Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
Federal RegisterDec 8, 2016
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
[FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB66
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
AGENCY:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY:
FMCSA establishes new minimum training standards for certain individuals applying for their commercial driver's license (CDL) for the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (
e.g.,
a Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. These individuals are subject to the entry-level driver training (ELDT) requirements and must complete a prescribed program of instruction provided by an entity that is listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR). FMCSA will submit training certification information to State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs), who may only administer CDL skills tests to applicants for the Class A and B CDL, and/or the P or S endorsements, or knowledge test for the H endorsement, after verifying the certification information is present in the driver's record.
DATES:
This final rule is effective February 6, 2017. The compliance date for this rule is February 7, 2020. Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the collection of information must be received by OMB on or before January 9, 2017.
Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than January 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-366-4325, or by email at
MCPSD@dot.gov
. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.
For comments on the Privacy Analysis in this Rulemaking, contact FMCSA's Privacy Officer: Shannon DiMartino, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001 or by telephone at 202-366-1577.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This final rule responds to a Congressional mandate imposed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The rule is based in part on consensus recommendations from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee that held a series of meetings between February and May 2015.
This Final Rule is organized as follows:
I. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
B. Privacy Act
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Benefits and Costs
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
V. Background
VI. March 7, 2016, Proposed Rule
VII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the NPRM
1. Applicability of the ELDT Requirements
2. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP Before the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
3. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP After the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
4. ELDT Requirements for Driver-Trainees Who Obtain ELDT After the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
5. Impact of the NPRM on ELDT Requirements Imposed by the States
6. Application of ELDT Requirements to CMV Drivers Operating in Intrastate and Interstate Commerce
7. Definition of Training Provider
8. Definition of “Range”
9. Can BTW-range and BTW-public road training be obtained from separate training providers?
10. Small Training Entities
11. Required Minimum Number of BTW Hours
12. Minimum Number of Theory Hours
13. Clock vs. Academic Hours
14. Duplication Between CLP Knowledge Test and Theory Training
15. Core Curricula—Class A and Class B CDLs
a. Night Driving/Operation
b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW Training
16. Manual v. Automatic Transmission—Class A and B Curricula Requirements
17. Class C CDL Curriculum
18. Passenger Endorsement Training
19. School Bus Endorsement Training
20. Hazardous Materials Endorsement Training
21. Refresher Training
22. Training Requirements for Driver-Trainees Obtaining Multiple CDL Credentials
23. Training Materials
24. Sequence of ELDT
25. ELDT Instructor Qualifications
a. BTW Instructors—Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
b. Theory Instructors—Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
c. Additional Instructor Qualification Issues
26. BTW Instructors' CMV Driving History
27. “De-Certification” of ELDT Instructors
28. Self-Certification of Training Providers
29. Training Provider Identification Form and Related Information Requirements
30. Timeframe to Electronically Transmit ELDT Certification Information
31. FMCSA's Transmittal of ELDT Certification and Related Information Requirements
a. Separate Training Providers
32. Audits, Investigations, and Documentation Requirements—FMCSA's “Authorized Representative”
33. Involuntary Removal From the TPR—Due Process
34. Scheduling the State-Administered CDL Skills Test
35. Third-Party Skills Testers—Verification of ELDT Certification
36. Compliance Date for ELDT Requirements
37. Bond Requirements for Training Providers
38. Executive Order 13045—Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
VIII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the Analysis
IX. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes From the NPRM
X. Section-by-Section Summary
XI. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Assistance for Small Entities
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
F. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
G. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
H. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
I. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
J. Privacy
K. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
L. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
M. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)
O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.12898 Environmental Justice)
I. Rulemaking Documents
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
For access to docket FMCSA-2007-27748 to read background documents and comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov
at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
B. Privacy Act
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments on the Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov
, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy
.
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose and Summary of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
FMCSA believes this final rule enhances the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by establishing a minimum standard for ELDT and increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. It replaces existing mandatory training requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate and intrastate operations required to possess a CDL. The minimum training standards established in today's rule are for certain individuals applying for a CDL for the first time, an upgrade of their CDL
1
(
e.g.,
a Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL), or a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement for the first time. These individuals are subject to the ELDT requirements and must complete a prescribed program of instruction provided by an entity listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR).
1
Group A vehicles include all large, combination vehicles, usually tractor/trailers. Group B vehicles include both large straight trucks and buses.
FMCSA's legal authority for this rulemaking is derived from the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), and MAP-21.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
The rule primarily revises 49 CFR part 380, Special Training Requirements. It requires an individual who must complete certain CDL skills test requirements, defined as an “Entry-Level Driver,” to receive mandatory training. The rule applies to persons who drive, or intend to drive, CMVs in either interstate or intrastate commerce. Military drivers, farmers, and firefighters who are generally excepted from the CDL requirements in part 383 are also excepted from this rule.
The rule establishes Class A and Class B CDL core curricula and training curricula including passenger (P); school bus (S); and hazardous materials (H) endorsements. The core and endorsement curricula generally are subdivided into theory (knowledge) and behind-the-wheel (BTW) (range and public road) segments. There is no minimum number of hours that driver-trainees must spend on the theory portions of any of the individual curricula. However, training providers must provide instruction in all elements of the applicable theory curriculum and driver-trainees must receive an overall score of at least 80 percent on the theory assessment.
The BTW curricula for the Class A and Class B CDL, comprised of range and public road segments, include discrete maneuvers which each driver-trainee must proficiently demonstrate to the satisfaction of the training instructor. There is no minimum number of hours that driver-trainees must spend on the BTW elements of the core or endorsement curricula. The training provider must not issue the training certificate unless the driver-trainee demonstrates proficiency in performing all required BTW skills. Providers must submit electronic notification to FMCSA that an individual completed the required training; the Agency will provide that information to the SDLAs through the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS).
This rule applies to entities that train entry-level drivers, also referred to herein as driver-trainees. Training providers must, at a minimum, provide instruction in a training curriculum that meets all the standards established in today's rule and must also meet other eligibility requirements in order to be listed on FMCSA's TPR. Training providers must also attest that they meet the specified requirements, and in the event of an FMCSA audit or investigation of the provider, must supply documentation to verify their compliance. The final rule also makes conforming changes to parts 383 and 384 of the FMCSRs.
The compliance date for this rule is three years after the effective date of the final rule. This three-year period provides the States with sufficient time to pass necessary implementing legislation and to modify their information systems to begin recording the CDL applicant's compliance with ELDT requirements. This phase-in period also allows time for CMV driver training entities to develop and begin offering training programs that meet the eligibility requirements for listing on the TPR.
C. Benefits and Costs
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers, training providers, SDLAs, and the Federal Government will incur costs for compliance and implementation. The costs of the final rule include tuition expenses, the opportunity cost of time while in training, compliance audit costs, and costs associated with the implementation and monitoring of the TPR. As shown in Table 1, FMCSA estimates that the 10-year cost of the final rule will total $3.66 billion on an undiscounted basis, $3.23 billion discounted at 3 percent, and $2.76 billion discounted at 7 percent (all in 2014 dollars). Values in Table 1 are rounded to the nearest million.
Table 1—Total Cost of the Final Rule
[In millions of 2014$]
Year
Undiscounted
Entry-level drivers
Motor
carriers
Training
providers
SDLAs
Federal
government
Total
(a)
Discounted
Discounted at 3%
Discounted at 7%
2020
$324
$20
$9
$56
$6
$415
$415
$415
2021
326
20
6
0
1
353
343
330
2022
328
20
7
0
1
356
336
311
2023
330
20
6
0
1
357
327
291
2024
331
20
7
0
1
359
319
274
2025
333
20
6
0
1
360
311
257
2026
335
20
7
0
1
363
304
242
2027
337
20
6
0
1
364
296
227
2028
339
21
7
0
1
368
291
214
2029
341
21
6
0
1
369
283
201
Total
3,324
202
67
56
15
3,664
3,225
2,762
Annualized
366
367
368
Notes:
(a)
Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded components).
The costs of this final rule specifically attributable to the S (school bus) endorsement training requirement were evaluated separately in the RIA, because, while Section 32304 of MAP-21 mandates training for entry-level drivers who wish to obtain a CDL or a P or H endorsement, the statute is silent with respect to the S endorsement. Inclusion of the S endorsement training requirement increases the total cost of the rule by only approximately 0.82 percent. On an annualized basis at a 7 percent discount rate, this equates to an increase in the total cost of the rule from $365 million to $368 million. Details of these comparative analyses of the costs of the rule and the reasons for this relatively small change in costs resulting from the inclusion of the S endorsement training requirement are presented in Section 3 of the RIA.
This final rule will result in benefits to CMV operators, the transportation industry, the traveling public, and the environment. FMCSA estimated benefits in two broad categories: Safety benefits and non-safety benefits. Training related to the performance of complex tasks may improve performance; in the context of the training required by this final rule, improvement in task performance constitutes adoption of safer driving practices that the Agency believes will reduce the frequency and severity of crashes, thereby resulting in safer roadways for all. The training related to fuel efficient driving practices that will be taught under the `speed management' and `space management' sections of the curriculum reduce fuel consumption and consequently lower environmental impacts associated with carbon dioxide emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 of the RIA for today's rule, FMCSA does not believe that the training in fuel efficient driving practices addressed by this rule will contribute to measurably longer trip times, as the curricula focus on factors such as maintaining safe distances between vehicles and avoiding hard acceleration and braking, rather than reducing vehicle speed. The Agency therefore assumes in its analysis that these fuel efficient driving practices will not contribute to measurably longer trip times.
Safer driving and better-informed drivers will reduce maintenance and repair costs. Table 2 below presents the directly quantifiable benefits that FMCSA projects will result from this final rule (all in 2014 dollars, values rounded to the nearest million). Due to wide ranges of estimates in studies relevant to the quantified benefits of the rule and the lack of studies that specifically focus on the curricula prescribed by this rule,
2
the Agency presents benefits estimated under alternate benefit scenarios in Table 3 and Table 4. These alternate scenarios are derived from the low and high benefit cases (see sensitivity analyses in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA) in which the fuel savings, CO
2
emissions reductions, and maintenance and repair cost savings are 50 percent lower (low benefits case) and 50 percent greater (high benefits case) than the central estimates that the Agency relied on in developing the values presented in Table 2. Further discussion of the low and high benefits cases is reserved to the RIA for the final rule.
2
As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA, the Agency identified a variety of relevant studies related to each of the quantified benefits. With particular respect to the estimated fuel and CO
2
savings the Agency was unable to identify any studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this rule.
Table 2—Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
Year
Undiscounted
Value of fuel savings
Value of CO
2
reduction
(a)
Maintenance and repair cost savings
Total
(b)
Discounted
Discounted at 3%
Discounted at 7%
2020
$89
$15
$13
$117
$117
$117
2021
151
26
22
198
192
186
2022
186
31
26
243
229
214
2023
190
32
27
248
227
206
2024
194
32
27
253
225
197
2025
197
33
27
257
222
188
2026
202
34
28
263
220
181
2027
205
34
28
266
217
172
2028
207
35
28
270
214
165
2029
211
35
28
274
210
157
Total
1,830
306
253
2,389
2,073
1,783
Annualized
239
236
237
Notes:
(a)
The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO
2
emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the “discounted at 3%” and “discounted at 7%” columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO
2
reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO
2
reductions are presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b)
Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded components).
Table 3—Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[Low benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Year
Undiscounted
Value of fuel savings
Value of CO
2
reduction
(a)
Maintenance and repair cost savings
Total
(b)
Discounted
Discounted at 3%
Discounted at 7%
2020
$44
$8
$6
$58
$58
$58
2021
75
13
11
99
96
93
2022
93
16
13
121
114
107
2023
95
16
13
124
114
103
2024
97
16
13
127
112
99
2025
99
17
14
129
111
94
2026
101
17
14
131
110
90
2027
102
17
14
133
108
86
2028
104
17
14
135
107
82
2029
106
17
14
137
105
78
Total
915
153
127
1,195
1,036
891
Annualized
119
118
119
Notes:
(a)
The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO
2
emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the “discounted at 3%” and “discounted at 7%” columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO
2
reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO
2
reductions are presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b)
Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded components).
Table 4—Total Quantifiable Benefits of the Final Rule
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Year
Undiscounted
Value of fuel savings
Value of CO
2
reduction
(a)
Maintenance and repair cost savings
Total
(b)
Discounted
Discounted at 3%
Discounted at 7%
2020
$133
$23
$19
$175
$175
$175
2021
226
38
32
295
287
278
2022
278
47
38
363
343
321
2023
285
48
39
371
340
308
2024
291
49
40
379
337
295
2025
296
50
40
385
332
282
2026
302
50
41
393
329
271
2027
307
51
41
399
324
258
2028
311
52
41
405
320
246
2029
316
52
42
410
314
235
Total
2,745
459
372
3,576
3,100
2,668
Annualized
358
353
355
Notes:
(a)
The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO
2
emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the “discounted at 3%” and “discounted at 7%” columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO
2
reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO
2
reductions are presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b)
Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded components).
While FMCSA believes that this final rule will at minimum achieve cost-neutrality, the net of quantified costs and benefits (presented in Table 5 below) results in an annualized net cost of $131 million at a 7 percent discount rate. This estimate is based only on
quantifiable
costs and benefits (central case) attributable to this rule. Safety benefits are assessed separately via a threshold analysis discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA.
Table 5—Net Cost of the Final Rule (Central Case), Absent Quantifiable Safety Benefits
[In millions of 2014$]
Year
3%
Discount
rate
7%
Discount
rate
2020
$298
$298
2021
151
144
2022
107
97
2023
100
85
2024
94
77
2025
89
69
2026
84
61
2027
79
55
2028
77
49
2029
73
44
Total
1,152
979
Annualized
131
131
The lack of data directly linking training to improvements in safety outcomes, such as reduced crash frequency or severity, posed a challenge to the Agency. Discussion regarding the efforts undertaken by FMCSA and its partners in the negotiated rulemaking process to estimate such a quantitative link is presented in Section 4.2 of the RIA. In the NPRM, the Agency again requested any additional data on the safety benefits of requiring ELDT, but did not receive any information that could be used to reliably quantify safety benefits associated with pre-CDL driver training.
