number of crashes 
caused by entry-level drivers of heavy trucks, school buses, and 
motorcoaches. Congress was specifically concerned about the number of 
heavy truck crashes caused by inadequate driver training, and believes 
that better training will reduce these types of crashes. As noted 
above, the legal basis for this rule is section 4007 of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.

Number of Small Entities to Which the Action Would Apply

    This action would apply to all small entities regulated by the 
FMCSA. The FMCSA is currently conducting

[[Page 48872]]

research to specify the size of the small motor carrier population. 
Presently we consider motor carriers with 6 or fewer drivers to be 
small entities. Using this number of drivers as a proxy for size, the 
majority of carriers can reasonably be described as small. As of April 
of 2002, there were 610,000 motor carriers on the FMCSA's Motor Carrier 
Management Information System (MCMIS) census file. Among the 500,000 of 
these motor carriers for which the agency has driver data, 435,000 (87 
percent) have 6 or fewer drivers. Assuming that 87 percent of the 
110,000 motor carriers with no driver information are also small, the 
total number of motor carriers with six or fewer drivers would exceed 
half a million.

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the 
Proposed Rule

    This action would impose a very modest burden on small entities, 
since it largely proscribes the actions of drivers rather than motor 
carriers. Nonetheless, this action does impose some reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements on motor carriers. The primary motor carrier 
requirement would be to verify drivers' eligibility before allowing 
them to operate a CMV. In addition, motor carriers must maintain a copy 
of the required driver's training certificate in each personnel file. 
Motor carriers are currently required to maintain a driver 
qualification file for each driver, as outlined in Part 391 of the 
FMCSRs. No special skill is required to verify eligibility to operate a 
CMV or to place a driver's training certificate in a personnel file.

Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    The FMCSA is not aware of any other rules that duplicate State, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or overlap, or conflict 
with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the FMCSA hereby certifies that the proposed action 
discussed in this document will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) requires each 
agency to assess the effects of its regulatory actions on State, local, 
tribal governments, and the private sector. This proposed rule does not 
impose an unfunded Federal mandate resulting in the expenditure by 
State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private 
sector, of $100 million, adjusted for inflation, or more in any one 
year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.).

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

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

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they 
conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. An analysis of this 
proposal was made by the FMCSA, and it has been determined that the 
final rule, when promulgated, would create a new collection of 
information requiring OMB's approval. This PRA section addresses the 
information collection burden for activities associated with training 
certification forms and grandfathering eligible drivers.
    The FMCSA estimates that operators of heavy trucks, operators of 
motor coaches, and operators of school buses will require additional 
training due to requirements contained in this proposed rule. The 
agency further estimates 58,600 new drivers will be needed annually in 
the heavy truck industry, 2,100 new drivers in the motor coach 
industry, and 17,800 new drivers in the school bus industry. However, 
it is estimated that for the heavy truck industry 30 percent of the 
entry level drivers already receive training through an accredited 
program and will not require additional training. The remaining 70 
percent, or 41,020 drivers, would require additional training.
    There would be an annual burden to the motor carrier or other 
training entity to complete, photocopy, and file the certification 
form. FMCSA estimates this will take 10 minutes, resulting in an 
additional annual burden of 10,153 hours [60,920 (41,020 + 2,100 + 
17,800) drivers x 10 minutes per motor carrier/training entity, divided 
by 60 minutes = 10,153].
    For the first year after the rule becomes effective, there would 
also be burdens associated with the estimated 121,840 drivers currently 
employed with less than 2 years experience who have not already 
received accredited training [41,020 (heavy truck) + 2,100 (motor 
coach) + 17,800 (school bus) = 60,920 x 2 years = 121,840 drivers]. 
Based on eligibility criteria previously described in this proposed 
rule, the FMCSA estimates that 75 percent of these 121,840 drivers 
would be eligible to be grandfathered and 25 percent would not be 
eligible.
    Using these estimates, there would be an additional 21,560 drivers 
in the heavy truck and motor coach industries [(41,020 x 2 = 82,040) + 
(2,100 x 2 = 4,200) = 86,240 x 25 percent = 21,560] that would need 
additional training, because they would be ineligible to be 
grandfathered. Using the same percentage as above (25 percent), the 
school bus industry would have 8,900 drivers (17,800 x 2 years x 25 
percent) who would be ineligible for grandfathering and would thus 
require additional training. Each of these 30,460 (21,560 + 8,900) 
drivers would need to be issued certificates following their training. 
At 10 minutes per certificate, that burden is estimated to be 5,077 
hours (30,460 drivers x 10 minutes, divided by 60 minutes).
    For grandfathering the estimated 91,380 remaining drivers (75 
percent of 121,840 drivers eligible for grandfathering during the first 
year), there would be a one-time burden, since drivers could only be 
grandfathered during the first year after the rule becomes effective. 
There are two parts to the burden for these 91,380 drivers: (1) the 
burden for the driver to collect and provide the information to the 
motor carrier, and (2) the burden for the motor carrier to review the 
documents, complete, duplicate, and file the certification form. FMCSA 
estimates that it would take approximately 10 minutes for a driver to 
collect the necessary information and provide the document to the motor 
carrier, and 10 minutes for the motor carrier to review the 
information, complete the certification, and duplicate and file the 
document. Therefore, the one time burden associated with grandfathering 
the 91,380 drivers would be 30,460 hours [(91,380 x 10 minutes per 
driver / 60 minutes = 15,230) + (91,380 x 10 minutes per motor carrier 
/ 60 minutes = 15,230) = 30,460]. This 30,460-hour estimate represents 
the first-year only burden associated with certifying drivers who are 
grandfathered.
    Accordingly, the burden associated with the 121,840 current drivers 
is 35,537 burden hours [5,077 hours (for current entry level drivers 
not eligible for grandfathering) + 30,460 hours (for certifying drivers 
who are eligible to be grandfathered)].
    Thus, the total first-year burden is estimated to be 45,690 hours 
[10,153

