Attachment B - ELDT Final Rule 81 FR 88732

Attachment B (ELDT Final Rule December 2016).pdf

Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators

Attachment B - ELDT Final Rule 81 FR 88732

OMB: 2126-0028

⚠️ Notice: This form may be outdated. More recent filings and information on OMB 2126-0028 can be found here:

Document [pdf]

Download: pdf | pdf

88732

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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

FMCSA establishes new
minimum training standards for certain
individuals applying for their
commercial driver’s license (CDL) for
the first time; an upgrade of their CDL
(e.g., a Class B CDL holder seeking a
Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials
(H), passenger (P), or school bus (S)
endorsement for the first time. These
individuals are subject to the entry-level
driver training (ELDT) requirements and
must complete a prescribed program of
instruction provided by an entity that is
listed on FMCSA’s Training Provider
Registry (TPR). FMCSA will submit
training certification information to
State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs),
who may only administer CDL skills
tests to applicants for the Class A and
B CDL, and/or the P or S endorsements,
or knowledge test for the H
endorsement, after verifying the
certification information is present in
the driver’s record.
DATES: This final rule is effective
February 6, 2017. The compliance date
for this rule is February 7, 2020.
Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on the
collection of information must be
received by OMB on or before January
9, 2017.
Petitions for Reconsideration of this
final rule must be submitted to the
FMCSA Administrator no later than
January 9, 2017.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier
Operations (MC–PSD) Division,
FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Washington, DC 20590–0001, by
telephone at 202–366–4325, or by email
at [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone (202) 366–9826.
For comments on the Privacy
Analysis in this Rulemaking, contact
FMCSA’s Privacy Officer: Shannon
DiMartino, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

SUMMARY:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 EntryLevel 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 DriverTrainees Obtaining Multiple CDL
Credentials
23. Training Materials
24. Sequence of ELDT

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88733

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 EntryLevel 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 CDL1 (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).
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 ‘‘EntryLevel 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 drivertrainees 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 drivertrainee 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 drivertrainee demonstrates proficiency in
performing all required BTW skills.
Providers must submit electronic
notification to FMCSA that an
individual completed the required
training; the Agency will provide that
information to the SDLAs through the
Commercial Driver’s License
Information System (CDLIS).

This rule applies to entities that train
entry-level drivers, also referred to
herein as driver-trainees. Training
providers must, at a minimum, provide
instruction in a training curriculum that
meets all the standards established in
today’s rule and must also meet other
eligibility requirements in order to be
listed on FMCSA’s TPR. Training
providers must also attest that they meet
the specified requirements, and in the
event of an FMCSA audit or
investigation of the provider, must
supply documentation to verify their
compliance. The final rule also makes
conforming changes to parts 383 and
384 of the FMCSRs.
The compliance date for this rule is
three years after the effective date of the
final rule. This three-year period
provides the States with sufficient time
to pass necessary implementing
legislation and to modify their
information systems to begin recording
the CDL applicant’s compliance with
ELDT requirements. This phase-in
period also allows time for CMV driver
training entities to develop and begin
offering training programs that meet the
eligibility requirements for listing on the
TPR.
C. Benefits and Costs
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers,
training providers, SDLAs, and the
Federal Government will incur costs for
compliance and implementation. The
costs of the final rule include tuition
expenses, the opportunity cost of time
while in training, compliance audit
costs, and costs associated with the
implementation and monitoring of the
TPR. As shown in Table 1, FMCSA
estimates that the 10-year cost of the
final rule will total $3.66 billion on an
undiscounted basis, $3.23 billion
discounted at 3 percent, and $2.76
billion discounted at 7 percent (all in
2014 dollars). Values in Table 1 are
rounded to the nearest million.

TABLE 1—TOTAL COST OF THE FINAL RULE
[In millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026

Entry-level
drivers

.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................

Motor
carriers

$324
326
328
330
331
333
335

$20
20
20
20
20
20
20

Training
providers

Discounted

SDLAs

$9
6
7
6
7
6
7

$56
0
0
0
0
0
0

Federal
government

Total (a)

$6
1
1
1
1
1
1

$415
353
356
357
359
360
363

1 Group A vehicles include all large, combination
vehicles, usually tractor/trailers. Group B vehicles
include both large straight trucks and buses.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

$415
343
336
327
319
311
304

$415
330
311
291
274
257
242

88734

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—TOTAL COST OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued
[In millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

Year

Entry-level
drivers

Motor
carriers

Training
providers

Discounted
Federal
government

SDLAs

Total (a)

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

2027 .................
2028 .................
2029 .................

337
339
341

20
21
21

6
7
6

0
0
0

1
1
1

364
368
369

296
291
283

227
214
201

Total ..........

3,324

202

3,664

3,225

2,762

Annualized .......

......................

366

367

368

Notes:
(a) Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components).

The costs of this final rule specifically
attributable to the S (school bus)
endorsement training requirement were
evaluated separately in the RIA,
because, while Section 32304 of MAP–
21 mandates training for entry-level
drivers who wish to obtain a CDL or a
P or H endorsement, the statute is silent
with respect to the S endorsement.
Inclusion of the S endorsement training
requirement increases the total cost of
the rule by only approximately 0.82
percent. On an annualized basis at a 7
percent discount rate, this equates to an
increase in the total cost of the rule from
$365 million to $368 million. Details of
these comparative analyses of the costs
of the rule and the reasons for this
relatively small change in costs
resulting from the inclusion of the S
endorsement training requirement are
presented in Section 3 of the RIA.
This final rule will result in benefits
to CMV operators, the transportation
industry, the traveling public, and the
environment. FMCSA estimated benefits
in two broad categories: Safety benefits
and non-safety benefits. Training related
to the performance of complex tasks

may improve performance; in the
context of the training required by this
final rule, improvement in task
performance constitutes adoption of
safer driving practices that the Agency
believes will reduce the frequency and
severity of crashes, thereby resulting in
safer roadways for all. The training
related to fuel efficient driving practices
that will be taught under the ‘speed
management’ and ‘space management’
sections of the curriculum reduce fuel
consumption and consequently lower
environmental impacts associated with
carbon dioxide emissions. As discussed
in Section 4.1.1 of the RIA for today’s
rule, FMCSA does not believe that the
training in fuel efficient driving
practices addressed by this rule will
contribute to measurably longer trip
times, as the curricula focus on factors
such as maintaining safe distances
between vehicles and avoiding hard
acceleration and braking, rather than
reducing vehicle speed. The Agency
therefore assumes in its analysis that
these fuel efficient driving practices will
not contribute to measurably longer trip
times.

Safer driving and better-informed
drivers will reduce maintenance and
repair costs. Table 2 below presents the
directly quantifiable benefits that
FMCSA projects will result from this
final rule (all in 2014 dollars, values
rounded to the nearest million). Due to
wide ranges of estimates in studies
relevant to the quantified benefits of the
rule and the lack of studies that
specifically focus on the curricula
prescribed by this rule,2 the Agency
presents benefits estimated under
alternate benefit scenarios in Table 3
and Table 4. These alternate scenarios
are derived from the low and high
benefit cases (see sensitivity analyses in
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA)
in which the fuel savings, CO2
emissions reductions, and maintenance
and repair cost savings are 50 percent
lower (low benefits case) and 50 percent
greater (high benefits case) than the
central estimates that the Agency relied
on in developing the values presented
in Table 2. Further discussion of the low
and high benefits cases is reserved to
the RIA for the final rule.

TABLE 2—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

Value of fuel
savings

$89
151
186
190
194
197
202
205
207

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Value of CO2
reduction (a)

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair cost
savings

$15
26
31
32
32
33
34
34
35

$13
22
26
27
27
27
28
28
28

With particular respect to the estimated fuel and
CO2 savings the Agency was unable to identify any

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Total (b)
$117
198
243
248
253
257
263
266
270

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

$117
192
229
227
225
222
220
217
214

$117
186
214
206
197
188
181
172
165

studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this
rule.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88735

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 2—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted
Year

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction (a)

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair cost
savings

Total (b)

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

2029 .........................................................

211

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 emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ‘‘discounted at 3%’’ and
2
‘‘discounted at 7%’’ columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions
are presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
(b) Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components).

TABLE 3—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[Low benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted
Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction (a)

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair cost
savings

Total (b)

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

$44
75
93
95
97
99
101
102
104
106

$8
13
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17

$6
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14

$58
99
121
124
127
129
131
133
135
137

$58
96
114
114
112
111
110
108
107
105

$58
93
107
103
99
94
90
86
82
78

Total ..................................................

915

153

127

1,195

1,036

891

Annualized ...............................................

........................

119

118

119

TABLE 4—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction (a)

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair cost
savings

Total (b)

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

$133
226
278
285
291
296
302
307
311
316

$23
38
47
48
49
50
50
51
52
52

$19
32
38
39
40
40
41
41
41
42

$175
295
363
371
379
385
393
399
405
410

$175
287
343
340
337
332
329
324
320
314

$175
278
321
308
295
282
271
258
246
235

Total ..................................................

2,745

459

372

3,576

3,100

2,668

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88736

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 4—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted
Year

Annualized ...............................................

Discounted

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction (a)

Maintenance
and repair cost
savings

........................

Total (b)
358

Discounted at
3%

Discounted at
7%

353

355

While FMCSA believes that this final
rule will at minimum achieve costneutrality, the net of quantified costs
and benefits (presented in Table 5
below) results in an annualized net cost
of $131 million at a 7 percent discount
rate. This estimate is based only on
quantifiable costs and benefits (central
case) attributable to this rule. Safety
benefits are assessed separately via a
threshold analysis discussed in detail in
Section 4.2 of the RIA.

TABLE 5—NET COST OF THE FINAL
RULE (CENTRAL CASE), ABSENT
QUANTIFIABLE SAFETY BENEFITS
[In millions of 2014$]
3%
Discount
rate

Year

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

7%
Discount
rate

$298
151
107
100
94
89
84
79
77
73

$298
144
97
85
77
69
61
55
49
44

Total ...................

1,152

979

Annualized ................

131

3 Office of Management and Budget. Circular
A–4. Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
circulars_a004_a-4/ (accessed July 25, 2016).
4 Some commenters to the RIA that was
performed for the NPRM for this rule incorrectly
interpreted the breakeven percentage reduction in
crashes estimated here as being relative to all CMV
crashes industry-wide, rather than being relative to
only to the much smaller sub-set of crashes
involving entry-level drivers that are affected by the
rule. Note that with respect to the magnitude of the
reduction in the frequency of all crashes involving

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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).
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.

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.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

88737

TABLE 6—CRASH REDUCTIONS INVOLVING ENTRY-LEVEL DRIVERS, BY TYPE, NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COST-NEUTRALITY
[For the Central Case]
Number of
fatal crashes

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Number of
injury crashes

Number of
property
damage only
(PDO) crashes

.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................

3
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

54
91
109
109
109
109
109
109
109
109

231
386
463
463
463
463
463
463
463
463

Annual Average (a) .......................................................................................................................

102

432

Total (b) ..................................................................................................................................

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
Abbreviation or
acronym

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Full name
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety .....................................................................................................................................
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ...................................................................................................................................
American Association for Justice .................................................................................................................................................
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators ...............................................................................................................
American Bus Association ...........................................................................................................................................................
American Public Power Association ............................................................................................................................................
American Transportation Research Institute ...............................................................................................................................
American Trucking Associations ..................................................................................................................................................
Americans with Disabilities Act ....................................................................................................................................................
Anti-lock Braking Systems ...........................................................................................................................................................
Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training .....................................................................................
Associated General Contractors ..................................................................................................................................................
Association American of Railroads ..............................................................................................................................................
Behind the wheel .........................................................................................................................................................................
California Department of Motor Vehicles .....................................................................................................................................
Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................................................
Code of Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................................................................
Commercial Driver’s License .......................................................................................................................................................
Commercial Driver’s License Information System .......................................................................................................................
Commercial Learner’s Permit ......................................................................................................................................................
Commercial Motor Vehicle ...........................................................................................................................................................
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 ............................................................................................................................
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ............................................................................................................................................
Commercial Vehicle Training Association ...................................................................................................................................
Delaware Department of Education .............................................................................................................................................
Delaware Department of Motor Vehicles .....................................................................................................................................
Delaware Motor Transport Association ........................................................................................................................................
Delaware Technical Community College .....................................................................................................................................
Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety Standards ...............................................................................................
Driver and Vehicle Services Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety ................................................................
Driver Holdings, LLC ....................................................................................................................................................................
Edison Electrical Institute .............................................................................................................................................................
Entry-Level Driver Training ..........................................................................................................................................................
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee .........................................................................................................................
Executive Order ...........................................................................................................................................................................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ...............................................................................................................................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations ...................................................................................................................................
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating .......................................................................................................................................................
Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................................................................................
Hazardous Materials Endorsement ..............................................................................................................................................
Hazardous Materials Safety Permit .............................................................................................................................................
Hours of Service ..........................................................................................................................................................................
International Union of Operating Engineers ................................................................................................................................
Iowa Department of Transportation .............................................................................................................................................

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Advocates
ANPRM
AAJ
AAMVA
ABA
APPA
ATRI
ATA
ADA
ABS
Adequacy Report
AGC
AAR
BTW
CA DMV
CAA
CFR
CDL
CDLIS
CLP
CMV
CMVSA
CVSA
CVTA
DDE
DE DMV
DMTA
DTCC
Director
Minnesota
Driver Holdings
EEI
ELDT
ELDTAC
E.O.
FMCSA
FMCSRs
GVWR
HM
H
HMSP
HOS
IUOE
Iowa

88738

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Abbreviation or
acronym

Full name
Iowa Motor Truck Association ......................................................................................................................................................
Minnesota Chauffeured Limousine Association ...........................................................................................................................
Model Motorcoach Curriculum .....................................................................................................................................................
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 .................................................................................................................................................
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee ...................................................................................................................................
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act ...................................................................................................................
National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools .................................................................................................
National Association of Small Trucking Companies ....................................................................................................................
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services ...................................................................................
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives ....................................................................................................................................
National Environmental Policy Act ...............................................................................................................................................
National Feed and Grain Association ..........................................................................................................................................
National Governors’ Association ..................................................................................................................................................
National Ground Water Association .............................................................................................................................................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ...........................................................................................................................
National Limousine Association ...................................................................................................................................................
National Motor Freight Traffic Association ...................................................................................................................................
National Propane Gas Association ..............................................................................................................................................
National School Transportation Association ................................................................................................................................
Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association ...........................................................................................................................
New York Association for Pupil Transportation ...........................................................................................................................
New York Department of Motor Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................
North Dakota Motor Carriers Association ....................................................................................................................................
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ..................................................................................................................................................
Office of Management and Budget ..............................................................................................................................................
Oregon Department of Transportation .........................................................................................................................................
Out-of-service ...............................................................................................................................................................................
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc. ..............................................................................................................
Petroleum Marketers Association of America ..............................................................................................................................
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ............................................................................................................
Privacy Impact Assessment .........................................................................................................................................................
Professional Truck Driver Institute ...............................................................................................................................................
Property Damage Only ................................................................................................................................................................
Regulatory Impact Analysis .........................................................................................................................................................
State Driver Licensing Agency .....................................................................................................................................................
State of Michigan, Bureau of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Programs, Department of State ....................................................
State of Utah, Department of Public Safety ................................................................................................................................
State of Washington Department of Licensing ............................................................................................................................
Training Provider Registry ...........................................................................................................................................................
United Motorcoach Association ...................................................................................................................................................
United Parcel Service ..................................................................................................................................................................
United States Code ......................................................................................................................................................................
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ............................................................................................
United States Department of Education ......................................................................................................................................
United States Department of Transportation ...............................................................................................................................
Virage Simulation .........................................................................................................................................................................
Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles ........................................................................................................................................
Virginia Trucking Association .......................................................................................................................................................
Werner Enterprises ......................................................................................................................................................................
West Virginia Trucking Association .............................................................................................................................................

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

IMTA
MCLA
MMC
MCSA
MCSAC
MAP–21
NAPFTDS
NASTC
NASDPTS
NCFC
NEPA
NFGA
NGA
NGWA
NHTSA
NLA
NMFTA
NPGA
NSTA
NRECA
NYAPT
NY DMV
NDMCA
NPRM
OMB
ODOT
OOS
OOIDA
PMAA
PHMSA
PIA
PTDI
PDO
RIA
SDLA
Michigan
Utah
Washington
TPR
UMA
UPS
U.S.C.
D.C. Circuit
ED
DOT
Virage
Virginia
VTA
Werner
WVTA

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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

88739

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
Model Curriculum for
Tractor-Trailer Drivers.

Type of action
Training

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry Level Drivers.

Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Training.
Relief from Unlawfully Withheld
Agency Action, In re Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways.
Minimum Training Requirements
for
Entry-Level
Commercial
Motor Vehicle Operators.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Citation, date

Synopsis

Federal Highway 1985 ..................
Administration
(FHWA) Recommendations.
ANPRM by
June 21, 1993;
FHWA.
58 FR 33874.

FHWA Report ....

1995 ..................

Court Action ......

November 2002

FMCSA’s NPRM

August 15, 2003;
68 FR 48863.

Jkt 241001

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

The Model Curriculum provided suggestions and recommendations
for training providers covering curriculum, facilities, vehicles, instructor qualifications hiring practices, graduation requirements,
and student placement.
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.
It concluded, among other things, that effective ELDT needs to include BTW instruction.
Sought an order directing the DOT to promulgate various regulations, including one establishing ELDT.
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).

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88740

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

TIMELINE OF REGULATORY AND JUDICIAL ACTIONS RELATED TO ENTRY-LEVEL DRIVER TRAINING—Continued
Title

Type of action

Citation, date

Synopsis

FMCSA’s Final
Rule.

May 21, 2004;
69 FR 29384.

Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration.

Court Action ......

429 F.3d 1136
(D.C. Cir., December 2,
2005).

Minimum Training Requirements
for
Entry-Level
Commercial
Motor Vehicle Operators.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21).

FMCSA’s NPRM

Minimum Training Requirements
for
Entry-Level
Commercial
Motor VehicleOperators.

FMCSA’s Withdrawal Notice.

December 26,
2007; 72 FR
73226.
July 6, 2012;
Public Law
No. 112–141,
§ 32304, 126
Stat. 405, 791.
September 19,
2013; 78 FR
57585.

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.
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.
FMCSA proposed regulations requiring both classroom and BTW
training from an accredited institution or program.

ELDT Negotiated Rulemaking .......

FMCSA’s Public
Notices.

August 19, 2014;
79 FR 49044.

Public Meetings

December 10,
2014; 79 FR
73274.
February 12,
2015; 80 FR
7814.
February–May
2015.
September 18,
2014; No. 14–
1183, D.C.
Circuit (2014).
March 10, 2015

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.
Minimum Training Requirements
for
Entry-Level
Commercial
Motor Vehicle Operators.

Congressional
Action.

Court Action ......

FMCSA’s NPRM

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

March 7, 2016;
81 FR 11944.

MAP–21 requires DOT to regulate ELDT.

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.
FMCSA formally announced that it was considering addressing the
rulemaking mandated by MAP–21 through a negotiated rulemaking.
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.
The Agency published a Federal Register notice listing the ELDTAC
members as required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act.
The ELDTAC met for a series of six two-day meetings to produce a
consensus agreement, which formed the basis for the NPRM.
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.
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.

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

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
proficiency assessment of drivertrainees. 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 Stateadministered 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 safetyrelated 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

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88741

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88742

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 nondomiciled 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 nondomiciled 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 drivertrainees 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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 DriverTrainees 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

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88743

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88744

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 drivertrainee’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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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, drivertrainees, 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 Stateadministered 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 inperson 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 midsized 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

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88745

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 drivertrainee’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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88746

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 drivertrainee’s needs. Additionally, the NPRM
proposed that all required driving
maneuvers must be performed to the
satisfaction of the instructor. In the

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

NPRM, the definitions of ‘‘BTW range
training’’ and ‘‘BTW public road
training’’ each included a requirement
that the training occur when a ‘‘drivertrainee 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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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.’’
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]ntrylevel 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
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.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88747

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 entrylevel 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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88748

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 performancebased standard to be instituted at least
until such time as actual data from realworld 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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 drivertrainee’s individual performance of the
required BTW elements of the range and
public road training. The final rule

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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 CostBenefit Analysis/Data Needs Work
Group was established within the
ELDTAC.6 In the March 2016 NPRM,
6 ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, February 26–27,
2015. For more information concerning the CostBenefit Analysis/Data Needs Work Group’s efforts
to compile data related to the efficacy of entry-level

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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
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 drivertrainees 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.
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
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.’’
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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88749

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
10 Members of the ELDTAC included a variety of
CMV driver training experts, including the
Professional Truck Drivers Institute (PTDI), a nonprofit 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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

Continued

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88750

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 drivertrainee 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.
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 drivertrainee 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 proficiencyDirectors 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

A and B curricula assumed some level
of repetition of required skills.11
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.)
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 drivertrainees 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
11 ELDTAC

Meeting Minutes, May 28–29, 2015, p.

17.
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.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 entrylevel 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 caseby-case basis.
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 drivertrainee 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
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).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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. Drivertrainees 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88751

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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88752

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 drivertrainees 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 drivertrainees 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,

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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, drivertrainees 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 railroadhighway 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 railroadhighway 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.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 postcrash, ‘‘do not correspond to specific
substantive safety requirements and are
inconsistent with prudent operations.’’
Minnesota suggested that the rule
‘‘address training requirements for nonfifth wheel combinations in addition to
the traditional tractor-trailer
combinations,’’ noting that if CDL
holders are restricted to operating a nonfifth 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.,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

§§ 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 sectionby-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 noncompliant 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

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88753

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 drivertrainee 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

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88754

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

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 drivertrainees 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW
Training
As defined in the NPRM, BTW
training means training provided by a
qualified driver-instructor when drivertrainees 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 drivertrainee 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

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

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.
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 fuelefficient 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
15 Commercial Motor Vehicle Driving Simulator
Validation Study (SimVal): Phase II (Report No.
FMCSA–RRR–10–044, October 2010).

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

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 drivertrainee’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 dualrange 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.
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 drivertrainee’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
16 ‘‘Proposed Core Curriculum’’, ELDTAC
Meeting, April 23–24, 2015, available at
www.FMCSA.dot.gov/advisory-committees/eldtac/
meetings.
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

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88755

description of the ‘‘shifting/
transmission topic’’ was subsequently
adopted as part of the Class B BTWpublic 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.
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 drivertrainee 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
Because the final rule does not require
that driver-trainees complete a
minimum number of BTW training
that is activated by a pedal or lever and a gear-shift
mechanism operated by either hand or foot.’’
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.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88756

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

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 automatictransmission 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 drivertrainee to proficiently perform the
required skills; the ELDTAC did not
ascribe any set number of hours to the
performance of specific tasks. More
importantly, as explained above, the
Agency believes that, by keeping the
curriculum topic descriptions broad, the
ELDTAC intended to permit flexibility
in the type of training delivered, based
on the driver-trainee’s choice of vehicle
within a designated group. The ELDTAC
agreed to assign a specified number of
BTW hours for the Class A and B
curricula after the curricula had been
unanimously adopted by the full
committee. FMCSA therefore concludes
that, if the proposed BTW minimum
hours requirements had been retained in
the final rule, a reduction in the
minimum number of BTW hours based
on any specific vehicle type would not
have been justified. The Agency
therefore continues to assume that most
driver-trainees will spend at least 30
and 15 hours to complete the Class A
and Class B BTW curricula,
respectively.
Contrary to the assertion of
commenters who noted that, if a drivertrainee completes training in an
automatic transmission-equipped
vehicle, the training provider would
need to indicate that on the trainee’s
ELDT certification the provider
electronically submits to the TPR, there
is no need to identify the specific
transmission type in which the driver
completed BTW training. As noted in
the NPRM and in today’s rule, each
BTW curriculum requires only that the
training be conducted in a vehicle
representative of the applicable class or
endorsement. As explained above, there
is no ‘‘automatic transmission only’’
training designation. Driver-trainees
will take BTW training in the type of
CMV they intend to operate and,
consequently, in which they expect to
take the CDL skills test. The training
certificate would simply indicate, for
example, that the individual completed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

training applicable to a Class A or Class
B CDL.
In response to the Iowa DOT’s
question concerning what, if any, ELDT
requirements would apply to drivers
who obtain ‘‘automatic transmission
only’’ training and subsequently have
that restriction removed from the CDL
by taking a skills test in a manual
transmission-equipped vehicle, the
answer is that no further ELDT would
be required. Again, FMCSA notes there
is no ‘‘automatic transmission only’’
training designation. An applicant who
takes the CDL skills test in a CMV
subject to a restriction (e.g., a CMV
equipped with an automatic
transmission), and who subsequently
has that restriction removed following
successful completion of a skills test in
a non-restricted vehicle, is not required
to obtain any further ELDT. In today’s
rule, FMCSA revises § 380.603 to clarify
that the ELDT requirements do not
apply to drivers who simply have a
restriction removed from their CDL.
17. Class C CDL Curriculum
FMCSA did not propose a curriculum
for Class C CDL training because a
Group C vehicle must be designed to
transport 16 or more passengers
(including the driver) or any hazardous
materials as defined in 49 CFR 383.5. As
such, the driver of a Group C vehicle
needs a P, S, or H endorsement. The
NPRM proposed training curricula for
each of these endorsements. In addition,
because Group C vehicles weigh less
than 26,001 pounds, the Agency does
not believe it is necessary to prescribe
BTW training comparable to the other
classes of CDL.
Comments: Washington DOL
commented that ‘‘[s]ince a Class C
driver must be getting a passenger,
school bus or hazardous materials
endorsement to obtain the CDL, Class C
drivers should be required to meet the
same minimum behind-the-wheel
training requirements as Class B drivers
to ensure public safety.’’ The State of
Michigan commented that it ‘‘is
satisfied that entry-level Class C drivers
will receive sufficient training through
endorsement training,’’ but noted that
‘‘if endorsement training is eliminated
from the final rule then the issue of
Class C training should be examined.’’
The NYAPT commented that it is
unclear whether the proposed
regulations would apply to Class C CDL
holders who drive smaller school buses,
including ‘‘Type A’’ buses. NYAPT
requested that FMCSA clarify that issue,
stating that ‘‘these drivers should be
covered by the regulations given their
responsibilities for transporting our
children.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not
include a Class C CDL curriculum in
today’s final rule. As explained in the
NPRM, the Agency believes that Class C
license holders will receive the
appropriate training required for any of
the three endorsements applicable to a
Class C license. For example, an
applicant wishing to transport
passengers in a Group C vehicle must
complete the P endorsement training,
which includes both theory and BTW
components. Similarly, under today’s
rule, a driver, a driver of a ‘‘Type A’’
(i.e., ‘‘short’’) school buses designed to
carry ten or more passengers, would be
required to complete the theory and
BTW portions of both the P and S
curricula.
We note that, under the final rule,
applicants for the H endorsement are
not required to obtain BTW training
because there is no State-administered
skills test for the H endorsement. As
noted previously, applicants for the H
endorsement will already have a Class
A or B CDL, or will be concurrently
obtaining a Class A or B CDL at the time
they apply for the H endorsement, or
intend to transport hazardous materials
in a vehicle for which a Class A or Class
B CDL is not required. Consequently, H
endorsement applicants must complete
the theory curriculum set forth in
Appendix E of Part 380 before taking the
State-administered knowledge test
required to obtain that endorsement.
18. Passenger Endorsement Training
The NPRM included a curriculum to
address the specific training needs of a
CMV driver seeking a P endorsement.
There was no minimum number of
hours proposed for either the theory or
BTW (range and public road) portions of
the P endorsement training, but the
training provider must cover all of the
topics set forth in the curriculum.
Additionally, the training must be
conducted in a representative vehicle
for the P endorsement.
Comments: Comments on this issue
were generally supportive. The ABA
commented that specialized training
should be required before an
endorsement is conferred because motor
coach driving operations require a
unique skill set. ABA urged adoption of
the Model Motorcoach Curriculum
(MMC) and encouraged the use of
motorcoach/P endorsement training
providers, stating that most truck
driving schools are not able to address
motorcoach driving skills. ABA believes
the rule will increase the transparency
of training provider course offerings and
make it easier for individuals to find
training providers. Overall, ABA
believes this will likely result in an