In the absence of a clear link between training and safety, FMCSA followed the guidance of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in its Circular A-4 to perform a threshold analysis to determine the degree of safety benefits that will need to occur as a consequence of this final rule in order for the rule to achieve cost-neutrality.
3
As presented and discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of the RIA, the central estimate of this analysis is that a 3.61 percent improvement in safety performance (that is, a 3.61 percent reduction in the frequency of crashes involving those entry-level drivers who would receive additional pre-CDL training as a result of this final rule during the period for which the benefits of training are estimated to remain intact) is necessary to offset the $131 million (annualized at 7 percent) net cost of this final rule.
4
Note that under the low and high benefits cases presented in Table 3 and Table 4, the net cost of this final rule ranges from $13 million to $250 million (annualized at 7 percent), suggesting the improvement in safety performance necessary to offset the rule's costs may be as low as 0.36 percent and as high as 6.89 percent (see Section 4.2 of the RIA for the final rule for further detail).
3
Office of Management and Budget. CircularA-4.
Regulatory Analysis.
September 17, 2003. Available at:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/
(accessed July 25, 2016).
4
Some commenters to the RIA that was performed for the NPRM for this rule incorrectly interpreted the breakeven percentage reduction in crashes estimated here as being relative to
all
CMV crashes
industry-wide,
rather than being relative to only to the much smaller sub-set of crashes involving entry-level drivers that are affected by the rule. Note that with respect to the magnitude of the reduction in the frequency of all crashes involving large trucks and buses that the annual average crash reductions presented in Table 6 represent, the Agency notes that there were an estimated total 3,649 fatal, 93,000 injury, and 379,000 PDO crashes in 2014 (see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
2016 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics,
May 2016, pages 33 and 34, available at:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/59000/59100/59189/2016_Pocket_Guide_to_Large_Truck_and_Bus_Statistics.pdf
(accessed July 1, 2016)). Therefore, viewed in this manner, based on the annual average number of crash reductions necessary for this final rule to achieve cost-neutrality (shown in the second row from the bottom of Table 6), this equates to a reduction of only 0.14% of fatal, 0.11% of injury, and 0.11% of PDO crashes, respectively (relative to calendar year 2014). These percentage reductions are calculated as follows: Fatal = 5 ÷ 3,649; Injury = 102 ÷ 93,000; PDO = 432 ÷ 379,000. It should be re-emphasized, however, that this view of the data taken by some of the commenters is
incorrect,
and that the breakeven percentage reduction in crashes estimated here is relative to only the much smaller sub-set of crashes involving entry-level drivers that are affected by the rule.
Table 6 below presents the projected number of crash reductions involving entry-level drivers that must occur under the central case in each of the 10 years following this final rule's implementation and in the aggregate, in order to offset the net cost ($131 million annualized at 7 percent). It is the sum of the monetized value of
all columns
of Table 6—not the sum of the monetized value of any individual column—that results in cost-neutrality.
Table 6—Crash Reductions Involving Entry-Level Drivers, by Type, Necessary To Achieve Cost-Neutrality
[For the Central Case]
Year
Number of fatal crashes
Number of
injury crashes
Number of property
damage only (PDO) crashes
2020
3
54
231
2021
4
91
386
2022
5
109
463
2023
5
109
463
2024
5
109
463
2025
5
109
463
2026
5
109
463
2027
5
109
463
2028
5
109
463
2029
5
109
463
Annual Average
(a)
5
102
432
Total
(b)
49
1,016
4,319
Notes:
(a)
Rounded to the nearest whole number.
(b)
The individual values shown may not sum to the totals shown due to rounding.
III. Abbreviations and Acronyms
Full name
Abbreviation or
acronym
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Advocates
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ANPRM
American Association for Justice
AAJ
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
AAMVA
American Bus Association
ABA
American Public Power Association
APPA
American Transportation Research Institute
ATRI
American Trucking Associations
ATA
Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA
Anti-lock Braking Systems
ABS
Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training
Adequacy Report
Associated General Contractors
AGC
Association American of Railroads
AAR
Behind the wheel
BTW
California Department of Motor Vehicles
CA DMV
Clean Air Act
CAA
Code of Federal Regulations
CFR
Commercial Driver's License
CDL
Commercial Driver's License Information System
CDLIS
Commercial Learner's Permit
CLP
Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMV
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
CMVSA
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
CVSA
Commercial Vehicle Training Association
CVTA
Delaware Department of Education
DDE
Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles
DE DMV
Delaware Motor Transport Association
DMTA
Delaware Technical Community College
DTCC
Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards
Director
Driver and Vehicle Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety
Minnesota
Driver Holdings, LLC
Driver Holdings
Edison Electrical Institute
EEI
Entry-Level Driver Training
ELDT
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee
ELDTAC
Executive Order
E.O.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSA
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FMCSRs
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GVWR
Hazardous Materials
HM
Hazardous Materials Endorsement
H
Hazardous Materials Safety Permit
HMSP
Hours of Service
HOS
International Union of Operating Engineers
IUOE
Iowa Department of Transportation
Iowa
Iowa Motor Truck Association
IMTA
Minnesota Chauffeured Limousine Association
MCLA
Model Motorcoach Curriculum
MMC
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
MCSA
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee
MCSAC
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
MAP-21
National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools
NAPFTDS
National Association of Small Trucking Companies
NASTC
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
NASDPTS
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
NCFC
National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA
National Feed and Grain Association
NFGA
National Governors' Association
NGA
National Ground Water Association
NGWA
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NHTSA
National Limousine Association
NLA
National Motor Freight Traffic Association
NMFTA
National Propane Gas Association
NPGA
National School Transportation Association
NSTA
Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association
NRECA
New York Association for Pupil Transportation
NYAPT
New York Department of Motor Vehicles
NY DMV
North Dakota Motor Carriers Association
NDMCA
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NPRM
Office of Management and Budget
OMB
Oregon Department of Transportation
ODOT
Out-of-service
OOS
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.
OOIDA
Petroleum Marketers Association of America
PMAA
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
PHMSA
Privacy Impact Assessment
PIA
Professional Truck Driver Institute
PTDI
Property Damage Only
PDO
Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIA
State Driver Licensing Agency
SDLA
State of Michigan, Bureau of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Programs, Department of State
Michigan
State of Utah, Department of Public Safety
Utah
State of Washington Department of Licensing
Washington
Training Provider Registry
TPR
United Motorcoach Association
UMA
United Parcel Service
UPS
United States Code
U.S.C.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
D.C. Circuit
United States Department of Education
ED
United States Department of Transportation
DOT
Virage Simulation
Virage
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
Virginia
Virginia Trucking Association
VTA
Werner Enterprises
Werner
West Virginia Trucking Association
WVTA
IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
This rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984, and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA), as described below. It also implements section 32304 of MAP-21, requiring the establishment of minimum driver training standards for certain individuals required to hold a CDL. The NPRM preceding this final rule reflected the recommendations of FMCSA's ELDTAC, comprised of 25 industry stakeholders and FMCSA, convened through a negotiated rulemaking in 2015, as discussed below. Today's rule retains a number of those recommendations.
The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), provides that “The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation.” This rule improves the “safety of operation” of entry-level “employees” who operate CMVs, as defined in 49 CFR 383.5, by enhancing the training they receive before obtaining or upgrading a CDL.
The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (MCSA), codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136(a), provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe regulations for CMV safety to ensure that (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) responsibilities imposed on CMV drivers do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) drivers' physical condition is adequate to operate the vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on drivers' physical
condition; and (5) CMV drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of regulations promulgated under this section, or chapter 51 or chapter 313 of this title (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)). This rule is based specifically on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), requiring regulations to ensure that CMVs are “operated safely,” and secondarily on section 31136(a)(2), requiring that regulations ensure that “the responsibilities imposed on operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely.” The rule enhances the training of entry-level drivers to further ensure that they operate CMVs safely and meet the operational responsibilities imposed on them.
This rule does not directly address medical standards for drivers (section 31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects caused by driving CMVs (section 31136(a)(4)). However, to the extent that the various curricula in today's rule address FMCSA's medical requirements for CMV drivers, section 31136(a)(3), has been considered and addressed. FMCSA does not anticipate that drivers will be coerced (section 31136(a)(5)) as a result of this rulemaking. However, we note that the theory training curricula for Class A and B CDLs include a unit addressing the right of an employee to question the safety practices of an employer without incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject to reprisal simply for stating a safety concern. Driver-trainees will also be instructed in procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries.
CMVSA provides, among other things, that the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the fitness of an individual operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). The requirement of today's rule that States test only those entry-level CDL applicants who have completed the requisite training falls within the “minimum standards for testing” authorized by the CMVSA. The training requirement itself, as described below, was created by section 32304 of MAP-21.
MAP-21 requires DOT to regulate ELDT (Pub. L. 112-141, section 32304, 126 Stat. 405, 791 (July 6, 2012)). MAP-21 modified 49 U.S.C. 31305 by adding paragraph (c), which requires FMCSA to issue ELDT regulations. The regulations must address the knowledge and skills necessary for safe operation of a CMV that must be acquired before obtaining a CDL for the first time or upgrading from one class of CDL to another. MAP-21 also requires that training apply to CMV operators seeking passenger or hazardous materials endorsements (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1) and (2)). Although the statute specifically requires that the regulations address both classroom and behind the wheel (BTW) instruction, MAP-21 otherwise allows FMCSA broad discretion to define the training methodology, standards, and curriculum necessary to satisfy the ELDT mandate.
MAP-21 clearly establishes the scope of operations to be covered by this rule by requiring that ELDT regulations apply to individuals operating CMVs in both interstate and intrastate commerce. The ELDT requirements are codified in section 31305 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, and the definition of a CMV in section 31301(4) therefore applies to ELDT. The definition of “commerce” in section 31301(2) covers both interstate commerce (paragraph A) and intrastate commerce (paragraph B). ELDT, as a CDL-related mandate, therefore applies to both interstate and intrastate commerce.
The final rule includes a school bus (S) endorsement curriculum, as proposed in the NPRM. Although MAP-21 did not specifically mandate training for this endorsement, the current FMCSRs require that an applicant for the S endorsement must pass the knowledge and skills test for a passenger vehicle (P) endorsement (49 CFR 383.123(a)(1)). FMCSA believes that because Congress recognized the importance of entry-level training in the operation of passenger vehicles by including the P endorsement within the scope of the MAP-21 mandate, the inclusion of the S endorsement training curriculum in the final rule is consistent with that mandate.
Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their “costs and benefits” (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). Those factors are addressed in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) associated with this rulemaking and are summarized above.
V. Background
Regulatory History
On March 7, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators, in the
Federal Register
(81 FR 11944). FMCSA received 338 submissions during the NPRM public comment period. FMCSA and its predecessor agency, the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Motor Carriers, have previously addressed the issue of CMV driver training. The regulatory and legal history of these efforts is summarized in the table below.
Timeline of Regulatory and Judicial Actions Related to Entry-Level Driver Training
Title
Type of action
Citation, date
Synopsis
Model Curriculum for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Recommendations
1985
The Model Curriculum provided suggestions and recommendations for training providers covering curriculum, facilities, vehicles, instructor qualifications hiring practices, graduation requirements, and student placement.
Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level Drivers
ANPRM by FHWA
June 21, 1993; 58 FR 33874
The ANPRM asked 13 questions pertaining to the adequacy of training standards, curriculum requirements, the requirements for obtaining a CDL, the definition of “entry-level driver” training, training pass rates, and costs.
Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Training
FHWA Report
1995
It concluded, among other things, that effective ELDT needs to include BTW instruction.
Relief from Unlawfully Withheld Agency Action, In re Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
Court Action
November 2002
Sought an order directing the DOT to promulgate various regulations, including one establishing ELDT.
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
FMCSA's NPRM
August 15, 2003; 68 FR 48863
FMCSA proposed 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).
FMCSA's Final Rule
May 21, 2004; 69 FR 29384
The final rule included the four training elements proposed in the NPRM: driver medical qualification and drug and alcohol testing; driver hours of service limits; driver wellness; and whistleblower protections.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Court Action
429 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir., December 2, 2005)
The Court held that the 2004 final rule was arbitrary and capricious because FMCSA ignored the finding of the Adequacy Report that BTW training was necessary and remanded the rule to the Agency for further consideration. The Court did not vacate the 2004 final rule.
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
FMCSA's NPRM
December 26, 2007; 72 FR 73226
FMCSA proposed regulations requiring both classroom and BTW training from an accredited institution or program.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
Congressional Action
July 6, 2012; Public Law No. 112-141, § 32304, 126 Stat. 405, 791
MAP-21 requires DOT to regulate ELDT.
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor VehicleOperators
FMCSA's Withdrawal Notice
September 19, 2013; 78 FR 57585
Based on a number of considerations, FMCSA withdrew its December 26, 2007, NPRM that proposed new ELDT standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
ELDT Negotiated Rulemaking
FMCSA's Public Notices
August 19, 2014; 79 FR 49044
FMCSA formally announced that it was considering addressing the rulemaking mandated by MAP-21 through a negotiated rulemaking.
December 10, 2014; 79 FR 73274
FMCSA also stated its intention to finish the negotiated rulemaking process in the first half of 2015, followed by publication of an NPRM the same year and a final ELDT rule in 2016.
February 12, 2015; 80 FR 7814
The Agency published a Federal Register notice listing the ELDTAC members as required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.
Public Meetings
February-May 2015
The ELDTAC met for a series of six two-day meetings to produce a consensus agreement, which formed the basis for the NPRM.
In Re Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters; and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways vs. Anthony Foxx, Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation, et al
Court Action
September 18, 2014; No. 14-1183, D.C. Circuit (2014)
March 10, 2015
FMCSA and DOT are sued in a mandamus action requesting that the D.C. Circuit order the Agency to publish a proposed rule on ELDT in 60 days and a final rule within 120 days of the Court's order.
The court ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus be held in abeyance pending a further order of the court to permit the DOT to issue final regulations pursuant to MAP-21.
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators
FMCSA's NPRM
March 7, 2016; 81 FR 11944
Based on the consensus findings of the Entry-Level Driver Advisory Committee, FMCSA proposed new training standards for certain individuals applying for their initial CDL; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement; and a “refresher” training curriculum.
