[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57585-57587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
[FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB06
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its December 26, 2007, notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed new entry-level driver training
standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license
(CDL) to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce. The Agency withdraws the 2007 proposal because commenters to
the NPRM, and participants in the Agency's public listening sessions in
2013, raised substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude
that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based
on the proposal. In addition, since the NPRM was published, FMCSA
received statutory direction on the issue of entry level driver
training (ELDT) from Congress via the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21) reauthorization legislation. Finally, the
Agency tasked its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to
provide ideas the Agency should consider in implementing the MAP-21
requirements. In consideration of the above, the Agency has concluded
that a new rulemaking should be initiated in lieu of completing the
2007 rulemaking.
DATES: The NPRM ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' RIN 2126-AB06, published on
[[Page 57586]]
December 26, 2007 (72 FR 73226), is withdrawn on September 19, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice
of withdrawal, contact Mr. Richard Clemente, Transportation Specialist,
FMCSA, Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4325,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background/General Issues Raised During Comment Period and Listening
Sessions
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the May 21, 2004
final rule, titled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators'' (69 FR 29384), to the Agency for
further consideration, FMCSA published an NPRM on December 26, 2007,
entitled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial
Motor Vehicle Operators'' (72 FR 73226). The Agency received more than
700 comments to its proposal. Additionally, on January 7, 2013, and
March 22, 2013, FMCSA held listening sessions on ELDT. While most
commenters expressed support for the ELDT ``concept,'' they had
divergent views on several of the proposed rule's key provisions.
Hours-Based vs. Performance-Based Driver Training
Several industry organizations expressed opposition to the proposed
mandate of a specific minimum number of training hours. Instead, these
commenters support a performance-based approach to training that would
allow an individual to move through the training program at his/her own
pace. Essentially, a driver who demonstrated mastery of one skill would
be able to move to the next skill. The driver would not have to repeat
continually or practice a skill for a prescribed amount of time--2
hours, for example--if the driver could master the skill in 20 minutes.
Other commenters, however, did support a minimum hours-based
approach to training. They stated that FMCSA must specify the minimum
number of instructional hours in order to be consistent with the
original Model Curriculum of the 1980s.\1\ Additionally, some
supporters of an hours-based training approach believed that the
Agency's proposal did not involve sufficient hours (particularly
behind-the-wheel hours) to train a driver adequately. Finally, other
commenters suggested a hybrid of the hours-based and performance-based
approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1985, FHWA issued the ``Model Curriculum for Training
Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' (1985, GPO Stock No. 050-001-00293-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters asserted that by establishing a minimum number
of hours required for training, the Agency would create a Federal
standard that would eliminate certain Federal loan options otherwise
available to students enrolled in driver training programs. They
claimed that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) would refuse to
authorize Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) or Direct Loan funding
to programs more than 50 percent longer than the minimum 120- or 90-
hour programs for Class A and B/C CDL applicants proposed by the FMCSA.
However, commenters contended further that if courses were to be capped
at 180 or 135 hours--50 percent longer than the Agency's proposed Class
A or B/C programs--to comply with one aspect of ED's regulations, they
would then fail to meet the 300-hour minimum required to be eligible
for FFEL and Direct Loan funding. One individual at a listening session
disputed this claim. He said it was a misconception that training
schools would not offer longer courses if drivers could not qualify for
Title IV student funding.
Accreditation
The NPRM proposed to require that all commercial driver-training
schools be accredited by an agency recognized by either ED or the
Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Most commenters opposed the
accreditation process because they claimed it is a long and costly
process that would not necessarily result in better training of the
students because the accreditation is not ``program specific.'' In
other words, the training institution may obtain accreditation, but the
accreditation would not be specific to the driver training program's
course content. They argued that accreditation might restrict the
number of schools where drivers could receive training.
Alternatives suggested included allowing training institutions to
self-certify, subject to Federal or other oversight, or voluntarily to
obtain 3rd party certification or accreditation. However, other
commenters believed that even stricter control of training schools
should be exercised by the Federal and/or State governments.
Passenger Driver Training
Commenters from the motorcoach industry stated that they were an
``afterthought'' in the NPRM. Specifically, they stated that there was
no mention of the Model Motorcoach Driver Training Curriculum in the
proposed rule. One motorcoach company asserted that its in-house
training program is much more rigorous than the Agency proposal and
that it continually tests and re-trains its drivers. Others believed
that the proposed training program would have particularly adverse
consequences for the motorcoach industry as few institutions offer
training specific to that segment of the industry. Additionally,
concerns were expressed that existing company training programs for
entry-level drivers would cease as they would no longer be able to hire
the entry-level drivers they train.