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
increase in training providers for the
motorcoach industry, as well as an
increase in hiring opportunities for
drivers. In addition to ABA, the UMA
and bus safety groups supported the P
curriculum.
The DDE commented that the theory
curriculum for the P endorsement had
additional items not applicable to
school bus operations, e.g., techniques
of photographing an accident scene,
skid measurements, baggage and cargo
management, identifying prohibited and
acceptable materials, hours of service,
weigh station obligations, and CVSA
out-of-service criteria. DDE stated it
would not have trainers qualified to
teach the additional material in the P
endorsement curriculum. An individual
commenter suggested that the reference
to CVSA inspections be removed from
the S and P curricula ‘‘since the class A/
B truck driver will have a better chance
of being at a roadside [inspection] than
a school bus driver.’’
The AAR stated that certain elements
of the P curriculum, including
inspection of restrooms and handling of
passenger baggage, should not be
required for railroad employees who
drive crew vehicles, as those vehicles
‘‘are not equipped with restrooms and
the drivers do not handle passenger
baggage.’’
The NYAPT had no objection to the
curriculum content prescribed for
attainment of the P endorsement, but
expressed concern over the potential
impact the rigorous training
requirements will have on school bus
driver recruitment and hiring.
Two commenters believed that
limousine drivers should not be
required to complete the proposed
curriculum for the P endorsement
training. Minnesota Chauffeured
Limousine Association (MCLA) stated
that the limousine industry ‘‘already
faces difficulty trying to obtain drivers
because of the stipulations put on us by
the insurance companies,’’ predicting
that ‘‘with these new regulations, it will
be almost impossible to hire drivers or
promote drivers to achieve a passenger
endorsement.’’ The National Limousine
Association (NLA) noted the positive
safety record of the passenger-carrying
motor vehicle industry, suggesting that
the P endorsement training should not
be required for smaller CMVs such as
vans, shuttles, and mini-coaches. NLA
is not aware of any ‘‘pressing concerns
in the pre-arranged passenger ground
transportation industry that would
necessitate additional new training
requirements for those vehicles.’’
In addition, NLA noted that the
majority of its members own vehicle
fleets comprised primarily of sedans.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

The organization expressed concern that
‘‘[i]f the company has one CMV that
does interstate work, then the company
will be required to train all of its drivers
since they may at some point be needed
to drive the CMV.’’ NLA therefore
concluded that ‘‘there should be some
exemption [from P endorsement
requirements] for very small operators.’’
FMCSA Response: In today’s final
rule, FMCSA retains the passenger P
endorsement curriculum largely as
proposed. The Agency adds drawbridge
safety procedures to the theory portion
of the P curriculum and deletes several
topics unrelated to safe operation of
passenger-carrying CMVs. These
changes are discussed below in the
‘‘Section-by-Section Explanation of
Changes from the NPRM.’’
In response to ABA’s suggestion that
the Agency adopt the MMC, we note
that the MMC is not necessarily
intended for entry-level drivers. Rather,
the MMC is a comprehensive training
curriculum for motorcoaches, more
likely to be used in ‘‘finishing’’ training
for newly-hired drivers who have
already obtained the P endorsement. In
contrast, the P endorsement curriculum
in today’s rule focuses on the basic
specific skills that a driver-trainee will
need to master in order to safely operate
a passenger-carrying CMV.
Part 383 currently requires that
anyone seeking the S endorsement also
pass the knowledge and skills tests for
obtaining the P endorsement
(§ 380.123(a)(1)). In response to
comments that the proposed P
curriculum included topics unrelated to
the operation of a school bus, such as
cargo management and weigh station
obligations, we note that such topics are
extremely relevant to common carrier
motor coach operations, which are also
covered by the P endorsement, and are
thus retained in today’s rule.
In the Agency’s judgment, any CMV
driver holding a P endorsement should
be capable of safely operating
representative passenger vehicles
covered by that endorsement, regardless
of whether or not the individual also
holds the S endorsement and intends to
drive only school buses. Similarly, Class
B holders who operate railroad crew
vehicles may not intend to operate other
types of passenger vehicles, such as a
motor coach, but holding a Class B CDL
with a P endorsement permits them to
do so, and they should be trained
accordingly.
In addition, there is no justification
for excepting drivers of ‘‘smaller CMVs
such as vans, shuttles, and minicoaches,’’ from the P endorsement
curriculum requirements, as suggested
by NLA. The fact remains that these

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88757

smaller Group C vehicles are used to
transport passengers. Therefore, it is
important that drivers of these vehicles
receive passenger endorsement-specific
training which allows them to acquire
the knowledge and skills necessary for
their safe operation.
The Agency does not believe that the
P curriculum requirements in today’s
rule will ‘‘kill the passenger
transportation business’’ by making it
too difficult to hire limousine drivers as
MCLA asserted. To the contrary, better
trained drivers may make it less difficult
to obtain liability insurance. In addition,
to the extent that limousine companies
currently provide P endorsement
training to employees or potential
employees or wish to begin providing
such training, they may be listed on the
TPR if they meet the eligibility
requirements set forth in §§ 380.703 and
380.719 of the final rule.
Finally, as noted below in the
discussion of the S endorsement
curriculum, FMCSA does not anticipate
that the training requirements in today’s
rule will hinder school bus driver
recruitment and hiring. The majority of
jurisdictions currently impose school
bus driver training requirements that
meet or exceed the minimum standard
established in the final rule. Under both
the NPRM and the final rule, such
training programs would be eligible for
listing on the TPR. In order to make this
clearer, we amend the definition of
‘‘training provider’’ in today’s rule to
specifically include local/State
governments and school districts.
19. School Bus Endorsement Training
The NPRM included a curriculum to
address the specific training needs of a
CMV driver seeking an S endorsement.
The NPRM did not propose a minimum
number of required hours for either the
theory or BTW (range and public road)
portions of the S endorsement training,
but the training provider must cover all
of the topics in the curriculum. BTW
training must also be conducted in a
representative vehicle for the S
endorsement.
Comments: Comments were mixed on
the proposed S endorsement training.
The NASDPTS believes the proposed
curriculum is appropriate. Furthermore,
NASDPTS is confident that training
provided by most States and school
districts throughout the nation is
consistent with, and in many cases
exceeds, the training outlined in the
NPRM. The National School
Transportation Association (NSTA) also
endorsed the proposed curriculum,
noting that it ensures that all entry-level
drivers will receive the necessary
amount of training on all vital elements

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88758

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

of safe student transportation. Other
commenters also supported the
proposed S endorsement curriculum,
asserting that since many States already
cover these topics in their mandated
school bus driver training, the proposed
curriculum is appropriate as a minimum
national standard.
The DMTA supported S endorsement
training, but stated that no BTW time
should be mandated since the trainee
would already have a Class B CDL or
would need to meet the Class B training
mandate (which includes a BTW
requirement). Some commenters
believed the proposed S endorsement
training is unnecessary because school
bus drivers in most States are currently
subject to rigorous training requirements
from their State Highway Patrols or
Departments of Education.
Consequently, they claim that school
bus drivers are already among the best
trained groups of CDL drivers and have
the best safety record. The NYAPT
expressed concern that ‘‘the rigorous
training programs and provider network
in place will be supplanted by these
new requirements and result in lower
levels of quality and intensity of
training.’’ Accordingly, NYAPT
requested that ‘‘FMCSA consider ways
to grand-parent existing programs that
meet or exceed the proposed high
training standards . . .’’
NYAPT also commented that the new
requirements could likely have an effect
on the shortage of school bus drivers,
stating that ‘‘[t]his training regimen,
however well intended, will make it
more difficult for drivers to be brought
on-line in school bus operations.’’ A
number of SDLAs, including the North
Dakota Department of Transportation,
the Iowa DOT, and the Delaware DMV,
opposed the inclusion of the S
endorsement training, also asserting that
requiring entry-level training for school
bus drivers would negatively impact the
school districts in their States, which
are currently struggling to hire drivers.
Several commenters also noted that
MAP–21 did not mandate S
endorsement training.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA retains the
S endorsement training in the final rule.
As we acknowledged in the NPRM,
while MAP–21 did not specifically
require the adoption of S endorsement
training requirements, the statute did
include the P endorsement within the
scope of required ELDT. In light of the
fact that part 383 currently requires that
anyone seeking to obtain an S
endorsement also obtain a P
endorsement, including the S
endorsement training requirements in
today’s rule is entirely consistent with
MAP–21. FMCSA believes that retaining

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

the S curriculum in the final rule will
improve safety by providing a more
complete approach to training that
involves the transportation of all CMV
passengers, including school children.
FMCSA does not believe the final rule
unduly burdens those jurisdictions that
already maintain reasonable S training
requirements. As noted above, States or
localities currently requiring that school
bus drivers obtain S training that meets
or exceeds the minimum standard
established by today’s rule will be
minimally impacted because the rule
does not impose additional training
requirements on those programs. Any
provider who currently offers S
endorsement training that is equivalent
to, or more stringent than, the
curriculum set forth in proposed
§ 380.621 (now appendix D to part 380)
could be eligible for listing on the TPR,
presuming all instructor qualifications
and other requirements are met. Entities
eligible for listing on the TPR include,
for example, individual school districts,
State agencies or departments, and
third-parties that contract with States or
localities. The Agency revises the
definition of ‘‘training provider’’ in
§ 380.605 of the final rule to make this
more clear. The Agency notes, however,
that it is up to individual training
providers to determine whether they
meet the requirements of today’s rule.
FMCSA disagrees with the DMTA’s
position that the S endorsement training
curriculum should not include a BTW
component. According to DMTA, S
endorsement BTW training would be
redundant since the driver-trainee
would either already have a Class B CDL
or would be required to obtain a Class
B CDL and thus complete a curriculum
that includes at least 15 hours of BTW
training. First, we note that, even in the
absence of a 15 hour minimum BTW
requirement (which was not retained in
the final rule), the school bus-specific
BTW training requirements in today’s
rule do not duplicate the Class B
curriculum requirements for BTW on
either the range or public road. The
range/public road component of the S
endorsement curriculum describes six
maneuvers, specific to the operation of
a school bus, in which the driver-trainee
must demonstrate proficiency, as
determined by the instructor.
When a driver-trainee who has not
previously held a CDL intends to
concurrently obtain a Class B CDL, as
well as the P and S endorsements, the
trainee can elect to take the Class B
BTW training in a school bus. In such
situations, BTW instructors will ensure
that the range and road maneuvers
required as part of the S endorsement
training will be addressed in addition to

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the maneuvers required by the Class B
curriculum. It would be up to the
instructor to determine the point at
which the driver-trainee demonstrates
the school bus-specific competencies.
FMCSA also notes that, for drivertrainees who concurrently obtain
training for the Class B CDL and the P
and S endorsements from the same
training provider, the provider would
electronically submit certification to the
TPR indicating that the individual
completed each of the three curricula.
In addition, not all driver-trainees
wishing to obtain the S endorsement
will necessarily have or need to obtain
a Class B CDL. Those who intend to
drive ‘‘Type A’’ school buses below a
GVWR of 26,001 pounds would not
need to hold or obtain a Class B CDL in
order to obtain the S endorsement.
Similarly, a driver who previously
obtained a Class B CDL by completing
BTW training and taking the CDL skills
test in a straight truck, and who
subsequently wishes to add the S
endorsement to his or her CDL in order
to drive school buses, must complete
the BTW requirements specific to the
operation of a school bus.
Commenters who asserted that the S
endorsement training would either
cause or exacerbate a shortage of school
bus drivers did not offer any specific
information in support of their claims,
other than to note that ‘‘additional’’
training requirements would make it
more difficult to find qualified drivers.
We do not find this generic argument a
persuasive basis for either eliminating
or reducing the S endorsement
curriculum.
As previously discussed, for those
States and localities that already require
training in the safe operation of a school
bus, today’s rule will likely have
marginal impact as long as those
training programs, at a minimum, follow
the S endorsement curriculum as set
forth in Appendix D and become listed
on the TPR. For those jurisdictions
presently without mandated training
that meets this minimum standard,
today’s rule ‘‘raises the bar’’ for safety
by requiring that school bus drivers be
adequately trained. In the Agency’s
judgment, that is the paramount
consideration for any jurisdiction or
entity responsible for transporting
children.
20. Hazardous Materials Endorsement
Training
FMCSA proposed training for
individuals seeking an H endorsement.
As noted above, the current
requirements to obtain an H
endorsement, set forth in § 383.121, do
not include a State-administered skills

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
test, because the H endorsement is not
linked to a specific vehicle group or
type of vehicle. Accordingly, the
proposed H endorsement curriculum
did not include a BTW component. The
NPRM did not require a minimum
number of hours for completing the H
theory curriculum.
The Agency sought comment on the
scope and content of the proposed
curriculum and on whether the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials
Administration’s (PHMSA) hazardous
materials employee training regulations
in 49 CFR 172.704 could be used or
modified to satisfy the proposed H
endorsement training requirements.
Comments: The State of Minnesota
asked whether the H endorsement
training would need to be completed
prior to the applicant taking the Stateadministered H endorsement knowledge
test. Minnesota noted that since the
proposed H endorsement theory
curriculum ‘‘closely mirrors the
information in the hazardous materials
section of the AAMVA CDL manual,’’
the proposed endorsement training may
not be necessary. The NGPA also
commented that the proposed H
endorsement curriculum is
‘‘superfluous’’ because State
governments already provide training
guidance for the H endorsement
knowledge test, which includes material
that ‘‘is analogous to the proposal’’.
Additionally, NGPA noted that propane
motor carriers already have a ‘‘profound
incentive to provide appropriate
training on hazardous material
operations, including all elements
detailed in the proposal.’’
Schneider requested that FMCSA
remove the requirement for H
endorsement training or, in the
alternative, demonstrate the benefit
from training. Schneider noted that H
endorsement applicants are already
required to pass a knowledge test as a
condition of obtaining the endorsement
and that, under the proposed rule, ‘‘the
driver would also be required to pay to
complete this course work.’’
Accordingly, ‘‘Schneider believes the
driver would demonstrate the same
level of knowledge with or without the
ELDT training and, therefore, the benefit
of this training is not likely to justify the
costs.’’
The PMAA supported ‘‘provisions in
the NPRM designed to establish an
improved core curriculum for
Hazardous Materials endorsements.’’
OOIDA does not support substituting
hazardous materials regulations (HMR)
training in 49 CFR 172.704 to satisfy the
H endorsement training in the proposed
rule, noting that ‘‘the ELDTAC
hazardous materials curriculum

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

recommendations were carefully
developed by a clear consensus.’’ On the
other hand, the Iowa DOT commented
that substituting PHMSA’s HMR
training for the H endorsement training
proposed in the NPRM ‘‘seems
reasonable and would establish a more
universal standard for HAZMAT
training.’’
FMCSA Response: As noted in our
discussion of the legal basis for this
rulemaking, MAP–21 requires that
minimum ELDT standards address the
specific training needs of a CMV
operator seeking an H endorsement (49
U.S.C. 31305(c)(2)). The Agency
therefore does not have the legal
authority to remove the H endorsement
training requirements from the final
rule, and they are retained as proposed.
Further, FMCSA concludes that
PHMSA’s hazardous materials training
requirements in § 172.704 may not be
used to satisfy the H endorsement
curriculum requirements in today’s rule
because the PHMSA regulations do not
address the CMV-related topics
included in the H endorsement
curriculum. Finally, motor carriers and
other entities that currently provide H
endorsement training that meets or
exceeds the minimum standard
established in the final rule could
continue to do so, as long as they are
listed on the TPR in accordance with
the eligibility requirements set forth in
§§ 380.703 and 380.719.
21. Refresher Training
FMCSA proposed refresher training
for any CDL holder who is disqualified
from operating a CMV under § 383.51(b)
through (e). The NPRM proposed that a
CDL holder be required to complete
refresher training from a provider listed
on the TPR prior to retaking the Stateadministered skills test to reinstate his
or her Class A or Class B CDL. Under
the NPRM, the State may not restore full
CMV driving privileges until the
disqualification period is completed and
the State receives notification that the
driver completed refresher training.
FMCSA did not propose a minimum
number of required hours for the
refresher training, but required that the
training provider cover all topics in the
curriculum. As proposed, disqualified
drivers taking refresher training would
obtain a restricted CDL solely for the
purpose of completing the BTW portion
of the refresher training curriculum. The
Agency specifically invited comment on
the practical implications of
implementing that proposed
requirement. FMCSA also invited
comment on whether a driver
disqualified under § 383.52 (imminent
hazard) should also be required to

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88759

complete refresher training before his or
her CDL is reinstated.
Comments: Several comments
recognized the value of refresher
training. Advocates, DMTA, and the
electric trades (EEI/NRECA/APPA)
supported the idea of refresher training
for drivers disqualified under 49 CFR
383.51(b) through (e). The State of
Michigan supports refresher training
‘‘only for reinstatement of lapsed CDLs,
major CDL violations, imminent hazard,
§ 383.51, and § 383.52.’’ NYAPT
believes that ‘‘it is appropriate to require
CDL holders who have been disqualified
or put on suspension to engage in some
form of corrective training before they
are allowed to resume their licensed
status.’’
Several commenters noted that the
term ‘‘refresher training’’ may also
pertain to training for CMV drivers
whose CDLs have lapsed for some
period of time. San Juan College
suggested that, in the final rule, the
Agency change the term to
‘Reinstatement Training’ ‘‘to
differentiate the training required for
‘‘highway-safety’’ related issues from
the current refresher training programs
that are not related to a safety issue.’’
Another commenter suggested that
FMCSA make clear that refresher
training is not a short cut to initially
getting a license.
A number of comments opposed all or
part of the refresher training proposal.
The ODOT questioned FMCSA’s stated
premise for refresher training, noting
that ‘‘[t]rained, experienced drivers may
make mistakes or poor decisions in their
driving behavior, but that does not mean
they have suddenly lost their ability to
safely operate a CMV.’’ The North
Dakota DOT commented that the
proposal ‘‘will have a direct
administrative impact on the State’s
workload and lend itself to confusion
for the public.’’ The CA DMV stated that
its ‘‘system would require significant
program modification in order to
prevent the issuance of a CDL when
refresher training was not completed.’’
The VA DMV commented that the
refresher training requirement would
burden drivers subject to a 60-day
disqualification, ‘‘since a driver who is
convicted of two speeding tickets in a
three year period would be required to
obtain an ‘‘R’’ restriction on his CLP/
CDL, complete theory and BTW training
(with fees) and return to DMV to have
the ‘‘R’’ restriction lifted.’’ AAMVA
noted that, while it ‘‘appreciates the
need for refresher training, the
requirement for refresher training for all
violations incorporated under § 383.51
would drastically increase the volume
and demand for operators requiring

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88760

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

such training prior to operational
authorization of a commercial vehicle.’’
A number of commenters pointed out
various logistical and implementation
issues associated with the States’
limited reinstatement of the CDL to
permit driver-trainees to complete the
BTW portion of the refresher training
curriculum, as proposed in § 383.95(h).
The State of Minnesota said that having
to provide limited privileges for
refresher training would be an undue
burden on SDLAs. The commenter
noted that, in addition, ‘‘Minnesota
currently has a conflict with the ‘R’
restriction as that letter code is already
used for something else in MN and this
most likely is the case in many other
states.’’ The State of Michigan
commented that ‘‘the proposal for a
limited license that allows for a training
period when a person is currently under
a suspension/revocation violates the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
(MCSIA) that was very specific that CDL
drivers were not to be issued a limited
term (restricted) license.’’
The NY DMV commented that
‘‘[t]here are too many variables to
consider to implement a ‘limited CDL’
and would be putting a heavy burden on
the States to program and monitor.’’ The
ODOT said that ‘‘requirement for the
SDLA to issue a ‘restricted CDL’ for the
purpose of the BTW portion of the
refresher training is unmanageable and
burdensome.’’ The Nebraska DMV, the
State of Montana-DOJ/MVD, the Iowa
DOT, the CA DMV, and the Delaware
DMV also expressed concerns regarding
the practical difficulties associated with
a temporary reinstatement of the CDL in
order for the holder to complete
refresher training. AAMVA asked what
evidence would be provided which
would allow an individual ‘‘to operate
a CMV for the sole purpose of satisfying
the refresher training.’’
FMCSA Response: The final rule does
not include a requirement for refresher
training. The Agency removed the
provision based primarily on the
SDLAs’ comments identifying specific
ways in which implementation and
administration of the proposed refresher
training requirement would be difficult
and burdensome to administer. Based
on the comments, it is reasonable to
assume that requiring an individual to
obtain a restricted license solely for the
purpose of completing the BTW road
training would cause confusion for law
enforcement, SDLAs, and individual
drivers.
Further, the States impose their own
reinstatement protocols on CDL holders
who have been disqualified, some of
which include remedial driver
education and/or a requirement that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

driver re-take the State-administered
skills test as a condition of CDL
reinstatement.20 FMCSA therefore
concludes that States should maintain
their current flexibility to determine
when, and on what basis, disqualified
CDL holders will be reinstated.
Accordingly, the final rule removes any
reference to or requirement for refresher
training.
22. Training Requirements for DriverTrainees Obtaining Multiple CDL
Credentials
In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed a
Class A CDL core curriculum; a Class B
CDL core curriculum and curricula for
the P, S, and H endorsements. The
curricula for Class A and B CDLs and
the P and S endorsements are comprised
of both theory and BTW (range and
public road) elements. Individuals
seeking the H endorsement would be
required to complete theory training
only. As explained previously, the H
endorsement is not linked to any
specific vehicle group or type of vehicle;
consequently, there is no skills test
required in order to obtain it. The
Agency’s responses to the comments
below address the curriculum
requirements applicable to drivertrainees seeking multiple CDL
credentials.
Comments: The NY DMV noted that
it is not clear whether a driver who is
applying for a Class A or B CDL, as well
as the P and S endorsements at the same
time, must undergo multiple trainings
and obtain certification in all three
training curricula. NY DMV requested
that FMCSA clarify that ‘‘more than one
training curriculum and certification
would be required if undertaking the
skills testing at the same time for more
than one of the applicable Class CDLs or
endorsements.’’
NY DMV also noted that the NPRM is
not clear regarding the obligations of
driver-trainees undertaking multiple
curricula when some of those curricula
have overlapping elements in theory
and/or BTW instruction. They posed the
following example: ‘‘a trainee undergoes
the Class A curriculum, then wants to
undergo the Class B curriculum, may
the Training Provider offer them
reduced theory and/or BTW instruction,
if the trainee took the same theory and/
or BTW instruction form the Class A
curriculum?’’ Other commenters wanted
to know whether a driver upgrading
from a Class B CDL to a Class A CDL
would have to complete the entire Class
20 Drivers who are required to take a Stateadministered skills test in order to reinstate their
CDL would not be subject to the training
requirements of this rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

A curriculum. The Nebraska DMV asked
whether ‘‘anything completed for the
Class B training count[s] toward the
Class A requirement.’’ San Juan College,
noting that the Class A and Class B
curricula are virtually identical but for
the inclusion of ‘‘coupling/uncoupling’’
in Class A training, stated that ‘‘there
should be some training required to
upgrade from Class B to Class A, but it
should only relate to skill required for
pulling a trailer.’’
The DDE commented that the NPRM
does not address the requirements that
a driver with a Class A CDL would need
to meet in order to drive a school bus,
i.e. ‘‘just do the theory and BTW
curriculum for ‘P’ & ‘S’ endorsements or
also complete the Class B theory and
BTW curricula?’’ The CA DMV noted
that the NPRM apparently requires that
a person seeking a P, S, and/or H
endorsement for a Class A or B CDL
meet the specific endorsement training
requirements in addition to the
‘‘standard training requirements for the
specified class of CDL.’’ However, CA
DMV commented that ‘‘that fact is not
clearly noted in the proposed language’’
and requested that FMCSA clarify these
requirements.
The DE DMV commented that
‘‘[r]equiring additional training on top
of Class A and B core ‘entry-level’
training for a specific endorsement is
unnecessary’’ because ‘‘the applicant
has already obtained the knowledge
base necessary to operate a CMV.’’ DE
DMV also noted that it currently
requires 12 hours of classroom training
and 6 hours of BTW training for the ‘‘S
application,’’ which ‘‘falls short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.’’ DE
DMV asserted that if the NPRM’s S
endorsement training requirements were
adopted in the final rule, ‘‘major
changes to our current State laws,
regulations and procedures will need to
be made in order to meet this mandate.’’
FMCSA Response: As proposed in the
NPRM, the final rule requires that a
training provider cover all theory and/
or BTW topics in the curriculum for the
applicable Class or endorsement in
order for a driver-trainee to complete
the training. The Agency acknowledges
that there is overlap in some of the
curricula content. For example, the
topics included in both theory and BTW
curricula for the Class A and B CDLs are
virtually identical in most respects.
However, there is a significant
difference in the types of CMVs to
which the Class A and B CDLs apply.
Group A includes combination vehicles
with a Gross Combination Weight
Rating (GCWR) of 26,001 pounds or
more, provided the Gross Vehicle
Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
being towed exceeds 10,000 pounds
(§ 383.91(a)(1)). Group B includes heavy
straight vehicles (i.e., non-combination)
with a GVWR of 26,000 pounds or more,
or any such vehicle towing vehicle not
in excess of 10,000 pounds GVWR
(§ 383.91(a)(2)).
The different operating characteristics
of these two distinct vehicle groups
require that many of the elements in the
Class A and B curricula, though
topically the same, be taught in ways
tailored to the specific vehicle class.
Space management, extreme driving
conditions, pre-trip inspection, and
backing are examples of topics that
would call for different methods of
instruction depending on the
underlying vehicle class. The current
CDL skills testing process accounts for
the difference in handling
characteristics between and among
vehicle groups by requiring that the
driving tests must be given in a
representative vehicle for a given
vehicle group (§ 383.91(b)). Similarly,
today’s rule requires that BTW training
be conducted in representative vehicles
for the class or endorsement for which
training is provided. To the extent there
is overlap between the Class A and B
curricula, FMCSA agrees with the
numerous commenters who noted that
some level of repetition in training is
acceptable as a means of reinforcing
core concepts and competencies.
Moreover, since the final rule does not
require any minimum number of hours
for BTW training, Class B CDL holders
can reasonably expect to demonstrate
proficiency in the Class A BTW
elements in less time.
In response to the NY DMV’s question
regarding whether a Class A CDL
holder, having already completed Class
A training, who wishes to obtain a Class
B CDL would have to complete the Class
B training curriculum, the answer is no.
Currently, any Class A CDL holder is
permitted to drive a CMV in either
Group B or Group C without taking the
related knowledge/skills tests
(§ 383.91(c)(1)). Today’s rule does not
change existing part 383 licensing
requirements; therefore, no additional
training would be required under those
circumstances.
We note, however, that the ELDT
requirements established in today’s rule
apply to persons who take a skills test
either to obtain a Class A or B CDL for
the first time, to upgrade to a Class A
from a Class B, and to upgrade to a Class
A or B from a Class C. Accordingly, after
the compliance date of the final rule, a
Class B CDL holder wishing to upgrade
to a Class A CDL would be required to
complete the entire Class A curricula
(theory and BTW) before taking the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

skills test for the Class A CDL. Class C
CDL holders seeking to upgrade to a
Class A or B CDL would need to
complete that curriculum before taking
the applicable skills test. In addition,
anyone holding a Class A, B, or C CDL
who wants to obtain a P and/or S
endorsement would need to complete
the entire P and/or S endorsement
curricula (theory and BTW) before
taking the State-administered skills test
in a representative passenger vehicle.
Similarly, any CDL holder seeking an H
endorsement must complete the H
endorsement theory curriculum before
taking the State-administered
knowledge test.
As noted above, the DE DMV asserted
that Class A or B holders already ‘‘have
the knowledge base to operate’’ a CMV
and should therefore not be required to
undergo any additional endorsementrelated training. To the contrary, the
Agency believes it is both necessary and
appropriate that CDL holders obtaining
either the P or the S endorsement be
trained specifically in the safe operation
of the passenger vehicle(s) they will be
licensed to operate.
Several commenters had questions
regarding the ELDT requirements for
driver-trainees obtaining more than one
CDL credential at the same time. For
example, DDE asked whether a Class A
CDL holder wishing to obtain the S
endorsement would need to complete
the Class B, S, and P endorsement
curricula. In that situation, the CDL
holder would need to complete both
portions of the S curriculum since the
applicant would be required to take a
State-administered skills test in order to
obtain the endorsement. Because
§ 383.123(a)(1) currently requires that S
endorsement applicants must also pass
the knowledge and skills test for
obtaining the P endorsement, the
applicant must also complete the theory
and BTW portion of the P endorsement
training curriculum. The Class A CDL
holder in this example would not need
to complete the ELDT curriculum for
the Class B CDL because, as previously
stated, under § 383.91(c)(1), a Class A
CDL holder is already licensed to
operate a Group B (or Group C) vehicle.
As noted above, the DE DMV
expressed concern that the DDE’s
current training program for the S
endorsement, which requires 12 hours
of classroom and 6 hours of BTW
training, ‘‘falls well short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.’’ We
believe that concern is unfounded since
the NPRM did not require any minimum
number of hours for completion of
either the theory or BTW portions of the
S endorsement curriculum, and today’s
rule does not include such