VI. March 7, 2016, Proposed Rule
MAP-21 mandated that the FMCSA issue regulations to establish minimum entry-level training requirements for interstate and intrastate applicants obtaining a CDL for the first time, CDL holders seeking license upgrades, and those seeking passenger (P) or hazardous materials (H) endorsements. In response to that statutory mandate, the Agency published an NPRM, “Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,” on March 7, 2016. In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed the ELDTAC's consensus recommendations “to the maximum extent possible consistent with its legal obligations” as required under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act(5 U.S.C. 563(a)(7)).
The proposed regulations addressed the knowledge and/or skills training required for entry-level CMV drivers. Additionally, the NPRM outlined new eligibility standards that training providers must meet to deliver ELDT. Finally, while not specifically required by MAP-21, the NPRM reflected the ELDTAC's consensus that training should also be required for applicants seeking a school bus (S) endorsement and for CDL holders disqualified for safety-related CMV driving violations (refresher training).
The proposed rule generally applied to those individuals who obtain a CDL (or a CDL upgrade or endorsement) on or after the compliance date of the final rule and did not otherwise amend substantive CDL requirements in 49 CFR parts 383 and 384. The NPRM identified specific categories of drivers excluded from the rule, based on current exceptions in part 383.
The proposed rule also applied to entities that train CDL applicants. Such providers would, at a minimum, provide instruction in accordance with a training curriculum that meets all FMCSA standards as set forth in the NPRM. Under the NPRM, training providers would attest to their compliance with the eligibility requirements set forth in proposed subpart G of part 380. These proposed requirements addressed the following areas: Course administration; instructional personnel qualifications; training vehicles; training facilities (
e.g.,
classroom and range); curricula; and
proficiency assessment of driver-trainees. Training providers meeting these proposed requirements would be eligible for listing on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR) and would also be required to meet the criteria for continued listing on the TPR. The NPRM proposed that training providers would, at FMCSA's request, be required to supply specified documentary evidence to verify their compliance with the TPR eligibility requirements.
The NPRM described factors that would justify FMCSA's removal of a training entity from the TPR, setting forth procedures the Agency would follow before removing an entity from the TPR. The NPRM also proposed procedures that training providers would follow in order to challenge a proposed removal and to apply for reinstatement to the TPR following involuntary removal.
The NPRM proposed that training providers would electronically notify the TPR by the close of the next business day after driver-trainees completed training. The submission of this documentation would ensure that each individual received the required training from a provider listed on the TPR prior to taking the State-administered CDL skills test for the Class A or B CDL and/or the passenger or school bus endorsement, or the knowledge test for the hazardous materials endorsement.
The NPRM proposed core curricula for Class A CDL and Class B CDL applicants; curricula for the P, S, and H endorsements; and a “refresher” training curriculum. The proposed core curricula for Class A and Class B CDL training programs, as well as the P and S curricula, were subdivided into theory and BTW (range and public road) components. The H endorsement training curriculum was proposed as theory-only training because there is no CDL skills test currently required for those seeking an H endorsement. The NPRM did not propose that any minimum number of hours be spent by driver-trainees in completing the theory portions of any of the individual curricula, though training providers must cover all elements of the applicable curriculum and trainees must achieve an overall score of at least 80 percent on the written theory assessment.
The NPRM proposed that a minimum number of BTW hours be required for the Class A and Class B curricula. Class A applicants would be required to complete at least 30 hours of BTW training, while Class B applicants would need to complete a minimum of 15 hours BTW. The NPRM did not propose that driver-trainees spend any minimum number of hours to complete the BTW portion of the P or S curriculum. The preamble to the proposed rule stated that, for BTW training, “[a]ll required driving maneuvers must be performed to the satisfaction of the instructor . . .” As proposed, a CDL holder disqualified from operating a CMV due to safety-related violations would need to complete refresher training requirements before applying for reinstatement of his/her CDL. Similar to the other proposed curricula, the refresher curriculum included both theory and BTW components; however, the NPRM did not propose that a minimum number of hours be required to complete any portion of the refresher curriculum. The Agency proposed that SDLAs issue limited CDL privileges for persons seeking to become reinstated, solely for the purpose of allowing the driver to complete the BTW portion of the refresher curriculum.
The proposed compliance date for this rule was three years after the effective date of the final rule. The Agency believed the three-year phase-in period would give the States enough time to (1) pass implementing legislation and/or regulations as necessary; (2) modify their information systems to begin recording the training provider's certification information into CDLIS and onto the driver's CDL record; and (3) begin making that information available to other States through CDLIS. The three-year phase-in period would also allow ample time for the CMV driver training industry to develop and begin offering training programs that meet the requirements for listing on the TPR.
VII. Discussion of Comments and Responses on the NPRM
There were 338 submissions on the proposed rule, 190 of which provided substantive comments. In addition to private citizens, the following types of entities commented on the proposed rule: Academic institutions, agriculture industry, motor carriers, CMV driver trainers, electric utilities, professional associations, owner/operators, safety advocacy groups, State DMVs and other governmental entities, school bus operations, and trade associations.
Commenters generally supporting the proposed rule endorsed setting minimum standards, which they said would improve road safety and reduce crashes involving CMVs. While a number of commenters asserted that over the long term, entry-level driver training would result in greater highway safety and efficiencies and savings for the industry, none of those comments included quantitative data to support that assertion.
Commenters generally opposing the NPRM made several arguments. The most frequent assertions were that an entry-level driver training program would exacerbate a commercial driver shortage (especially for school bus drivers), that an ELDT rule was unnecessary because carrier-based or other existing training regimens already work, that FMCSA had no data to support the proposed requirements, and that FMCSA exaggerated savings or underestimated costs of the ELDT proposal.
1. Applicability of the ELDT Requirements
The ELDT requirements proposed in the NPRM pertain to drivers who meet the definition of “entry-level driver” in § 380.605 and who intend to drive CMVs in interstate and/or intrastate commerce. As proposed, drivers holding a valid Class A or Class B CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement issued before the compliance date of the final rule would not be subject to ELDT requirements. Under the NPRM, the following categories of drivers, who are currently excepted or may, at the State's discretion, be excepted from CDL requirements, would also be excepted from the ELDT requirements: (1) Drivers excepted from the CDL requirements under § 383.3(c), (d), and (h), which includes individuals who operate CMVs for military purposes, farmers, firefighters, emergency response vehicle drivers and drivers removing snow and ice, and drivers of “covered farm vehicles”; (2) drivers applying for a restricted CDL under § 383.3 (e) through (g); and (3) veterans with military experience who meet the requirements and conditions of § 383.77.
Comments:
FMCSA received numerous comments from various industry segments requesting exceptions from the ELDT final rule. Comments filed jointly by the American Public Power Association (APPA), the Edison Electrical Institute (EEI), and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) requested that FMCSA exclude electric utility drivers from the ELDT requirements. These commenters stated that driving represents a small proportion of a utility worker's daily responsibilities and that electric utility drivers have excellent safety records.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commented that several of the proposed training standards should not apply to railroad employees required to hold a CDL. For example, AAR stated that FMCSA
should not require railroad employees who hold CDLs for their duties to demonstrate skills such as alley dock backing or other skills that are not necessary for the performance of their specific job functions. The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen also requested an exception for railroad employees who hold CDLs. An individual commenter requested that truck repair technicians be able to obtain a “special” CDL because they normally travel only short distances to repair facilities.
FMCSA received a large number of comments from the custom harvester industry requesting an exception from the ELDT rule. The commenters generally cited the following arguments in support of their request. First, custom harvesters hire and train seasonal CDL drivers, most of whom do not already have a CDL. Consequently, the custom harvester typically provides training to enable the driver to obtain a CDL. Because many entry-level drivers in the custom harvester industry cannot afford training costs and other CDL-related expenses, the employer must directly pay for, or absorb the cost of, providing CDL-related training. Custom harvester employers therefore believed that the ELDT training requirements would impose additional costs on them.
Second, the custom harvester industry argued that because the CMV testing and licensing standards in certain foreign jurisdictions do not meet the CDL testing standards established in part 383, a temporary worker who holds an H2-A visa must obtain a non-domiciled CDL. Non-domiciled CDLs are valid only for the length of the holder's work visa, which is normally six to eleven months. Commenters felt it was unfair for them to incur the cost of training drivers who obtain a CDL that is valid only for the length of their employment in the United States, and for whom they usually have to pay transportation expenses to and from the United States.
Third, custom harvester industry commenters asserted that they have a strong driver safety record in the United States. The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) noted that agricultural services “present a lower risk relative to other types of commercial vehicle operations due to the nature of agricultural production and the way trucks and application equipment are used.” NCFC specifically cited less traffic congestion in rural areas and fewer total miles driven than the “general commercial trucking industry.” NCFC requested that FMCSA therefore grant recognition for “existing training programs, previous driving experience, and current industry practices for non-accredited entry-level driver classroom and behind-the-wheel training requirements for farm-related industries.”
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) supported the proposed exception for holders of valid CDLs issued before the compliance date of the final rule, as provided in § 380.603(b), but noted that the language “except as otherwise specifically provided” is very unclear.
FMCSA Response:
The ELDT requirements established in today's rule are aligned with the existing CDL requirements in part 383. The final rule does not create any new exceptions. Therefore, any individual who is currently excepted from taking a skills test in order to obtain a Class A or Class B CDL or a P or S endorsement would not be subject to the final rule.
FMCSA acknowledges the concerns raised by the custom harvest industry and others who believe that the specialized nature of their industries makes mandated ELDT unnecessary or unduly burdensome. In response, FMCSA emphasizes that any entity or employer currently providing training would be eligible for listing on the TPR, as long as the applicable minimum curricula and instructor requirements set forth in today's rule are met. Additional costs for such providers would include online registration for the TPR, which the Agency estimates will be minimal (see RIA for discussion of these costs). In addition, as noted in the NPRM and elsewhere in this preamble, today's rule does not impose any new Federal accreditation requirements on either classroom or BTW training providers.
Further, the fact that CDL applicants in a specific industry expect to perform job functions that are more limited than the scope of the required curricula, or who may be expected to travel relatively short distances in the course of their employment, is not a valid basis for exception from ELDT requirements. Entry-level drivers obtaining a Class A or B CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement for the first time are presumed competent to safely operate the type of CMV for which they have received a license. Accordingly, CDL holders should be capable of operating the vehicle in appropriate settings and circumstances, which may go beyond the specific purpose or employment for which they initially obtained the CDL or endorsement. Regardless of an applicant's intentions at the time he or she obtains a CDL or endorsement, the individual is in fact credentialed to operate a range of CMVs falling within the CDL class of license or endorsement received. Therefore, based on the current CDL program, it is reasonable for FMCSA to require these individuals to receive training commensurate with the CMV driving credentials they hold.
Additionally, FMCSA notes that it would be virtually impossible to implement and enforce exemptions from the ELDT requirements in today's rule based either on the driver's industry or anticipated use of a CMV for which a CDL or endorsement is required.
The Agency also notes that the training requirements established in today's rule are generally imposed on a one-time-only basis. This also holds true for non-domiciled CDL holders; once they complete training for the non-domiciled CDL class or endorsement, they would not be required to repeat that same training upon their return to the United States in subsequent years. Therefore, H2-A workers in the custom harvest industry would need to complete the applicable ELDT requirements only once. In addition, because the final rule permits driver-trainees to obtain theory and BTW training from separate providers, absent a conflicting State requirement, foreign workers can complete the theory portion of the training online in order to reduce ELDT related costs.
Finally, as proposed, the ELDT requirements do not apply to individuals holding a valid CDL or a P, S, or H endorsement issued before the compliance date of the final rule. Due to other changes in the final rule discussed below, FMCSA deletes the language “except as otherwise specifically provided” from § 380.603(b).
2. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP Before the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
As proposed, § 380.603(c)(1) required that individuals who obtain a CLP before the compliance date of the final rule would not be subject to ELDT requirements if they obtain a CDL within 360 days of obtaining a CLP. Therefore, under the NPRM, CLP holders who fail to obtain a CDL within the 360-day time frame would be required to complete ELDT before taking the required State-administered skills test.
Comments:
The New York Department of Motor Vehicles (NY DMV) commented that “360 days is too limited and problematic” because the States regulate how long a driver may wait from expiration of the original CLP before renewing that CLP. Because a CLP holder does not necessarily renew the CLP exactly on the date of expiration, the period of time from the
original CLP issuance date to the expiration date of the renewed CLP may be longer than 360 days. The ODOT asked that the 360-day limit be changed to one year. The Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (Virginia), noting that “a CLP (original and renewal) could potentially be issued for a period of 390 plus days based on Virginia's 30-day grace period,” requested that the period be for the full duration of the CLP instead of 360 days.
FMCSA Response:
The Agency based the proposed 360-day time period on current CLP requirements, which state that the CLP must be valid for no more than 180 days from the date of issuance; States may renew the CLP for an additional 180 days without requiring the applicant to retake applicable knowledge tests (§ 383.25(c)). However, the comments illustrate that, in practice, the requirements related to CLP renewal vary among the States, thereby resulting in an amount of time between the date of initial CLP issuance and the expiration date of the renewed CLP that may be longer than 360 days. Accordingly, FMCSA revises the language in § 380.603(c)(1) to state that individuals who obtain a CLP before the compliance date of the final rule are not subject to ELDT requirements as long as they obtain a CDL before the expiration date of the CLP or renewed CLP. Any CLP holder who fails to obtain the CDL within that period would be subject to the ELDT requirements established in the final rule. The Agency believes this approach provides sufficient flexibility for the States.
In addition, under revised § 380.603(c)(1), CLPs with endorsements are included within the scope of this exception. Accordingly, any applicant who obtains a P or S endorsement on his or her CLP before the compliance date of the final rule is not required to complete the P or S endorsement training curriculum if the applicant receives the endorsement before the initial or renewed CLP expires.
This requirement would not apply to individuals seeking the H endorsement, who are not required to take a skills test, and therefore do not need to obtain a CLP. Unlike the P and S endorsements, the H endorsement is not linked to any specific class or type of vehicle. Accordingly, applicants for the H endorsement will already hold a Class A or B CDL, or will be concurrently obtaining a Class A or B CDL at the time they apply for the H endorsement, or intend to transport hazardous materials in a vehicle for which a Class A or B CDL is not required (
e.g.,
a pick-up truck).