[[Page 48873]]

(annual burden) + 35,537 (first year burden of 5,077 + 30,460)].

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Burden
                          Activity                              Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Certification form for new entry level drivers......       10,153
Certification form for drivers not eligible to be                  5,077
 grandfathered (following training) (first year only)......
Grandfathering certificate for those eligible (first year         30,460
 only).....................................................
    Total..................................................       45,690
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information collection burden for subsequent years would drop 
to 10,153 hours [45,690 -35,537 (first year only burden hours)].
    Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any 
aspect of these information collection requirements, including, but not 
limited to: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for 
the performance of the functions of the FMCSA, including whether the 
information has practical utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated 
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
collected information, and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden 
without reducing the quality of the information collected.
    You may submit comments on this information collection burden 
directly to OMB. The OMB must receive your comments by October 14, 
2003. You must mail or hand deliver your comments to: Attention: Desk 
Officer for the Department of Transportation, Docket Library, Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 
in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations)

    The agency evaluated the environmental effects of the proposed 
action and alternatives in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and 
determined that there were no environmental justice issues associated 
with this proposed rule. Environmental justice issues would be raised 
if there were a ``disproportionate'' and ``high and adverse impact'' on 
minority or low-income populations. The agency determined that there 
were no high and adverse impacts associated with the proposal. In 
addition, the agency analyzed the demographic makeup of the trucking 
industry, potentially affected, and determined that there was no 
disproportionate impact on minority or low-income populations. This is 
based on the finding that low-income and minority populations are 
generally underrepresented in the trucking occupation.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (April 23, 1997, 62 FR 19885), requires 
that agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules that also 
concern an environmental health or safety risk, or that an agency has 
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, must include 
an evaluation of these effects on children. Section 5 of Executive 
Order 13045 directs an agency to submit for a ``covered regulatory 
action'' an evaluation of its environmental health or safety effects on 
children.
    The agency evaluated the possible effects of the proposed action 
and determined that they would not create disproportionate 
environmental health risks or safety risks to children.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

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

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

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

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

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

National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed this rulemaking for the purpose of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 
has determined that this action would not have an adverse effect on the 
quality of the environment.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380

    Driver Training, instructor requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FMCSA hereby proposes to 
amend title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter III, subchapter B, 
part 380 as set forth below:
    1. The authority citation for this part continues to read as 
follows:

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

    2. Part 380 is revised by adding a new subpart E to read as 
follows.

PART 380--SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements
Sec.
380.501 Applicability.
380.502 Definitions.
380.503 Entry-level driver training requirements.
380.505 Substitute for driver training.
380.507 Proof of training.
380.509 Driver responsibilities.
380.511 Employer responsibilities.
380.513 Employer recordkeeping responsibilities.
380.515 Required information on the training certificate.

Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements


Sec.  380.501  Applicability.

    All entry-level drivers who drive in interstate commerce and are 
subject to the CDL requirements of part 383 of this subchapter must 
comply with the rules of this subpart, except drivers who are subject 
to the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration.


Sec.  380.502  Definitions.

    (a) The definitions in part 383 of this subchapter apply to this 
part, except where otherwise specifically noted.
    (b) As used in this subpart:
    Entry-level driver is a driver with less than 2 years experience 
operating a CMV with a CDL.
    Entry-level driver training is training the CDL driver receives in 
driver qualification requirements, hours of service of drivers, driver 
wellness, and whistle blower protection as appropriate to the entry-
level driver's current position in addition to passing the CDL test.


Sec.  380.503  Entry-level driver training requirements.