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88761

requirements. In order to comply with
the minimum standard established by
the final rule, existing programs simply
must cover the S endorsement
curriculum, and the instructor must
determine that the driver-trainee is
proficient in the knowledge and skills
covered by the training. As stated
previously, States are free to impose
training requirements that exceed this
minimum standard.
23. Training Materials
As proposed, training providers that
train more than three driver-trainees
annually must provide written training
materials addressing the applicable
curricula to each driver-trainee.
Providers training three or fewer drivertrainees annually were not subject to
this requirement.
Comments: The VA DMV asked
‘‘whether FMCSA will provide training
materials, such as instructor manuals
and student manuals, for use by training
providers or whether FMCSA will
provide a list of approved vendors
where compliant training materials may
be obtained.’’ NYAPT inquired ‘‘as to
the intention of FMCSA to provide
course of study related to the theory
portion of the training to enable training
entities to simply deliver already
approved training programs in the
future.’’
IUOE recommended that the Agency
‘‘post written training materials on-line
and develop an interactive, on-line
training program for the theory portion
of the Core Curricula’’, noting that this
approach would ‘‘provide a feasible
mechanism’’ through which FMCSA
could ensure quality and uniformity of
training. IUOE also noted that FMCSAsponsored training and testing would
‘‘reduce by one-third the costs of ELDT
borne by individual workers.’’
Similarly, OOIDA commented that
‘‘FMCSA should be able to create the
necessary training and assessment for
the theory curriculum’’, which would
prevent disparity among ELDT
providers and provide a basis for
tracking training performance.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not
intend to provide written or electronic
training materials for any of the
curricula set forth in today’s rule, nor
will the Agency endorse or certify
specific materials or vendors. The
minimum curricular standards in the
final rule are designed to provide
sufficient topical guidance to theory
training providers, while allowing those
providers to determine the specific
content and format of their training
materials. The Agency anticipates that
there will be variations in ELDT
curricula based on a training provider’s

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88762

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

presentation preferences and the needs
of the driver-trainees they serve. In
addition, training providers are
permitted to add additional curriculum
elements they deem appropriate.
Accordingly, FMCSA-provided theory
training materials represents an
approach entirely inconsistent with the
flexibility envisioned by today’s rule.
FMCSA anticipates that the final rule
will encourage new entrants into the
market for ELDT services, which will
increase the availability of innovative
and cost-effective alternatives from
which driver-trainees may choose. In
addition, many motor carrier employers
seeking qualified driver applicants
currently provide ELDT (including
training materials) at little or no cost to
the driver-trainee, and the Agency has
no basis to anticipate that will change
as a result of the final rule. Because
IUOE offered no substantiation for its
claim that FMCSA-provided online
training materials would reduce drivertrainees’ costs by one-third, the Agency
is unable to respond directly to that
assertion.
As noted above, the final rule makes
no distinction based on the size of the
training provider; therefore, smaller
training entities are subject to the
requirement that written training
materials must be provided to drivertrainees.
24. Sequence of ELDT
In the NPRM, FMCSA did not propose
that the theory, BTW-range, and BTWpublic road training occur in a specific
sequence, but requested comment on
whether there should be a particular
order for any of the required curricula.
The Agency also requested comment on
whether theory training should be
required before a driver-trainee takes the
State-administered knowledge test to
obtain a CLP.
Comments: FMCSA received a
number of comments supporting the
NPRM’s approach, which allows
training providers the flexibility to
determine how they would structure
and sequence their programs. According
to DTCC, many schools have been very
successful in training CDL drivers using
a variety of curricular sequencing and
that ‘‘[t]o take this academic freedom
away would cause undue hardship to
the training providers and students
alike.’’
ATA agreed that training providers
should be granted flexibility to
determine when to teach various
elements of the ELDT curricula, noting
that many of CDL training schools
currently provide instruction in most, if
not all, of the curricula elements
proposed in the NPRM. Over the years,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

the experience of those providers has
taught them the best sequence in which
to teach various elements. Additionally,
ATA stated that maintaining this
flexibility will encourage innovative
and adaptive training programs that
could greatly improve collective
understanding of effective CDL training.
The VA DMV suggested that the final
rule should require that theory and
BTW-range instruction be provided
before the BTW-public road portion of
the training in order to ‘‘ensure that
drivers have a basic understanding of
the laws governing CMVs and what to
expect before beginning operation of a
vehicle.’’ AAMVA commented that it
would be ‘‘logical’’ to provide theory
training prior to any BTW ‘‘where an
increased element of danger is
introduced into the environment,’’ also
noting that prior theory training would
increase the value and efficiency of
BTW training. AAMVA recommended
that ‘‘range hours precede public road
training to limit public exposure to
drivers that have not had BTW training
in a controlled environment.’’ The State
of Michigan favored requiring that
‘‘some’’ theory instruction be completed
before beginning BTW training,
Michigan also commented that the final
rule should require that theory training
‘‘be coordinated with’’ BTW training
and, if not, ‘‘states should be allowed to
require such coordination.’’
VU asked whether driver-trainees will
be required to complete the full ten
hours of range training for a Class A
CDL before proceeding to the public
road portion of the training.
AAMVA also commented that theory
training should not be a mandatory
requirement for taking the SDLA
knowledge test, but should be made
available to students who may want to
use theory training to aid in their
preparation for obtaining a CLP. San
Juan College commented that, although
completion of the theory portion of the
ELDT does not need to be required
before taking the State-administered
CLP written tests, applicants would be
much better prepared to take the CLP
tests after completing their theory
training. VU strongly believes that
driver-trainees should not be required to
take theory training before obtaining a
CLP, noting that a student’s ability to
obtain a CLP, whether prior to or during
the theory training, will facilitate the
timely completion of the BTW portion
of the training.
FMCSA Response: In today’s final
rule, FMCSA retains the approach
proposed in the NPRM; there is no
mandatory order in which the theory,
BTW-range, and BTW-public road
training must be administered, nor does

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the rule require that theory training
must be completed before obtaining a
CLP. The Agency believes it is
appropriate to allow the training
providers to determine how to structure
their programs and best serve the needs
of their students. Accordingly, the final
rule does not require that a certain
portion of range training precede the
public road portion of BTW training for
either a Class A or Class B CDL.
However, as we noted in the NPRM,
FMCSA expects that, for any of the BTW
curricula established in today’s rule,
trainers will require that driver-trainees
master basic vehicle control maneuvers
in a controlled environment before
allowing them to operate a CMV on a
public road. In addition, if States
currently have or wish to impose
requirements for sequential or
integrated ELDT, nothing in the final
rule prohibits them from doing so.
25. ELDT Instructor Qualifications
The NPRM proposed that, among
other things, ELDT instructors providing
theory and BTW training must be
‘‘experienced drivers’’ having at least
one year of experience in either CMV
operation or driver training instruction.
The Consensus Agreement noted the
ELDTAC’s preference for two or more
years of CMV driving experience.
FMCSA requested comment on whether
a two-year experience requirement
would affect the applicability of State
laws relating to instructors or training
providers.
The NPRM also proposed that BTW
instructors complete training in the
public road portion of the curriculum in
which they are instructing.
a. BTW Instructors—Level of CMV
Driving or Instruction Experience
Comments: Most commenters
supported a minimum of two years of
experience operating a CMV; however,
several commenters thought the
minimum of CMV driving experience
should be five years. Truckers for a
Cause strongly disagreed with the length
of the proposed experience requirement,
stating that ‘‘[i]t does not mandate
enough experience to properly train a
CLP holder.’’ Truckers for a Cause
recommended that experience be
specified as either 200,000 miles of
‘‘logged over the road driving’’ or 3000
hours of ‘‘paycheck documented driving
work time.’’ Similarly, Minnesota noted
that its CDL BTW instructor
qualifications refer to hours of
experience, i.e., ‘‘3000 hours within the
last five years of experience operating
the class of vehicle for which
instruction will be provided.’’

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Other commenters, including NAPT
and ATD, urged FMCSA to allow a
maximum degree of flexibility in setting
instructor qualifications. Virginia
requested the final rule make clear ‘‘that
these are minimum requirements so that
the states have flexibility in requiring
additional criteria.’’ ATD expressed
concern that ‘‘overly restrictive
instructor qualification requirements
would unduly limit the number and
availability of qualified instructor/
trainers.’’ DTCC commented that the
final rule should specify that the
instructor’s experience pertain to the
classification of CMV in which
instruction is being provided.
FMCSA Response: In today’s rule,
FMCSA increases the minimum level of
CMV driving or instructional experience
from one year, as proposed, to two
years. Accordingly, the rule requires
that BTW instructors hold a CDL of the
same (or higher) class, with all
endorsements necessary to operate the
CMV for which training is to be
provided, and have either a minimum of
two years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of the same or higher
class and/or the same endorsement or at
least two years of experience as a BTW
CMV instructor. In addition, as
proposed in the NPRM, BTW instructors
must meet all applicable State
requirements for CMV instructors.
Accordingly, nothing in the final rule
prohibits States from imposing more
stringent qualifications for BTW
instructors, such as a requirement that
they have at least five years of CMV
driving experience.
FMCSA believes this approach, which
reflects the ELDTAC’s preference for at
least two years of CMV driving or BTW
instruction experience, as well as the
opinion of numerous commenters,
establishes a sufficient minimum
qualification standard for BTW
instructors. We also note that the
instructional requirements described
above are now incorporated directly
into the definition of ‘‘BTW instructor’’
in § 380.603, rather than in the
definition of ‘‘experienced driver,’’ as
proposed. Consequently, the term
‘‘experienced driver’’ does not appear in
the final rule.
Finally, we note the final rule does
not include the requirement, proposed
in the NPRM, that certain BTW
instructors must have completed
training in the public road portion of the
curriculum in which they are
instructing. The Agency believes the
higher level of CMV driving experience
now required makes that additional
requirement unnecessary.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

b. Theory Instructors—Level of CMV
Driving or Instruction Experience
Comments: The NY DMV requested
that FMCSA clarify how the proposed
definition of ‘‘experienced driver’’
applies to theory instructor qualification
requirements.
FMCSA Response: As noted above,
the final rule does not use the term
‘‘experienced driver.’’ The qualifications
for theory instructors are now
incorporated directly into the definition
of ‘‘theory instructor’’ in § 380.605.
Under the final rule, theory instructors
must hold a CDL of the same (or higher)
class, and with all endorsements
necessary, to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, and have a
minimum of two years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of that
class or endorsement or at least two
years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor. The NPRM proposed that
theory instructors have a minimum of
one year of CMV driving or instruction
experience. The two-year level of CMV
driving or instruction experience is thus
commensurate with the BTW instructor
qualifications described above.
In addition, FMCSA deletes the
proposed qualification that theory
instructors must have audited or
instructed the portion of theory training
that they intend to provide. On further
consideration, we concluded that this
qualification standard is insufficient
because it does not require that the
theory instructor have actual CMV
driving or instructional experience. In
the final rule, the Agency adds an
exception to the theory instructor
qualifications set forth in § 380.605: An
instructor is not required to hold a CDL
of the same (or higher) class and with
all endorsements necessary to operate
the CMV for which training is to be
provided, as long as the instructor
previously held a CDL of that class and
meets all other qualification
requirements. The Agency makes this
change in order to permit retired CMV
drivers, who may have many years of
experience operating a CMV but who no
longer hold a CDL, to provide theory
instruction. As noted below, this change
responds to a comment regarding the
valuable experience that such drivers
possess.
The final rule requires that, as
proposed, theory instructors must also
meet any applicable State requirements
for CMV instructors. However, today’s
rule includes a limited exception to that
requirement when online theory
training is provided. Because the nature
of online training makes it available
literally anywhere there is an internet
connection, it would be impractical to

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88763

expect an online provider to meet
multiple (and possibly conflicting)
State-based requirements pertaining to
CMV theory instructors. Therefore,
State-based qualification requirements
otherwise applicable to theory
instructors would not apply to those
instructors who provide content for
online providers. The Agency adds a
requirement pertaining to theory
providers who offer online content in
any of the theory curricula included in
today’s rule: They must ensure that the
online theory curriculum content is
prepared and/or delivered by theory
instructors who meet the qualifications
described above (e.g., two years of CMV
driving or BTW instruction experience).
c. Additional Instructor Qualification
Issues
Comments: Truckers for a Cause
suggested that ‘‘older experienced
drivers who may no longer be able to
obtain a DOT medical card’’ be able to
qualify as instructors under the final
rule.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA adds an
exception to the BTW instructor
qualifications in today’s rule: A BTW
instructor who provides training on a
range that is not a public road does not
need to hold a CDL of the same or
higher class, and with all endorsements
necessary, for which training is to be
provided, as long as he or she
previously held a CDL of the same or
higher class, and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the vehicle for
which training is to be provided, has at
least two years of CMV driving
experience or CMV instruction
experience, meets applicable State
requirements, and meets the driving
history requirements for BTW
instructors, as discussed below. This
limited exception allows older drivers,
some of whom may be retired from
driving or are no longer medically
qualified to operate a CMV on a public
road, to teach entry-level drivers during
the range portion of BTW training.
However, since any instructor who
provides BTW range training on a
public road or BTW public road training
would need to hold a CDL, this
exception would not apply to training
conducted under either of those
circumstances. (See § 380.605 for BTW
instructor qualifications and
requirements.)
26. BTW Instructors’ CMV Driving
History
The NPRM proposed that within the
past two years, BTW instructors must
not have had any CMV-related
convictions for the offenses identified in
§ 383.51(b) through (e). It also required

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88764

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

training providers to utilize public road
BTW instructors whose driving records
meet applicable Federal and State
requirements.
Comments: All comments addressing
this issue agreed that a BTW instructor’s
driving record is relevant in
determining whether the instructor is
qualified. Both DMTA and DTCC
commented that, because of the serious
nature of the offenses identified in
§ 383.51(b) through (e), any driver
disqualified for any of those offenses
should be permanently barred from
engaging in BTW instruction. OOIDA
commented that three of the offenses
proposed as a basis for disqualifying a
BTW instructor (i.e., speeding
excessively, following the vehicle ahead
too closely, and railroad-highway grade
crossing offenses) have the potential to
be ‘‘cited incorrectly’’ and thus should
not be relied on to determine an
instructor’s qualification. OOIDA also
suggested that the time period for
disqualifying offenses should be five
years, rather than two years as
proposed.
An individual driver stated that
instructors should ‘‘have no record of
theft or violence of any kind, nor have
had any record of drug use or DUI.’’ The
NY DMV noted that, in addition to the
offenses identified in § 383.51(b)
through (e), ‘‘there are many other
factors on a driving record that would
make an instructor undesirable,
including, but not limited to, other
sanctions, fraud, non-CMV violations,
and accidents,’’ suggesting that FMCSA
strengthen the provision pertaining to
an instructor’s prior driving record. The
ODOT asked what is meant by the
proposed requirement that an
instructor’s driving record meet
‘‘applicable Federal and State
requirements.’’
FMCSA Response: In an effort to both
simplify and clarify this provision,
today’s rule states that if an instructor’s
CDL has been suspended, revoked, or
cancelled due to any of the
disqualifying offenses identified in
§ 383.51, the instructor is prohibited
from engaging in BTW instruction for
two years following the date his or her
CDL is reinstated following the
disqualification. Anyone who loses the
privilege to drive a CMV due to
engaging in any of these unsafe driving
behaviors should not be entrusted to
teach entry-level drivers how to safely
operate a CMV.
The Agency believes that the standard
for BTW instructor disqualification is
more appropriately based on CDL
suspension, revocation, or cancellation,
rather than on CMV-related convictions,
as proposed. This change reflects the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

fact that under § 383.51, certain offenses
require more than one conviction before
a driver’s CDL is suspended, cancelled,
or revoked, while other offenses result
in loss of CDL driving privileges after
the first conviction. The outcome
therefore varies according to the severity
of the underlying offense. Therefore,
BTW instructor disqualification is based
on the loss of CDL driving privileges
due to unsafe driving behaviors.
We also note that the NPRM’s
proposed requirement that a BTW
instructor’s driving record meet
‘‘applicable Federal and State
requirements’’ has been deleted from
the final rule. FMCSA concludes the
language is unnecessary in light of the
reference to ‘‘applicable State
requirements for CMV instructors’’ in
the definition of ‘‘BTW instructor’’ in
§ 380.605.
Finally, FMCSA reiterates that States
are permitted to impose more stringent
BTW instructor requirements.
27. ‘‘De-Certification’’ of ELDT
Instructors
Comments: The NY DMV noted that
the NPRM did not include processes
related to the ‘‘de-certification’’ or
reinstatement of ELDT instructors.
FMCSA Response: Under today’s rule,
FMCSA has no role in certifying
training instructors. The final rule
defines a minimum qualification
standard for BTW and theory
instructors, but leaves it up to the
training provider to determine whether
those qualifications, as well as any
applicable State requirements, are met.
Further, FMCSA is not in a position to
evaluate a training provider’s
compliance with State requirements. As
part of the self-certification process,
training providers must attest, under
penalty s of perjury, that they comply
with the requirements of §§ 380.703 and
380.719 in order to be eligible for initial
and continued listing on the TPR. Those
requirements include utilizing BTW
and/or theory instructors meeting the
criteria set forth in § 380.713. Failure to
meet State requirements could result in
the training provider’s removal from the
TPR.
28. Self-Certification of Training
Providers
As proposed, in order to be listed on
the TPR, a training provider must meet
the applicable eligibility requirements
set forth in subpart G and electronically
submit a completed Training Provider
Registration Form affirming, under
penalty of perjury, that the provider will
teach the FMCSA-prescribed curriculum
that is appropriate for the CDL class or
endorsement. FMCSA did not propose

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

that training providers be accredited by
a third-party organization in order to be
eligible for listing on the TPR.
Comments: Commenters strongly
supported the concept of training
provider self-certification. ATA
supported the proposed requirement
that training providers self-certify
because it will ensure there are an
adequate number of training providers
available when the rule is fully
implemented. Furthermore, ATA
believed that periodic audits will
confirm that these training providers are
offering fully compliant programs.
The NMFTA was also supportive. It
stated that while self-certification
processes are ‘‘commonly viewed as
suspect,’’ in this case FMCSA has
proposed adequate safeguards to ensure
they are meaningful. NMFTA cited the
proposed documentation retention
requirements and on-site audits or
investigations by FMCSA as additional
enhancements to program integrity.
ATD supports the self-certification
proposal because a third-party
accreditation mandate would be too
bureaucratic, inflexible, and costly.
They also noted that an accreditation
model could result in an insufficient
supply of training options to meet
industry demands.
The Agency did not receive any
comments opposing self-certification.
FMCSA Response: In today’s rule,
FMCSA retains the self-certification
approach for training providers, as
proposed in the NPRM. In response to
specific comments, the Agency clarified
some of the data elements to be
included in the Training Provider
Registration Form, which are discussed
immediately below.
29. Training Provider Identification
Form and Related Information
Requirements
The proposed Training Provider
Identification Report form (TPID form),
available in the NPRM docket, was
designed to capture the information
necessary for registration on the TPR,
such as identifying business and
training facility information, training
provider type (e.g., in-house, for-hire),
and type of CDL training offered (i.e.,
specific CDL class or endorsement). The
TPID also included a section titled
‘‘Third-Party Quality Control,’’ in which
providers could indicate the CMV driver
training third-party certification or
accreditation organizations with which
they are affiliated. The proposed form
identified three organizations by name
(i.e., PTDI, CVTA, and NAPFTDS) and
also provided a blank space in which
applicants could specifically identify
other third-party groups to which they

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
belong. The NPRM proposed that
training providers report changes in key
information within 30 days of the
change and biennially submit an
updated TPID form to FMCSA. The
Agency also noted that the TPR would
provide a way for individuals seeking
training to find an eligible provider
meeting their specific needs.
Comments: The State of Michigan
supports the requirement for training
providers to report each training
location (§ 380.703(a)(6)) and that each
location have some unique identifier in
the TPR, but is concerned that as
proposed, the rule may not link
multiple locations to one training
provider. Michigan suggested that two
‘‘linked sets of unique identifiers be
created—one for training providers
(business entities) and another for
facilities (locations used by providers).’’
UPS expressed concern about ‘‘the lack
of clarity in the rule regarding whether
each of the numerous training facilities
it operates across the United States must
be separately registered’’ and subject to
biennial renewal of registration and
other requirements for continued listing
on the TPR.
The VA DMV asked whether there
‘‘will be an initial fee for applicants to
register’’ or a fee associated with
continued listing on the TPR. Some
commenters were concerned that the
registration process would be unduly
burdensome and expensive. UPS said
that ‘‘[t]he proposed rule would impose
on UPS and other carriers with proven
in-house training programs the
unnecessary cost and burden of
ensuring that all of it facilities meet the
specific requirements’’ for listing on the
TPR. The NSTA, citing ‘‘administrative
fees and burdens’’ that it expects to be
associated with the registration process,
urged FMCSA to streamline the required
information and registration process as
much as possible in order to minimize
costs.
Dart Transportation recommended
that ‘‘motor carriers not be required to
register as certified training programs as
long as [they] use BTW trainers with at
least one year of experience and
otherwise meet all DOT qualification
requirements.’’ UPS recommended that
‘‘any school operated by a motor carrier
that employs more than 1000 CDLlicensed drivers for the purpose of
training drivers that the motor carrier
intends to employ, shall be conclusively
presumed to satisfy the requirements for
listing on the TPR.’’
The VA DMV requested that FMCSA
maintain a ‘‘publicly accessible listing
of approved training providers that
includes when providers have received
a notice of proposed removal.’’ The

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

NYAPT commented that, as proposed,
the TPR will ‘‘require many school
districts to sign up as training
providers’’ which ‘‘will inflate the size
of the Registry significantly with entities
that seek to train their own drivers and
who are not intending to make their
services available to other employers.’’
Minnesota commented that ‘‘[t]here
will need to be communication between
the TPR registry and states that license
CDL training schools when a training
school fails to follow state
requirements.’’ The NY DMV asked
whether the State has an affirmative
obligation to inform FMCSA if a training
provider ‘‘ceases to be certified to
provide training in that State.’’
IUOE requested that FMCSA clarify
that ‘‘apprenticeship programs and
other joint labor-management programs
satisfy the ‘third-party quality control’
section’’ of the TPID Report form. IUOE
also noted that, in the NPRM, FMCSA
stated its intention to provide post-rule
guidance regarding both suggested and
proposed documentation establishing a
training provider’s compliance with the
eligibility requirements for listing on the
TPR. IUOE urged the Agency to ‘‘resolve
issues related to third-party quality
control through the rulemaking process,
rather than through post-regulatory
guidance.’’ The Montana Logging
Association (MLA) asked that FMCSA
‘‘eliminate or modify the part where
training facilities need to be accredited
by an educational source.’’
FMCSA Response: The Agency
appreciates the comments it received on
the training provider registration
process, some of which led to revisions
in the newly titled Training Provider
Registration Form (TPRF) and/or the
related instructions, both available in
the docket of this rulemaking. For
example, FMCSA agrees with
commenters who raised questions about
the registration process for training
providers with multiple training facility
locations. The Agency revises the
registration form to accommodate
Michigan’s suggestion that, for such
entities, linked sets of unique identifier
numbers be assigned, one for the
training provider business entity and
others for separate training locations
operated by that entity. FMCSA intends
to minimize the training locationspecific information required for the
biennial updates for entities that
maintain multiple training locations.
We also note that the TPRF is an online
form that must be electronically
transmitted through the TPR Web site.
The Agency will not accept paper
registrations forms.
There is no fee associated with either
initial or continuing registration on the

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88765

TPR. Further, FMCSA expects that the
registration process itself will be neither
burdensome nor costly, as the process is
entirely electronic and captures basic
identifying and categorical information.
The Agency sees no rationale under
which motor carrier-operated training
schools should be permitted to opt out
of the TPR registration requirements on
the basis of their size or safety record,
as several commenters suggested. Such
exceptions would defeat the very
purpose of the registration process,
which is to provide FMCSA with
identifying information and to require
all training providers to attest, under
penalty of perjury, that they provide
ELDT in accordance with the final rule.
In addition, registration is necessary to
allow for the electronic transmission of
training certification information to the
TPR.
FMCSA acknowledges that some
training providers, including those who
provide ELDT only for their own
employees or prospective employees,
may wish to keep their contact
information private and therefore not
have it publicly displayed on the TPR
Web site. Accordingly, training
providers who do not intend to make
their services available to all drivertrainee applicants can elect not to
include their contact information in the
public listing that appears on the TPR
Web site. This option will be made
available at the time of initial
registration and can be changed anytime
the provider so chooses. Because these
training providers do not wish to be
contacted by driver-trainee applicants,
they will be listed on the TPR Web site
simply by name, city, and State. We
note, however, that it is important that
all training providers eligible to deliver
training that complies with today’s rule
be publicly listed, so that driver-trainee
applicants will have a reliable means of
confirming the provider’s eligibility.
The publicly available information on
the TPR may be accessed by anyone, at
no cost. A provider listed on the TPR is
eligible to provide ELDT once it has
been assigned a unique training
provider ID number. However, the
Agency emphasizes that, as explained
above in the discussion of the selfcertification approach adopted in
today’s rule, merely because a training
provider is listed on the TPR does not
mean that FMCSA certifies or otherwise
‘‘approves’’ that provider’s operations.
Prospective entry-level drivers are thus
encouraged to perform their own due
diligence before selecting a suitable
training provider.
The Agency agrees with the VA
DMV’s suggestion that training
providers who have received a notice of

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88766

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

proposed removal should be publicly
identified on the TPR Web site. The
final rule requires, as proposed, that
training providers who receive a notice
of proposed removal under § 380.723(b)
to inform current driver-trainees, as well
as those scheduled for future training, of
the proposed removal. However,
FMCSA believes this information
should also be available on the TPR
Web site as an additional means of
putting prospective students on notice
that the Agency issued a notice of
proposed removal to a training provider
listed on the TPR. In the event that
FMCSA withdraws the notice, the
Agency would remove the designation
that a notice was issued. FMCSA adds
this provision to § 380.723(b) of the final
rule.
Several commenters asked whether a
State must inform the Agency whenever
a CMV driver training provider licensed,
certified, or otherwise approved by that
State no longer complies with the
applicable requirements imposed by the
State. The answer is yes, and parts 383
and 384 are revised to make that
obligation clear. This notification
requirement is necessary because
FMCSA has no independent means by
which to monitor a training provider’s
compliance with existing State laws and
regulations. A training provider’s failure
to comply with the licensure,
certification, or other requirements of
the State in which it conducts training
may result in that provider’s removal
from the TPR.
In response to comments by MLA and
IUOE, FMCSA notes that we may have
inadvertently caused confusion by
labeling a section of the TPID form as
‘‘Third-Party Quality Control.’’ As noted
above, no third-party certification or
accreditation requirements for training
providers were proposed in the NPRM
and none are adopted in the final rule.
The purpose of this section on the
proposed TPID form was merely to
identify organizational affiliations that
training providers may have. There is no
requirement that training providers
belong to any third-party group as a
condition of listing on the TPR. In order
to avoid confusion going forward,
FMCSA changes the name of that
section of the registration form from
‘‘Third-Party Quality Control’’ to
‘‘Third-Party Affiliations.’’ We also add
‘‘joint labor-management programs’’ to
the list of third-party organizations
identified in this section of the form.
FMCSA further clarifies that the
Agency does not intend to issue postrule guidance pertaining to ‘‘third-party
quality control’’. The guidance to which
we referred in the NPRM concerned the
specific documentation requirements set

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

forth in § 380.725. In light of the
clarifying changes made in § 380.725 of
the final rule discussed below, the
Agency believes that post-rule guidance
on training provider documentation
requirements is unnecessary. In
addition, draft instructions
accompanying the TPRF, available in
the docket for this rulemaking, provide
detailed descriptions of the categories of
information required for registration on
the TPR.
30. Timeframe to Electronically
Transmit ELDT Certification
Information
FMCSA proposed that all training
providers must upload training
certificates to the TPR by close of the
next business day after the drivertrainee completes the training.
Comments: The Delaware DOE stated
that not all of its certified trainers have
the hardware or software to transmit
certificates. Delaware DOE, DMTA, and
DTCC asserted the requirement to notify
FMCSA by the next day will not be
possible in all cases. DMTA and DTCC
favored allowing training providers up
to one week to upload training
certification. Werner requested that the
time for electronic transmission of
certificates be extended beyond what
was proposed, noting that ‘‘[a] potential
daily requirement to complete and
upload training certificates is an
unreasonable and potentially expensive
administrative burden on training
providers.’’ AAMVA recommended that
‘‘instead of using the subjective timing
of when a business day ‘closes,’ FMCSA
[should] instead use ‘midnight of the
next business day’.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA
acknowledges that, for a variety of
reasons, training providers may need
more than one business day to transmit
the training certification information to
the Agency through the TPR.
Accordingly, in today’s rule, training
providers have until midnight of the
second business day after a drivertrainee completes training to
electronically transmit the ELDT
certification to the TPR. In addition, the
final rule requires that providers
electronically submit training
certification information, as defined in
§ 380.717, to the TPR through an online
form, rather than uploading the training
certificate, as proposed. FMCSA
believes this method of data
transmission is more efficient and
ensures that the required informational
elements will be uniformly understood
and reported.