3. ELDT Requirements for CDL Applicants Obtaining a CLP After the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed that individuals obtaining a CLP on or after the compliance date of the final rule must comply with applicable ELDT requirements. The Agency received no comments on this requirement and it is retained, as proposed, in § 380.603(c)(2).
4. ELDT Requirements for Driver-Trainees Who Obtain ELDT After the Compliance Date of the Final Rule
The NPRM proposed that, except for driver-trainees seeking the H endorsement, driver-trainees must complete the theory and skills portion of the training within 360 days (§ 383.71(a)(4)).
Comments:
AAMVA requested “clarification on whether satisfactory completion before the 360 day expiration is based on the date of completion of the [theory] portion of the curriculum, the completion of the behind-the-wheel portion of the training, successful completion of the skills test, or the issuance of the CDL.”
FMCSA Response:
The proposed requirement that theory and BTW training be taken within a defined period of time reflects the ELDTAC's concern that, given the integrated nature of the training, waiting too long to complete both portions of the curriculum may diminish the overall value of the training experience. The Agency retains that concept in the final rule. However, for clarity and consistency, we changed the applicable time period from 360 days to one year and moved the provision from part 383 to part 380. Accordingly, under new § 380.603(c)(3), on or after the compliance date of the final rule, individuals who take ELDT related to the Class A or Class B CDL, or the S and/or P endorsement, must complete both portions of the training (theory and BTW) within one year of completing the first portion. As discussed below, today's rule does not require that theory and BTW training be taken in a particular sequence.
5. Impact of the NPRM on ELDT Requirements Imposed by the States
The NPRM proposed minimum training standards for entry-level CMV drivers, minimum qualification requirements for individuals providing theory and/or BTW instruction, and minimum eligibility requirements for training providers.
Comments:
Several comments addressed differences between the NPRM and existing State requirements related to ELDT. The State of Washington Department of Licensing (Washington) commented that its minimum commercial driver training requirements, adopted in 2009, include more required hours for entry-level drivers than the NPRM, and urged FMCSA “to adopt requirements with greater hours that are more comparable to our state's requirements.” The New York Association for Pupil Transportation (NYAPT) commented that “FMCSA should consider ways to grandfather existing State programs that meet or exceed the proposed high training standards to continue in place, particularly within the school bus industry.”
The State of Michigan, Bureau of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Programs, Department of State (Michigan), recommended that the final rule require that theory/classroom training be coordinated with BTW training, adding that “[i]f not required by the rule, States should be allowed to require such coordination.” Michigan also noted that, because “some States do not presently allow the use of online training courses for driver education,” the final rule should not require that States accept online training.
A commenter representing the Driver and Vehicle Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (Minnesota) noted that “Minnesota's licensed CDL behind-the-wheel instructor qualifications refer to hours of experience, by a showing of 3,000 hours within the last five years operating the class of vehicle for which instruction will be provided.” Also discussing the NPRM's requirements for BTW instructors, Virginia requested that “the proposed language be revised to indicate these are minimum requirements so that States have flexibility in requiring additional criteria.”
FMCSA Response:
Today's rule implements MAP-21's mandate that FMCSA establish minimum entry-level training requirements for individuals who operate CMVs in intrastate and interstate commerce for which a specified class of CDL or endorsement is required. The rule amends the current entry-level driver training requirements in 49 CFR part 380, the training section of the CDL regulations. The CDL program does not have preemptive effect. In order to remain eligible to receive certain Federal aid highway funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31314, States must adopt regulations that comply substantially with the requirements of the CDL program. Today's rule generally does not replace or otherwise supersede State-based
ELDT requirements that exceed these minimum Federal standards when an entry-level driver obtains training in that State. The Agency believes that Congress, by expressly requiring that the Secretary establish
minimum
training requirements for entry-level CMV drivers, intended this result.
In order to comply with the requirements of today's rule, entry-level drivers must obtain BTW and/or theory training from a provider listed on the TPR. Under the final rule, the BTW portion of the required training must be completed before the applicant can take the State-administered skills test, except for H endorsement applicants, who must complete the H endorsement theory curriculum before taking the State-administered knowledge test.
The question of which, if any, additional State-based ELDT-related requirements apply to the applicant will be determined by where he or she obtains their BTW and/or theory training for the Class A or Class B CDL and/or the P, S, or H endorsements.
The Agency anticipates that most driver-trainees will obtain ELDT in their State of domicile. Under the final rule, driver-trainees who obtain BTW and/or theory training in their State of domicile are subject to any additional ELDT requirements that State imposes on CDL applicants.
For example, if a State requires that entry-level drivers complete a CDL training program with a prescribed minimum number of BTW hours, a driver-trainee who is domiciled there and obtains BTW training there, must comply with that requirement in order to take the State-administered the skills test. Similarly, driver-trainees who take theory training in their State of domicile would be required to comply with any State-based requirements applicable to theory training. Therefore, if a driver-trainee's State of domicile prohibits online CDL-related theory training, the individual would be required to obtain theory training in a classroom or other “live” setting permitted by the State. In these examples, the applicant's State of domicile is both the training State and the licensing State.
However, the final rule does not prohibit driver-trainees from obtaining training outside their State of domicile, if they so choose. Under § 383.79, which currently permits a non-domicile State to administer CDL skills testing to an applicant who has taken training in that State, but is to be licensed in his or her State of domicile, requires the applicant's licensing State to accept the results of that skills testing. This could occur, for example, if the applicant's prospective employer provided the training in a State other than the applicant's State of domicile. Under today's rule, any ELDT requirements that may exist in the licensing State (
i.e.,
the applicant's State of domicile) would not be applicable to the driver-trainee who obtained skills training outside that State, even if the he or she returns to the licensing State to take the skills test (as permitted under § 383.79). Consequently, an applicant's State of domicile must issue a CDL to him or her, even if the BTW training requirements imposed by the training State do not conform with those in the State of domicile, as long as the applicant obtained the training from a provider listed on the TPR.
Driver-trainees who elect to obtain theory training outside their State of domicile would also be subject to any additional theory training requirements imposed on CDL applicants by the training State. Accordingly, driver-trainees, when selecting a training provider, will need to understand the specific State-based ELDT requirements (if any) where they intend to obtain either type of training. FMCSA notes that the final rule does not require that driver-trainees obtain theory training prior to taking the State-administered knowledge test (except for H endorsement applicants), nor does it require that driver-trainees obtain theory training in the same State where they intend to take the State-administered knowledge test for any CDL license class or endorsement covered by the rule.
The minimum standards in today's rule also apply to ELDT providers and instructors. Training providers must meet and continue to comply with eligibility requirements, set forth in §§ 380.703 and 719 of the final rule, including utilizing qualified theory and BTW instructors. In order to be eligible for listing on the TPR, training providers must also comply with applicable State requirements in each State where in-person training is conducted, and must utilize theory and/or BTW instructors who comply with applicable qualification requirements in each State where in-person training is conducted. The Agency notes that, just as States may impose additional requirements on entry-level drivers who obtain training in their State, the final rule also permits States to impose requirements beyond the training or instructor/provider qualification standards adopted today.
For example, States are free to require that ELDT instructors in their State have more years of experience operating the class of vehicle for which instruction will be provided than the two-year minimum established in the final rule. States would also be free to add ELDT instructor qualifications, such as a required level of vocational or academic education (neither of which is required by today's final rule); or to impose additional bases for disqualification of training instructors. In these situations, training providers must comply with the additional requirements imposed in their respective States in order to meet the TPR eligibility requirement set forth in § 380.703(a)(5)(i).
In today's rule, the only exception to this requirement is for training providers who provide theory training exclusively online. While online content must be prepared and delivered by instructors meeting the qualification requirements of the final rule, the provider is not required to utilize instructors complying with State-based theory instructor qualifications. As explained below in the discussion of the definition of “theory instructor,” online providers cannot reasonably be expected to require that their theory instructors comply with multiple, and potentially conflicting, qualification requirements in any State where the online training might be taken.
As our discussion of these hypothetical examples illustrates, the purpose of this final rule is to establish a floor, not a ceiling, by requiring, at a minimum, that entry-level CMV drivers demonstrate proficiency in the applicable theory and BTW curricula established today. The Agency believes that, to the extent practicable, and consistent with Congressional intent, the final rule allows States the flexibility to impose additional ELDT requirements on driver-trainees who obtain training in their State and on training providers and instructors who deliver training in their State. That said, we are aware that questions concerning the relationship between Federal and State ELDT requirements will inevitably arise, and the Agency will provide additional post-rule guidance to address those issues, as necessary.
6. Application of ELDT Requirements to CMV Drivers Operating in Intrastate and Interstate Commerce
As proposed, ELDT requirements apply to all entry-level drivers operating CMVs in intrastate and interstate commerce, subject to the limited exceptions noted above.
Comments:
The State of South Dakota suggested a less burdensome option requiring training only for drivers who will be operating CMVs in interstate commerce. South Dakota stated the training would be a burden, and in some cases would prevent children from getting to school, citizens from receiving
fuel for heat, grain elevator/co-op businesses from providing services to farmers, and public transit services (especially in rural areas) from finding drivers.
FMCSA Response:
The Agency does not believe that today's rule will unduly burden intrastate commerce. In any event, FMCSA has no legal authority to exclude intrastate CMV drivers from the final rule. As noted in the Legal Basis for the Rulemaking, MAP-21 requires that ELDT regulations, as a CDL-related mandate, apply to prospective CDL holders operating in either intrastate or interstate commerce. Accordingly, the scope of operations covered by the final rule is unchanged from the NPRM.
7. Definition of Training Provider
The NPRM defined “training provider” as “an entity that is listed on the FMCSA TPR, as required by subpart G of this part.” In the preamble, the Agency noted that training providers could be training schools, educational institutions, motor carriers providing “in-house” training to current or prospective employees, local governments, or school districts.
Comments:
The National Motor Freight Traffic Association (NMFTA) acknowledged the preamble's reference to the fact that motor carriers offering in-house training to entry-level drivers could be eligible for listing on the TPR. NMFTA noted, however, that the NPRM did not “expressly acknowledge the right of motor carriers to continue offering training under the new regulatory scheme” and requested that the Agency do so in the final rule. The Associated General Contractors also requested that the rule “be expanded to include a listing of the types of entities that can offer training programs and include in-house providers.”
FMCSA Response:
FMCSA intends that any entity meeting the eligibility requirements established in subpart G of today's rule can be listed on the TPR and thus be qualified to provide ELDT that would satisfy the rule's requirements. In order to clarify our intent, in the final rule, we amend the definition of “training provider” in § 380.605 to specifically identify types of entities that may be eligible for listing on the TPR. The Agency included, as examples, training schools, educational institutions, rural electric cooperatives, motor carriers, State/local governments, school districts, joint labor management programs, owner-operators, and individuals, in this definition. In addition, FMCSA notes that eligible providers may provide training either on a “for-hire” or “not-for-hire” basis. Examples include motor carriers who provide ELDT at no cost to current or prospective employees, independent training schools charging tuition, and individuals who train family or friends (either at no cost or for a fee). We note that this list of entities which could potentially qualify for TPR listing is
not
exclusive. Our purpose in amending the definition of “training provider” in today's rule is to identify specific examples of potentially eligible entities. We emphasize, however, that
any
training provider meeting the eligibility requirements could be qualified to provide ELDT in accordance with the final rule, regardless of whether they fall within a category specifically identified in § 380.605. Additional descriptive information on the various types of training providers covered by the final rule are addressed in the TPR registration instructions accompanying this rule.
8. Definition of “Range”
In the NPRM, FMCSA said a range was “an area that must be free of obstructions, enables the driver to maneuver safely and free from interference from other vehicles and hazards, and has adequate sight lines.”
Comments:
Several commenters asked whether the proposed definition of “range” would permit small and mid-sized entities to conduct BTW range training in their yards. One commenter noted that it is neither practical nor cost effective for smaller trucking companies to set up or rent a practice driving range. OOIDA supported the proposed definition because the flexibility to conduct range training in any suitable location meeting the definitional requirements is “especially critical to small business truckers who would be able to utilize these areas for training.” Vincennes University (VU) noted that the NPRM includes references to both “range” and “driving range” and asked whether the two terms are interchangeable.
FMCSA Response:
In today's rule, FMCSA retains the definition of “range” as proposed in the NPRM. This definition gives training providers the flexibility to conduct BTW range training in
any
area that meets the three basic requirements outlined in the NPRM. Accordingly, this approach does not require that any training provider maintain its own designated range for BTW training. As discussed in the NPRM, the ELDTAC took into account the impact of the rule on smaller training providers by proposing a definition of “range” that does not require any training provider to maintain or rent a private facility or space in which to conduct BTW range training. Under this definition, range training could be conducted in public areas, such as a mall or office building parking lot during “off” hours. It is up to the training provider to ensure that the required elements, such as sufficient space in which to safely maneuver the CMV, are met. However, if a training provider chooses to conduct range training in a publicly accessible area, all CLP requirements apply. Finally, in order to avoid confusion, the Agency deletes the term “driving range” from the regulatory text of the final rule. The relevant term, as defined in § 380.605, is “range.”
9. Can BTW-range and BTW-public road training be obtained from separate training providers?
As proposed, training in the theory and BTW portions of the curricula may be delivered by different training providers, as long as each provider is listed on the TPR. The NPRM was silent on whether the range and public road portions of the Class A and B curricula could be delivered by different providers.
Comments:
An individual commenter asked whether the range and public road portion of the BTW training could be obtained from different training providers. The commenter stated that this approach would be helpful to “some BTW providers who will struggle to secure a range that meets FMCSA requirements, but could easily deliver the public road portion of the training.”
FMCSA Response:
While today's rule does permit BTW (range and public road) and theory training to be obtained from separate training providers, FMCSA believes it is necessary that driver-trainees receive both the range and public road portions of BTW training from the same provider. FMCSA clarifies this requirement in the final rule. The reason is that meaningful instruction in the range and public road portions of BTW training requires that the provider be able to assess the driver-trainee's skill proficiency in the two settings and to adjust the amount of time or emphasis spent on the range or public road maneuvers accordingly. This integrated approach to BTW instruction permits the training provider to obtain a complete picture of the individual driver-trainee's abilities when operating CMVs for which a Class A or Class B CDL is required.
Further, in the case of BTW training for the S and P endorsements, the range and public road portions are not set out separately as they are for the Class A and B CDL core curricula. Instead, they are combined into a single BTW (range and public road) curriculum, effectively
requiring that the BTW training be obtained from one provider.