The school bus industry, in particular, questioned its inclusion in
the proposed rule. Commenters asserted that the safety record of school
buses shows that the industry's own driver training, based on State
requirements, is effective. Implementing the NPRM would increase the
costs significantly for school bus operators with no demonstrable
increase in safety. Furthermore, the proposed rule might exacerbate the
school bus driver shortage.
Post-CDL Training
Some NPRM commenters and others who participated in the ELDT
listening sessions suggested that the Agency consider regulatory
actions beyond what was proposed in the 2007 NPRM. For example, several
individuals and organizations believe the Agency should assess the
merits of implementing a graduated commercial driver's license (GCDL)
system approach. This concept would involve placing limits on the
operations of new CDL holders for certain periods of time until the
drivers obtain enough experience to operate as solo drivers, without
restrictions or limitation. For example, the GCDL approach would
require that the new CDL holder work under the supervision of an
experienced driver or mentor as part of a team operation before being
allowed to drive solo. Other commenters stressed that their companies
are doing continuous training/testing and that re-training of
individuals should be required. As proposed, the 2007 NPRM would have
required training before an individual obtained a CDL; the ``finishing
training'' advocated by some commenters was not discussed.
Participants in the listening sessions held earlier this year also
raised concerns about the trainer/trainee relationship. Several stated
that behind-the-wheel training, either pre- or post-CDL, requires that
the trainer be in the passenger seat of the cab providing actual
``hands-on'' instruction. Commenters cited specific instances of
[[Page 57587]]
new CDL holders being paired with an experienced driver, but on many
occasions the experienced driver was resting in the sleeper-berth
rather than training/mentoring the new driver. They believe that new
CDL drivers should receive a minimum of 6 months of on-the-job, behind
the wheel training, with the trainer required to ride in the passenger
seat and provide coaching and mentoring rather than resting in the
sleeper berth. In addition, commenters stated that trainers should meet
minimum experience and knowledge requirements before being eligible to
train CDL applicants.
MAP-21 Requirements
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
Section 32304, ``Commercial motor vehicle operator training,'' amends
49 U.S.C. 31305 to require the Agency to issue regulations to establish
minimum entry-level training requirements for all prospective CDL
holders. Section 32304 specifically mandates that the training
regulations (1) Address the knowledge and skills needed for safe
operation of a CMV, (2) address the specific training needs of those
seeking hazardous materials and passenger endorsements, (3) create a
means of certifying that an applicant for a CDL meets Federal
requirements, and (4) require training providers to demonstrate that
their training meets uniform Federal standards. The 2007 NPRM did not
address endorsement-related training or the entry-level training of new
intrastate CDL applicants that is now mandated by MAP-21; these
additions would be a significant change of direction.
After Congress enacted MAP-21, FMCSA requested that its Motor
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) consider the history of the
ELDT issue, including legislative, regulatory and research background,
and identify ideas the Agency should consider in moving forward with a
rulemaking to implement the MAP-21 requirements. MCSAC issued its
letter report in June 2013, which is available on the MCSAC Web site:
http://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.
Other Actions
Currently, FMCSA is conducting two research projects to gather
supporting information on the effectiveness of ELDT. Study 1 will
randomly sample CDL holders who received their license in the last
three years and were identified as recently employed as a CMV driver.
This will be done using information from the Motor Carrier Management
Information System and the Commercial Driver License Information
System. The drivers' safety performance data from these two systems
will be analyzed against the type and amount of training they received.
Study 2 will gather information from various sources to identify the
relationship of training to safety performance. The sources include:
Carriers; CDL training schools; and State Driver's License Agency
records for recently issued CDLs. This study will also examine the
safety performance of drivers in two States that have regulations
dealing with different aspects of CDL driver training.
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM
After reviewing the MAP-21 requirements, comments to the 2007 NPRM,
participants' statements during the Agency's public listening sessions
held earlier this year, and the MCSAC's June 2013 letter report, FMCSA
has determined that it would be inappropriate to continue with the
rulemaking initiated in 2007. The Agency believes a new rulemaking
would provide the most effective starting point for implementing the
MAP-21 requirements. A new rulemaking would provide the Agency and all
interested parties the opportunity to move forward with a proposal that
focuses on the MAP-21 mandate and makes the best use of the wealth of
information provided by stakeholders since the publication of the 2007
NPRM.
In consideration of the above, the Agency withdraws the December
26, 2007, NPRM. However, the rulemaking to carry out the MAP-21 entry-
level training requirement will solicit comments from all interested
parties, including those who may wish to reiterate their previous
remarks. That new rulemaking will be based on the results of the
studies referenced above, public comments responsive to the statutory
mandate, and the specific requirements of Sec. 32304 of MAP-21.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Dated: August 27, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-22772 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P