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

31. FMCSA’s Transmittal of ELDT
Certification and Related Information
Requirements
As proposed, following a drivertrainee’s completion of ELDT
administered by a training provider
listed on the TPR, the provider will
electronically transmit to the TPR a
certificate of completion which contains
specified information, including the
driver-trainee’s name, CLP/CDL number
and the CDL class and/or endorsement
training the driver-trainee received.
FMCSA would then instantaneously
transmit the certificate to the SDLA via
CDLIS for entry into the appropriate
driver record. In the NPRM, the Agency
indicated that it would not retain a copy
of the trainee certificate in any Agency
system of records. For Class A or B
CDLs or P, S, or H endorsements issued
after the compliance date of the final
rule, FMCSA proposed that, before
issuing a CDL, States be required to
initiate a check with CDLIS to
determine that the applicant completed
the required ELDT from a training
provider listed on the TPR.
Comments: A number of commenters
had questions related to the process by
which SDLAs would confirm that a CDL
applicant completed the required ELDT.
AAMVA and the ODOT asked whether
SDLAs would be permitted to accept
paper training certificates. Other
commenters recommended that FMCSA
retain the training certificate as ‘‘backup’’ documentation in the event the
SDLAs do not receive the information or
there is a verification problem. The
Connecticut DMV asked FMCSA to
clarify how States will be notified when
the Agency removes a training provider
from the TPR.
AAMVA noted further that it is
unclear how quickly the SDLAs would
be notified after the ELDT certificate is
uploaded to the TPR and requested that
the Agency clarify the time frame in the
final rule. AAMVA also asked FMCSA
to clarify how long SDLAs have to post
the ELDT certificates and for what
length of time the States must retain the
information. South Dakota DPS
commented that if license examiners
must record the training certificate
when the driver applied for a CDL, there
would be longer wait times at
examining stations, requiring States to
hire additional staff. The ABA asked
whether FMCSA intends to make ELDT
certificates available to motor carriers
seeking to hire qualified drivers.
The NY DMV commented that
FMCSA ‘‘has not set any regulations or
guidelines as to the establishment of
[the TPR] or the integration of the
transmittal of TPR certification data to

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
CDLIS.’’ AAMVA noted that, while
§ 380.717 identified the information that
a training provider must submit to the
TPR, the NPRM did not include a list of
proposed data elements that need to be
posted to the CDLIS driver record.
AAMVA requested that FMCSA clarify
‘‘which data elements CDLIS and the
SDLAs will be required to
accommodate.’’ ODOT observed that,
because CDLIS does not retain CDL
issuance history, ‘‘after only a few years,
every driver will appear to be under the
training requirement.’’ Accordingly,
ODOT suggested that the Agency add
specific data elements for recording in
CDLIS, such as whether the ELDT
requirements applied to an individual
driver as of the compliance date of the
final rule and what class of CDL and/or
endorsements the driver received.
ATA commented that ‘‘[i]t is
imperative that training providers are
able to electronically transmit training
certificates to the SDLAs, and that the
SDLAs are able to append the
certificate, or confirmation thereof, to
the driver’s [CDLIS] record prior to
implementation of this rule.’’ Similarly,
NY DMV recommended that the TPR be
‘‘fully established and operational to
integrate the training certifications to
CDLIS prior to’’ the compliance date of
the final rule. AAMVA suggested that
the TPR send an inquiry to CDLIS to
verify that the training certification can
be matched to a CDLIS Master Pointer
record prior to the TPR’s transmission of
ELDT certification to the SDLA.
FMCSA Response: In the final rule,
FMCSA will not, as proposed, transmit
the training certificate to the States
through CDLIS for entry on the driver’s
record. Instead, the Agency intends to
provide the relevant ELDT certification
information through data elements
added to CDLIS that will be entered by
the SDLAs directly onto the driver’s
record. At a minimum, these additional
data elements will include the training
provider’s unique ID number (assigned
upon initial listing on the TPR), the date
the applicant completed applicable
ELDT, and the type of ELDT the
applicant received (e.g., Class A, Class
B and/or the P, S, or H endorsements).
The Agency intends to transmit the
training certification information as
soon as FMCSA confirms the
information is complete. Under this
approach, States will not be required to
verify that the applicant received ELDT
from a training provider on the TPR, as
proposed. Consequently, there is no
need for FMCSA to notify States if a
provider in their State is removed from
the TPR. SDLAs will simply need to
confirm, by checking the applicant’s
driver record, that he or she has

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

completed requisite ELDT before
allowing the individual to take the
applicable skill test(s) or, in the case of
the H endorsement, the knowledge test.
In addition, the final rule does not
require that States separately retain the
training certification information, since
the relevant data will be entered directly
onto the driver’s record through CDLIS.
Contrary to the position that FMCSA
expressed in the NPRM, the Agency will
retain the training certification
information electronically transmitted
to the TPR. Upon consideration, FMCSA
believes retention of this information is
prudent in the event that data
transmission to CDLIS is unsuccessful,
as several commenters noted. Further,
as noted previously, the Agency intends
to use the specific training information
contained in the certificates to assess
the impact of ELDT on motor carrier
safety and to monitor the effectiveness
of individual training providers.
FMCSA will not make individual
driver-trainee ELDT certification
information available through the TPR
to potential employers or any entity
other than the SDLAs. The means by
which FMCSA will protect the
personally identifiable information (PII)
contained in the training certification
information is discussed in the Privacy
Impact Assessment associated with this
rulemaking.
The Agency will not issue paper
training certificates for use by the
SDLAs; FMCSA’s transmittal of ELDT
certification information to the SDLAs
will be entirely electronic through
CDLIS. The Agency believes that the use
of paper training certificates is
susceptible to fraud. Accordingly, in the
final rule, FMCSA revises
§ 383.73(b)(10) to clarify that States
must accept only electronic notification
of ELDT certification. However, today’s
rule does not prohibit training providers
from issuing paper certificates to
individual driver-trainees, who may
wish to have their own documentation
of ELDT completion.
The comments submitted by SLDAs
and training providers have raised
important questions and concerns
regarding the transmittal of ELDT
certification information to the States
through CDLIS. Many of the operational
details will necessarily be developed
during the implementation phase of the
TPR, and the Agency will take these
comments into account during that
process. In addition, FMCSA will work
closely with AAMVA and the SDLAs
during the implementation phase to
address these issues in a way that
minimizes the administrative burden on
States to the greatest possible extent.

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88767

a. Separate Training Providers
The NPRM permitted theory and BTW
training to be delivered by separate
providers. The Agency noted that it
‘‘would not transmit training
certification to the SDLA until it
receives notice of successful completion
of both theory and BTW (range and
public road) training, when applicable.’’
(81 FR 11960)
Comments: The NY DMV wanted to
know whether, if the training is
completed by two different providers,
both providers would be required to
complete a training certification. If so,
how would separate certifications ‘‘be
reconciled for transmittal of a single
certification of driver training
completion to CDLIS?’’ NY DMV
recommended that ‘‘the training
certification not be issued and pushed
to CDLIS until both components of the
training are completed.’’ Similarly, the
CA DMV noting that ‘‘[t]he proposed
language seems to indicate the DMV
will receive multiple electronic
completion notices when separate
training providers deliver the theory
and BTW training,’’ commented that ‘‘it
would be less complicated if the states
only receive one certification per
curriculum.’’
FMCSA Response: If a driver-trainee
completes BTW and theory training
delivered by two separate providers,
each provider must transmit its
certification to the TPR. The Agency
will not transmit notice of ELDT
certification through CDLIS until both
portions of the training are completed.
Therefore, as the NY and CA DMVs
suggested, there will be a single
notification to SDLAs indicating that the
CDL applicant complies with applicable
ELDT requirements. We also note that,
as discussed above, today’s rule requires
that the range and public road
components of BTW training be
obtained from the same training
provider.
32. Audits, Investigations, and
Documentation Requirements—
FMCSA’s ‘‘Authorized Representative’’
As proposed, one of the requirements
that training providers must meet in
order to remain listed on the TPR is to
allow an audit or investigation of their
operations conducted by FMCSA or its
authorized representative
(§ 380.719(a)(6)). Training providers
must also ensure that all required
documentation is available upon request
by FMCSA or its authorized
representative.
Comments: Several commenters
questioned the meaning of the term
‘‘authorized representative’’ as used in

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88768

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

the NPRM. The NY DMV commented
that it ‘‘does not have the funding or the
resources & expertise to undertake such
a task if FMCSA decided to utilize state
agencies.’’ The Nebraska DMV stated
that ‘‘SDLAs not be considered an
‘authorized representative’ now or any
time in the future,’’ requesting that
FMCSA make this clear in the final rule.
FMCSA Response: The provisions in
§ 380.719(a)(6) and (7), cited above,
remain unchanged in the final rule. By
using the term ‘‘authorized
representative’’, FMCSA does not intend
to impose any audit, investigation, or
documentation inspection requirement
on the States. The term simply indicates
that the Agency may fulfill these
functions by using third party
representatives as appropriate.
33. Involuntary Removal From the
TPR—Due Process
As proposed, § 380.723 set forth
procedures related to the voluntary and
involuntary removal of a training
provider from the TPR.
Comments: Driver Holdings LLC
(Driver Holdings) noted that under
proposed § 380.723, any training
provider to whom FMCSA issues a
notice of proposed removal must notify
current students, as well as students
scheduled for future training, of the
proposed removal ‘‘and all training after
that date is not compliant.’’ Driver
Holdings commented that § 380.723
‘‘does not appear to provide due
process’’ because ‘‘[t]here does not seem
like there is an opportunity for the
[training provider] to correct the
problem, short of suspending its
program.’’
FMCSA Response: The procedures set
forth in § 380.723 are largely retained as
proposed. Under § 380.723(b), FMCSA
initiates the process for removing a
training provider by issuing a notice of
proposed removal from the TPR, setting
forth the reasons for the proposed
removal and any corrective actions
necessary for the provider to remain
listed on the TPR.
The Agency acknowledges the
commenter’s concern that the proposed
language does not appear to afford the
training provider an opportunity to
correct noted deficiencies ‘‘short of
suspending its program.’’ In response,
FMCSA deletes the proposed language
in § 380.703(b) stating that ‘‘no training
conducted after issuance of a notice of
proposed removal will be considered to
comply with this subpart until FMCSA
withdraws the notice.’’ Accordingly,
under the final rule, training providers
who receive a notice of proposed
removal can continue to conduct
training during the period in which they

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

are undertaking the necessary corrective
actions, which is generally 60 days.
However, the final rule requires, as
proposed, that providers who receive a
notice of proposed removal must inform
driver-trainees currently enrolled in
training, as well as those scheduled for
future training, of the proposed removal.
In addition, as noted below, FMCSA
will indicate on the TPR Web site that
it has issued a notice of proposed
removal to the training provider. (The
Agency will remove that notation from
the TPR Web site if it withdraws the
notice.) If FMCSA subsequently
removes the provider from the TPR
because it did not respond to the notice
or proposed removal within 30 days, or
because it did not complete the required
corrective actions, any training
conducted after the date of removal is
invalid.
In the Agency’s judgment, this
approach balances the needs of training
providers who wish to correct
deficiencies in their program and drivertrainees who are already receiving
training from a provider to whom
FMCSA issues a notice of proposed
removal. Finally, we note that, under
the emergency removal procedures in
§ 380.723(e), FMCSA can immediately
remove any training provider engaged in
fraud, criminal behavior or when the
public interest or safety requires.
The rest of § 380.723(c)(1) remains
largely as proposed. The Agency,
therefore, believes that the final rule
offers training providers significant due
process protections which allow them
to: (1) Respond to the notice of proposed
removal by explaining why the
proposed removal is not warranted or by
agreeing to take specified corrective
actions; (2) conduct training following
issuance of the notice of proposed
removal (3) avoid removal from the TPR
by taking prescribed corrective actions;
(4) request administrative review of
removal; and (5) apply for reinstatement
to the TPR no earlier than 30 days after
involuntary removal.
34. Scheduling the State-Administered
CDL Skills Test
The NPRM did not address when a
driver-trainee may schedule his or her
State-administered CDL skills test.
Under existing regulations, a CLP holder
is not eligible to take the CDL skills test
in the first 14 days after initial issuance
of the CLP (§ 383.25(e)). However, part
383 does not prohibit a CDL applicant
from scheduling a skills test before that
date.
Comments: Several commenters
suggested that driver-trainees should be
permitted to schedule skills testing prior
to the completion of the required ELDT

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and urged FMCSA to address the issue
in the final rule. Most commenters cited
State CDL skill testing delays as the
reason for their request that scheduling
be permitted before ELDT is completed.
FMCSA Response: The final rule does
not prohibit an applicant from
scheduling a skills test in advance of his
or her completion of the required
training. However, the rule is very clear
that a State may not administer a skills
test until a driver-trainee completes the
training for the CDL or endorsement for
which he or she is applying. Today’s
rule will better prepare the applicant to
take the skills test, thereby reducing the
chance of failure and the need to take
the test more than once.
35. Third-Party Skills Testers—
Verification of ELDT Certification
The NPRM did not address whether,
or how, a third-party CDL skills tester
would access a driver-trainee’s training
certification information. Under
§ 383.75, States may currently authorize
a third-party tester to administer the
CDL skills tests, as long as specified
conditions are met.
Comments: AAMVA commented that,
as an agent of the State, a third-party
CDL skills tester would need to verify
that the applicant completed the
required ELDT, but noted that ‘‘[n]o
consideration of this verification
process by third-party providers is
included in the NPRM . . .’’ AAMVA
suggested that, in the final rule, FMCSA
permit third-party testers to ‘‘submit a
search inquiry to the TPR and obtain the
necessary certificate data to administer
the skills test.’’ Similarly, ATA observed
that, absent granting third-party skills
testers access to CDLIS, they ‘‘would
have no way to verify the course has
been completed.’’ However, ATA
opposed granting third-party testers
access to the TPR to obtain the
information, citing privacy concerns.
The State of Michigan also noted the
third-party tester’s need to confirm the
ELDT certification, suggesting that the
certificates be submitted to the
Commercial Skills Test Information
Management System (CSTIMS).
FMCSA Response: The Agency
acknowledges that third-party skills
testers may need to obtain ELDT
certification information. Currently,
however, individual States decide
whether to use third parties to
administer the CDL skills test and, if so,
how the third-party testers verify the
applicant’s eligibility. Therefore, it
would not be feasible for the Agency to
set forth third-party testing ELDT
verification requirements in today’s
rule. FMCSA will work with AAMVA
and the SDLAs during the

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

implementation phase to address the
process by which a third-party tester
may determine whether the drivertrainee has completed the applicable
ELDT.
36. Compliance Date for ELDT
Requirements
As proposed, the compliance date
will be three years after the effective
date of the final rule.
Comments: FMCSA received a
number of comments from State
licensing authorities asserting that three
years does not allow sufficient time for
the States to make necessary adaptations
to their IT systems and record the CDL
applicant’s training certificate
information on the driver’s record
through CDLIS. The State of Michigan
commented that, ‘‘[g]iven these training
requirements have been many years in
the making, ELDT requirements should
be effective 5 years (not 3) after the
effective date of the final rule.’’ Noting
that ‘‘three years to implement this
program is a very short and
unreasonable amount of time,’’ the
Delaware DMV suggested a minimum of
seven years from publication of the final
rule. Some SDLAs cited the refresher
training requirements, including the
issuance of a restricted CDL, as
particularly problematic. For example,
Oregon DMV stated that ‘‘[i]ssuing a
restricted CDL as described in this
rulemaking would require a very
lengthy programming effort . . .’’
AAMVA commented that ‘‘[t]he
registry of entry-level training providers
and the process for transmittal and
acceptance of all applicable information
associated with the entry-level training
certification must be in place before the
compliance date.’’ AAMVA requested
that the three year compliance date be
specifically predicated on the
completion of all process and functional
requirements associated with the final
rule. Similarly, the Connecticut DMV
asked the Agency to extend the
compliance date ‘‘until all process
requirements of the rule and [the TPR]
are functional.’’ The NY DMV also
commented that the compliance date
should be tied directly to the
functionality of the TPR, suggesting that
the date be no earlier than one year after
the ‘‘fully established and operational
training Registry.’’
In addition to SDLAs, several other
commenters expressed concern
regarding the proposed compliance
date. The NYAPT commented that
FMCSA could place the State licensing
agencies in the difficult position of
having to implement requirements
before the related systems changes are
fully operational. UMA reminded the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Agency ‘‘of the importance of a fully
functional electronic system between
schools, FMCSA and states prior to full
implementation.’’
FMCSA Response: The compliance
date of today’s rule remains as
proposed, three years after the effective
date of the final rule. While FMCSA
acknowledges the implementation
concerns raised by commenters, the
Agency nevertheless believes that three
years allows adequate time for the States
to pass implementing legislation and
modify their technology platforms
accordingly. FMCSA intends to work
closely with AAMVA to address CDLISrelated implementation issues as
expeditiously as possible and to provide
post-rule implementation guidance to
assist SDLAs in addressing specific
implementation issues. Further, we note
that because the final rule does not
include a refresher training requirement
(as proposed), SDLAs will not need to
modify their systems in order to issue
restricted CDLs for the purpose of
completing BTW refresher training on a
public road.
Finally, unlike FMCSA’s phased
approach to the Medical Certification
and National Medical Registry
implementation, the Agency will not
provide SDLAs with paper training
certificates, nor will SDLAs be
permitted to accept paper certificates as
evidence of ELDT compliance.
Accordingly, FMCSA believes that the
underlying information systems can be
integrated and operational by the
compliance date of today’s rule.
37. Bond Requirements for Training
Providers
The NPRM did not propose any bond
requirements for training providers
listed on the TPR. However, in the
preamble, the Agency noted that the
ELDTAC considered the effect of a
training provider’s involuntary removal
from the TPR on driver-trainees who
had already paid tuition, but had not yet
completed their training. The ELDTAC
determined the issue should be resolved
between the training provider and the
driver-trainee.
Comments: The Virginia DMV and the
ODOT both expressed concern about the
NPRM’s lack of consumer protection for
a driver-trainee who paid tuition to a
training provider that, due to noncompliance with today’s rule, is
involuntarily removed from the TPR
before the driver-trainee completes his
or her training. The commenters
suggested that training providers be
required to submit a surety bond in
order to provide recourse to drivertrainees under such circumstances. The
ODOT noted that, in the absence of a

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88769

bond requirement, driver-trainees will
look to their State licensing or education
authorities, neither of which would be
in a position to offer assistance. In
support of its request for a bond
requirement for training providers, the
ODOT cited an FMCSA regulation
requiring third-party CDL skills testers
to maintain a bond.
FMCSA Response: As noted above,
the NPRM did not require training
providers to maintain a surety bond in
order to be eligible for listing on the
TPR and neither does today’s rule. The
Agency agrees with the ELDTAC’s
assessment that the issue of tuition
reimbursement related to the training
provider’s involuntary removal from the
TPR is appropriately addressed directly
by driver-trainees and the training
providers they choose. Prudent drivertrainees will assess the provider’s
training operations before making a
financial commitment. Potential sources
to assist in such evaluation include
State or local consumer protection
agencies, third party training
accreditation entities, State Departments
of Education or Transportation, and the
U.S. Department of Education. We also
note that the final rule does not prohibit
a State from requiring a training
provider to post or maintain a surety
bond as a condition of doing business in
that State.
The bond requirement for third-party
skill examiners, referenced by the
ODOT, is not an appropriate precedent
for requiring training providers to
maintain a bond under today’s rule.
Section 383.75(a)(8)(v), provides that
when the State has an agreement with
a third party to administer CDL skills
testing, that agreement must include a
provision requiring the third-party tester
to initiate and maintain a bond, in an
amount determined by the State,
sufficient to pay for re-testing drivers in
the event the third-party is involved in
fraudulent activities related to
conducting skills testing for CDL
applicants. That bond requirement is
therefore part of a contractual agreement
between the State and third-party, nongovernment entities who provide testing
services for the State.
No contractual relationship exists
between a training provider and
FMCSA. In order to be eligible for
listing on the TPR, training providers
need only attest, under penalty of
perjury, that they meet the eligibility
criteria to provide ELDT and that they
agree to comply with other requirements
set forth in subpart G. This selfcertification approach is very different
from the way that third-party CDL skills
examiners are regulated under part 383.
Section 383.75 requires, for example,

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88770

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

that States authorizing third-party
testers to conduct CDL skills testing do
the following: (1) Perform onsite
inspections of the testers; (2)
periodically validate the legitimacy of
the testers’ skills testing operations; (3)
include specified contractual provisions
in agreements between the State and the
third-party; and (4) take prompt
remedial action against testers failing to
comply with CDL program standards.
Since today’s rule does not impose any
similar regulatory requirements related
to the oversight of training providers,
the Agency does not believe there is
sufficient basis to implement a bond
requirement related to ELDT.
However, the Agency recognizes that
driver-trainees should be timely
informed about the status of providers
from whom they obtain, or plan to
obtain, ELDT. The final rule requires, as
proposed, that training providers inform
driver-trainees currently enrolled in
training, as well as those scheduled for
future training, of the proposed removal
(§ 380.723(b)). Further, as noted above,
the Agency adds a provision to
§ 380.723(b) stating that, if the provider
is listed on the TPR Web site, FMCSA
will indicate on the Web site that it has
issued a notice of proposed removal to
the provider. (In the event that FMCSA
withdraws the notice, that designation
will be removed from the provider’s
TPR listing.)
As noted above, in today’s rule,
FMCSA deletes the proposed provision
stating that training conducted after the
Agency’s issuance of a notice of
proposed removal is invalid until
FMCSA withdraws the notice. Under
§ 380.723(b) of the final rule, training
conducted following issuance of a
notice of proposed removal is generally
considered compliant until the provider
is actually removed from the TPR.
Therefore, a driver-trainee in the
process of receiving ELDT from a
provider to whom FMCSA issues a
notice of proposed removal will very
likely be able to complete their training
before the provider can be removed,
which is a minimum of 30 days
following issuance of the notice. (Any
training provided after the date of
removal from the TPR is not valid.)
Further, FMCSA expects that the
potential imposition of civil and
criminal penalties on training providers
failing to comply with the requirements
of today’s rule will, in most case, deter
fraudulent conduct. However, in the
event that driver-trainees become aware
of fraudulent training operations, they
are encouraged to report the activity to
the DOT Office of Inspector General
(OIG). Instructions for reporting fraud,
waste and abuse are available on the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

OIG’s Web site, www.oig.dot.gov/
hotline, and will also be available on the
TPR Web site.
38. Executive Order 13045—Protection
of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
E.O. 13045 requires that Federal
agencies, consistent with their mission,
identify whether ‘‘economically
significant’’ rules pose environmental
health risks and safety risks that may
disproportionately affect children. In
the NPRM, FMCSA stated that, while
the proposed rule was economically
significant, the Agency does not
anticipate that this regulatory action
could in any way create an
environmental or safety risk that could
disproportionately affect children.
Comment: NAPT took ‘‘strong
exception’’ to the Agency’s assertion
that the NPRM does not create an
environmental health or safety risk that
could disproportionately affect children
and therefore does not invoke E.O.
13045. NAPT commented that the S
endorsement training requirements will
lead to school bus driver shortages,
resulting in children having to find
alternative and less safe means of
transportation to and from school.
NAPT concluded that the NPRM would
thus create ‘‘a very real situation that
may indeed disproportionately affect
children since they are the primary
beneficiaries of school bus service.’’
FMCSA Response: E.O. 13045 defines
‘‘environmental health risks and safety
risks’’ as risks that ‘‘are attributable to
products or substances that the child is
likely to come in contact with (such as
the air we breathe, the food we eat, the
water we drink or use for recreation, the
soil we live on, and the products we use
or are exposed to).’’ (E.O. 13045, Section
2–203.) This rulemaking does not pose
any risks ‘‘attributable to products or
substances [a] child is likely to come in
contact with.’’ As previously discussed,
today’s rule retains the S endorsement
training requirements proposed in the
NPRM. The S endorsement curriculum
is intended to enhance the safety of
school bus transportation by ensuring
that all school bus drivers have the
requisite knowledge and skills to
operate the vehicle safely. As we
explained in the discussion of the
Agency’s decision to retain the S
endorsement training requirement, we
do not anticipate that this requirement
will result in reduced school bus
service. FMCSA therefore disagrees with
NAPT’s assertion that the rule poses a
safety risk that disproportionately
affects children.

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

VIII. Discussion of Comments and
Responses on the Analysis
Opportunity Costs
Comment: An individual commenter
stated that the tuition costs do not take
into account the fact that driver-trainees
would not be earning an income while
they are in training, and that all training
was uncompensated time that the
Agency did not account for.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA discussed
this issue in Section 3.1.3 (Opportunity
Cost of Time) of the RIA for the NPRM
and for today’s rule. FMCSA first
estimated the total amount of time that
a driver-trainee would spend in
training—both theory and BTW hours—
for each of the proposed curricula.
Additionally, FMCSA estimated the cost
of this time using the appropriate driver
wage rate; that is, presuming that the
time driver trainees spend in training is
time they could otherwise be working as
a driver.
Carrier Opportunity Cost
Comment: The NPGA stated that
FMCSA did ‘‘not account for the
opportunity cost of the propane motor
carrier while the potential driver
receives training from an institution.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA discussed
this issue in Section 3.2.1 (Opportunity
Cost of Entry-Level Driver Training to
Motor Carriers) of the RIA for the NPRM
and for today’s rule. FMCSA estimated
that the opportunity cost of the motor
carriers, that is, the best alternative to
the carriers in the absence of regulatory
action, would have been the value of
drivers’ labor under the carriers’ employ
and consequently, the carriers earning
some increment of profit or value from
each of those drivers’ labor hours of
work.
Barrier To Entry for Prospective Drivers
Comments: FMCSA received
numerous comments regarding the
effect of the proposed ELDT
requirements on the supply of CMV
drivers. Most of these commenters,
which included the school bus industry,
custom harvesters, the limousine
industry, and some SDLAs, believe that
the rule may inhibit the entry of new
drivers into the CMV industry, thereby
making it more difficult for carriers to
hire drivers, and more expensive for
carriers to employ those drivers once
they are hired. A number of commenters
asserted that, accordingly, the proposed
rule would exacerbate any preexisting
CMV driver shortage.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not
believe that today’s rule will impose a
barrier to entry or exacerbate any
preexisting CMV driver shortage. As

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

discussed in Section 2.4.1 (Number of
Entry-Level CDL Drivers Annually) and
Section 2.4.6 (Current Entry-Level
Driver Training Efforts) of the RIA, the
rule is estimated to have minimal
impact on drivers because most of them
already receive training that meets or
exceeds the requirements of today’s
rule, and therefore it seems unlikely that
significant barriers to entry would be
imposed in the CDL driver labor market
as a result of the ELDT rule.
FMCSA’s Tuition Estimate
Comment: C.R. England stated that
FMCSA underestimated tuition costs
because BTW hours are more costly
than theory hours, and under the
current baseline, which does not
include a Federal minimum hours
requirement, the number of BTW hours
in the existing training programs
identified by FMCSA would be fewer
than the minimum of 30 BTW hours for
Class A training.
FMCSA Response: As explained in
Section 3.1.2 (Tuition Costs) of the RIA
for today’s rule, the Agency concludes
that it overestimated tuition costs in the
RIA for the NPRM. In the final rule, the
Agency has eliminated the minimum
hours requirement for Class A and Class
B BTW training, but retains the
requirement for instructors to determine
that entry-level drivers have achieved
proficiency in the required BTW skills.
FMCSA disagrees with the commenter’s
statement that the number of BTW
hours in existing training programs
identified by FMCSA would be fewer
than the estimated average 30 hours of
BTW training for the Class A curricula
and estimated average 15 hours of BTW
training for the Class B curricula that
some entry level drivers will receive as
a result of this final rule. As discussed
in Section 2.4.6 (Current Entry-Level
Driver Training Efforts) in the RIA, the
Class A programs provided by the
approximately 865 CDL training
programs identified by FMCSA mostly
consist of programs with substantially
more hours of BTW, and more hours of
theory training, than the estimated
average 30 hours of BTW training for the
Class A curricula and estimated 60
hours theory in the ELDT rule.
Therefore, if anything, the Agency’s
original tuition estimates in the RIA for
the NPRM were likely overly
conservative in that they would
overestimate the cost of tuition given
that both the estimated average 30 hours
of BTW training for the Class A
curricula, and the estimated 60 hours of
theory training, are less than that
generally observed on average.
FMCSA acknowledges that the costs
per hour for delivering BTW training

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

may exceed the costs per hour for
delivering theory training, given that
one includes the costs of more one-onone instruction and observation of the
student operating a CMV on the range
and road, while the other involves the
costs of theory instruction which may
be provided simultaneously in a
classroom setting to multiple students
or via online training. The Agency does
not believe this fact is relevant to the
content of the rule or the estimates of
the costs for completing all the training
necessary to obtain the CDL.
Non-Safety and Safety Benefits
Comment: An individual commenter
stated that reduced fuel consumption,
while admirable, is not a safety issue,
and that therefore fuel savings should
not be evaluated in the RIA.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA interprets
this comment not as a challenge to the
methodology by which fuel savings
were estimated, but rather more broadly
to suggest that no RIA should quantify
any ancillary benefits that would arise
from regulation. The commenter is
correct in that none of the quantified
benefits (fuel savings, CO2 emissions
reductions, and maintenance and repair
cost savings) are primary goals of this
rule. However, it is appropriate for the
Agency to quantify each of these
because they are legitimate benefits
resulting from the rule. OMB Circular
A–4 encourages agencies to consider
and, if possible, monetize both ancillary
benefits (i.e., favorable impacts of the
rule that are typically unrelated or
secondary to the statutory purpose of
the rulemaking), and undesirable side
effects or countervailing risks (i.e.,
adverse consequences of a rule not
already accounted for in other direct
cost estimates of the rulemaking).21
FMCSA’s evaluation of ancillary costs,
but not ancillary benefits, would result
in an incomplete and inconsistent
accounting of regulatory impacts.
Comment: The National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association (NRECA) stated
that the social cost of carbon (SC–CO2
or SCC) is highly uncertain and its
applicability to benefit-cost analysis is
inappropriate and results in arbitrary
analysis.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA disagrees
with these contentions. For a history of
the development of the SC–CO2 that
documents the lengths to which the
Administration has gone to ensure the
scientific accuracy and transparency of
the preparation of the SC–CO2 guidance,
21 Office

of Management and Budget. Circular A–
4. Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a4.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016).