Finally, as noted above in the discussion of the definition of “range,” training providers are not required to maintain or rent a private range in order to conduct BTW training. Publicly accessible areas can be used for this purpose, as long as the area affords sufficient space in which the required range maneuvers can be performed safely and other basic requirements are met.
10. Small Training Entities
The NPRM proposed that training providers who train, or expect to train, three or fewer entry-level drivers per year be exempt from two requirements applicable to all other providers. First, in order to qualify as a theory instructor, small training entities would not be required to have previously audited or instructed that portion of the theory curriculum they intend to instruct. Second, small entities would not be required to provide written training materials for any of the curricula. The purpose of these exemptions was to lessen the administrative burden on small training entities.
Comments:
The Delaware DMV commented that exemptions for small training entities should be removed, noting that “[t]he size of the provider should not be taken into account if the goal is to sanction a consistent [training program] for all entry level commercial motor vehicle operators.” Another commenter objected to the exemption related to written training materials, stating that “all driver-trainees should be treated the same.” The Delaware DMV pointed out that, for many providers, the number of entry-level drivers trained in the course of a year fluctuates and may be difficult to predict. Since small training entities would have to identify their status on the Training Provider Identification Report form, the commenter noted that it would be cumbersome for providers to amend the form every time they fell above or below the three driver limit.
IUOE observed that “[s]ince written materials are integral components of high quality training, this exemption from providing written materials to trainees is contrary to the goals of this rulemaking.” IUOE also noted that the use of written training materials “is an obvious prerequisite to taking a test in a written or electronic format to demonstrate mastery of the information.”
FMCSA Response:
After consideration of comments, FMCSA concludes that the two small training entity exemptions proposed in the NPRM, as described above, are inconsistent with a uniform Federal minimum ELDT standard. The Agency agrees with commenters who questioned the benefit and efficacy of these relatively minor distinctions between small training entities and other training providers. We therefore remove the exemptions from the final rule. Accordingly, all training providers subject to this rule, regardless of size, must meet the same eligibility criteria and other requirements established in subpart G.
The Agency does not anticipate that removal of the two exemptions will result in undue hardship on small training entities. For example, the AAMVA CDL manual or other existing training materials could be used to satisfy the requirement that written training materials be provided. We also note that, because the rule permits driver-trainees to obtain theory and BTW instruction from separate training providers, small entities can opt not to offer theory instruction if they so choose.
Further, as discussed below in the Explanation of Changes from the NPRM, FMCSA deletes from the definition of “theory instructor” in the final rule the proposed alternate theory instructor qualification requiring that instructors must have previously audited or instructed that portion of the theory curriculum they intend to instruct. Accordingly, the proposed small entity exemption to that requirement is also deleted.
Finally, FMCSA notes that the NPRM requested comments regarding any specific changes to the proposal that would lessen its regulatory impact on small business entities. The Agency did not receive any comments in response to that request.
11. Required Minimum Number of BTW Hours
FMCSA proposed a minimum number of required BTW hours for the range and public road portions of the Class A and Class B CDL curricula: Class A CDL driver-trainees would be required to receive a minimum of 30 hours of BTW training, with a minimum of 10 hours spent on a range, and either 10 hours spent driving on a public road or 10 public road trips (each no less than 50 minutes in duration). The remaining 10 hours of required BTW training could occur on either the range, public road, or some combination of the two, depending on the instructor's assessment of the individual driver-trainee's needs. Additionally, the NPRM proposed that all required driving maneuvers must be performed to the satisfaction of the instructor. In the NPRM, the definitions of “BTW range training” and “BTW public road training” each included a requirement that the training occur when a “driver-trainee has actual control of the power unit during a driving lesson” conducted on a range or public road.
As proposed, Class B CDL trainees would receive a minimum of 15 hours of BTW (range and public road) training, with a minimum of seven hours of public road driving. Again, the instructor would determine how the remaining eight hours are spent, as long as all the BTW elements of the range curriculum are covered.
FMCSA did not propose a minimum number of BTW hours for either the P or the S endorsement curricula.
The Agency requested comment on various aspects of this approach, including whether there should be a required minimum number of BTW hours for the Class A and Class B curricula and, if so, what the minimum number of BTW hours should be. In addition, we requested comment on whether any minimum number of BTW hours should be required for the P and S endorsements. The Agency also asked what alternatives to a required minimum number of BTW hours, such as a requirement expressed in terms of outcomes rather than specifying the means to those ends, would be appropriate to ensure an adequate level of BTW training for Classes A and B.
Comments in support of minimum BTW hours:
The Agency received numerous comments in response to its questions. Some commenters thought that the number of proposed minimum BTW hours was too low. Jeff Frank, a CMV driver training instructor, commented that “[t]he proposed 15 hours for Class B and 30 hours for Class A of behind the wheel time fall short of a quality standard.” Mr. Frank stated that “doubling the proposed hours would improve skill sets in most beginners.” The American Association for Justice believes that “[w]hen considering the average amount of time a CMV driver can do within a week, it is clear that these requirements are inadequate.” Washington commented that the NPRM “does not include enough required hours for an entry-level driver” and encouraged FMCSA to increase the number of required BTW hours. The Utah Department of Public Safety (Utah) stated that “a lengthier requirement for BTW training seems more appropriate.” The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) proposed that “30 hours is the minimum that should be required, regardless of class of license (A or B).” IUOE commented that the proposed
minimum BTW hours is below the level of BTW training currently required by “the more prominent providers and certifiers,” as well as a number of States.
OOIDA commented that it “would like to see significantly more robust training requirements than currently proposed; however the required 30 hours BTW training is a necessary first step.” Similarly, although Delaware Technical Community College (DTCC) is “satisfied with the consensus reached by the ELDTAC for 30 hours of BTW time for Class A,” it supports a “stronger BTW requirement.” Specifically, DTCC proposed increasing the BTW hours for Class B from 15, as proposed, to 20, with a minimum of 10 hours of public road driving. The Delaware Motor Transport Association (DMTA) also supported increasing the minimum number of BTW hours for the Class B CDL from 15 to 20.
Other commenters, including the American Bus Association (ABA), United Motorcoach Association (UMA), Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety (Advocates), San Juan College, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), VU, VA DMV, and the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), supported the minimum number of required BTW hours for Class A and/or Class B as proposed. NASDPTS commented that “[t]he [Class B] proposal is consistent with best practices and the high regard for safety exhibited within the nation's student transportation community.” Advocates, a member of the ELDTAC, characterized the required minimum number of BTW hours as “a common sense and essential component of the performance-based standard adopted by the ELDTAC.” Advocates also noted that this approach “reflects the consensus determination of the ELDTAC about the lowest level of BTW training that is necessary under the training curriculum.” The ABA, also a member of the ELDTAC, commented that the BTW hours issue was discussed extensively during the Committee's deliberations and that “[t]he minimum was based on the experience of current training providers' ability to deliver a basic program and ensure that all of the material was covered.”
The State of Michigan supported a required minimum number of BTW hours from which driver-trainees should not be permitted to “opt out,” but had no position on what the number of hours should be. The Iowa DOT also supported the “concept of minimum hours of BTW training,” but said that driver-trainees demonstrating proficiency should be able to “opt out” of the requirement. Minnesota commented that “[r]equired minimum hours is needed,” but questioned how compliance with an hours requirement would be documented. Schneider National (Schneider) agreed with FMCSA's proposal of 30 BTW hours for a Class A license, but recommended that hours spent on a public road specifically include practicing entry and exit of the interstate.
5
IUOE supported “mandatory use of a `Master Trip Sheet,' combined with a minimum number of BTW training [hours], as the most effective means to ensure that training providers furnish high quality training and that they thoroughly assess the skills of the trainees.” Minnesota commented that “[i]f minimum hours are not specified, then the potential for fraud within the training programs will be a concern.”
5
FMCSA added this topic to the Theory and BTW (public road) portions of the Class A and B core curricula.
See,
Appendix A and B to Part 380.
Several commenters supported adding a required number of minimum BTW hours to the P and S curricula. AAMVA recommended that FMCSA analyze the minimum number of hours required to complete the curricula “and use that number to set the baseline for the BTW requirement for the S and P endorsements . . .” The Iowa DOT supported a “limited amount of BTW training” for the S and P endorsements. San Juan College stated that “[e]ntry-level Class C bus drivers should not be able to obtain a CDL without BTW hours that are required of other initial CDL applicants.”
Comments opposed to minimum BTW hours:
A number of commenters opposed any minimum number of required BTW hours. Those opposing an hours-based requirement included ATA, the Iowa Motor Truck Association (IMTA), American Truck Dealers (ATD), Driver Holdings LLC, Werner, C.R. England, Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA), Virginia Trucking Association (VTA), SNAC International, the National Propane Gas Association (NPGA), UPS, the North Dakota Motor Carriers Association (NDMCA), and the National Feed and Grain Association (NFGA). Most of those opposing the requirement alleged that the minimum BTW hours requirement is arbitrary, given the lack of any scientific evidence or data showing that an hours-based training requirement results in fewer crashes. Some commenters also cited the lack of flexibility inherent in a minimum hours requirement. Many of these commenters instead supported an “alternative” approach in which a driver-trainee's successful completion of the Class A and B BTW curricula is determined solely by his or her demonstrated proficiency (discussed below). National Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT) commented that “[s]etting arbitrary, one-size-fits-all hours of training as a standard would be overly restrictive in a world where actual performance should matter more.” VTA asserted that the minimum BTW hours requirement “will require additional equipment and trainers which will increase costs for training providers, who will have to pass those costs onto students.” Other commenters, including PMAA, ATD and NFGA, were concerned that the BTW hours requirement would discourage entry-level drivers from obtaining a CDL. NFGA also noted that the requirement could “dissuade employers from providing opportunities for CDL training.”
ATA, a member of the ELDTAC, viewed the proposed BTW hours requirement as unnecessary and not supported by any research indicating “a relationship between the number of hours spent in training and a reduction in crashes.” Noting that “what little data is available does not support a minimum hours-based approach,” ATA cited the American Transportation Research Institute's (ATRI) 2008 analysis of the effect of CDL driver training on safety performance. According to ATA, the ATRI study concluded that “no relationship is evident between total training program contact hours and driver safety events when other factors such as age and length of employment are held constant.”
In its comments, C.R. England summarized a study it conducted among 2,929 of its drivers “to test whether an hours-based program that requires 30 BTW hours or more, results in better performance than a performance-based program that requires fewer than 30 BTW hours.” In analyzing this data, C.R. England found, among other things, that “drivers from the shorter programs have fewer crashes and less severe crashes,” thus showing “a negative correlation between increased required hours and negative safety outcomes.” C.R. England therefore recommended that, “[g]iven the gaping lack of evidence to support the BTW requirement and the arbitrary selection of the number of required hours,” FMCSA drop the requirement from the final rule.
ATA and other commenters also stated that the BTW hours requirement contravenes Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, both of which express a preference for establishing performance
objectives rather than requiring regulated entities to adopt specific means of compliance. ATA asserted that, during the ELDTAC negotiations, “it became clear that several parties would refuse to yield to the majority of members who preferred a performance-based standard to be instituted at least until such time as actual data from real-world experience demonstrates the need for a minimum hours requirement.”
Two commenters opposed a minimum BTW hours requirement for the P and S endorsements. NASDPTS commented that “[g]iven the unparalleled high level of safety already provided by school bus transportation, we do not see any safety need or justification for further extending the specific BTW hours requirement to include the passenger and school bus curricula . . .” San Juan College stated that for P and S endorsement applicants taking their State-administered skills test in a bus, “no additional BTW should be required.”
Comments regarding alternatives to a minimum hours requirement:
Most commenters who proposed alternatives to a required minimum number of BTW hours identified a competency or proficiency-based approach as a preferable means of ensuring an adequate level of BTW training for the Class A and B curricula. For example, the West Virginia Trucking Association (WVTA) commented that “[m]any prospective drivers may demonstrate complete proficiency and competence behind-the-wheel before reaching the minimum hours requirement, while the possibility exists that by achieving this hour threshold, a prospective driver may erroneously convey competency and possession of the skills needed to safely operate a commercial vehicle.” WVTA concluded that the final rule should “focus on competency and performance outcomes rather than the number of hours logged.” UPS commented that “specific hours and curricular requirements are no substitute for performance-based skills testing,” also noting that experienced drivers “will not benefit from some portion of a mandatory training regime targeted at less-experienced drivers.” The Iowa DOT commented that “[a]n appropriate alternative would be establishing a method of allowing a driver to `pass out' of the BTW requirement.”
Several commenters, including ATA, Werner and C.R. England, favored the use of a “Master Trip Sheet” to document the repeated successful demonstration of required skills as an alternative to the BTW hours requirement. Commenters identified a Master Trip Sheet as a document used to record a driver-trainee's successful, repetitive demonstration of required maneuvers. ATA commented that the Master Trip Sheet “represents a clear performance objective—the demonstration of competence—. . . preferable to an arbitrarily assigned number of hours.”
Additionally, ATA stated that FMCSA, by failing to quantify or qualify the Master Trip Sheet alternative to the minimum BTW hours requirement adopted by the ELDTAC, did not comply with the requirements of OMB Circular A-4. According to ATA, had the Agency followed the directives of Circular A-4 and conducted a detailed analysis on the Master Trip Sheet solution offered by ELDTAC members, “a performance-based BTW requirement would have prevailed because, as demonstrated by ELDTAC, it is feasible, and produces a more favorable cost benefit analysis.”
IUOE also supported the mandatory use of a Master Trip Sheet, but stressed that it should be combined with a minimum BTW hours requirement, which would be “the most effective means to ensure that training providers furnish high quality training and that they thoroughly assess the skills of the trainees.”
On the other hand, NASDPTS stated it is “unaware of any practical, measurable and universally acceptable means of employing an outcomes-based approach in lieu of a required number of BTW hours.” Minnesota stated that if “performance standards” are adopted in lieu of a minimum BTW hours requirement, “[t]his would defeat the purpose of requiring comprehensive entry-level driver training and will add another skewing variable to the purposed baseline of measuring the effectiveness of training in reducing crashes by tracking it through CDLIS.” CVTA thought FMCSA's question regarding possible alternatives to a minimum BTW hours requirement was misleading, “as the FMCSA seems to suggest that a performance or outcomes approach has not been selected. Clearly it has.”