    Entry-level driver training must include instruction addressing the 
following four areas:
    (1) Driver qualification requirements: The federal rules on medical

[[Page 48874]]

certification, medical examination procedures (49 CFR part 391, 
subparts B and E), and drug and alcohol testing (49 CFR part 382).
    (2) Hours of service of drivers: The limitations on driving hours 
and the requirement to be off-duty for certain periods of time (49 CFR 
part 395).
    (3) Driver wellness: Basic health maintenance including diet and 
exercise. The importance of avoiding alcohol and drug abuse. Fatigue 
countermeasures as a means to avoid accidents.
    (4) Whistleblower protection: The right of an employee to question 
the safety practices of an employer without the employee's risk of 
losing a job or being subject to reprisals simply for stating a safety 
concern (29 CFR part 1978).


Sec.  380.505  Substitute for Driver Training.

    (a) Grandfather clause. The driver training requirements specified 
in subpart E of this part do not apply to an individual who meets the 
conditions set forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. A 
motor carrier must ensure that an individual claiming eligibility to 
operate a CMV on the basis of this section meets these conditions 
before allowing him/her to operate a CMV.
    (b) An individual must certify that, during the 1-year period 
immediately preceding the date of application for a Certificate of 
Grandfathering, he/she had:
    (1) A valid CDL;
    (2) No more than one driver's license;
    (3) No suspension, revocation, or cancellation of his/her CDL;
    (4) No convictions for a major offense while operating a CMV as 
defined in Sec.  383.51(b) of this subchapter;
    (5) No convictions for a railroad-highway grade crossing offense 
while operating a CMV as stated in Sec.  383.51(d) of this subchapter;
    (6) No convictions for violating an out-of-service order as defined 
in Sec.  383.51(e) of this subchapter;
    (7) No more than one conviction for a serious traffic violation, as 
defined in Sec.  383.5 of this subchapter, while operating a CMV;
    (8) No convictions for a violation of State or local law relating 
to motor vehicle traffic control arising in connection with any traffic 
accident while operating a CMV; and
    (9) No accident in which he/she was found to be at fault, while 
operating a CMV.
    (c) An individual must certify and provide evidence that he/she:
    (1) Is regularly employed in a job requiring the operation of a CMV 
that requires a CDL; and
    (2) Has operated a CMV for at least 1 year immediately preceding 
the date of application for a Certificate of Grandfathering.
    (d) An employer must issue a Certificate of Grandfathering, which 
is substantially in accordance with the form below, to an individual 
that meets the requirements of this section and maintain a copy of the 
certificate in his/her personnel file.
    (e) The grandfather provisions of this section are available to 
eligible drivers for a limited period of one year after [The effective 
date of the final rule.].
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AU03.069

Sec.  380.507  Proof of training.

    (a) An entry-level driver who receives the required training must 
receive an original training certificate containing all the information 
contained in Sec.  380.515 from the training provider.
    (b) The entry-level driver must also receive a copy of the training 
certificate if the training provider is not the driver's employer or 
potential employer.


Sec.  380.509  Driver responsibilities.

    The driver must present a training certificate, containing the 
information specified in Sec.  380.515, to the employer or potential 
employee that the driver received training as specified in Sec.  
380.503, if the employer or potential employer is not the training 
provider.


Sec.  380.511  Employer responsibilities.

    (a) Employers must ensure that all new entry-level drivers receive 
the required training on or after [Insert the effective date of the 
final rule].
    (b) Employers must ensure that entry-level drivers, who do not 
qualify for grandfathering, receive the required training no later than 
90 days after [The effective date of the final rule].
    (c) The employer must place evidence of training completion or a 
Certificate of Grandfathering, as appropriate, in the driver's 
qualification file.

[[Page 48875]]

Sec.  380.513  Employer recordkeeping responsibilities.

    The employer must keep the records specified in Sec.  380.511 for 
as long as the driver is employed by the employer and for three years 
thereafter.


Sec.  380.515  Required information on the training certificate.

    (a) The training provider must provide a training certificate to 
the entry-level driver, which contains the following six items of 
information.
    (1) Name of training institution;
    (2) Mailing address of training institution;
    (3) Name of driver;
    (4) A statement that the driver has completed driver qualification 
requirements, hours of service of drivers, driver wellness, and whistle 
blower protection;
    (5) The printed name of the person attesting that the driver has 
received the required training.
    (6) The signature of the person attesting that the driver has 
received the required training.
    (b) The training provider must issue a Driver Training Certificate 
that is substantially in accordance with the following form.
    (1) Driver-Certification
    I certify that ---------------- has completed training requirements 
set forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR 
380.503) for entry-level driver training.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Full name of training entity

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Business address (Street Address, City, State and Zip code)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone number:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of training certifying official

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature of training certifying official

    Issued on: August 12, 2003.
Warren E. Hoemann,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-20888 Filed 8-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P