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88771

the recent White House guidance
addressing the quantification of SC–CO2
benefits states ‘‘Federal agencies will
continue to use the current SCC
estimates in regulatory impact analysis
until further updates can be made to
reflect the forthcoming guidance from
the Academies.’’ 22 We note further that
FMCSA opted not to quantify or
monetize the reduction of other harmful
emissions and criteria pollutants that
would result from reduced fuel
consumption in order to ensure that the
aggregate environmental benefits
estimated in the RIA are conservatively
low. In the RIA for today’s final rule, an
expanded and enhanced fuel savings
(and consequently, SC–CO2) sensitivity
analysis has been added to better reflect
the uncertainty regarding the extent to
which driver training may result in fuel
savings.
Additional details can be found in
Section 4.1.1 (Savings from Reduction
in Fuel Consumption) and Section 4.1.2
(Monetized CO2 Impacts—Social Cost of
Carbon Dioxide Emissions) of the RIA.
Comment: The NPGA also
commented on the projected reduction
in CO2 emissions, stating that FMCSA
failed to account in the NPRM RIA for
the cost or effect of the increase in CMV
operations and emissions to comply
with the rule. NGPA’s comment was
made in the context of a broader
argument that a purely ‘‘performancebased’’ BTW standard (which does not
include a minimum number of required
BTW hours) would not result in these
purported costs or effects.
FMCSA Response: In the final rule,
the Agency has eliminated the
minimum hours requirement for Class A
and Class B BTW training, but retains
the requirement for instructors to
determine that entry-level drivers have
achieved proficiency in the required
BTW skills. Nonetheless, FMCSA
disagrees with NPGA’s assumption that
FMCSA failed to account for the cost or
effect of an increase in CMV operations
and emissions to comply with the rule.
Throughout the RIA, FMCSA
consistently applies the assumption
that, in the absence of the rule, those
entry-level drivers who would continue
to receive no or minimal BTW training
would be hired sooner by motor carriers
and thus begin to drive on the job
sooner. Regardless of whether these
entry-level drivers are driving in the
employ of motor carriers, or with
instructors providing pre-CDL BTW
22 ‘‘Estimating the Benefits from Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Reductions,’’ Shelanski, H. and Obstfeld,
M. The White House, July 2015. Available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/07/02/
estimating-benefits-carbon-dioxide-emissionsreductions (accessed June 21, 2016).

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88772

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

training, fuel is combusted, CO2 is
emitted, and vehicle operational costs
are incurred. The Agency therefore
concludes there is no net increase in
CO2 emissions or vehicle operational
costs at the societal level resulting from
this rule.
Comments: ATA and C.R. England
commented that the studies FMCSA
relied on to estimate a 5 percent fuel
economy improvement are ‘‘irrelevant’’
and overstate any fuel economy benefit
attributable to this rule.
FMCSA Response: The Agency
disagrees with the commenters that the
5 percent fuel economy improvement is
incorrect, overstated, based on faulty
premises, or lacking in relevance. In the
RIA for the NPRM, FMCSA evaluated
several studies (see February 2016 RIA,
pp. 79–81) that covered a broad range of
fuel economy improvements resulting
from a variety of factors impacting
driver behavior. FMCSA understands
that some of those studies used
approaches beyond the scope of this
rulemaking (such as in-cab feedback
technologies to provide drivers with
real-time analysis of fuel economy, the
use of simulators, or the use of incentive
schemes to reward fuel-efficient
driving). However, the Agency believes
these studies have value because they
demonstrate that driver behavior can
substantially alter fuel consumption.
Again, in order to be conservative,
FMCSA, in identifying a 5 percent
reduction in fuel consumption, chose to
rely on the value at the lowest end of
the estimates, which is not predicated
on in-cab technologies, incentives,
simulators or other factors that could
reasonably be expected to improve fuel
economy.
In Section 4.1.1 of the RIA (Savings
from Reduction in Fuel Consumption),
the Agency demonstrates that the 5
percent fuel economy benefit
attributable to this final rule is
conservative, because it is predicated on
only a few key training concepts,
encompassed in the Class A and Class
B curricula, that could reasonably be
expected to improve fuel economy (e.g.,
speed management, space management
and avoidance of rapid acceleration and
sudden deceleration).
Additionally, due to wide ranges of
estimates in studies relevant to the
quantified benefits of the rule and the
lack of studies that specifically focus on
the curricula prescribed by this rule,23
23 As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of
the RIA, the Agency identified a variety of relevant
studies related to each of the quantified benefits.
With particular respect to the estimated fuel and
CO2 savings, the Agency was unable to identify any
studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this
rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

the Agency presents benefits estimated
under alternate benefit scenarios in
which the fuel savings, CO2 emissions
reductions, and maintenance and repair
cost savings are 50 percent lower (low
benefits case) and 50 percent greater
(high benefits case) than the central
benefits estimates, which are based on
the 5 percent fuel economy
improvement. Further discussion of the
low and high benefits cases is presented
in the RIA for today’s rule (see
sensitivity analyses in Sections 4.1.1
through 4.1.3 of the RIA for today’s
rule).
Impact of Automatic Transmission on
Potential Fuel Saving
Comment: ATA commented that the
industry is increasingly moving toward
the use of automatic shift transmissions
and that this trend reduces the potential
fuel savings that may result from ELDT.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA
acknowledges that the prevalence of
automatic transmission-equipped CMVs
appears to be on the rise. Although
training on shifting is expected to
produce fuel savings benefits,
particularly for entry-level drivers
operating manual transmissionequipped vehicles, the Agency did not
quantify this impact in its analysis.
Instead, the estimated 5 percent fuel
savings attributable to this rule is based
solely on the portion of the training
related to driving with the flow of
traffic. A more extensive discussion of
this issue is presented in Section 4.1.1
(Savings from Reduction in Fuel
Consumption) of the RIA.
In addition, FMCSA accounted more
broadly for other external factors related
to vehicle technology by adjusting
downward the baseline fuel
consumption projection to reflect the
possible impact of the joint EPA/
NHTSA Phase 2 Medium- and HeavyDuty Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and
Greenhouse Gas Standards rule.24 This
adjustment, discussed in Section 4.1.1
(Savings from Reduction in Fuel
Consumption) of the RIA, ensures that
the fuel savings benefits attributable to
this final rule does not overlap with
benefits that would be achieved by other
emerging technologies.
Maintenance and Repair Cost Savings
Comment: ATA claims that
maintenance and repair cost savings
24 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
U.S. Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicle—Phase 2. October 25, 2016. 81 FR
73478–74274. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/
fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf
(accessed October 26, 2016).

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

estimated in the RIA for the NPRM
would not occur as drivers are already
required to perform pre-trip, en-route
and post-trip inspections daily to
identify potential equipment failure
before an accident occurs.
Additionally, ATA commented that
the RIA does not estimate the cost of
additional maintenance that would be
required for the non-safety benefits to be
achieved.
FMCSA Response: The Agency
excludes this element from the
estimation and monetization of
maintenance and repair cost savings
attributable to this final rule, but notes
in Section 4.1.3 (Maintenance and
Repair Cost Savings) of the RIA for
today’s rule that it may nonetheless
yield some potential additional benefits
that are not quantified in the RIA. It is
irrelevant that these daily inspections
are already performed in the absence of
this rule. The relevant point is that a
better-informed driver, with greater
understanding of inspection procedures
and of vehicle hardware, can more
readily observe and note minor
maintenance needs that, if left
undetected, may eventually require
more costly fixes and greater vehicle
downtime. While there is a cost
associated with attention to
maintenance needs that would remain
unobserved by some entry-level drivers
in the baseline, the Agency considers
the benefits of that additional
maintenance to exceed the
corresponding costs. Various sources
support the link between the
identification of the need for preventive
maintenance and—contingent upon the
performance of such maintenance—a
reduction in the likelihood and severity
of breakdown and repair costs. These
sources are discussed in more detail in
Section 4.1.3 (Maintenance and Repair
Cost Savings) of the RIA for today’s rule.
Despite this, the Agency is unable to
quantify the magnitude of the net
benefit of the additional identification
of necessary preventive maintenance
resulting from enhanced driver
awareness resulting from this final rule,
and therefore, as noted earlier, excludes
this element from the estimation and
monetization of maintenance and repair
cost savings attributable to this final
rule. Finally, the estimated decrease in
maintenance and repair costs
attributable to this final rule has been
reduced by approximately 75 percent
relative to the RIA for the NPRM, which
is discussed in more detail in Section
4.1.3 of the RIA for today’s rule.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Improvements in Safety That Would
Occur in the Absence of This Final Rule
Comment: C.R. England states that
FMCSA did not account for the speed at
which new technology will result in
improvements in CMV safety.
FMCSA Response: The Agency
assumed no growth in the absolute
number of crashes per year, despite
projected growth in CMV vehicle miles
traveled. By holding this number
constant throughout the analysis period
for this rule, this implicitly includes
safety benefits that are independent of
this rule, such as new CMV safety
technologies. For more information, see
Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits) of the RIA.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Threshold Analysis
Comments: Multiple commenters,
including ATA, ODOT, NPGA, and C.R.
England, found overly optimistic the
8.15 percent reduction in crashes,
estimated in the RIA for NPRM as
necessary for the costs and benefits of
the rule to be equal.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
that commenters incorrectly
characterized the reduction in crashes
necessary for the rule to be cost-neutral
as a reduction in the total industry-wide
number of crashes involving the
operation of trucks and buses. This 8.15
percent reduction does not mean an
8.15 percent reduction in the total
number of large truck and bus crashes.
Rather, the 8.15 percent reduction is
specific to the subset of the most recent
year’s crash totals (2013 in the RIA for
the NPRM) involving the 14 percent of
entry-level drivers estimated to receive
no pre-CDL training in the baseline.
With respect to the magnitude of the
reduction in the frequency of all crashes
involving large trucks and buses relative
to the 8.15 percent reduction noted
above from the NPRM, there were an
estimated total 3,806 fatal, 86,000
injury, and 299,000 property damage
only (PDO) crashes in 2013.25 Based on
the annual average number of crash
reductions necessary for the NPRM to
achieve cost-neutrality (11 fatal, 236
injury, and 786 PDO), this equates to the
reduction of only 0.29 percent of fatal,
0.27 percent of injury, and 0.26 percent
of PDO crashes, respectively (relative to
large truck and bus crash totals for
calendar year 2013).26 Therefore,
25 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). 2016
Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics.
Pages 33 and 34. Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/
59000/59100/59189/2016_Pocket_Guide_to_Large_
Truck_and_Bus_Statistics.pdf (accessed July 1,
2016).
26 Necessary reductions’ shares of total crashes
calculated as follows: Fatal = 11 ÷ 3,806; Injury =
236 ÷ 86,000; PDO = 786 ÷ 299,000.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

FMCSA disagrees that the 8.15 percent
reduction in the subset of crashes as
presented in the RIA for NPRM is overly
optimistic. This rule requires only a
small change in behavior to have a
significant impact.
FMCSA notes that these numbers
have been updated in the RIA for
today’s rule and can be found in Section
4.2 (Safety Benefits).
Crash Reduction Data
Comments: In the NPRM, the Agency
acknowledged that ‘‘[o]ne of the most
significant challenges faced by both
FMCSA and the ELDTAC is the limited
qualitative or quantitative data
correlating the provision of any type of
ELDT with positive safety outcomes,
such as crash reduction.’’ There were
numerous comments concerning the
lack of data linking ELDT with crash
reduction and the corresponding
relation to the Agency’s break-even
analysis. Commenters on this issue
included ATA, C.R. England, the North
Dakota DOT, Driver Holdings LLC,
NRECA, Delaware DMV, Werner,
Southern Company, Virginia DMV, and
the Oregon DMV.
FMCSA Response: When it is not
possible to quantify and monetize the
estimated benefits (or costs) of a rule,
OMB guidance, as set forth in Circular
A–4, is to perform a threshold or breakeven analysis.27 Other agencies have
conducted threshold analyses in their
regulatory evaluations of safety training
rules (noted in both the RIA for the
NPRM, and in the RIA for today’s rule).
These include rulemakings from FRA,
FTA, USCG, and OSHA. The 8.15
percent crash reduction the Agency
estimated in the RIA for the NPRM as
necessary for the rule to be cost-neutral
is on the low end of the range relative
to other agencies’ rulemakings. The
Agency sought data related to the
correlation between training and safety
through the ELDTAC and specifically
requested such data in the NPRM (81 FR
11959). Detailed discussion of the
Agency’s efforts to obtain correlative
data, and the shortcomings of data and
studies that were provided to FMCSA,
are noted in Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits)
of the RIA for today’s rule.
Comment: ATA asserted that, in the
absence of correlative data, FMCSA’s
use of a threshold analysis to estimate
the benefits necessary to produce a costneutral rule ‘‘should have led the
agency to pick the alternative that
would produce the maximum net
27 Office of Management and Budget. Circular A–
4. Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a4.pdf (accessed June 21, 2016).

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88773

benefit.’’ ATA concluded that the
Agency’s failure to analyze the
‘‘performance-based’’ Master Trip Sheet
alternative to BTW training offered by
some ELDTAC members, ‘‘would have
prevailed because . . . it produces a
more favorable cost benefit analysis.’’
FMCSA Response: ATA provided no
analysis to support their conclusion that
an outcomes-based approach would
result in lower costs. Further, based on
currently available data and information
as discussed in the RIA, FMCSA has no
basis to believe that such an outcomesbased approach would, in fact, result in
lower costs. Nonetheless, in the final
rule, the Agency has eliminated the
minimum hours requirement for Class A
and Class B BTW training, but retains
the requirement for instructors to
determine that entry-level drivers have
achieved proficiency in the required
BTW skills.
H Endorsement Benefits
Comment: Schneider National
requested that FMCSA separately
quantify the benefits of the H
endorsement training.
FMCSA Response: The nature of the
likely benefits from the H endorsement
training is specific to safety. As
explained above, FMCSA lacked
sufficient empirical data to quantify the
safety benefits of the H endorsement
training; therefore, a threshold analysis
is appropriate and was performed in
Section 4.2 (Safety Benefits) of the RIA.
Furthermore, as noted above, the H
endorsement training is required by
MAP–21.
Training Provider Eligibility and Costs
Related To Training
Comments: Many current entities that
provide in-house entry-level driver
training commented that they would not
be able to afford to send their entry-level
drivers to a ‘‘formal’’ CDL training
school. Other commenters that provide
in-house entry-level driver training
stated that the burden to become a
‘‘certified’’ training provider is so great
that they would not be able to continue
training entry-level drivers.
FMCSA Response: Any entity
currently providing in-house entry-level
driver training can continue to offer
such training under the rule by
becoming listed on the TPR.
FMCSA does not believe the final rule
imposes a heavy burden or cost on
training providers seeking to be listed
on the TPR. As discussed above,
FMCSA does not ‘‘certify’’ training
providers under the final rule, instead
relying on a self-certification approach
for training providers who want to be
eligible for listing on the TPR. Training

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88774

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

provider costs are based on four
separate activities: (1) Completing the
initial TPRF, (2) a biennial update to the
TPRF, (3) compliance audits, and (4)
submission of certification information
to the TPR. The average cost for
submitting certification information to
the TPR is estimated at about $7 per
student,28 and the training provider’s
total cost associated with submission
certification information to the TPR will
vary depending on the number of
students the provider trains. FMCSA
notes that the anticipated costs are
greatest in the first year and therefore
uses the estimated first year costs as a
basis for determining the impact per
training provider in order to ensure that
costs were conservatively estimated.
Based on the information presented in
Section 3.3 (Costs to the Training
Providers) of the RIA for today’s rule,
we calculate that the average total cost
in the first year for a training provider
that trains only one student would be
approximately $189, and the average
total cost for a training provider that
trains ten students would be
approximately $251.
State Costs Related to the Rulemaking
Comments: Some SDLAs and
AAMVA commented that the proposed
rule would result in implementation
costs for the States. These costs would
be related to revising CDL license
processing programs, modification of
State driver records, accommodation of
data transferred from the TPR, an
additional CDLIS Central Site, as well as
costs associated with ongoing
maintenance of effort. The ODOT
expected an impact of $1.1 million for
modification of State driver-records in
the State of Oregon.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA recognizes
that there will be costs associated with
CDLIS modifications and other systemsrelated changes necessary for
implementation of the final rule. In the
RIA for the NPRM, FMCSA estimated
that the State implementation costs
would total approximately $500,000 per
SDLA. In the RIA for today’s rule,
FMCSA increases its estimate of the
State implementation costs to $1.1
million per SDLA. For a further
discussion of how FMCSA estimated
these costs, see Section 3.4 (Costs to the
State Driver Licensing Agencies) of the
RIA for today’s rule.
28 The calculated $7 cost on a per-student basis
is based on the estimated 5 minutes necessary for
a training provider to upload certification
information for an entry-level driver, multiplied by
the total hourly compensation as shown in Section
2.3.2 of the RIA for the ‘‘training and development
managers’’ occupational category ($7.17 = $86 × (5/
60)).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Applicability
Comments: A number of commenters,
including the American Pyrotechnics
Association, NRECA, NGWA, NGPA,
the New England Fuel Institute, the
Associated General Contractors of
America, PMAA, and the IUOE,
observed that the analysis did not
address specific industries that fall
outside of the motor carrier industry,
but that nevertheless require drivers to
obtain a CDL for ancillary parts of their
jobs.
FMCSA Response: In the RIA for the
NPRM, FMCSA estimated the number of
entry-level CDL drivers annually using
different methods, and using data from
a variety of sources (including CDLIS,
and the SDLAs themselves). These data
include all entry-level CDL drivers,
regardless of the particular occupation
or industry in which they are ultimately
employed. Therefore, all entry-level
CDL drivers are fully represented in
FMCSA’s estimate of the number of
entry-level drivers annually. For further
discussion on this topic, see Section
2.4.1 (Number of Entry-Level CDL
Drivers Annually) of the RIA for today’s
rule.
IX. Section–By–Section Explanation of
Changes From the NPRM
As discussed in the response to
comments, the final rule makes the
following changes to the NPRM:
Subpart F—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements
§ 380.600 Compliance Date for
Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Drivers
This section remains as proposed.
Compliance is required with this
subpart three years after the effective
date of the final rule.
§ 380.601

Purpose and Scope

As proposed, this subpart established
training requirements for entry-level
drivers, minimum curricula contents,
and standards for training providers. It
also stated that ELDT, as defined in this
subpart, applies only to individuals who
apply for a CDL or CDL upgrade or
endorsement and does not otherwise
amend substantive requirements in part
383.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the
reference to ‘‘standards for training
providers’’, which the Agency
inadvertently included in this section.
(Training provider standards are
addressed in subpart G, discussed
below.) We also make conforming
changes to reflect the revised definition
of ‘‘entry-level driver,’’ as discussed

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

below. The provision remains otherwise
unchanged.
§ 380.603 Applicability
The Agency makes several clarifying
and conforming changes to this section,
which explains how ELDT requirements
apply to drivers who intend to operate
CMVs in intrastate and/or interstate
commerce.
First, in § 380.603(a), we add an
exception: CMV drivers applying for
removal of a restriction in accordance
with § 383.135(b)(7) are not subject to
the training requirements set forth in
today’s rule (§ 380.603(a)(4)).
The meaning of § 380.603(b), which
stated that drivers holding a valid CDL
issued before the compliance date of the
final rule are not subject to ELDT
requirements, remains essentially as
proposed. However, FMCSA deletes the
term ‘‘valid CDL’’ and adds clarifying
language in order to make this provision
explicitly consistent with the scope of
today’s rule. Accordingly, the
subsection now states that anyone
holding a Class A or Class B CDL, or the
passenger (P), school bus (S), or
hazardous materials (H) endorsement,
issued before the compliance date is not
subject to ELDT requirements pertaining
to that CDL or endorsement. We also
delete the words ‘‘except as otherwise
specifically provided’’.
Section 380.603(c)(1) proposed that
individuals holding a CLP before the
compliance date of the final rule are not
subject to ELDT requirements if they
obtain a CDL within 360 days of
obtaining the CLP. In the final rule, the
Agency adds clarifying language to
specify that individuals who obtain a
CLP before the compliance date of the
final rule are not subject to ELDT
requirements if they obtain the
underlying CDL and/or endorsement to
which the CLP applies before the CLP
or renewed CLP expires. As noted in the
response to comments, the deletion of
‘‘360 days’’ accounts for the fact that
individual States address the renewal of
CLPs differently. Section 380.603(c)(2),
which proposed that individuals
obtaining a CLP after the compliance
date of the final rule are subject to ELDT
requirements, remains as proposed.
FMCSA adds new subsection
§ 380.603(c)(3). Originally proposed as
new § 383.71(a)(4), this requirement
stated that, except for individuals
seeking the H endorsement, individuals
successfully completing the theory
portion of the training had to complete
the BTW portion within 360 days. In the
final rule, FMCSA moves this
requirement to § 380.603(c) and changes
‘‘360 days’’ to ‘‘one year’’. We also
clarify that theory and BTW portions of

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the training do not need to be taken in
a particular sequence (as the proposed
language implied), as long as the two
training components are completed
within one year. Accordingly, the
requirement now states that, except for
individuals obtaining the H
endorsement, the theory and BTW
portions of ELDT must be completed
within one year of completing the first
portion.
In the final rule, the Agency deletes
proposed § 380.603(d), which stated
that, except for those persons subject to
the proposed refresher training
requirements, a person who received
ELDT qualifying him or her to take the
skills test for a CDL or endorsement
would not be required to obtain such
training again before reapplying for a
CDL or endorsement. FMCSA believes
that the revised definition of ‘‘entrylevel driver’’ in § 380.605, discussed
below, makes this provision
unnecessary.
The Agency also deletes proposed
§ 380.603(e), which required that a CDL
holder disqualified from operating a
CMV under § 383.51(b)–(e) must
complete refresher training as proposed
in § 380.625. Because the final rule does
not include a refresher training
requirement, this provision is no longer
necessary.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

§ 380.605 Definitions
The Agency makes various clarifying
and conforming changes to this section,
as discussed below, but does not add
any new definitional terms in the final
rule.
‘‘Behind-the-Wheel (BTW) Instructor’’
As proposed, the definition of
‘‘behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor’’
required that the instructor be an
‘‘experienced driver’’ as defined in this
section and must have completed
training in the public road portion of the
curriculum in which they are
instructing, except that BTW instructors
utilized by ‘‘providers that train, or
expect to train, three or few drivers
annually’’ are not required to comply
with that requirement.
In the final rule’s definition of BTW
instructor, we delete the reference to the
term ‘‘experienced driver’’ as well as the
reference to providers training three or
fewer drivers annually because the final
rule does not retain the proposed
distinction between large and small
training entities.
In addition, the Agency incorporates
the qualification requirements for BTW
instructors, proposed as § 380.713(b)
(and cross-referenced to the proposed
definition of ‘‘experienced driver’’ in
§ 380.605), directly into the definition of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

BTW instructor in the final rule. The
qualifications are also revised to reflect
comments suggesting that BTW
instructors should have a minimum of
two years of relevant driving or
instructional experience, rather than the
one year of experience, as proposed.
Accordingly, in the final rule, the
definition of BTW instructor means an
individual providing BTW training
involving the actual operation of a CMV
on a range or public road who meets one
of the following qualifications: Holds a
CDL of the same (or higher) class, and
with all endorsements necessary, to
operate the CMV for which training is
to be provided; has a minimum of two
years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of that class or
endorsement; and meets all applicable
State requirements for CMV instructors;
or holds a CDL of the same (or higher)
class, and with all endorsements
necessary, to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided; has a
minimum of two years of experience as
a BTW CMV instructor; and meets all
applicable State requirements for CMV
instructors.
In addition, FMCSA adds an
exception to the definition of BTW
instructor: instructors who provide
BTW training solely on a private range
are not required to currently hold a CDL
of the same or higher class and all
endorsements necessary to operate the
CMV for which training is provided as
long as they previously held that class
of CDL. As noted in the response to
comments, FMCSA makes this change
to permit non-CDL holders, such as
retired CMV drivers, or CMV drivers not
medically certified, to provide training
on a private range.
Finally, FMCSA revises the BTW
training instructor qualification
requirement pertaining to the
instructor’s CMV driving record. As
proposed in § 380.713(b), during the two
years prior to engaging in BTW
instruction, instructors must not have
had any CMV-related convictions for the
offenses identified in § 383.51(b)–(e)
and the instructor’s driving record must
meet applicable Federal and State
requirements.
In the final rule, if an instructor’s CDL
has been cancelled, suspended, or
revoked due to any of the disqualifying
offenses identified in § 383.51, the
instructor is prohibited from engaging in
BTW instruction for two years following
the date his or her CDL is reinstated
following the disqualification. FMCSA
adds this provision to the definition of
‘‘BTW instructor’’ in the final rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88775

‘‘Theory Instructor’’
As proposed, ‘‘theory instructor’’ was
defined as instructors who provide
knowledge instruction on the operation
of a CMV and are either an
‘‘experienced driver’’ as defined in this
section or have previously audited or
instructed that portion of the theory
training course they intend to instruct.
FMCSA makes several substantive
changes to this definition, as well as
conforming changes to account for the
fact that, as noted above, the definition
of ‘‘experienced driver’’ is not retained
in the final rule. The qualifications for
theory instructors are now incorporated
directly into the definition of the term,
just as they are for BTW instructors.
In the final rule, theory instructors
must hold a CDL of the same (or higher)
class, and with all endorsements
necessary, to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, and have a
minimum of two years of experience
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of that
class or endorsement, or at least two
years of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor. The NPRM proposed that
theory instructors have a minimum of
one year of CMV driving or instruction
experience. The two-year level of CMV
driving or instructional experience in
the final rule is thus commensurate with
the revised BTW instructor
qualifications described above. The
Agency also adds an exception to this
definition: An instructor is not required
to hold a CDL of the same (or higher)
class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, as long as the
instructor previously held a CDL of that
class and meets all other qualification
requirements, The Agency makes this
change in order to permit retired CMV
drivers, who may have many years of
experience operating a CMV but who no
longer hold a CDL, to provide theory
instruction.
FMCSA also adds the following
provision to the definition of’’ theory
instructor’’ in the final rule: If an
instructor’s CDL has been cancelled,
suspended, or revoked due to any of the
disqualifying offenses identified in
§ 383.51, the instructor is prohibited
from engaging in theory instruction for
two years following the date his or her
CDL is reinstated following the
disqualification. As noted above, a
similar provision is also included in the
definition of ‘‘BTW instructor’’. FMCSA
adds the provision to the definition of
‘‘theory instructor’’ because we believe
the instructor’s CMV driving record is
also a relevant qualification for
individuals who provide theory

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88776

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

instruction in the safe operation of
CMVs.
In addition, as discussed in the
response to comments, FMCSA deletes
the proposed qualification standard a
theory instructor must have previously
audited or instructed that portion of the
theory training course they intend to
instruct.
‘‘Experienced Driver’’
As proposed, an ‘‘experienced driver’’
was defined as a driver who holds a
CDL of the same or higher class and
with all endorsements necessary to
operate the CMV for which training is
to be provided; has at least one year of
experience driving a CMV requiring a
CDL of the same or higher class and/or
the same endorsement or has at least
one year of experience as a BTW CMV
instructor; and meets all applicable
State training requirements for CMV
instructors. That proposed definition
was cross-referenced in proposed
§ 380.713, which set forth the theory
and BTW instructor qualification
requirements. As described above, the
proposed definition of ‘‘experienced
driver’’ is not retained in the final rule.
The Agency revises the instructor
qualification requirements proposed in
§ 380.713 and incorporates them into
the definitions of ‘‘BTW instructor’’ and
‘‘theory instructor’’ in the final rule.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