FMCSA Response:
For the reasons discussed below, this final rule does not require any minimum number of BTW hours for the completion of the Class A and B curricula, as proposed in the NPRM. In today's final rule, the proficient completion of the BTW portions of the Class A and B curricula is based solely on the training instructor's assessment of each driver-trainee's individual performance of the required BTW elements of the range and public road training. The final rule retains the definitions of “BTW range training” and “BTW public road training,” as proposed, so that successful completion of the training requires that, unless otherwise noted, all elements of the BTW curricula be proficiently demonstrated while the driver-trainee has actual control of the power unit during a driving lesson on a range or public road. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does not require a minimum number of BTW hours for either the P or S endorsement curriculum.
FMCSA carefully considered all comments submitted in response to the questions noted above. Clearly, as evidenced by the volume and breadth of comments received on the proposed BTW hours requirement, this issue is significant for a variety of stakeholders affected by today's rule. And, as we noted in the NPRM, “the issue of a `performance-based' approach to BTW training versus an approach requiring that a minimum number of hours be spent in BTW training was the most thoroughly debated issue within the ELDTAC” (81 FR 11944, 11956 (March 7, 2016)). The Agency's conclusion that the final rule should not, at this time, impose a mandatory minimum number of BTW hours for the Class A and Class B training, is primarily due to the fact that, despite the best efforts of FMCSA and the ELDTAC, we were not able to obtain sufficient quantitative data linking mandatory minimum BTW training hours with positive safety outcomes, such as crash reduction, following publication of the NPRM.
Consistent with the Agency's objective to produce data-driven regulations that balance motor carrier safety with efficiency, FMCSA has long recognized the value of quantitative correlative evidence supporting ELDT. For example, in withdrawing the 2007 NPRM to establish minimum training requirements for entry-level CMV operators, which proposed a required minimum number of BTW hours, FMCSA noted the need “to gather supporting information on the effectiveness of ELDT” (78 FR 57585, 57587 (September 19, 2013)). Indeed, at the ELDTAC's initial meeting on February 26, 2015, the Agency presented on the topic of data gathering and economic analysis as a rule development priority, and a Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work Group was established within the ELDTAC.
6
In the March 2016 NPRM,
FMCSA again requested “any additional data on the safety benefits of requiring EDLT . . . (
e.g.,
demonstrated crash reduction as a result of training)” (81 FR 11944, 11953 (March 7, 2016)). Unfortunately, the Agency did not receive any data that could be used in a quantitative analysis to support the rulemaking.
7
6
ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, February 26-27, 2015. For more information concerning the Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work Group's efforts to compile data related to the efficacy of entry-level
driver training, see the Work Group's meeting minutes posted on the ELDTAC's Web site, at
eldtac.dot.gov
.
7
FMCSA specifically addresses the ATRI and C.R. England studies, referenced in comments, in the RIA. For the reasons discussed therein, the Agency does not rely on either of those studies to draw conclusions regarding the correlation between training hours and safety outcomes. Further, we note that the ATRI conclusions on which ATA and other commenters rely are described by ATRI as “preliminary results.” ATRI concludes its analysis with the observation that its findings “indicate the need for further research on driver training and driver safety, beginning with additional data collection and analysis as part of the present study.”
As several commenters who opposed the minimum hours requirement noted, Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires that Federal agencies propose or adopt regulations that “to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt”.
8
In light of this Executive Order, and bearing in mind the Agency's obligation to identify and use “the least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends,”
9
FMCSA has determined not impose a mandatory minimum BTW hours requirement in today's rule. In the Agency's judgment, a training standard in which BTW proficiency is achieved according to the instructor's assessment of individual performance of required range and public road maneuvers is a more flexible, and thus less burdensome, option than mandatory minimum hours because it recognizes that driver-trainees will complete BTW training at a pace that reflects their varying levels of individual ability. FMCSA emphasizes, however, that instructors must cover all elements of the curricula and document the driver-trainee's demonstration of proficiency in the required BTW skills, as proposed.
8
Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(8) (October 4, 1993); Executive Order 13563, section 1(b)(4) (January 21, 2011).
9
Executive Order 13563, section 1(a).
In order to fulfill the statutory mandate set forth in MAP-21, the Agency established the ELDTAC and, as required under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, relied on the Committee's consensus findings to the maximum extent possible as the basis for the NPRM. In the hope that the final rule development process would yield reliable data to support mandatory minimum BTW hours, FMCSA, as a member of the ELDTAC, supported the requirement in combination with an outcomes-based approach, as reflected in the Committee's Consensus Agreement.
FMCSA believes it was appropriate to propose minimum BTW hours for the Class A and B curricula, based on the ELDTAC's estimation of the time an average driver-trainee would need to demonstrate BTW proficiency. However, as some commenters noted, that approach could potentially result in the unintended consequence of effectively penalizing high-performing trainees who may be capable of achieving BTW proficiency in less time than the proposed required minimum. Based on the ELDTAC discussions, the Agency does not believe the proportion of high-performing trainees capable of completing the BTW curricula in significantly less time than the proposed minimums represents a substantial percentage of entry-level drivers. However, it is important to avoid, if possible, imposing unnecessary training costs on that population.
FMCSA acknowledges the numerous comments supporting minimum BTW hours as a “common sense” and intuitively effective means of ensuring that entry-level drivers receive adequate training to safely operate CMVs. As noted below, the Agency will continue to evaluate the impact of minimum BTW hours on CMV safety. Because the final rule does not include a minimum hours requirement as proposed, many of the comments that raised concerns regarding that approach are now moot. Accordingly, FMCSA does not specifically respond to comments suggesting that the requirement would discourage prospective applicants from obtaining a CDL, dissuade motor carrier employers from providing ELDT, or require training providers to obtain additional equipment.
The Agency's adoption of a proficiency-based BTW training standard in lieu of minimum hours notwithstanding, FMCSA believes that the ELDTAC process was highly constructive, and we greatly appreciate the time, effort and expertise put forth by ELDTAC members. The Committee's collective expertise allowed us to propose detailed minimum ELDT curricula and training instructor qualifications, which are largely retained in the final rule.
Our decision not to include the minimum BTW hours as part of the Class A and B curricula should not necessarily be construed as the Agency's last word on this subject. In order to gather data which will allow FMCSA to perform a thorough post-rule evaluation, we require in today's rule that all individual training certifications submitted to the TPR by training providers include the total number of BTW hours spent by each driver-trainee in achieving proficiency, as determined by the training instructor. Collecting this information will allow the Agency to compare the CMV driving records of drivers who received varying amounts of BTW training, and to draw conclusions regarding the extent to which hours of BTW training correlate to safer driving outcomes. This data will also assist in the Agency's oversight of training providers.
The Agency will thus continue to assess whether minimum BTW hours requirements are necessary to improve CMV safety, and, if so, at what levels. Should FMCSA ultimately decide, on the basis of post-rule quantitative data, to revisit the issue of mandatory minimum BTW hours for entry-level driver training, we will do so through notice-and-comment rulemaking. We note, however, that today's rule does not prohibit States or training providers from requiring a minimum number of BTW hours, as many CMV driver training programs currently do.
While the final rule does not impose mandatory minimum BTW hours, FMCSA nevertheless expects that, based on the extensive experience of CMV driver training organizations represented on the ELDTAC,
10
most
driver-trainees will still spend approximately 30 and 15 hours BTW demonstrating proficiency in the required Class A and Class B curricula elements, respectively. The 30 BTW hours for Class A and the 15 BTW hours for Class B are based on the ELDTAC's informed estimation of the minimum amount of time the average driver-trainee would need to repetitively and proficiently demonstrate all of the required BTW skills set forth in the curricula. As described by the ABA, a member of the ELDTAC, in its comments, “[t]he minimum [required BTW hours] was based on the experience of current training providers' ability to deliver a basic program and ensure that all of the material was covered.” Similarly, Advocates, also a member of the ELDTAC, commented that the minimum BTW hours requirement “reflects the consensus determination of the ELDTAC about the lowest level of BTW training that is necessary under the training curriculum . . .” Accordingly, the Agency is retaining 30- and 15-hours for the Class A and B curricula, respectively, as the basis for estimating the costs of the final rule, as discussed in the RIA.
10
Members of the ELDTAC included a variety of CMV driver training experts, including the Professional Truck Drivers Institute (PTDI), a non-profit organization that develops uniform skill performance, curriculum and performance standards for the trucking industry; the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools (NAPFTDS), a non-profit organization whose membership includes more than 100 publicly funded schools that operate truck driver training programs; and the Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), a national trade association representing the proprietary truck driving schools in the U.S. and Canada, with member school locations in 41 states graduating approximately 50,000 entry-level drivers per year. In addition to FMCSA, the remaining members of the ELDTAC are: FMCSA, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, American Bus Association, Paraprofessional and School-Related Personnel, American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO), Amalgamated Transit Union (AFL-CIO), American Trucking Associations, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, Commercial Vehicle Training Association, Great West Casualty Company, Greyhound Lines, Inc., International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle Division, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools, National Association of Small Trucking Companies, National Association of State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, National School Transportation Association, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Professional Truck Drivers Institute, Stevens Transport, Spoon Trucking, Truckload Carriers Association, Truck Safety Coalition, United Motorcoach Association, and Women in Trucking.
In the Agency's judgment, the extensive CMV driver training expertise represented on the ELDTAC is a credible basis for FMCSA's assessment of the cost of compliance with the BTW portions of the Class A and Class B curricula. FMCSA expects, however, that some trainees will demonstrate BTW proficiency in less than 30 or 15 hours and that others will require more time to achieve a proficient level of performance of the required BTW elements of those curricula. Accordingly, actual costs of compliance for these trainees will be lower or higher than the costs estimated in the RIA, but the Agency currently has no data on which to determine variations in cost for trainees who achieve BTW proficiency in either less time or more time than the average student.
Under today's rule, BTW proficiency is determined solely by the instructor's evaluation of how well the driver-trainee performs the fundamental vehicle control skills and driving procedures set forth in the curricula. In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies this point in the introduction to the Class A and B curricula. As a number of commenters observed, a proficiency-based standard based entirely on individual skill levels and learning abilities, rather than a mandatory minimum number of hours spent on either a range or public road, will permit skilled trainees to demonstrate proficiency more efficiently than adherence to a minimum training time. Accordingly, since the final rule does not require minimum BTW hours, there is no need to permit highly proficient trainees to “opt out” of that requirement, as several commenters requested.
Instructors will also determine how much or how little training is required for individual skills, as proposed in the NPRM. The final rule, therefore, emphasizes the individual trainee's attainment of performance goals as set forth in the curricula and evaluated by the instructor. As IOUE noted in its comments, since there is no requirement that training providers devote a specified amount of time to individual curriculum topics in the core BTW curricula, training programs will have “the latitude to emphasize topics that present the greatest safety challenges” in the operation of CMVs in various segments of the motor carrier industry.
Although today's rule adopts a minimum set of driving skills in which proficiency must be demonstrated, the Agency does not define “proficiency”. The instructor, based on his/her professional judgment, must decide at what point the driver-trainee demonstrates the proficient performance of required skills and the instructor will determine the amount of time each driver-trainee needs to spend on the range and public road portions of the curricula. However, FMCSA believes that demonstrated proficiency requires some level of successful repetition of the required BTW curricula elements, as determined by the instructor. In other words, performing each required maneuver correctly one time does not mean that the trainee has demonstrated proficiency. In the Agency's view, a “one and done” approach is essentially the equivalent of the CDL skills tests. MAP-21 requires that FMCSA establish ELDT requirements addressing the knowledge and skills necessary for the safe operation of a CMV (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)). Since the CDL skills testing protocols in part 383 were in place years before Congress enacted the ELDT requirements in MAP-21, we conclude that Congress intended that the BTW training requirements be more extensive than a simple one-time demonstration of skills. In addition, as noted above, the ELDTAC's estimation of the 30 and 15 hours to successfully complete the BTW elements of the Class A and B curricula assumed some level of repetition of required skills.
11
11
ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015, p. 17.
Further, the Agency notes that a number of commenters opposed to the BTW minimum hours requirement proposed a “Master Trip Sheet” as a preferable alternative. Trip sheets are a means to document the repeated successful demonstration of required skills. The Master Trip Sheet specifically considered by the ELDTAC, and endorsed by ATA
12
and other commenters, contained the individual BTW Class A curriculum elements; it also included space for the instructor to note that the driver-trainee correctly performed each BTW element, a total of five times, in order to demonstrate proficiency. (The ELDTAC assumed fewer repetitions would be necessary to demonstrate proficiency in Class B BTW skills).
13
The use of that Master Trip Sheet as a means of documenting proficiency therefore assumes that effective BTW training involves some degree of repetition, or practice, of the required skills. (The use of a Master Trip Sheet as a tool for documenting driver-trainees' proficiency under today's rule is discussed further below.)
12
See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for FMCSA's response to ATA's assertion that, had the Agency conducted a detailed analysis of the ELDTAC Master Trip Sheet alternative, in accordance with the directives of OMB Circular A-4 “a performance-based BTW requirement would have prevailed” over the minimum hours requirement because it would have produced a more favorable cost benefit analysis.
13
ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015. p. 17.
Additionally, individual commenters also endorsed the value of the repeated demonstration of required skills. For example, Werner Enterprises noted that “[a] requirement expressed in terms of consistent demonstration of applicable skills is more appropriate [than minimum BTW hours] and would serve as a better predictor of increased safety outcomes.” Similarly, TCA stated that “[t]ruck driving is a skill . . . through which repetition and practice will almost certainly increase a driver's awareness and performance when operating equipment on our highways.”
In the Agency's judgment, safe CMV driving, like many other skills, requires some level of repetition and practice. Repetition of required skills also increases the likelihood that driver-trainees will have the opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency under a wider array of road and weather conditions than a “one time” demonstration, particularly with regard to public road training. For example, the proficient entry and exit of an interstate
or other controlled access highway could potentially be demonstrated in both wet and dry weather, which would provide the instructor with a more complete picture of the trainee's ability to successfully navigate real-world situations. The importance of training under conditions trainees will face as CMV drivers was noted in a December 2015 survey of long-haul truckers, conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The NIOSH survey found that 38 percent of the respondents believed they did not receive adequate entry-level driver training to “safely drive a truck
under all road and weather conditions”
(emphasis added).