‘‘Behind-the-Wheel (BTW) Range
Training’’/’’Behind-the-Wheel (BTW)
Public Road Training’’
The definitions of BTW range training
and BTW road training remain as
proposed, except that FMCSA changes
the term ‘‘driver-instructor’’ to ‘‘BTW
instructor’’ in each definition.
‘‘Entry-Level Driver’’
As proposed, the definition of ‘‘entrylevel driver’’ included a person who
must complete the CDL skills test
requirements under 49 CFR 383.71 prior
to receiving the initial CDL or having a
CDL reinstated, upgrading to a Class A
or B CDL, or obtaining the P, S, or H,
endorsement. Individuals for whom
States waive the CDL skills test under
49 CFR 383.77 were excepted from the
proposed definition.
As discussed above, the Agency
received a number of comments stating
that the proposed definition was
unclear. Accordingly, in the final rule,
FMCSA revises the definition of ‘‘entrylevel driver’’ as follows: An individual
who must complete the CDL skills test
requirements under § 383.77 prior to
receiving a Class A or Class B CDL for
the first time, upgrading to a Class B or
a Class A CDL, or obtaining a P, S, or
H, endorsement for the first time.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

FMCSA believes that the phrase
‘‘receiving a Class A or Class B CDL for
the first time’’ is clearer than the term
‘‘initial CDL’’, as proposed. This phrase
is also consistent with the language of
MAP–21, which requires that FMCSA
establish entry-level training
requirements addressing the knowledge
and skills that ‘‘must be acquired before
obtaining a commercial driver’s license
for the first time,’’ 49 U.S.C.
31305(c)(1)(B).
The Agency deletes the reference to
‘‘having a CDL reinstated’’ primarily
because the proposed refresher training
requirement is not retained in the final
rule. In addition, as noted above in the
explanation of changes to § 380.603(a),
FMCSA adds an exception for
individual drivers applying to have a
restriction removed from their CDL. The
exception for individuals for whom the
States waive the skills test under
§ 383.77 remains as proposed.
‘‘Entry-Level Driver Training’’
FMCSA makes conforming changes to
the definition of ‘‘entry-level driver
training’’ in the final rule in order to
reflect the revised definition of ‘‘entrylevel driver’’ described above.
Accordingly, ELDT means training that
an entry-level driver receives from an
entity listed on the TPR prior to taking
the CDL skills test required to receive a
Class A or Class B CDL for the first time
or upgrade to a Class B or a Class A
CDL; taking the CDL skills test required
to obtain a P and/or S endorsement for
the first time; or taking the CDL
knowledge test required to obtain the H
endorsement for the first time.
‘‘Refresher Training’’
As proposed, ‘‘refresher training’’ was
defined as training that a CDL holder
who has been disqualified from
operating a CMV must take. For reasons
explained in FMCSA’s response to
comments on the proposed refresher
training requirement, we delete this
definition (along with the refresher
training curriculum) from the final rule.
‘‘Training Provider’’
As proposed, ‘‘training provider’’ was
defined as an entity listed on the TPR,
as required by subpart G. In the NPRM
preamble, FMCSA noted that training
providers could be training schools,
motor carriers providing ‘‘in-house’’
training to current or prospective
employees, local governments, or school
districts.
In order to clarify that any entity
meeting the eligibility requirements set
forth in subpart G can be a ‘‘training
provider,’’ FMCSA revises the definition
of the term in the final rule by adding

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

specific examples of potentially
qualifying entities. Accordingly,
‘‘training provider’’ is defined as an
entity listed on the TPR, as required by
subpart G; training providers include,
but are not limited to, training schools,
educational institutions, rural electric
cooperatives, motor carriers, State/local
governments, school districts, joint
labor management programs, owneroperators, and individuals. As noted in
our response to comments on this issue,
these examples are not intended to be a
finite list; the Agency adds them to
illustrate the range of entities that could
potentially be eligible for listing on the
TPR.
§ 380.609 General Entry-Level Driver
Training Requirements
As proposed, this section explained
that CDL applicants must complete
training that meets the CDL class and/
or endorsement (i.e., Class A, Class B, P,
S, or H endorsements) they wish to
obtain from a provider listed on the
TPR, and that CDL holders disqualified
from operating a CMV must receive
refresher training from a provider listed
on the TPR.
While the essential meaning of
§ 380.609 remains unchanged in the
final rule, the Agency makes various
conforming changes to this section. We
delete the reference to ‘‘refresher
training,’’ as that proposed requirement
is not retained in the final rule. FMCSA
also clarifies that specified ELDT
requirements apply to individuals who
wish to obtain a Class A or B CDL for
the first time and/or a P, S, or H
endorsement for the first time. The
Agency makes these changes to conform
to the revised language in § 380.603
(Applicability), as discussed above. We
make other conforming changes to
reflect the fact that all of the training
curricula in the final rule are included
in Appendices A–E to part 380 of the
final rule and are no longer set forth in
§§ 380.613, 380.615, 380.619, 380.621
and 380.623, as proposed.
§ 380.611 Driver Training Provider
Requirements
As proposed, this section stated that
training providers seeking to be listed
on the TPR must meet the requirements
of subpart G, attest that they meet the
requirements of this part, and supply
documentary evidence of their
compliance with these requirements to
FMCSA or its authorized representative,
upon request.
FMCSA deletes this section in the
final rule. As proposed, the provision
applied directly to training providers;
we therefore conclude that it does not
belong in subpart F. Additionally, this

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

section effectively duplicates
requirements now set forth in
§§ 380.703, 380.719, and 380.725 of
subpart G, discussed below.
§ 380.613 Class A CDL—Training
Curriculum
In the final rule, the Class A training
curriculum is moved to Appendix A of
part 380. Although the curriculum
elements for the Class A CDL remain
largely as proposed, FMCSA makes
clarifying and conforming changes, as
well as several topic-related additions
and deletions, as described below.
Additionally, as discussed in the
response to comments, FMCSA deletes
the requirement that driver-trainees
complete a minimum of 30 BTW hours
in order to complete that portion of the
curriculum. In the introduction to the
curriculum, FMCSA adds the
requirement that training providers
must determine that the driver-trainee
has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum, unless
otherwise noted. This language is
consistent with the NPRM’s designation
of certain elements of the BTW
curriculum, such as night driving or
skid control, as ‘‘discussed during
public road training or simulated, but
not necessarily performed.’’ The Agency
also clarifies that training instructors
must provide commentary instruction in
those elements of the BTW curriculum.
FMCSA considers these additions to be
clarifying rather than substantive.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that
instructors document the total number
of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee
spends in completing all elements of the
BTW (range and public road)
curriculum. As noted above, the
purpose of this requirement is to allow
FMCSA to collect data which will assist
the Agency in assessing the
effectiveness of ELDT and in monitoring
the effectiveness of training providers.
Finally, the Agency clarifies that BTW
training may not be conducted by using
a driving simulation device, nor may a
driver-trainee use a simulation device to
demonstrate BTW proficiency.
Additionally, in response to
comments, the Agency adds two safetyrelated topics to the Class A curriculum.
First, ‘‘entering and exiting the
interstate or controlled access highway’’
is added to the ‘‘Basic control’’ unit of
the theory curriculum and to the
‘‘Vehicle controls’’ unit of and BTWpublic road portion of the curriculum.
In addition, the Agency adds an element
to the ‘‘Railroad-highway grade
crossings’’ unit in the ‘‘Advanced
operating practices’’ section of the
theory curriculum, which requires that
training providers instruct driver-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

trainees that railroads maintain
‘‘Emergency Notification Systems’’ to
receive notification of unsafe
conditions, such as a disabled vehicle
blocking the track.
The Agency deletes several topics
because they are not directly related to
the safe operation of a CMV, as required
by MAP–21 (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)).
In the ‘‘Fatigue and wellness
awareness’’ unit of the theory
curriculum, the Agency deletes the
following topics: Diet, exercise, personal
hygiene, stress, and lifestyle changes. In
the final rule, this unit covers the
consequences of chronic and acute
driver fatigue, in addition to wellness
and basic health maintenance issues
that affect a driver’s ability to safely
operate a CMV. In the ‘‘Post-crash
procedures’’ unit of the theory
curriculum, FMCSA deletes the
following topics: Responsibilities for
assisting injured parties; ‘‘Good
Samaritan’’ laws; a driver’s legal
obligations and rights, including rights
and responsibilities for engaging with
law enforcement personnel; and the
importance of learning company policy
on post-crash procedures. As previously
noted, training providers may address
these and other topics as they see fit, but
they are not required curriculum
elements under today’s rule.
FMCSA also cross-references the
current FMCSRs (i.e., §§ 392.7 and
396.11) to the description of pre-trip/
post-trip inspections in the theory and
BTW-range portions of the curriculum.
The Agency adds specific examples of
braking systems (i.e., hydraulic, ABS,
air) ‘‘as applicable’’ to the description of
the ‘‘Basic operation’’ section of the
theory portion. We add ‘‘as applicable’’
to the description of ‘‘coupling and
uncoupling’’ unit in the theory and
BTW (range) portions of the curriculum
to account for the fact that there are
different types of coupling systems. The
unit entitled ‘‘Distracted driving,’’
proposed as part of the ‘‘Advanced
operating practices’’ section of the Class
A Theory curriculum, is moved to the
‘‘Safe operating procedures’’ section of
that curriculum; the unit descriptor
remains as proposed.
Finally, the Agency makes various
clarifying and conforming changes to
the Class A curriculum in the final rule
in order to improve organizational
efficiency and consistency between
curricula and delete redundancies in
individual curriculum topics.
§ 380.615 Class B CDL—Training
Curriculum
In the final rule, the Class B training
curriculum is moved to Appendix B of
part 380. Although the curriculum

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88777

elements for the Class B CDL remain
largely as proposed, FMCSA makes
clarifying and conforming changes, as
well as several topic-related additions
and deletions, as described below.
Additionally, as discussed in the
response to comments, FMCSA deletes
the requirement that driver-trainees
complete a minimum of 15 BTW hours
in order to complete that portion of the
curriculum. In the introduction to the
curriculum, FMCSA adds the
requirement that training providers
must determine that the driver-trainee
has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum, unless
otherwise noted. This language is
consistent with the NPRM’s designation
of certain elements of the BTW
curriculum, such as night driving or
skid control, as ‘‘discussed during
public road training or simulated, but
not necessarily performed.’’ The Agency
also clarifies that training instructors
must provide commentary instruction in
those elements of the BTW curriculum.
FMCSA considers these additions to be
clarifying rather than substantive.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that
instructors document the total number
of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee
spends in completing all elements of the
BTW (range and public road)
curriculum. As noted above, the
purpose of this requirement is to allow
FMCSA to collect data which will assist
the Agency in assessing the
effectiveness of ELDT and in monitoring
the effectiveness of training providers.
Finally, the Agency clarifies that BTW
training may not be conducted by using
a driving simulation device, nor may a
driver-trainee use a simulation device to
demonstrate BTW proficiency.
Additionally, in response to
comments, the Agency adds two safetyrelated topics to the Class B curriculum.
First, ‘‘entering and exiting the
interstate or controlled access highway’’
is added to the ‘‘Basic control’’ unit of
the theory curriculum and to the
‘‘Vehicle controls’’ unit of and BTWpublic road portion of the curriculum.
In addition, the Agency adds an element
to the ‘‘Railroad-highway grade
crossings’’ unit in the Advanced
operating practices’’ section of the
theory curriculum, which requires that
training providers instruct drivertrainees that railroads maintain
‘‘Emergency Notification Systems’’ to
receive notification of unsafe
conditions, such as a disabled vehicle
blocking the track.
The Agency deletes several topics
because they are not directly related to
the safe operation of a CMV, as required
by MAP–21 (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)).
In the ‘‘Fatigue and wellness

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88778

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

awareness’’ unit of the theory
curriculum, the Agency deletes the
following topics: Diet, exercise, personal
hygiene, stress, and lifestyle changes. In
the final rule, this unit covers the
consequences of chronic and acute
driver fatigue, in addition to wellness
and basic health maintenance issues
that affect a driver’s ability to safely
operate a CMV. In the ‘‘Post-crash
procedures’’ unit of the theory
curriculum, FMCSA deletes the
following topics: Responsibilities for
assisting injured parties; ‘‘Good
Samaritan’’ laws; a driver’s legal
obligations and rights, including rights
and responsibilities for engaging with
law enforcement personnel; and the
importance of learning company policy
on post-crash procedures. As previously
noted, training providers may address
these and other topics as they see fit, but
they are not required curriculum
elements under today’s rule.
FMCSA also cross-references the
current FMCSRs (i.e., §§ 392.7 and
396.11) to the description of pre-trip/
post-trip inspections in the theory and
BTW-range portions of the curriculum.
The Agency adds specific examples of
braking systems (i.e., hydraulic, ABS,
air) ‘‘as applicable’’ to the description of
the ‘‘Basic operation’’ section in the
theory portion. The unit entitled
‘‘Distracted driving’’, proposed as part
of the ‘‘Advanced operating practices’’
section of the Class B theory
curriculum, is moved to the ‘‘Safe
operating procedures’’ section of that
curriculum; the unit descriptor remains
as proposed.
Finally, FMCSA makes various
clarifying and conforming changes to
the Class B curriculum in the final rule
in order to improve organizational
efficiency and consistency between
curricula and delete redundancies in
individual curriculum topics.
§ 380.619 Passenger Endorsement
Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the passenger (P)
endorsement curriculum is moved to
Appendix C of part 380. The P
curriculum remains largely as proposed.
FMCSA adds language to the
introduction to the curriculum
clarifying that the training instructor
must determine that the driver-trainee
has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that
instructors document the total number
of (clock) hours that each driver-trainees
spends in completing the BTW
curriculum, for the reasons previously
noted. The Agency adds ‘‘drawbridges’’
to the ‘‘Railroad-highway grade
crossings’’ topic in the theory portion of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

the P curriculum for consistency with
§ 383.111. FMCSA also cross-references
the current FMCSRs (i.e., §§ 392.7 and
396.11) to the description of pre-trip/
post-trip inspections in the theory and
BTW-range/public road portions of the
curriculum.
In the ‘‘Post-crash procedures’’ unit of
the P endorsement theory curriculum,
FMCSA deletes the following topics:
Responsibilities for assisting injured
parties; ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ laws; a
driver’s legal obligations and rights,
including rights and responsibilities for
engaging with law enforcement
personnel; and the importance of
learning company policy on post-crash
procedures. As noted above, the Agency
removes these topics from the
curriculum because they are not directly
related to the safe operation of a CMV,
as required by MAP–21. In addition,
FMCSA deletes paragraph (4) from the
‘‘Baggage and/or cargo management’’
units of the theory and BTW-range and
public road portions of the curriculum,
which identifies various prohibited
items and materials; in the final rule,
that topic is now covered in revised
paragraph (2) of each unit.
FMCSA also makes clarifying and
conforming changes to the P curriculum
in the final rule in order to improve
organizational efficiency and
consistency between curricula and
delete redundancies in individual
curriculum topics.
§ 380.621 School Bus Endorsement
Training Curriculum
In the final rule, the school bus (S)
endorsement curriculum is moved to
Appendix D of part 380. The S
curriculum remains largely as proposed.
FMCSA adds language to the
introduction to the curriculum
clarifying that the training instructor
must determine that the driver-trainee
has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that
instructors document the total number
of (clock) hours that each driver-trainee
spends in completing the BTW
curriculum. The Agency also crossreferences the current FMCSRs (i.e.,
§§ 392.7 and 396.11) in the description
of pre-trip/post-trip inspections in the
theory and BTW-range/public road
portions of the curriculum.
FMCSA adds a ‘‘vehicle orientation’’
unit to the theory portion of the S
curriculum, which covers the basic
physical and operational characteristics
of a school bus. This addition is made
to provide consistency with the theory
portions of the Class A and B and the
P curricula, each of which contains a
vehicle orientation unit. FMCSA deletes

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

the proposed theory unit entitled
‘‘antilock braking systems’’, because
‘‘brake systems’’ are included in the
vehicle orientation unit added to the S
curriculum in the final rule. The Agency
deletes the ‘‘Night operation’’ unit from
the theory curriculum, because that
topic, which is not unique to the
operation of a school bus, is addressed
in the Class A and B core curricula.
§ 380.623 Hazardous Materials
Endorsement Curriculum
In the final rule, the hazardous
materials (H) endorsement curriculum is
moved to appendix E of part 380. The
H curriculum remains essentially as
proposed.
§ 380.625 Refresher Training
Curriculum
As proposed, the refresher training
curriculum set forth the training
requirements that CDL holders who are
disqualified from operating a CMV must
complete before their CDL can be
reinstated. As explained above, the final
rule does not include any requirements
related to refresher training.
Accordingly, FMCSA deletes the
refresher training curriculum in the
final rule.
Subpart G—Registry of Entry-Level
Driver Training Providers
§ 380.700 Scope
As proposed, this section stated that
subpart G establishes eligibility
requirements for listing on the TPR, and
that drivers seeking ELDT may use only
providers listed on the TPR to comply
with this part. In the final rule, FMCSA
clarifies that, in order to provide ELDT
in compliance with this part, providers
must be listed on the TPR. The Agency
deletes the reference to the driver’s need
to obtain ELDT only from providers
listed on the TPR, as that obligation is
referenced in § 380.609.
§ 380.703 Requirements for the
Training Provider Registry
As proposed, this section set forth the
requirements a training provider must
meet in order to be eligible for initial
listing on the TPR. It remains essentially
as proposed.
FMCSA makes several conforming
changes to reflect that, in the final rule,
the ELDT curricula are set forth in
Appendices A–E and that refresher
training requirements are not included
in the final rule. We also change the
name of the registration document from
‘‘Entry-Level Driver Training
Identification Report’’, as proposed, to
‘‘Training Provider Registration Form’’,
in the final rule. Further, FMCSA
clarifies that training providers must

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

complete the form online and
electronically transmit it through the
TPR Web site.
FMCSA adds new § 380.703(a)(5)(i),
requiring that training providers be
licensed, certified, registered, or
authorized to provide training in
accordance with the applicable laws
and regulations of any State where inperson training is provided. This
provision, proposed as § 380.719(a)(4),
is moved to § 380.703 because it is a
threshold eligibility requirement; the
wording of this provision remains as
proposed, except for the clarifying
addition of ‘‘in-person’’. The Agency
also adds new § 380.703(a)(5)(ii), which
states that State qualification
requirements otherwise applicable to
theory instruction do not apply to
providers who offer instruction only
online. As discussed in the response to
comments, this exception is necessary
to account for the fact that, because
online training can be delivered
virtually anywhere, online providers
cannot reasonably be expected to
comply with multiple (and possibly
conflicting) State requirements.
However, as noted above in the
discussion of the revised definition of
‘‘theory instructor’’ in § 380.605, online
providers must ensure that the training
content is delivered and/or prepared by
theory instructors meeting the
definition.
Finally, the Agency deletes the
reference to the creation and
maintenance of driver-trainee records of
completion and/or withdrawal, as
proposed in § 380.703(a)(7). The Agency
will have access to the pertinent
information through the providers’
transmission of ELDT certification
information for each driver-trainee
completing their training program.
§ 380.707 Entry-Level Training
Provider Requirements
As proposed, this section set forth the
requirements applicable to ELDT
providers. It mandated that providers
require that all accepted applicants for
BTW public road training meet Federal,
State and/or local laws pertaining to
drug screening, controlled substances
testing, age, medical certification,
licensing and driving record. This
section also required that training
providers cover all required elements of
the BTW (range and public road) and
theory curricula, as applicable. As
proposed, providers training more than
three driver-trainees annually must
provide training materials to each
trainee addressing the applicable
curricula; providers training three or
fewer trainees annually were not subject
to this requirement. This section also

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

stated that separate training providers
may deliver the theory and BTW
portions of the curricula.
FMCSA makes several changes to this
section in the final rule. The Agency
makes conforming changes to reflect
that the final rule does not include a
refresher training curriculum and that
different requirements are not imposed
on providers training three or fewer
trainees annually, as proposed. In
§ 380.707(a), the Agency clarifies that
accepted BTW applicants must certify
that they will comply with DOT
regulations, as well as State and local
laws, pertaining to alcohol and
controlled substances testing, age,
medical certification, licensing and
driving record. As proposed, the
requirement could be interpreted to
mean that training providers are
responsible for driver-trainees’
compliance with these requirements,
which was not FMCSA’s intention.
FMCSA also adds a requirement that
training providers verify that accepted
BTW applicants hold valid CLPs/CDLs,
as applicable, in order to ensure that
driver-trainees operating CMVs on a
public road are licensed to do so.
FMCSA clarifies in § 380.707(c) that,
while separate providers may provide
theory and BTW training, both the range
and public road portions of BTW
training must be provided by the same
training entity, as noted in the response
to comments. FMCSA adds a
requirement that training providers
offering online training must ensure that
the content is prepared by a theory
instructor as defined in § 380.605.
Finally, FMCSA deletes the provisions,
proposed as § 380.707(b) and (c),
requiring that BTW and theory
instruction include all elements set
forth in the applicable curricula because
those requirements are already imposed
on training providers in § 380.703(a)(1).
§ 380.709 Facilities
As proposed, this section required
that a training provider’s classroom and/
or range facilities comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and/or local
laws. Additionally, training providers
offering BTW-range training must have
an instructor on site to demonstrate
applicable skills and correct
deficiencies of individual students; and
the range must be free of obstructions,
enable the driver to maneuver safely
and free from interference from other
vehicles and hazards, and have
adequate sight lines.
In the final rule, FMCSA retains, as
proposed, the requirement that a
training provider’s classroom and/or
range facilities comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and/or local

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88779

laws. The Agency deletes the
requirements pertaining to range
instruction because they are duplicative.
In the final rule, the range-related
requirements proposed in § 380.709 are
addressed in the introductions to the
Class A, Class B, P, and S curricula in
Appendices A–D and in the definition
of ‘‘range’’ in § 380.605.
§ 380.711

Equipment

As proposed, this section required
that all vehicles used in BTW must be
in safe mechanical condition and that
vehicles used in BTW-public road
training comply with applicable Federal
and State safety requirements. In
addition, training vehicles must be in
the same class (A or B) and type (bus or
truck) that driver-trainees intend to
operate for their CDL skills test.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the
provision requiring that all vehicles
used for BTW-range training be in safe
mechanical condition. The Agency
believes that the requirement that
vehicles used for BTW training comply
with applicable Federal and State safety
requirements, now in § 380.711(a),
adequately addresses the issue of
training vehicle safety. In addition, we
delete the parenthetical references to
‘‘(A or B)’’ and ‘‘(bus or truck)’’ in
response to a comment that Group C
vehicles, which may be used in BTW
training for the P and/or S endorsement,
are not used in Class A or B CDL
training and may be neither a bus nor
a truck.
§ 380.713 Driver-Instructor
Qualification Requirements
As proposed, this section required
that training providers utilize theory
and BTW instructors meeting the
specified definitions in § 380.605.
Additionally, this section required
training providers to utilize BTW
instructors whose driving record meets
applicable State and Federal
requirements and who, in the two years
prior to engaging in BTW instruction,
have not had any CMV-related
convictions for the offenses identified in
§ 385.51(b)–(e).
FMCSA significantly revises § 380.713
in the final rule, as noted above in the
explanation of changes made to
§ 380.605. The specific qualification
requirements pertaining to theory and
BTW instructors are now addressed
directly in the definitions of those
terms. Accordingly, in the final rule,
this section simply requires that training
providers utilize ‘‘theory instructors’’
and ‘‘BTW instructors’’ meeting the
definition of those terms as set forth in
§ 380.605.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88780

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

§ 380.715

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Assessments

As proposed, this section required
that driver-trainees successfully
complete a course of instruction
meeting the ELDT curriculum
requirements. Training providers must
use assessments (in written or electronic
format) to demonstrate the trainee’s
proficiency in the knowledge objectives
set forth in the applicable theory
curriculum; trainees must achieve an
overall score of 80 percent or higher on
the theory assessment. Training
providers are required to assess a drivertrainee’s proficiency on the driving
range in accordance with the applicable
curriculum, as well as a trainee’s
proficiency in BTW driving skills on a
public road in the class (A or B) and
type (bus or truck) of vehicle the trainee
will operate for the CDL skills test.
In the final rule, § 380.715 remains
largely as proposed. FMCSA makes
conforming changes to reflect that the
ELDT theory and BTW curricula are
now in Appendices A–E of part 380 and
are no longer set forth in §§ 380.613,
380.615, 380.619, 380.621 and 380.623,
as proposed. FMCSA deletes the
requirement that driver-trainees must
complete a course of instruction
meeting the applicable ELDT
requirements, because that provision is
set forth in § 380.609.The Agency
clarifies that training providers must
document their assessment of a drivertrainee’s proficiency in the BTW skills,
as required in Appendices A–D, as well
as the total number of (clock) hours each
driver-trainee spends in completing
BTW (range and public road) training,
but the proficiency documentation
requirement in § 380.715(b) of the final
rule is now combined for all BTW skills
(range and public road). Separate
documentation for range and public
road skills, as proposed in § 380.715(b)
and (c), is therefore no longer required.
FMCSA does not require any specific
means or method of documentation of
BTW proficiency or the number of hours
spent in completing the BTW
curriculum.
Finally, FMCSA deletes the proposed
requirement that BTW skills assessment
must occur in ‘‘a vehicle class (A or B)
and type (bus or truck) that the drivertrainee will operate for the CDL skills
test,’’ for the reason noted above in the
explanation of changes to § 380.711. We
also note that all of the BTW curricula
in today’s rule require that the training
occur in a representative vehicle for the
CDL class or endorsement.
§ 380.717

Training Certification

As proposed, this section required
that training providers upload ELDT

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

certificates to the TPR by the close of
the next business day after the
individual’s completion of the training.
It also set forth the specific information
elements to be included in the training
certification, such as the driver-trainee’s
name, CLP/CDL number and State of
licensure, the type of training completed
the training provider’s name and unique
TPR identification number, and the date
of training completion.
In the final rule, § 380.717 remains
largely as proposed. In response to
comments, FMCSA extends the time
period for electronically transmitting
the ELDT certification information to
the TPR to midnight of the second
business day following the individual’s
completion of the training. As noted
above, FMCSA adds the total number of
(clock) hours spent to complete BTW
training, as applicable, to the required
certification information. We also add
the trainee’s driver’s license number as
a potential data element to account for
the fact that trainees who are not CDL
holders and who complete the theory
curricula before obtaining BTW training
may not have a CLP number at that
point. The Agency also requires that
training providers electronically
transmit the ELDT data elements to the
TPR, rather than uploading a training
certificate, as proposed.
§ 380.719 Requirements for Continued
Listing on the Training Provider
Registry
As proposed, this section identified
the specific obligations imposed on
training providers as a condition of
continued listing on the TPR. The
requirements include: Meeting the
applicable requirements of this subpart;
providing biennial updates to the EntryLevel Driver Training Provider
Identification Report; reporting to
FMCSA specified changes in key
information within 30 days; being
licensed, certified, registered or
authorized to provide training in each
State where training is provided, as
applicable, and maintaining related
documentation; allowing FMCSA or its
authorized representative to conduct an
audit or investigation of the training
provider; and ensuring that all required
documentation is provided within 48
hours of receiving a request for
documentation from FMCSA or its
authorized representative.
In the final rule, this section remains
largely as proposed. The Agency
clarifies that biennial updates to the
Training Provider Registration Form, as
well as any reports of changes in key
information, must be transmitted
electronically through the TPR Web site.
As noted above, the requirement that

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

training providers meet applicable State
laws and regulations in each State
where training is provided, proposed as
§ 380.719(a)(4), is in § 380.703(5)(i) of
the final rule. The Agency moves the
provision to § 380.703 because it is a
threshold eligibility requirement for
listing on the TPR.
§ 380.721 Removal From Training
Provider Registry: Factors Considered
As proposed, this section established
the factors that FMCSA may consider
when removing a training provider from
the TPR. All training certificates issued
after the training provider is removed
from the TPR will be considered
invalid.
In the final rule, this section remains
essentially as proposed. FMCSA makes
clarifying changes to § 380.721(a)(5),
deleting the reference to ‘‘the SDLA CDL
exam passage rate.’’ In the final rule, the
regulatory text refers to the CDL skills
test passage rate for applicants for the
Class A CDL, Class B CDL, P
endorsement, and/or S endorsement and
the SDLA knowledge test passage rate
for applicants for the H endorsement. In
response to comments, the Agency also
deletes ‘‘abnormally low’’ from this
provision in order to clarify that we do
not intend to establish a minimum
required CDL test passage rate. FMCSA
will assess the passage rate information
in the context of State norms. Finally,
the Agency makes a clarifying change to
the proposed language stating that all
training certificates issued after the date
a provider is removed from the TPR will
be considered invalid. In the final rule,
the provision states that any training
conducted after the removal date is
invalid.
§ 380.723 Removal From Training
Provider Registry: Procedure
As proposed, this section set forth the
procedures for voluntary and
involuntary removal of a training
provider from the TPR. This section
addresses FMCSA’s initiation of the
involuntary removal process, the
training provider’s right to respond to
the notice and undertake corrective
action, the provider’s right to oppose
FMCSA’s notice of proposed removal,
the provider’s right to request
administrative review of an involuntary
removal, procedures for FMCSA’s
emergency removal of a provider from
the TPR, and the process by which a
provider may apply for reinstatement to
the TPR following voluntary or
involuntary removal.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes
several changes to the procedures
related to a training provider’s
involuntary removal from the TPR, as

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

set forth in § 380.723(b). First, in order
to ensure that training providers to
whom FMCSA issues a notice of
proposed removal have adequate
opportunity to implement corrective
actions, the Agency deletes the
proposed language stating that training
conducted after issuance of the notice is
non-compliant until FMCSA withdraws
the notice. FMCSA also adds a
provision to this subsection stating that
the Agency will note on the TPR Web
site whenever a training provider listed
on the TPR is issued a notice of
proposed removal, as further means of
informing prospective students of the
status of that provider. If FMCSA
withdraws the notice, the notation will
also be removed from that provider’s
listing on the TPR Web site.
In § 380.723(c)(1)(iii), the Agency
adds a sentence stating that any training
conducted after the date a provider is
removed from the TPR is invalid. This
provision was proposed and is retained
as part of § 380.721; it is included here
for clarity and consistency. Otherwise,
§ 380.723 remains as proposed.
§ 380.725 Documentation and Record
Retention
Section 380.725 sets forth the
documentation and record retention
requirements that apply to training
providers eligible for listing on the TPR.
As proposed, providers must retain their
policy containing requirements for
driver-trainee applicants related to
controlled substances testing, medical
certification, licensing, and driving
records; specified instructor
qualification documentation (e.g.,
copies of CDL/endorsements); the
amount of time generally allocated to
theory and BTW training, as applicable;
the instructor-trainee ratio for each
portion of the curriculum; the number
of vehicles used in training and a
description of lesson plans for theory
and BTW, as applicable; and the names
of all driver-trainees who completed or
withdrew from instruction and who
passed/failed the training provider’s
assessment of theory and BTW training,
as applicable. In addition, training
providers must generally retain these
records or documentation for a
minimum of three years from the date
the document was generated or
received.
In order to consolidate and clarify the
record keeping requirements imposed
on training providers, FMCSA makes
several changes to § 380.725 in the final
rule. The Agency deletes the proposed
retention requirements for the amount
of time generally allocated to theory and
BTW training, proposed as
§ 380.725(b)(3); the instructor-driver-

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

trainee ratio and number of training
vehicles; and the names of drivertrainees who complete or withdraw
from the instruction and who passed/
failed the theory or BTW assessment,
proposed as § 380.725(b)(5). FMCSA
will instead capture the relevant
information on the Training Provider
Registration Form (TPRF), so the
provider does not need to retain that
information separately. In addition, the
Agency makes conforming changes to
§ 380.725(b)(1) to require the retention
of self-certifications by driver-trainee
BTW applicants, who must attest that
they will comply with U.S. Department
of Transportation regulations in parts
40, 382, 383, and 391, as well as State
and local laws, related to alcohol and
controlled substances testing, age,
medical certification, licensing, and
driving records, as required in
§ 380.707(a).
FMCSA adds the following record
retention requirements: the TPRF,
copies of a driver-trainee’s CLP/CDL (as
applicable), and records of ELDT
assessments as described in § 380.715.
FMCSA believes these revised
requirements capture the information
essential for the Agency to perform a
meaningful audit or investigation of a
training provider’s operations. The
three-year record retention requirement
in § 380.725(c) remains as proposed.
Part 383—Commercial Driver’s License
Standards; Requirements and Penalties
In the proposed rule, FMCSA revised
the authority citation for part 383 and
made various conforming changes. The
proposed rule did not make any
substantive changes to the existing
requirements in part 383. FMCSA
discusses below only the proposed
conforming changes to part 383 which
were notably revised in the final rule.
All other conforming changes to part
383 remain essentially as proposed.
§ 383.51

Disqualification of Drivers

In the proposed rule, new subsection
(a)(8), stated that CDL holders
disqualified as a result of convictions of
offenses under § 383.51(b) through (e)
must not be fully reinstated until
completing the refresher training
curriculum.
As discussed above, the final rule
does not include any refresher training
requirements. Accordingly, FMCSA
deletes this proposed conforming
amendment to § 383.51 from the final
rule.