14
However, under the final rule, training instructors maintain the flexibility to determine the extent to which the successful repetitive performance of required skills demonstrates proficiency for individual driver-trainees on a case-by-case basis.
14
G.X. Chen, et al.,
Accident Analysis and Prevention,
NIOSH national survey of long-haul truck drivers: Injury and safety (2015), available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.001
(accessed October 20, 2016).
As proposed in the NPRM, instructors also maintain flexibility to select the specific means or method by which a driver-trainee's proficient performance of required BTW skills is recorded in order to comply with the documentation requirements in § 380.715(b). As noted above, instructors will also need to capture the total number of hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing BTW training, so that this information can be included in the training certifications submitted to the TPR, as required in § 380.717. Nothing in today's rule prohibits the use of Master Trip Sheets to document either the driver-trainee's proficient demonstration of BTW skills or the total number of hours spent in completing the BTW curriculum, as required in § 380.715(b).
The NPRM did not propose a minimum hours requirement for BTW training in either the P or the S endorsement curricula, and, for the reasons discussed above, the final rule does not include such requirements. However, the final rule does require that training providers who certify, through the TPR, the successful completion of the P and/or S BTW (range and public road) curricula, must indicate the total number hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing the BTW curriculum. FMCSA will use this information to assist us in a post-rule evaluation of whether, and to what extent, varying amounts of BTW training impact the safe operation of passenger-carrying CMVs and school busses.
12. Minimum Number of Theory Hours
The NPRM set forth minimum theory curricula requirements for the Class A and Class B CDLs and the P, S, and H endorsements. As proposed, the training provider must cover all curriculum topics and assess driver-trainees' understanding of the material in a written or electronic format. Driver-trainees must receive a minimum score of 80 percent on the theory assessment. FMCSA did not propose a minimum number of required hours for any of the theory curricula.
Comments:
The VA DMV recommended a minimum number of hours for theory instruction in order to provide consistency across training programs. VA DMV also noted that “not having a minimum period assigned to the theory training will make it difficult for FMCSA or SDLA auditors to ensure the necessary training is provided.”
FMCSA Response:
Today's final rule does not impose any minimum number of required hours for completion of any of the theory curricula. The Agency believes that the final rule ensures an appropriate minimum standard for entry-level driver theory instruction by prescribing specific topics for each of the five theory curriculum, requiring the training provider to cover all topics, and requiring that driver-trainees demonstrate their understanding of the material by achieving on overall minimum score of 80 percent on the theory assessment. Each of these requirements is verifiable through an audit by FMCSA or its authorized representative.
Further, this approach retains flexibility for training providers and driver-trainees to cover the required topics at a pace that is comfortable for them. FMCSA also notes that, as with the other requirements established in the final rule, the individual topics of the theory curricula represent the minimum amount of knowledge necessary for ELDT. Today's rule permits States and individual training providers to require that driver-trainees complete additional theory topics.
13. Clock vs. Academic Hours
In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed allowing training providers flexibility by using either clock-hours or academic hours (
i.e.,
50 minutes) depending on the type of entity that offers the training (
e.g.
motor carriers vs. community college). FMCSA requested comment on this proposal and asked whether there is a discernable difference between the two concepts.
Comments:
The NSTA commented that, since there is a need for set-up and administrative time prior to actual training, “the concept of academic hours is appropriate for all training providers,” regardless of type. CVTA stated that, while “training providers should be allowed to use whichever unit is best for their program,” the ELDTAC Consensus Agreement “clearly indicated that BTW should be measured in 50 minute hours.” Accordingly, CVTA believes that in the final rule, BTW time should be based on academic hours, which is “the predominant measurement of schools and training providers.”
Other commenters, including NAPT, ABA, Schneider, and the VA DMV, supported the NPRM's approach of allowing training providers to decide whether they would use clock or academic hours because the flexibility would accommodate the specific training being delivered. These commenters generally did not perceive a discernible difference between the two concepts.
The DMTA thought there was an obvious difference between the two concepts, but did not object to the use of academic hours “so long as an equivalency is maintained so that the actual time spent at activities is equal to the clock hours required by FMCSA.” Utah commented that if the Agency “is going to allow the usage of credit hours, FMCSA needs to define how many practical hours should be considered a credit hour.”
An individual commenter noted that for every six academic hours, “you have lost one hour of clock hour training time.” Other commenters said that if academic hours are allowed, then the total hours should be increased to match the clock hours. The Delaware Department of Education (DDE) commented that, while trainers understand what an hour on the clock means, many would not know how to interpret an academic hour. Michigan commented that, in its experience, truck schools misuse terms such as “academic hours” and “credit hours” to “grossly” misrepresent actual training time. DTCC and NGWA also recommended that clock hours should be used as the standard training unit.
FMCSA Response:
In today's final rule, the Agency uses the term “clock hours” (
i.e.,
60 minutes) as the standard measurement of BTW training time. We note that the resolution of this issue remains relevant. Although the final rule does not mandate minimum BTW hours, training providers must document and report the actual number of hours that each driver-trainee spends
in completing BTW training (under §§ 380.715 and 380.717, as revised).
Based on the commentary, FMCSA is concerned that exclusive use of the term “academic hour,” or permitting either term to be used at the training provider's discretion, would cause confusion and inconsistency in the documentation of BTW delivery, even if FMCSA attempted to convert “academic hours” to “clock hours,” or vice-versa, as some commenters suggested. FMCSA therefore believes that “clock hour” is a term that is easily understood by all training entities and consistent with a uniform minimum standard
14. Duplication Between CLP Knowledge Test and Theory Training
FMCSA requested comment on whether there is duplication between ELDT theory training and the CLP exam and, if so, whether such duplication should be minimized or eliminated.
Comments:
FMCSA received a number of comments in response to this question. Most commenters, including OOIDA, Schneider, DTCC, NYAPT, Delaware Motor Transport Association, DDE, and Werner, asserted that, to the extent duplication exists, it serves to reinforce key concepts and should not be eliminated. Werner noted, however, that “[a]ny duplication that does not have a demonstrable benefit to the driver-trainee or the general public should be minimized to the extent practical.” The VA DMV commented that “[r]eceiving the information in multiple mediums will assist in reinforcing the information with drivers and lead to better retention of the information.”
Michigan believes that, while the CLP exam and ELDT theory training cover the same subject matter, each serves a distinct purpose. “The CLP exam measures for minimum competency for the purposes of allowing a driver to begin training. The theory training should build on that minimum competency and improve the entry-level driver's skills . . .” CVTA also noted that, while the CLP exam and theory training address many of the same topics, “. . . the theory portion should not be eliminated or minimized because it teaches many additional subjects, in greater depth than are covered on the Commercial Learner's Permit exam.”
NRECA did not find any duplication between theory training and the CLP exam. On the other hand, Driver Holdings LLC believed there is duplication and requested that it “be eliminated from the ELDT theory training.” Several individual CMV driving trainers also requested that duplication be minimized or eliminated. Farris Brothers, Inc. commented that, if driver-trainees complete ELDT theory training, a CLP should then be issued. Utah, noting that “applicants who are completing the minimum training will have already completed the knowledge exam,” asked whether driver-trainees' knowledge should, in effect, be tested twice, or would it be better to “test the application of that knowledge through various skills tests.” The Iowa DOT commented that “[i]t would be reasonable through training to eliminate the need for knowledge tests at the SDLA . . . while allowing the SDLA to test randomly or when evidence exists to warrant a re-test.”
FMCSA Response:
FMCSA agrees with commenters who suggest that, to the extent duplication between the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory training exists, it should not be minimized or eliminated because some degree of repetition benefits driver-trainees by reinforcing the core concepts of safe CMV driving. Therefore, as proposed, all of the curricula in today's rule retain a theory training component.
As several commenters noted, the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory training serve separate and distinct functions in CMV driver education. Theory training, as set forth in today's rule, is designed to provide driver-trainees with substantive understanding of the operating characteristics of the vehicles they intend to operate, safe driving practices, and the legal and medical requirements related to CMV driving. The CLP knowledge test is designed to assess whether CDL applicants have sufficient knowledge of basic concepts related to the safe operation of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two approaches each represent important and distinct elements of CMV driver education.
15. Core Curricula—Class A and Class B CDLs
FMCSA proposed a Class A and B CDL core curriculum. The Class A curriculum addressed the knowledge and skills necessary to safely operate combination vehicles (Group A), while the Class B curriculum pertains to heavy straight vehicles (Group B). The proposed curricula set forth training topics specific to the underlying CDL class, all elements of which must be taught and assessed. The Agency requested comment on the scope and content of the proposed curricula.
Comments:
The Agency received a number of comments regarding the content of the individual core curricula. Some commenters suggested adding topics to one or more of the curricula, while others believed that certain elements should be removed.
Schneider recommended that the Class A BTW-public road curriculum include a requirement to practice entry and exit of the interstate, noting that it “often encounters newly licensed drivers who enter its finishing program without any experience operating a CMV on a highway or interstate.” CM Air Brake and Electrical Training Services, LLC, commented that the ELDT rulemaking presents a unique opportunity to “ensure that drivers have a sufficient understanding of air brake systems to actually recognize whether or not the brake systems on their vehicles are functioning properly.”
The AAR supported the NPRM's requirement that driver-trainees be trained in recognizing potential dangers and appropriate safety procedures for use at railroad grade crossings. AAR suggested that, in addition, driver-trainees should be instructed that railroads have personnel available at the posted Emergency Notification System (ENS) telephone numbers to receive notification of any information relating to an unsafe condition at the railroad-highway grade crossing, such as a warning system malfunction at the railroad-highway grade crossing, or a disabled vehicle or other obstruction blocking a railroad track at the railroad-highway grade crossing.
An individual commenter, noting that improperly inflated tires increase braking distances and contribute to punctures and blowouts, suggested that load-to-tire inflation tables be included in the ELDT curricula.
Truckers Against Trafficking (TAT) suggested adding an element to the Class A and B curricula addressing human trafficking in the trucking industry, focusing on “the understanding and recognition of this crime, along with the action steps to be taken.” Other commenters suggested adding the following training topics: (1) As part of trip planning—instruction, practice, and evaluation for map reading utilizing an atlas; (2) overview of the requirements of the ELDT regulation along with information on how to report a non-compliant school; (3) whistleblower protection regulations in 29 CFR part 1978 and the procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries; (4) driver wellness and basic health maintenance that affect a driver's ability to safely operate a CMV; and (5) Federal rules pertaining to physical qualifications of CMV drivers, including medical certification and medical examination procedures.
The Agency also received comments suggesting that certain topics be removed from various curricula, primarily because the topic did not directly apply to the commenter's occupation or segment of the industry. For example, AAR said that railroad employees should not be required to demonstrate skills like alley dock backing or other skills similarly unrelated to their job functions. UPS commented that several proposed elements in the theory portion of the Class A curriculum, including photographing the scene and assessing weather and signage conditions post-crash, “do not correspond to specific substantive safety requirements and are inconsistent with prudent operations.”
Minnesota suggested that the rule “address training requirements for non-fifth wheel combinations in addition to the traditional tractor-trailer combinations,” noting that if CDL holders are restricted to operating a non-fifth wheel combination, “training curricula needs to be developed to address the needs of operating this type of class A combination vehicle safely.”
DDE commented that school bus drivers will typically have a Class B CDL with P and S endorsements. DDE noted that many elements of the Class B theory curriculum are not applicable to school buses, including coupling and uncoupling combination vehicles, hazardous materials regulations, stopping at weigh stations, awareness of surroundings including truck stops/rest areas, tire chain procedures, theory of cargo weight distribution, cargo securement, and hours of service.
Finally, several commenters, including Minnesota DPS, DTCC, and Century College, suggested that certain “dangerous driving maneuvers” or “extreme driving conditions” in the Class A and B BTW public road curricula, such as skid control and recovery, should be removed from the BTW portion of the curricula and retained as theory topics only. DTTC commented that “[i]t would be impractical at best and dangerous at worst to mandate [skid control and recovery] as part of BTW training.”
FMCSA Response:
In today's final rule, FMCSA revises the Class A and B CDL curricula to add topics that, as suggested by commenters, will improve the safe operation of CMVs, including proper entry and exit of ramps on the interstate and other controlled access highways and notification to railroad personnel of an unsafe condition at the railroad-highway grade crossing.
FMCSA adds specific cross references to applicable pre- and post-trip inspection sections of the FMCSRs (
i.e.,
§§ 392.7 and 396.11) to all of the theory curricula, which include for example: tires, wheels and rims, emergency equipment, and steering mechanisms.
Although brakes were identified as a key vehicle system in the “Identification and diagnosis of malfunctions” portion of the proposed Class A and B theory curricula, in the final rule the Agency expanded the term to include specific types of CMV braking systems, including ABS, hydraulic and air, as applicable. In response to the comment regarding non-fifth wheel combinations for Group A vehicles, we note that techniques for the proper coupling and uncoupling of combination vehicles are included in the Class A theory curriculum and that “coupling devices” are included within the scope of both pre-trip and post-trip inspections in §§ 392.7 and 396.11, respectively. In addition, FMCSA adds the words “as applicable” after “coupling and uncoupling combination vehicle units” in the Class A curriculum to indicate that more than one type of coupling device exists.
The Agency also made various conforming and organizational changes to the curricula for purposes of clarity and consistency, most of which are specifically noted below in the section-by-section explanation of changes from the NPRM.
The Agency notes that many of the suggested additions to the training curricula were proposed in the NPRM and remain in the final rule, including whistleblower protection in 29 CFR part 1978, reporting incidents of coercion to FMCSA, physical qualification of drivers, and driver wellness. While we did not include the reporting of non-compliant training providers as a topic in the curricula, instructions for doing so will be available on the ELDT Web site. FMCSA considers human trafficking, suggested by TAT as an additional topic for the training curricula, to be an extremely important issue. However, it is not directly related to safe CMV driving skills, and therefore was not included in the final rule. FMCSA notes that training providers are free to add any topics they consider relevant to the training experience, as long as the required elements of the ELDT curricula are taught and assessed in compliance with today's rule.