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88781

§ 383.71 Driver Application
Procedures
§ 383.71(a)(3)
As proposed, new § 383.71(a)(3)
required that, as of the compliance date
of the final rule, a person must complete
the training prescribed in subpart F of
part 380 of this chapter prior to taking
the skills test for a Class A CDL, Class
B CDL, a P or S endorsement, or the
knowledge test for the H endorsement.
The training must be administered by a
training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming
change remains largely as proposed.
FMCSA adds language to this provision
to clarify that the required training must
be completed prior to taking the skills
test for the Class A CDL or Class B CDL
for the first time, or the skills test for a
P or S endorsement for the first time, or
the knowledge test for the H
endorsement for the first time (emphasis
added). As noted above, this language is
consistent with MAP–21’s requirement
that training standards be established
for individuals obtaining a CDL ‘‘for the
first time’’.
§ 383.71(a)(4)
As proposed, new § 383.71(a)(4)
provided that, except for driver-trainees
seeking the H endorsement, drivertrainees completing the theory portion
of the training must complete the skills
portion within 360 days.
As discussed above, FMCSA deletes
this requirement from § 383.71, as
proposed, makes clarifying changes to
this requirement, and moves it to
§ 380.603(c) of the final rule. The
provision now requires that trainees
complete both portions of the required
ELDT within one year of completing the
first portion of the training.
§ 383.71(b)(11)
As proposed, new § 383.71(b)(11)
required that, as of the compliance date
of the final rule, a person must complete
the training prescribed in subpart F of
part 380 of this chapter prior to taking
the skills test for an initial Class A CDL,
Class B CDL, or a P or S endorsement,
or the knowledge test for the H
endorsement. The training must be
administered by a training provider
listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming
change remains largely as proposed. As
noted above in the discussion of
conforming changes to § 383.71(a)(3),
FMCSA adds language to this provision
to clarify that the required training must
be completed prior to taking the skills
test for the Class A CDL or Class B CDL
for the first time, or the skills test for a
P or S endorsement for the first time, or

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88782

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

the knowledge test for the H
endorsement for the first time.
§ 383.71(e)(5)
As proposed, new § 383.71(e)(5)
required that a person must complete
the training prescribed in subpart F of
part 380 of this chapter prior to taking
the skills test for upgrading to a CDL
from one class to another, or upgrading
a CDL with a P or S endorsement, or
taking the knowledge test for the H
endorsement issued on a CDL. The
training must be administered by a
training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, this conforming
change remains largely as proposed. As
noted above in the discussion of
conforming changes to §§ 383.71(a)(3)
and 383.71(b)(11), FMCSA adds
language to this provision to clarify that
the required training must be completed
prior to taking the skills test for
upgrading to a Class A or Class B CDL,
adding a P or S endorsement to a CDL
the first time, or taking the knowledge
test for the H endorsement for the first
time.
§ 383.73

State Procedures

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

§ 383.73(b)(3)(ii)
As proposed, this section would be
amended to add, in § 383.73(b)(3)(ii), a
requirement that the State check with
CDLIS to determine, if the CDL was
issued on or after the compliance date
of the final rule, whether an applicant
for a Class A or Class B CDL or a CDL
with a P, S, or H endorsement has
completed the training required by
subpart F of this subchapter from a
training provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA deletes the
requirement that the State determine
that the required ELDT was obtained
from a training provider on the TPR. As
discussed in the response to comments,
the Agency will not be transmitting a
training certificate to the State through
CDLIS, as proposed in the NPRM.
Instead, data elements containing the
relevant training certification
information will be added to the driver’s
record through CDLIS. Accordingly, the
State is not obligated to confirm that the
applicant received training from a
provider listed on the TPR; FMCSA will
verify that before transmitting the data
elements to the driver’s record. This
subsection otherwise remains as
proposed.
§ 383.73(b)(10)
As proposed, new § 383.73(b)(10)
provided that, beginning on the
compliance date of the final rule, the
State must not conduct a skills test for
a Class A or Class B CDL, or a P or S
endorsement, until the State verifies

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

that the applicant completed the
training prescribed in subpart F of part
380 of this chapter from a training
provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies that
the State must verify electronically the
applicant’s completion of the required
ELDT. As discussed in the response to
comments, the Agency makes this
change in order to clarify that the State
may not accept paper training
certificates from either the applicant or
the training provider as evidence that
the applicant has completed the
required training. In addition, for the
reasons noted above in the discussion of
§ 383.73(b)(3)(ii), FMCSA deletes the
requirement that the State determine
that the required ELDT was obtained
from a training provider on the TPR.
This subsection otherwise remains as
proposed.
§ 383.73(e)(8)
As proposed, new § 383.73(e)(8)
provided that, beginning on the
compliance date of the final rule, the
State must require a person with a CDL
upgrading from one class of CDL to
another or upgrading a CDL with an H,
P, or S endorsement, to complete the
training prescribed in subpart F of part
380 of this chapter from a training
provider listed on the TPR.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes
several clarifying changes to this
subsection. First, the Agency specifies
that the requirement applies to upgrades
to either a Class A or Class B CDL, or
the addition of a P, S, or H endorsement.
Additionally, for the reasons noted
above in the discussion of
§§ 383.73(b)(3)(ii) and 383.73(b)(10),
FMCSA deletes the requirement that the
State determine that the required ELDT
was obtained from a training provider
on the TPR.
§ 383.73(p)
Finally, the Agency adds new (p) to
§ 383.73 to require that, after the
compliance date of the final rule, the
State must notify FMCSA in the event
that a training provider in the State does
not meet applicable State requirements
for CMV instruction. As discussed in
the response to comments, this change
is necessary since FMCSA has no means
of independently determining whether a
training provider complies with
applicable State requirements for CMV
instruction. If the training provider is
listed on the TPR, failure to meet State
requirements could result in that
provider’s removal from the TPR. This
subsection otherwise remains as
proposed.

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

§ 383.95 Restrictions
As proposed, new § 383.95(h)
provided that the State would reinstate
the CDL for a CDL holder disqualified
from operating a CMV under
§ 383.51(b)–(e) solely for the limited
purpose of completing the refresher
training curriculum. The State may not
restore full CMV driving privileges until
receiving notification that the driver
completed the refresher training
curriculum.
As discussed above, the final rule
does not include any refresher training
requirements as proposed. Accordingly,
FMCSA deletes this proposed
subsection from the final rule.
§ 383.153 Information on the CLP and
CDL Documents and Applications
As proposed, § 383.153(a)(10) was
amended to add (ix), a new restriction
(R) for refresher training only.
Because the final rule does not
include any refresher training
requirements as proposed, FMCSA
deletes this proposed addition to
§ 383.153(a)(10) from the final rule.
Part 384—State Compliance With
Commercial Driver’s License Program
In the proposed rule, FMCSA revised
the authority citation for part 384 and
made various conforming changes. The
proposed rule did not make any
substantive changes to the existing
requirements in part 384. FMCSA
discusses below only the proposed
conforming changes to part 384 which
were revised in the final rule. All other
conforming changes to part 384 remain
essentially as proposed.
§ 384.230 Entry-Level Driver
Certification
As proposed, new § 384.230(a)
required a State, beginning on the
compliance date of the final rule, to
follow the procedures prescribed in
§ 383.73 for verifying that a person
received training from a provider listed
on the TPR before issuing an initial
Class A or Class B CDL, a CDL with an
H, P, or S endorsement, upgrading a
CDL from one class to another, or
upgrading a CDL with an H, P, or S
endorsement. In addition, under
proposed § 384.230(b), States would be
permitted to issue a CDL to individuals
who obtain an initial CLP before the
compliance date of the final rule who
have not complied with the ELDT
requirements in subpart F of part 380,
so long as they obtain the CDL within
360 days after obtaining the initial CLP.
Finally, under proposed § 384.230(c), a
State may not issue a CDL to individuals
who obtain a CLP on or after the
compliance date of the final rule unless

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88783

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
New Subpart G of Part 380

they comply with the ELDT
requirements in subpart F of part 380.
In the final rule, FMCSA makes
several clarifying changes to
§ 384.230(a) and (b). In § 384.230(a), we
add specific references to
§ 383.73(b)(3)(ii), (b)(10), and (e)(8) in
order to clarify the ELDT completion
verification procedures a State is
required to follow and make
corresponding conforming changes to
the regulatory text. In § 384.230(b), the
Agency makes a conforming change to
clarify that a State may issue a CDL to
individuals who obtain a CLP before the
compliance date of the final rule who
have not complied with the ELDT
requirements in subpart F of part 380,
so long as they obtain a CDL before the
CLP or renewed CLP expires. Section
384.230(c) remains as proposed.

This new subpart establishes the
minimum qualifications for an entity to
be eligible for listing on the FMCSA
TPR. The TPR will be an online portal
administered by FMCSA allowing
training providers to register. Training
providers will also transmit drivertrainee training certifications to FMCSA
electronically through the TPR. The TPR
allows drivers seeking training to find
an eligible provider who meets their
needs.
Part 383
§ 383.71 Driver Application
Procedures
FMCSA adds new paragraphs—(a)(3),
(b)(11), and (e)(3) through (5)—regarding
the completion of the training
prescribed in part 380, subpart F, before
a Class A or B CDL, a passenger, school
bus, or hazardous materials
endorsement for the first time, or an
upgrade to a Class A or Class B CDL is
issued.

§ 384.235 Entry-Level Driver Training
Provider Notification
FMCSA adds new § 384.235 to
mandate that the State must meet the
entry-level driver training notification
requirement of § 383.73(p).

§ 383.73

X. Section-by-Section

State Procedures

FMCSA adds new paragraphs (b)(10),
(e)(8), and (p) and revised paragraph
(b)(3)(ii) to prohibit a State from issuing
a Class A or B CDL, or a CDL with a
hazardous materials, passenger, or
school bus endorsement for the first
time, or an upgrade to a CDL, unless the
SDLA has received electronic ELDT
certification information.

Part 380
Subpart E of Part 380
Subpart E would be retitled as
‘‘Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver
Training Requirements Before February
7, 2020.’’ On the compliance date of the
final rule, this subpart would be
removed and reserved and replaced by
new subparts F and G.

Part 384
FMCSA adds new §§ 384.230 and
384.235. Additionally, the Agency adds
a new paragraph (j) to § 384.301.

New Subpart F of Part 380
This new subpart establishes the
requirements for entry-level drivers,
minimum curriculum content, and
standards for training providers. The
entry-level driver training requirements
that would replace those in current
subpart E would be titled ‘‘Subpart F—
Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements On and After February 7,
2020.’’

XI. Regulatory Analyses
A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures as Supplemented by
E.O. 13563)
FMCSA has determined that this
rulemaking is an economically

significant regulatory action under
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866,29
Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by E.O. 13563.30 It also is
significant under Department of
Transportation regulatory policies and
procedures because the economic costs
and benefits of the rule exceed the $100
million annual threshold and because of
the substantial Congressional and public
interest concerning the lack of Federal
entry-level driver training requirements.
A Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) is
available in the docket. That document:
• Identifies the problem targeted by
this rulemaking, including a statement
of the need for the action.
• Defines the scope and parameters of
the analysis.
• Defines the baseline.
• Defines and evaluates the costs and
benefits of the action.
• Compares the costs and benefits.
• Interprets the cost and benefit
results.
The RIA is the synthesis of research
conducted specific to current entry-level
driver training practices, industry
discussions from the ELDTAC, and
research conducted on the costs and
benefits of the entry-level driver training
provisions of this final rule.
Entry-level drivers, motor carriers,
training providers, SDLAs, and the
Federal Government would incur costs
for compliance and implementation.
The costs of the final rule include
tuition expenses, the opportunity cost of
time while in training, compliance audit
costs, and costs associated with the
implementation and monitoring of the
TPR. As shown in Table 1, FMCSA
estimates that the 10-year cost of the
final rule would total $3.66 billion on
an undiscounted basis, $3.23 billion
discounted at 3 percent, and $2.76
billion discounted at 7 percent (all in
2014 dollars). Values in Table 1 are
rounded to the nearest million.

TABLE 1—TOTAL COST OF THE FINAL RULE
[In millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025

Entry-level
drivers

.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................

Motor
carriers

$324
326
328
330
331
333

$20
20
20
20
20
20

29 Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993.
Regulatory Planning and Review. 58 FR 51735–
51744 (October 4, 1993).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Training
providers

Jkt 241001

Discounted

SDLAs

$9
6
7
6
7
6

$56
0
0
0
0
0

Federal
government

Total a

$6
1
1
1
1
1

$415
353
356
357
359
360

30 Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011.
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. 76 FR
3821–3823 (January 21, 2011).

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Discounted
at 3%
$415
343
336
327
319
311

Discounted
at 7%
$415
330
311
291
274
257

88784

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—TOTAL COST OF THE FINAL RULE—Continued
[In millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

Year

2026
2027
2028
2029

Entry-level
drivers

Motor
carriers

Training
providers

Discounted
Federal
government

SDLAs

Discounted
at 3%

Total a

Discounted
at 7%

.................
.................
.................
.................

335
337
339
341

20
20
21
21

7
6
7
6

0
0
0
0

1
1
1
1

363
364
368
369

304
296
291
283

242
227
214
201

Total ..........

3,324

202

3,664

3,225

2,762

Annualized .......

......................

366

367

368

Notes:
a Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components).

The costs of this final rule specifically
attributable to the S endorsement
training requirement were also
evaluated separately in the RIA. This
was done because MAP–21 mandates
training for entry-level drivers who wish
to obtain a CDL, or a P endorsement, or
an H endorsement, but is silent with
respect to the S endorsement. Inclusion
of the S endorsement training
requirement increases the total cost of
the rule by only approximately 0.82
percent. On an annualized basis at a 7
percent discount rate, this equates to an
increase in the total cost of the rule from
$365 million to $368 million (this can
be seen in Section 3 of the RIA). Details
of these comparative analyses of the
costs of the rule and the reasons for this
relatively small change in costs
resulting from the inclusion of the S
endorsement training requirement are
presented in Section 3 of the RIA. The
costs presented in Table 1 include this
small additional incremental cost
associated with the S endorsement
training requirement as part of the total
costs of the final rule.
This final rule will result in benefits
to CMV operators, the transportation
industry, the traveling public, and the

environment. FMCSA estimated benefits
in two broad categories: Safety benefits
and non-safety benefits. Training related
to the performance of complex tasks
may improve performance; in the
context of the training required by this
final rule, improvement in task
performance constitutes adoption of
safer driving practices that the Agency
believes will reduce the frequency and
severity of crashes, thereby resulting in
safer roadways for all. The training
related to fuel efficient driving practices
that will be taught under the ‘speed
management’ and ‘space management’
sections of the curriculum reduce fuel
consumption and consequently lower
environmental impacts associated with
carbon dioxide emissions. As discussed
in Section 4.1.1 of the RIA for today’s
rule, FMCSA does not believe that the
training in fuel efficient driving
practices addressed by this rule will
contribute to measurably longer trip
times, as the curricula focus on factors
such as maintaining safe distances
between vehicles and avoiding hard
acceleration and braking, rather than
reducing vehicle speed. The Agency
therefore assumes in its analysis that

these fuel efficient driving practices will
not contribute to measurably longer trip
times.
Safer driving will reduce maintenance
and repair costs. Table 2 below presents
the directly quantifiable benefits that
FMCSA projects will result from this
final rule (all in 2014 dollars, values
rounded to the nearest million). Due to
wide ranges of estimates in studies
relevant to the quantified benefits of the
rule and the lack of studies that
specifically focus on the curricula
prescribed by this rule,31 the Agency
presents benefits estimated under
alternate benefit scenarios in Table 3
and Table 4. These alternate scenarios
are derived from the low and high
benefit cases (see sensitivity analyses in
Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3 of the RIA)
in which the fuel savings, CO2
emissions reductions, and maintenance
and repair cost savings are 50 percent
lower (low benefits case) and 50 percent
greater (high benefits case) than the
central estimates that the Agency relied
on in developing the values presented
in Table 2. Further discussion of the low
and high benefits cases is reserved to
the RIA for the final rule.

TABLE 2—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[Central case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025

Value of fuel
savings

$89
151
186
190
194
197

31 As described in Sections 4.1.1 through 4.1.3,
the Agency identified a variety of relevant studies
related to each of the quantified benefits. With

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Value of CO2
reduction a

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair
cost savings

$15
26
31
32
32
33

$13
22
26
27
27
27

particular respect to the estimated fuel and CO2
savings the Agency was unable to identify any

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Total b
$117
198
243
248
253
257

Discounted
at 3%
$117
192
229
227
225
222

Discounted
at 7%
$117
186
214
206
197
188

studies that perfectly align with the curricula of this
rule.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88785

2026
2027
2028
2029

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction a

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair
cost savings

Discounted
at 3%

Total b

Discounted
at 7%

202
205
207
211

34
34
35
35

28
28
28
28

263
266
270
274

220
217
214
210

181
172
165
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 emissions are discounted at the 3% rate in both the ‘‘discounted at 3%’’ and ‘‘dis2
counted at 7%’’ columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance
on monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions are
presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
b Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components).

TABLE 3—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[Low benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted
Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction a

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair
cost savings

Discounted
at 3%

Total b

Discounted
at 7%

$44
75
93
95
97
99
101
102
104
106

$8
13
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17

$6
11
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14

$58
99
121
124
127
129
131
133
135
137

$58
96
114
114
112
111
110
108
107
105

$58
93
107
103
99
94
90
86
82
78

Total ..................................................

915

153

127

1,195

1,036

891

Annualized ...............................................

........................

119

118

119

Notes:
a The monetized benefits associated with reduced CO emissions are discounted at the 3% discount rate in both the ‘‘discounted at 3%’’ and
2
‘‘discounted at 7%’’ columns in this table. This is in keeping with the guidance of the Interagency Working Group that developed the OMB guidance on monetizing CO2 reductions, and is consistent with past DOT and EPA practices. Further details on the monetization of CO2 reductions
are presented in Section 4.1.2 of the RIA.
b Total benefit values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of
unrounded components).

TABLE 4—TOTAL QUANTIFIABLE BENEFITS OF THE FINAL RULE
[High benefits case, in millions of 2014$]
Undiscounted

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Value of fuel
savings

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Value of CO2
reduction a

$133
226
278
285
291
296
302
307
311
316

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Maintenance
and repair
cost savings

$23
38
47
48
49
50
50
51
52
52

Fmt 4701

Discounted

Sfmt 4700

Total b

$19
32
38
39
40
40
41
41
41
42

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

$175
295
363
371
379
385
393
399
405
410

08DER2

Discounted
at 3%
$175
287
343
340
337
332
329
324
320
314

Discounted
at 7%
$175
278
321
308
295
282
271
258
246
235

88786

Value of fuel
savings

Value of CO2
reduction a

Discounted

Maintenance
and repair
cost savings

Discounted
at 3%

Total b

Discounted
at 7%

Total ..................................................

2,745

459

372

3,576

3,100

2,668

Annualized ...............................................

........................

358

353

355

While FMCSA believes that this final
rule will at a minimum achieve costneutrality, the net of quantified costs
and benefits (presented in Table 5
below) results in an annualized net cost
of $131 million at a 7 percent discount
rate. This estimate is based only on
quantifiable costs and benefits (central
case) attributable to this rule. Safety
benefits are assessed separately via a
threshold analysis discussed in detail in
Section 4.2 of the RIA.

TABLE 5—NET COST OF THE FINAL
RULE (CENTRAL CASE), ABSENT
QUANTIFIABLE SAFETY BENEFITS
[In millions of 2014$]
3%
Discount
rate

Year

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028

$298
151
107
100
94
89
84
79
77

7%
Discount
rate
$298
144
97
85
77
69
61
55
49

32 Office of Management and Budget. Circular A–
4. Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003.
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/
default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a4.pdf (accessed July 25, 2016).
33 Some commenters to the RIA that was
performed for the NPRM for this rule incorrectly
interpreted the breakeven percentage reduction in
crashes estimated here as being relative to all CMV
crashes industry-wide, rather than being relative to
only to the much smaller sub-set of crashes
involving entry-level drivers that are affected by the
rule. Note that with respect to the magnitude of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

involving those entry-level drivers who
will receive additional pre-CDL training
as a result of this final rule during the
period for which the benefits of training
are estimated to remain intact) is
[In millions of 2014$]
necessary to offset the $142 million
(annualized at 7 percent) net cost of this
7%
3%
Discount final rule. Note that under the low and
Year
Discount
high benefits cases presented in Table 3
rate
rate
and Table 4, the net cost of this final
2029 ..........................
73
44 rule ranges from $13 million to $250
million (annualized at 7 percent),
Total ...................
1,152
979
suggesting the improvement in safety
Annualized ................
131
131 performance necessary to offset the
rule’s costs may be as low as 0.36
In the absence of a clear link between percent and as high as 6.89 percent (see
Section 4.2 of the RIA for the final rule
training and safety, FMCSA followed
for further detail).
the guidance of the Office of
Table 6 below presents the projected
Management and Budget (OMB) in its
number of crash reductions involving
Circular A–4 to perform a threshold
entry-level drivers that must occur in
analysis to determine the degree of
safety benefits that will need to occur as each of the 10 years following this final
a consequence of this final rule in order rule’s implementation and in the
for the rule to achieve cost-neutrality.32
aggregate, in order to offset the net cost
As presented and discussed in detail in
($131 million annualized at 7
Section 4.2 of the RIA, the central
percent).33 To be clear, it is the sum of
estimate of this analysis is that a 3.61
the monetized value of all columns of
percent improvement in safety
Table 6—not the sum of the monetized
performance (that is, a 3.61 percent
value of any individual column—that
reduction in the frequency of crashes
results in cost-neutrality.

TABLE 5—NET COST OF THE FINAL
RULE (CENTRAL CASE), ABSENT
QUANTIFIABLE SAFETY BENEFITS—
Continued

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

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

88787

TABLE 6—CRASH REDUCTIONS INVOLVING ENTRY-LEVEL DRIVERS, BY TYPE, NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COST-NEUTRALITY
[For the Central Case]
Number of
fatal crashes

Year

2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029

Number of
injury
crashes

Number of
property
damage only
(PDO) crashes

3
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

59
98
118
118
118
118
118
118
118
118

251
418
502
502
502
502
502
502
502
502

Annual Average a .........................................................................................................................

110

468

Total b ....................................................................................................................................

1,102

4,682

Notes:
a Rounded to the nearest whole number.
b The individual values shown may not sum to the totals shown due to rounding.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, Public Law 96–354, 94 Stat. 1164
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), as amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121,
110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996) and the
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–240, 124 Stat. 2504, September
27, 2010), requires Federal agencies to
consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other
small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term
‘‘small entities’’ comprises small
businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently
owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and
governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
Additionally, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations
on small entities, and mandates that
agencies strive to lessen any adverse
effects on these businesses.
Accordingly, FMCSA prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) for the NPRM and a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
for the Final Rule. This rule will affect
all entities that choose to become
training providers. As shown in the
FRFA (see Section 5 of the RIA),
FMCSA estimated that approximately
4.6 million small entities could employ
entry-level drivers, but that only 22,000
entities will register with FMCSA to
become training providers. The impact
on those entities that choose to become
training providers will be less than $500
in the first year of the analysis, which
is less than 1% of revenue for entities

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

in any of the potentially affected
industries. Therefore, I certify that this
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Assistance for Small Entities
In accordance with section 213(a) of
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
FMCSA wants to assist small entities in
understanding this final rule so that
they can better evaluate its effects on
themselves and participate in the
rulemaking initiative. If the final rule
will affect your small business,
organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions
concerning its provisions or options for
compliance; please consult the FMCSA
point of contact, Richard Clemente,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this final rule.
Small businesses may send comments
on the actions of Federal employees
who enforce or otherwise determine
compliance with Federal regulations to
the Small Business Administration’s
Small Business and Agriculture
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency’s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG–
FAIR (1–888–734–3247). DOT has a
policy regarding the rights of small
entities to regulatory enforcement
fairness and an explicit policy against
retaliation for exercising these rights.