Additionally, FMCSA removed several elements from the “Post-crash procedures” portion of the Class A and B theory curricula that, as UPS noted, do not directly impact the safe operation of CMVs, including photographing the scene, obtaining witness information, assessing skid measurements, and assessing signage, road, and weather conditions. We also note that the NPRM inadvertently included “tire chaining procedures” in the BTW-public road portion of the Class B curriculum; the Agency removed that element in the final rule. Tire chaining procedures remain in the Class A and B theory curricula, as proposed.
Finally, FMCSA disagrees with commenters suggesting that certain training topics be deleted from the proposed curricula, or should not apply to certain CDL holders, because they are not relevant to a particular occupation or vehicle. Regardless of an applicant's intentions at the time he or she obtains a CDL or endorsement, the individual is in fact credentialed to operate a range of CMVs falling within the CDL class or endorsement received. For example, although an individual may intend to make a living as a school bus driver, if he or she holds a Class A or Class B license in addition to the S and P endorsements, that individual is considered qualified to operate any CMV falling within those classifications, including straight trucks. Accordingly, it is reasonable to require that these individuals receive training commensurate with the CMV driving credentials they hold.
In response to comments suggesting that certain driving skills, such as hazard perception and skid control and recovery, be removed from the Class A and Class B BTW public road curricula and retained as theory topics only, FMCSA notes that these skills are not necessarily intended to be performed by the driver-trainee. In the NPRM, the following BTW skills were specifically designated as “appropriate for discussion during public road training or simulated, but
not necessarily performed”
(emphasis added): Hazard perception, railroad (RR)-highway grade crossing, night operation, extreme driving conditions, emergency maneuvers/skid avoidance, and skid control and recovery (81 FR 11944, 11973 (March 7, 2016)).
These topics remain in the BTW public road curricula because they are appropriate for commentary instruction, in which the instructor discusses the proper techniques for responding to these conditions while the driver-trainee is behind-the-wheel of a CMV, even when such conditions may not actually be encountered during the training session. For example, an instructor could discuss adjustments to speed and following distance that need to be made during periods of heavy rain, even when actual driving conditions are dry. FMCSA believes that commentary instruction during public road training provides a valuable opportunity for
driver-trainees to reinforce safe driving behaviors in a contextual learning environment. The Agency therefore retains these topics in both the public road and theory portions of the curricula, as proposed. The final rule clarifies that instructors
must
provide commentary instruction for these elements of the BTW curricula. The final rule also states that driver-trainees are not required to demonstrate proficiency in these elements of the BTW curricula.
a. Night Driving/Operation
As proposed, Class A and B CDL trainees would be required to receive both theory and BTW (public road) instruction in night operation of a CMV in order to recognize and respond to the special problems that night driving presents. While training providers were strongly encouraged to offer driver-trainees actual night-driving experience where feasible, they would not be required to do so.
Comments:
Comments were mixed on the need to require driver-trainees to operate CMVs at night. Truckers for a Cause stated that the final rule should require “actual BTW instruction during times of darkness.” One commenter suggested that the BTW hours requirement should be no less than 200 hours, 50 of which should be night driving hours.
On the other hand, several training providers supported the NPRM's approach of not making nighttime driving a requirement. Century College commented that “[a]dding a night driving component would add instructional costs and insurance costs that would be prohibitive,” noting that drivers could learn night driving operations from specific employers after obtaining a CDL.
FMCSA Response:
In today's final rule, the BTW public road core curricula do not require driver-trainees to operate a CMV at night. Therefore, night driving must be discussed during public road training, but not necessarily performed. In order to ensure that this topic is sufficiently addressed during BTW public road training when actual night driving is
not
feasible, the training instructor would, for example, provide commentary instruction to convey how night driving conditions differ from daytime driving, such as the impact of nighttime glare on a driver's mirrors. As noted above, the final rule does not require driver trainees to demonstrate proficiency in BTW elements they are not required to perform, such as night driving.
b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW Training
As defined in the NPRM, BTW training means training provided by a qualified driver-instructor when driver-trainees have actual control of the power unit during a driving lesson conducted either on a range or public road. Therefore, as proposed, time spent on a driving simulation device would not substitute for actual “hands on the wheel” training on a range or public road. The NPRM did, however, include “driving simulation devices” within the scope of “theory instruction,” thus permitting simulator use to fulfill the proposed theory curricula requirements.
Comments:
Virage Simulation (Virage) commented that three research studies demonstrated that backing skills learned on a driving simulator are equal to training in the truck. Virage stated that the “continued lack of support by the FMCSA for substitution of BTW hours with simulation hours is somewhat perplexing in light of the express purpose of the ELDT NPRM to establish `more extensive entry-level driver training.' ” Virage proposed that FMCSA allow simulator-based training for the substitution of up to 50 percent of the required BTW hours.
Schneider suggested allowing for 10 percent of the BTW training hours to be completed using driving simulation, noting that simulator use will allow the training provider to expose the driver-trainee to adverse conditions that are (1) not readily accessible in the training provider's region (
e.g.,
snow in the south or mountains in the Midwest); and/or (2) too dangerous to purposefully recreate on the open road for training purposes (
e.g.,
a tire blowout or severe wind). According to Schneider, allowing for simulated drive time will also have the additional benefits of reducing fuel cost and lowering emissions in the cost-benefit analysis for this rulemaking. ABA requested that FMCSA “recognize the value of simulators, and provide additional flexibility for their use under this proposal.”
FMCSA Response:
The final rule does not require that a minimum number of BTW training hours be completed. Accordingly, whether or not simulation devices can be used to fulfill part of the proposed BTW hours requirement is no longer an issue. However, in the Agency's judgment, there is simply no substitute for the time a driver-trainee actually spends behind the wheel and in direct control of a CMV during range and public road training. Today's rule therefore does not permit BTW training to be conducted by using a driving simulation device, and a driver-trainee may not use a simulation device to demonstrate proficiency. However, as discussed below, simulators may be used in theory training.
FMCSA agrees that simulators can provide valuable learning opportunities to entry-level drivers to improve driving techniques and introduce them to hazards and driving conditions they may expect to encounter in their driving career. The Agency has previously recognized the value of specified simulation technology for entry-level training of CMV drivers.
15
Accordingly, the final rule retains the definition of “theory instruction” proposed in the NPRM, which specifically includes “driving simulation devices.” Consequently, training providers may use simulation technology in meeting any of the theory curricula requirements for the Class A and B CDLs and the P, S, or H endorsements. For example, simulation devices can allow a driver to better understand how to react in potentially hazardous situations, which cannot be prudently demonstrated on a public road. Simulators are also useful in helping students understand how to effectively manage emergency situations, such as tire blowouts, skid avoidance or control, and collision avoidance.
15
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driving Simulator Validation Study (SimVal): Phase II (Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-044, October 2010).
16. Manual v. Automatic Transmission—Class A and B Curricula Requirements
As proposed in the theory portion of the Class A and B curricula, the topic “shifting/operating transmissions” is described as an introduction to “basic shifting patterns and procedures,” which will enable the trainee to perform basic shifting maneuvers, including executing “up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range transmissions if appropriate.” The description of the “shifting/transmission” topic in the BTW-public road curricula requires driver-trainees to “demonstrate proficiency in proper techniques for performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting and making any necessary adjustments in the process.”
Noting that some carriers utilize only CMVs equipped with automatic transmissions, FMCSA invited comment on whether there should be an option to forego this element of the training for driver-trainees who intend to operate only automatic transmission-equipped CMVs. The NPRM also noted that, currently, drivers who take their CDL skills test in a CMV equipped with an
automatic transmission must have an indication on their CDL that the driver is restricted from operating a CMV with a manual transmission, 49 CFR 383.95(c)(1).
Comments:
Most of the comments on this issue said driver-trainees should be trained in the type of CMV they intend to operate. Werner Enterprises (Werner) commented that FMCSA should permit operators of automatic transmission vehicles to forego the instruction on manual shift transmissions, noting that requiring manual transmission training for drivers who intend to operate CMVs equipped only with automatic transmissions “will take valuable training time which could be better devoted to further developing other skill areas.” According to Werner, approximately 70 percent of CMVs currently produced are equipped with automatic transmissions; both manufacturers and carriers agree that this trend towards automatic transmission CMVs is likely to continue. ATA, stating that it “foresees broad adoption of automatic transmissions in the future,” suggested that “FMCSA should seriously consider giving training providers the flexibility to train drivers for the equipment they expect to drive.”
C.R. England also stated that the NPRM “lacks flexibility because it does not allow reduced training hours for restricted licenses.” Noting, for example, that “if a driver intends to drive an automatic transmission vehicle and receive a restricted license, less training is required” C.R. England suggested that “required BTW time for a Class A or Class B license with a manual transmission restriction be reduced by
1/3
.”
Schneider and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV) both noted that, if driver-trainees opt to receive training only in an automatic transmission vehicle, the training provider would need to indicate that on the training certificate uploaded to the TPR and States must be able to accept and store that information on the electronic driving record.
NASDPTS noted that since almost all school buses are now equipped with automatic transmissions, there is no value in qualifying school bus drivers to operate manual transmission-equipped vehicles. DDE and NAPT also supported the option to forego the manual transmission element because school buses have automatic transmissions.
However, several commenters opposed permitting driver-trainees to obtain training only in an automatic transmission-equipped CMV. The Iowa DOT said “the training should be inclusive and not specific to the transmission.” In addition, the Iowa DOT thought the NPRM was unclear regarding the situation in which a driver changes jobs or the type of vehicle, asking whether a driver “would have to take the training over again if they drive a manual transmission because they were trained in the `automatic only' curriculum?”
FMCSA Response:
FMCSA agrees that ELDT requirements should be flexible enough to accommodate a driver-trainee's choice to operate a CMV equipped with an automatic transmission. The final rule does not require that ELDT occur in a CMV equipped with a manual transmission. On further review of the ELDTAC meeting record, the Agency believes this flexibility was already intended. For example, during the development of the “shifting/operating transmissions” component of the theory portion of the Core A and B curricula, the words “if appropriate” were added to the topic description, so that it would read as follows: “[t]his must include training each trainee to execute up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range transmissions,
if appropriate”
(emphasis added).
16
A slightly revised version of the “shifting/operating transmissions” topic, which included the “if appropriate” modifier, appeared in the NPRM. FMCSA therefore infers that the ELDTAC recognized that training in this theory topic would necessarily vary according to the type of transmission the driver-trainee intends to operate.
16
“Proposed Core Curriculum”, ELDTAC Meeting, April 23-24, 2015, available at
www.FMCSA.dot.gov/advisory-committees/eldtac/meetings
.
The description of “shifting/transmission” as a component of the BTW-public road training for Class A, initially presented to the ELDTAC by the Core Curriculum Working Group at its third meeting on April 9-10, 2015, remained largely unchanged throughout the remainder of the ELDTAC's meetings.
17
The description, cited above, simply refers to the driver-trainee's ability to demonstrate proficiency in “proper” shifting techniques and to make “necessary adjustments.” There is no reference to either manual or automatic transmissions.
18
An identical description of the “shifting/transmission topic” was subsequently adopted as part of the Class B BTW-public road curriculum. Again, the Agency infers that the proposed definition was intentionally
not transmission-specific
in order to permit driver-trainees to receive BTW training in the type of CMV they intend to operate.
17
The words “safe and fuel efficient” were added to the BTW-public road description of the “shifting/transmission” topic and the word “required” was deleted at the ELDTAC meeting on May 14-15, 2015.
See
ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 14-15, 2015.
18
Section 383.5 defines a manual transmission as “a transmission utilizing a driver-operated clutch that is activated by a pedal or lever and a gear-shift mechanism operated by either hand or foot.”
FMCSA's conclusion is further supported by the fact that, as several commenters noted, the prevalence of automatic transmission-equipped vehicles in the Group A and B classifications is currently significant and is widely expected to increase over time. In light of this clear trend toward automatic transmission-equipped CMVs, it defies logic to presume that the ELDTAC intended to require that all driver-trainees receive training on a manual transmission, regardless of whether they intend to operate a CMV so equipped, or would be required to do so in the course of their employment. The Agency regrets any confusion caused by posing the question of whether driver-trainees should be permitted to “opt out” of manual transmission training. Further, FMCSA notes that States, in administering the CDL skills test, “must check the vehicle in which the applicant takes his or her test is representative of the vehicle group the applicant has certified that he or she operates or expects to operate” (§ 383.73(b)(2)). Accordingly, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule requires, that training vehicles must be in the same group and type that the driver-trainee intends to operate for the CDL skills test (§ 380.711(b)).The Agency notes that, in addition to the manual transmission restriction discussed above, other restrictions currently apply to air brakes and non-fifth wheel connections (§ 383.95(a), (b) and (d)). In the final rule, the Agency adds “as applicable” to the brake-related topic descriptors in the Class A and B curricula and the coupling descriptor in the Class A curricula, to clarify that driver-trainees are free to select a training curriculum that is appropriate for the type of CMV they intend to operate.
19
19
Existing regulations require that, if a CDL applicant fails the air brake component of the knowledge test, the State must indicate that restriction on the applicant's CLP (§ 383.95(a)(1)). In such cases, the applicant could complete BTW training only in a vehicle that is not equipped with any type of air brakes.
Because the final rule does not require that driver-trainees complete a minimum number of BTW training
hours, the question of whether required minimums should be lowered if BTW training occurs in an automatic transmission-equipped vehicle is now moot. However, FMCSA does not believe there would have been any basis on which to reduce the proposed required BTW time when driver-trainees receive training in a specific type of CMV, such as an automatic-transmission equipped vehicle or a vehicle not equipped with air brakes. First, we note that the BTW hours requirements proposed in the NPRM reflected the
total
minimum amount of time it would take the average driver-trainee to proficiently perform the required skills; the ELDTAC did not ascribe any set number of hours to the performance of specific tasks. More importantly, as explained above, the Agency believes that, by keeping the curriculum topic descriptions broad, the ELDTAC intended to permit flexibility in the type of training delivered, based on the driver-trainee's choice of vehicle within a designated group. The ELDTAC agreed to assign a specified number of BTW hours for the Class A and B curricula
after
the curricula had been unanimously adopted by the full committee. FMCSA therefore concludes that, if the proposed BTW minimum hours requirements had been retained in the final rule, a reduction in the minimum number of BTW hours based on any specific vehicle type would not have been justified. The Agency theref
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.