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$155 million (which is the value
equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995,
adjusted for inflation to 2013 levels) or
more in any one year. This rulemaking
would result in private sector
expenditures in excess of the $155
million threshold. Gross costs, however,
are expected to be offset by fuel, carbon
dioxide, and maintenance and repair
savings, making this final rule costneutral based on reduced instances of
crashes, as further discussed in the
threshold-based analysis described in
the RIA.
A written statement under the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not
required for regulations that incorporate
requirements specifically set forth in
law (2 U.S.C. 1531). MAP–21 mandated
that FMCSA issue regulations to
establish minimum entry-level training
requirements for all first-time CDL
applicants, CDL holders seeking a
license upgrade from one class of CDL
to another, and applicants for the
passenger (P) or hazardous materials (H)
endorsements.34 Accordingly, because
34 As explained above and discussed in the RIA,
mandatory school bus (S) endorsement training is
also included in the final rule. While not
specifically mandated by MAP–21, the Agency
believes the inclusion of an S endorsement
curriculum is entirely consistent with MAP–21’s

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

Continued

08DER2

88788

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

this rule implements the direction of
Congress in mandating ELDT, a written
statement under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act is not required.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
These amended regulations require
training providers to obtain, collect,
maintain, and in some cases transmit,
information about their facilities,
curricula, and the individuals who
complete entry-level driver training. In
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520), FMCSA has
analyzed the need for these informationcollection (IC) activities and how the
information will be managed. On March
7, 2016, the Agency provided a
preliminary estimate of the time burden
that would be imposed on training
providers under the proposed rules and
asked for public comment (81 FR
11967). No comments were received.
The compliance date for the amended
training rules is three years after the
effective date of this final rule. For the
next three years, the Agency’s current
regulations pertaining to the training of
entry-level drivers (49 CFR Subpart E)
will remain in place. OMB approves
information-collection activities for a
maximum period of 3 years. Thus, the
Agency’s estimate of IC burden must be
based upon the current regulations. That
burden was approved by OMB on
December 23, 2015, after public notice
and comment (80 FR 53385). The
Agency at this time does not amend that
approved estimate: 66,250 hours.
Formal OMB approval of the IC
collection to be conducted under the
amended rules must be obtained before
the compliance date of those rules.
Therefore, in approximately two years,
the Agency will submit its estimate of
the burden of the amended rules to
OMB for approval and provide notice
and an opportunity for public comment
on the estimate.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Preliminary Estimate
FMCSA offers the following
preliminary estimate of the IC burden it
foresees the amended training rules will
impose on the compliance date three
years hence.
Summary of the Collection of
Information: Training providers must
register each training location with the
TPR by electronically submitting an
recognition of the importance of ELDT in the
operation of passenger-carrying CMVs. FMCSA
notes that the S endorsement training requirement
increases the cost of the final rule by a negligible
amount (approximately 0.82%), due primarily to
the fact that about 95% of entry-level school bus
drivers currently receive training that is at least
equal to the minimum standard established in
today’s rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

initial TPRF. Training providers must
also submit an updated TPRF for each
training location to the TPR every two
years. In addition, training providers
must electronically submit training
certification information to the TPR for
each individual who completes entrylevel driver training.
Need for Information: The Agency
must be able to assess the qualifications
of training providers in order to list
them on the TPR, and the identity of
training locations is needed for FMCSA
to be able to visit the sites to verify
compliance. Finally, information about
individuals who complete ELDT is
needed so the Agency can inform
SDLAs that CDL applicants completed
the required training.
Proposed Use of Information: The
Agency will monitor training providers
to ensure that they conduct training in
accordance with these rules. Monitoring
will include on-site audits of the
operations of training providers.
Further, the Agency will monitor the
safety performance of drivers who
complete entry-level training in order to
assess the efficacy of the training
required by the amended regulations.
Description of the Respondents:
Training providers.
Number of Respondents: 20,510.
Frequency of Response: Training
providers must initially register each
training location with the TPR by
submitting an initial TPRF. Training
providers must also submit an updated
TPRF for each training location to the
TPR every two years. Finally, on an
irregular basis, training providers must
electronically submit training
certification information to the TPR for
each individual who completes entrylevel driver training.
Burden of Response: Over the first
three years of the new rules, the Agency
estimates that training providers will
require 20,405 hours annually to register
their training locations with FMCSA.
Training providers will also require
38,625 hours annually to electronically
submit training certification information
to the TPR for each individual who
completes entry-level driver training.
Preliminary Estimate of the Total
Annual Burden of the Revised Rules on
the Compliance Date (three years from
this date): 59,030 hours (20,405 +
38,625).
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
A rule has implications for
Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has
‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

responsibilities among the various
levels of government. FMCSA has
analyzed this rule in accordance with
E.O. 13132 and has determined that it
does not have federalism implications.
The key concept here is ‘‘substantial
direct effects on the States.’’ Sec. 3(b) of
the Federalism Order provides that
‘‘[n]ational action limiting the
policymaking discretion of the States
shall be taken only where there is
constitutional and statutory authority
for the action and the national activity
is appropriate in light of the presence of
a problem of national significance.’’ The
rule amends the current entry-level
driver training requirements in 49 CFR
part 380, as required by the MAP–21
amendment to 49 U.S.C. 31305, the
training section of the CDL statute. The
CDL program does not have preemptive
effect. It is voluntary; States may
withdraw at any time, although doing so
will result in the loss of certain Federal
aid highway funds pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
31314. Because this rule makes
conforming, and not substantive,
changes to the requirements already
imposed on participating States,
FMCSA has determined that it does not
have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
Federal and State governments, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
Nonetheless, FMCSA recognizes that,
as a practical matter, this rule may have
some impact on the States. Accordingly,
the Agency sought advice from the
National Governors Association (NGA),
the National Conference of State
legislatures (NCSL), the American
Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA), and the
National Association of Publicly
Funded Truck Driving Schools
(NAPFTDS) on the topic of entry-level
driver training, by letters to each
organization, dated July 6, 2015. (Copies
of these letters are available in the
docket for this rulemaking.) FMCSA
offered NGA, NCSL, AAMVA, and
NAPFTDS officials the opportunity to
meet and discuss issues of concern to
the States. It should also be noted that
AAMVA and NAPFTDS were members
of the ELDTAC, whose consensus
recommendations formed the basis of
the NPRM. State and local governments
were also able to raise Federalism issues
during the NPRM comment period.
Furthermore, FMCSA sent follow-up
letters to NGA, NCSL, AAMVA, and
NAPFTDS on March 18, 2016, notifying
them that the NPRM had been
published.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This final rule meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminates
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
E.O. 13045, Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23,
1997), requires agencies issuing
‘‘economically significant’’ rules, if the
regulation also concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
an agency has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, to
include an evaluation of the regulation’s
environmental health and safety effects
on children. Although FMCSA has
determined that this in an economically
significant rule, the Agency concludes,
as noted in the response to comments,
that this regulatory action does not
present ‘‘environmental health risks and
safety risks,’’ as that term is defined in
E.O. 13045, which could
disproportionately affect children.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
FMCSA reviewed this final rule in
accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights, and has determined it will not
effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications.
J. Privacy
FMCSA conducted a privacy impact
assessment (PIA) of this rule as required
by section 522(a)(5) of division H of the
FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
Public Law 108–447, 118 Stat. 3268
(Dec. 8, 2004). The assessment
considered impacts of the final rule on
the privacy of information in an
identifiable form and related matters.
The final rule will impact the handling
of personally identifiable information
(PII). FMCSA has evaluated the risks
and effects the rulemaking might have
on collecting, storing, and sharing PII
and has evaluated protections and
alternative information handling
processes in developing the final rule in
order to mitigate potential privacy risks.
For the purposes of both transparency
and efficiency, the privacy analysis
conforms to the DOT standard Privacy
Impact Assessment (PIA) and will be
published on the DOT Web site, http://
www.transportation.gov/privacy,
concurrently with the publication of the
rule. The PIA addresses the rulemaking,
associated business processes

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

contemplated in the rule, and any
information known about the systems or
existing systems to be implemented in
support of the final rulemaking. While
a PIA for the Entry Level Driver
Training NPRM was not required, due to
changes in the rulemaking and
associated business processes during the
final rule stage, this effort will now
require the publication of a PIA. FMCSA
will not be directly collecting
information from individuals, but the
agency will be storing and using PII
collected by the training providers about
individuals that received training at the
facilities.
As required by the Privacy Act,
FMCSA and the Department will
publish, with request for comment, a
system of records notice (SORN) that
will describe FMCSA’s maintenance
and electronic transmission of
information affected by this final rule
and covered by the Privacy Act. This
SORN will be developed to reflect the
new storage and electronic transmission
of information and published in the
Federal Register not less than 30 days
before the Agency is authorized to
collect or use PII retrieved by unique
identifier.
K. Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)
The regulations implementing E.O.
12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use)
FMCSA has analyzed this final rule
under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.
The Agency has determined that it is
not a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under
that order because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore,
it does not require a Statement of Energy
Effects under E.O. 13211.
M. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal
Governments)
This rule does not have tribal
implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, because it
does not have a substantial direct effect
on one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88789

N. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through OMB, with
an explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods;
sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are
standards that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
If you disagree with our analysis of
the voluntary consensus standards or
are aware of voluntary consensus
standards that might apply but are not
listed here, please send a comment to
the docket using one of the methods
under ADDRESSES. In your comment,
please explain why you disagree with
our analysis and/or identify voluntary
consensus standards FMCSA has not
listed that might apply.
O. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O.
12898 Environmental Justice)
The National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires Federal agencies to
integrate environmental values into
their decision-making processes by
requiring Federal agencies to consider
the potential environmental impacts of
their actions. In accordance with NEPA,
FMCSA’s NEPA Order 5610.1 (NEPA
Implementing Procedures and Policy for
Considering Environmental Impacts),
and other applicable requirements,
FMCSA prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) to review the potential
impacts of the rule. Because the
implementation of this action would
only impose new training standards for
certain individuals applying for their
CDL, an upgrade of their CDL, or
hazardous materials, passenger, or
school bus endorsement for their
license, FMCSA has tentatively found
that noise, endangered species, cultural
resources protected under the National
Historic Preservation Act, wetlands, and
resources protected under Section 4(f) of
the Department of Transportation Act of
1966, 49 U.S.C. 303, as amended by
Public Law 109–59, would not be
impacted. The impact areas that may be
affected and will be evaluated in this EA

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

88790

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

include air quality, hazardous materials
transportation, solid waste, and public
safety. But the impact area of focus for
the EA will be air quality. Specifically,
as outlined in the RIA for this
rulemaking, FMCSA anticipates that an
increase in driver training to result in
improved fuel economy based on
changes to driver behavior, such as
smoother acceleration and braking
practices. Such improved fuel economy
is anticipated to result in lower air
emissions and improved air quality for
gases including carbon dioxide. FMCSA
expects that all negative impacts, if any,
will be negligible. However, we expect
the overall environmental impacts of
this action to be beneficial. The EA will
be available for inspection or copying in
the Regulations.gov Web site listed
under ADDRESSES.
FMCSA also analyzed this final rule
under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.), and regulations promulgated by
the Environmental Protection Agency
(40 CFR part 93, subpart B). Under the
General Conformity Rule, a conformity
determination is required where a
Federal action would result in total
direct and indirect emissions of a
criteria pollutant or precursor
originating in nonattainment or
maintenance areas equaling or
exceeding the rates specified in 40 CFR
93.153(b)(1) and (2). As noted in the
NEPA discussion above, however,
FMCSA expects a net decrease in air
emissions as a result of this final rule.
Consequently, approval of this action is
exempt from the CAA’s General
Conformity Requirement since it does
not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
Under E.O. 12898, each Federal
agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ‘‘disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations’’ in the United States, its
possessions, and territories. FMCSA
evaluated the environmental justice
effects of this rule in accordance with
the Executive Order, and has
determined that no environmental
justice issue is associated with this rule,
nor is there any collective
environmental impact that would result
from its promulgation.
49 CFR Part 380
Administrative practice and
procedure, Highway safety, Motor
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

49 CFR Part 384
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR parts
380, 383, and 384 as follows:
PART 380—SPECIAL TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 380
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305,
31307, 31308, and 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b)
of Pub. L. 102–240 (105 Stat. 2151–2152);
sec. 32304 of Pub. L. 112–141; and 49 CFR
1.87.

Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements Before February 7, 2020
2. Revise subpart E to read as set forth
above.
■ 3. Add subpart F to read as follows:
■

Subpart F—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements On and After February 7,
2020
Sec.
380.600 Compliance date for training
requirements for entry-level drivers.
380.601 Purpose and scope.
380.603 Applicability.
380.605 Definitions.
380.609 General entry-level driver training
requirements.
§ 380.600 Compliance date for training
requirements for entry-level drivers.

Compliance with the provisions of
this subpart is required on or after
February 7, 2020.
§ 380.601

Jkt 241001

Purpose and scope.

This subpart establishes training
requirements for entry-level drivers, as
defined in this subpart, and minimum
content for theory and Behind-theWheel (BTW) training curricula. Entrylevel driver training, as defined in this
subpart, applies only to those
individuals who apply for a commercial
driver’s license (CDL) or a CDL upgrade
or endorsement and does not otherwise
amend substantive CDL requirements in
part 383 of this chapter.
§ 380.603

List of Subjects

VerDate Sep<11>2014

49 CFR Part 383
Administrative practice and
procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse,
Highway safety, Motor carriers.

Applicability.

(a) The rules in this subpart apply to
all entry-level drivers, as defined in this
subpart, who intend to drive CMVs as
defined in § 383.5 of this chapter in
interstate and/or intrastate commerce,
except:

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(1) Drivers excepted from the CDL
requirements under § 383.3(c), (d), and
(h) of this chapter;
(2) Drivers applying for a restricted
CDL under § 383.3(e) through (g) of this
chapter;
(3) Veterans with military CMV
experience who meet all the
requirements and conditions of § 383.77
of this chapter; and
(4) Drivers applying for a removal of
a restriction in accordance with
§ 383.135(b)(7).
(b) Drivers who hold a valid Class A
or Class B CDL, or a passenger (P),
school bus (S), or hazardous materials
(H) endorsement, issued before February
7, 2020, are not required to comply with
this subpart pertaining to that CDL or
endorsement.
(c)(1) Individuals who obtain a CLP
before February 7, 2020, are not
required to comply with this subpart if
they obtain a CDL before the CLP or
renewed CLP expires.
(2) Individuals who obtain a CLP on
or after February 7, 2020, are required
to comply with this subpart.
(3) Except for individuals seeking the
H endorsement, individuals must
complete the theory and BTW (range
and public road) portions of entry-level
driver training within one year of
completing the first portion.
§ 380.605

Definitions.

(a) The definitions in parts 383 and
384 of this subchapter apply to this
subpart, except as stated below.
(b) As used in this subpart:
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor
means an individual who provides BTW
training involving the actual operation
of a CMV by an entry-level driver on a
range or a public road and meets one of
these qualifications:
(i) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher)
class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided and has at
least two years of experience driving a
CMV requiring a CDL of the same or
higher class and/or the same
endorsement and meets all applicable
State qualification requirements for
CMV instructors; or
(ii) Holds a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided and has at
least two years of experience as a BTW
CMV instructor and meets all applicable
State qualification requirements for
CMV instructors.
Exception: A BTW instructor who
provides training solely on a range
which is not a public road is not
required to hold a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, as long as the
instructor previously held a CDL of the
same (or higher) class and with all
endorsements necessary to operate the
CMV for which training is to be
provided, and complies with the other
requirements set forth in paragraphs (1),
(2), or (3) of this definition.
(iii) If an instructor’s CDL has been
cancelled, suspended, or revoked due to
any of the disqualifying offenses
identified in § 383.51, the instructor is
prohibited from engaging in BTW
instruction for two years following the
date his or her CDL is reinstated.
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) range
training means training provided by a
BTW instructor when an entry-level
driver has actual control of the power
unit during a driving lesson conducted
on a range. BTW range training does not
include time an entry-level driver
spends observing the operation of a
CMV when he or she is not in control
of the vehicle.
Behind-the-wheel (BTW) public road
training means training provided by a
BTW instructor when an entry-level
driver has actual control of the power
unit during a driving lesson conducted
on a public road. BTW public road
training does not include the time that
an entry-level driver spends observing
the operation of a CMV when he or she
is not in control of the vehicle.
Entry-level driver means an individual
who must complete the CDL skills test
requirements under § 383.71 prior to
receiving a CDL for the first time,
upgrading to a Class A or Class B CDL,
or obtaining a hazardous materials,
passenger, or school bus endorsement
for the first time. This definition does
not include individuals for whom States
waive the CDL skills test under § 383.77
or individuals seeking to remove a
restriction in accordance with
§ 383.135(b)(7).
Entry-level driver training means
training an entry-level driver receives
from an entity listed on FMCSA’s
Training Provider Registry prior to:
(i) Taking the CDL skills test required
to receive the Class A or Class B CDL
for the first time;
(ii) Taking the CDL skills test required
to upgrade to a Class A or Class B CDL;
or
(iii) Taking the CDL skills test
required to obtain a passenger and/or
school bus endorsement for the first
time or the CDL knowledge test required
to obtain a hazardous materials
endorsement for the first time.
Range means an area that must be free
of obstructions, enables the driver to
maneuver safely and free from

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

interference from other vehicles and
hazards, and has adequate sight lines.
Theory instruction means knowledge
instruction on the operation of a CMV
and related matters provided by a theory
instructor through lectures,
demonstrations, audio-visual
presentations, computer-based
instruction, driving simulation devices,
online training, or similar means.
Theory instructor means an
individual who provides knowledge
instruction on the operation of a CMV
and meets one of these qualifications:
(i) Holds a CDL of the same (or higher)
class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided and has at
least two years of experience driving a
CMV requiring a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and/or the same
endorsement and meets all applicable
State qualification requirements for
CMV instructors; or
(ii) Holds a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided and has at
least two years of experience as a BTW
CMV instructor and meets all applicable
State qualification requirements for
CMV instructors.
Exception: An instructor is not
required to hold a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements
necessary to operate the CMV for which
training is to be provided, if the
instructor previously held a CDL of the
same (or higher) class and complies
with the other requirements set forth in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of this
definition.
(iii) If an instructor’s CDL has been
cancelled, suspended, or revoked due to
any of the disqualifying offenses
identified in § 383.51, the instructor is
prohibited from engaging in theory
instruction for two years following the
date his or her CDL is reinstated.
(iv) Exception. Training providers
offering online content exclusively are
not required to meet State qualification
requirements for theory instructors.
Training provider means an entity
that is listed on the FMCSA Training
Provider Registry, as required by
subpart G of this part. Training
providers include, but are not limited
to, training schools, educational
institutions, rural electric cooperatives,
motor carriers, State/local governments,
school districts, joint labor management
programs, owner-operators, and
individuals.
§ 380.609 General entry-level driver
training requirements.

(a) An individual who applies, for the
first time, for a Class A or Class B CDL,

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88791

or who upgrades to a Class A or B CDL,
must complete driver training from a
provider listed on the Training Provider
Registry (TPR), as set forth in subpart G.
(b) An individual seeking to obtain a
passenger (P), school bus (S), or
hazardous materials (H) endorsement
for the first time, must complete the
training related to that endorsement
from a training provider listed on the
TPR, as set forth in subpart G.
■ 5. Subpart G is added to read as
follows:
Subpart G—Registry of Entry-Level
Driver Training Providers
Sec.
380.700 Scope.
380.703 Requirements for listing on the
training provider registry (TPR).
380.707 Entry-level training provider
requirements.
380.709 Facilities.
380.711 Equipment.
380.713 Instructor requirements.
380.715 Assessments.
380.717 Training certification.
380.719 Requirements for continued listing
on the training provider registry (TPR).
380.721 Removal from Training Provider
Registry: factors considered.
380.723 Removal from Training Provider
Registry: procedure.
380.725 Documentation and record
retention.
§ 380.700

Scope.

The rules in this subpart establish the
eligibility requirements for listing on
FMCSA’s Training Provider Registry
(TPR). In order to provide entry-level
driver training in compliance with this
part, training providers must be listed
on the TPR.
§ 380.703 Requirements for listing on the
training provider registry (TPR).

(a) To be eligible for listing on the
TPR, an entity must:
(1) Follow a curriculum that meets the
applicable criteria set forth in
appendices A through E of part 380,
(2) Utilize facilities that meet the
criteria set forth in § 380.709;
(3) Utilize vehicles that meet the
criteria set forth in § 380.711;
(4) Utilize driver training instructors
that meet the criteria set forth in
§ 380.713;
(5)(i) Be licensed, certified, registered,
or authorized to provide training in
accordance with the applicable laws
and regulations of any State where inperson training is conducted.
(ii) Exception: State qualification
requirements otherwise applicable to
theory instruction do not apply to
providers offering such instruction only
online.
(6) Allow FMCSA or its authorized
representative to audit or investigate the

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88792

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

training provider’s operations to ensure
that the provider meets the criteria set
forth in this section.
(7) Electronically transmit an EntryLevel Driver Training Provider
Registration Form through the TPR Web
site maintained by FMCSA, which
attests that the training provider meets
all the applicable requirements of this
section, to obtain a unique TPR number.
If a training provider has more than one
campus or training location, the training
provider must electronically transmit an
Entry-Level Driver Training Provider
Registration Form for each campus or
training location in order to obtain a
unique TPR number for each location.
(b) When a provider meets the
requirements of §§ 380.703 and 380.707,
FMCSA will issue the provider a unique
TPR number and, as applicable, add the
provider’s name and/or contact
information to the TPR Web site.
§ 380.707

Entry-level training provider.

(a) Training providers must require all
accepted applicants for behind-thewheel (BTW) training to certify that they
will comply U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations in parts 40,
382, 383, and 391, as well as State
and/or local laws, related to controlled
substances testing, age, medical
certification, licensing, and driving
record. Training providers must verify
that all accepted BTW applicants hold
a valid commercial learner’s permit or
commercial driver’s license, as
applicable.
(b) Training providers offering online
training must ensure that the content is
prepared and/or delivered by a theory
instructor, as defined in § 380.605.
(c) Separate training providers may
deliver the theory and BTW portions of
the training, but both portions (range
and public road) of the BTW training
must be delivered by the same training
provider.
§ 380.709

Facilities.

The training provider’s classroom and
range facilities must comply with all
applicable Federal, State, and/or local
statutes and regulations.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

§ 380.711

Equipment.

(a) All vehicles used in the behindthe-wheel training must comply with
applicable Federal and State safety
requirements.
(b) Training vehicles must be in the
same group and type that driver-trainees
intend to operate for their CDL skills
test.
§ 380.713

Instructor requirements.

(a) Theory training providers must
utilize instructors who are a theory
instructor as defined in § 380.605.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

(b) BTW training providers must
utilize instructors who are a BTW
instructors as defined in § 380.605.
§ 380.715

Assessments.

(a) Training providers must use
assessments (in written or electronic
format) to determine driver-trainees’
proficiency in the knowledge objectives
in the theory portion of each unit of
instruction in appendices A through E
of part 380, as applicable. The drivertrainee must receive an overall
minimum score of 80 percent on the
theory assessment.
(b) Training instructors must evaluate
and document a driver-trainee’s
proficiency in BTW skills in accordance
with the curricula in appendices A
through D of part 380, as applicable.
§ 380.717

Training certification.

After an individual completes training
administered by a provider listed on the
TPR, that provider must, by midnight of
the second business day after the drivertrainee completes the training,
electronically transmit training
certification information through the
TPR Web site including the following:
(a) Driver-trainee name, number of
driver’s license/commercial learner’s
permit/commercial driver’s license, as
applicable, and State of licensure;
(b) Commercial driver’s license class
and/or endorsement and type of training
(theory and/or BTW) the driver-trainee
completed;
(c) Total number of clock hours the
driver-trainee spent to complete BTW
training, as applicable;
(d) Name of the training provider and
its unique TPR identification number;
and
(e) Date(s) of successful training
completion.
§ 380.719 Requirements for continued
listing on the training provider registry
(TPR).

(a) To be eligible for continued listing
on the TPR, a provider must:
(1) Meet the requirements of this
subpart and the applicable requirements
of § 380.703.
(2) Biennially update the Entry-Level
Driver Training Provider Registration
Form.
(3) Report to FMCSA changes to key
information, as identified in paragraph
(a)(3)(i) of this section, within 30 days
of the change.
(i) Key information is defined as
training provider name, address, phone
number, type(s) of training offered,
training provider status, and, if
applicable, any change in State
licensure, certification, or accreditation
status.

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(ii) Changes must be reported by
electronically transmitting an updated
Entry-Level Driver Training Provider
Registration Form.
(4) Maintain documentation of State
licensure, registration, or certification
verifying that the provider is authorized
to provide training in that State, if
applicable.
(5) Allow an audit or investigation of
the training provider to be completed by
FMCSA or its authorized representative,
if requested.
(6) Ensure that all required
documentation, as set forth in § 380.725,
is available to FMCSA or its authorized
representative, upon request. The
provider must submit this
documentation within 48 hours of the
request.
(b) [Reserved]
§ 380.721 Removal from training provider
registry: factors considered.

FMCSA may remove a provider from
the TPR when a provider fails to meet
or maintain any of the qualifications
established by this subpart or the
requirements of other State and Federal
regulations applicable to the provider. If
FMCSA removes a provider from the
TPR, any training conducted after the
removal date will be considered invalid.
(a) The factors FMCSA may consider
for removing a provider from the TPR
include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(1) The provider fails to comply with
the requirements for continued listing
on the TPR, as described in § 380.719.
(2) The provider denies FMCSA or its
authorized representatives the
opportunity to conduct an audit or
investigation of its training operations.
(3) The audit or investigation
conducted by FMCSA or its authorized
representatives identifies material
deficiencies, pertaining to the training
provider’s program, operations, or
eligibility.
(4) The provider falsely claims to be
licensed, certified, registered, or
authorized to provide training in
accordance with the applicable laws
and regulations in any State where inperson training is provided.
(5) The State-administered CDL skills
examination passage rate for applicants
for the Class A CDL, Class B CDL,
passenger endorsement, and/or school
bus endorsement who complete the
provider’s training and the CDL
knowledge test passage rate for
applicants for the hazardous materials
endorsement who complete the
provider’s training.
(b) In instances of fraud or other
criminal behavior by a training provider
in which driver-trainees have

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
knowingly participated, FMCSA
reserves the right, on a case-by-case
basis, to retroactively invalidate training
conducted under this subpart .

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

§ 380.723 Removal from training provider
registry: procedure.

(a) Voluntary removal. To be
voluntarily removed from the Training
Provider Registry (TPR), a provider must
submit written notice to FMCSA’s
Director, Office of Carrier, Driver, and
Vehicle Safety Standards (Director).
Upon receiving the written notice,
FMCSA will remove the training
provider from the TPR. On and after the
date of issuance of a notice of proposed
removal from the TPR issued in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section, such a voluntary removal notice
will not be effective.
(b) Involuntary removal; Notice of
proposed removal. Except as provided
by paragraphs (a) and (e) of this section,
FMCSA initiates the process for
involuntary removal of a provider from
the TPR by issuing a written notice to
the provider, stating the reasons for the
proposed removal and setting forth any
corrective actions necessary for the
provider to remain listed on the TPR. If
a notice of proposed removal is issued,
the provider must notify current drivertrainees and driver-trainees scheduled
for future training of the proposed
removal. If a notice of proposed removal
is issued to a training provider listed on
the TPR Web site, FMCSA will note on
the TPR Web site that such notice has
been issued. FMCSA will remove the
notation if the notice is withdrawn.
(c) Response to notice of proposed
removal and corrective action. A
training provider that has received a
notice of proposed removal and wishes
to remain on the TPR must submit a
written response to the Director no later
than 30 days after the date of issuance
of the notice explaining why it believes
that decision is not proper, as described
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
Alternatively, the provider will set forth
corrective actions taken in response to
FMCSA’s notice of proposed removal, as
described in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section.
(1) Opposing a notice of proposed
removal. If the provider believes
FMCSA has relied on erroneous
information in proposing removal from
the TPR, the provider must explain the
basis for that belief and provide
supporting documentation. The Director
will review the explanation.
(i) If the Director finds that FMCSA
has relied on erroneous information to
propose removal of a training provider
from the TPR, the Director will
withdraw the notice of proposed

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

removal and notify the provider of the
withdrawal in writing.
(ii) If the Director finds that FMCSA
has not relied on erroneous information
in proposing removal, the Director will
affirm the notice of proposed removal
and notify the provider in writing of the
determination. No later than 60 days
after the date the Director affirms the
notice of proposed removal, or as
otherwise agreed to by the provider and
the Director, the provider must comply
with this subpart and correct the
deficiencies identified in the notice of
proposed removal as described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(iii) If the provider does not respond
in writing within 30 days of the date of
issuance of a notice of proposed
removal, the removal becomes effective
immediately and the provider will be
removed from the TPR. Any training
conducted after the removal date is
invalid.
(2) Corrective action. (i) The provider
must comply with this subpart and
complete the corrective actions
specified in the notice of proposed
removal no later than 60 days after
either the date of issuance of the notice
of proposed removal or the date the
Director subsequently affirms or
modifies the notice of proposed
removal. The provider must provide
documentation of completion of the
corrective action(s) to the Director. The
Director may conduct an investigation
and request any documentation
necessary to verify that the provider has
complied with this subpart and
completed the required corrective
action(s). The Director will notify the
provider in writing whether it has met
the requirements for continued listing
on the TPR.
(ii) If the provider fails to complete
the proposed corrective action(s) within
the 60-day period, the provider will be
removed from the TPR. The Director
will notify the provider in writing of the
removal.
(d) Request for administrative review.
If a provider has been removed from the
TPR under paragraph (c)(1)(iii),
(c)(2)(ii), or (e) of this section, the
provider may request an administrative
review. The request must be submitted
in writing to the FMCSA Associate
Administrator for Policy (Associate
Administrator) no later than 30 days
after the effective date of the removal.
The request must explain the alleged
error(s) committed in removing the
provider from the TPR, and include all
factual, legal, and procedural issues in
dispute, as well as any supporting
documentation.
(1) Additional procedures for
administrative review. The Associate

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88793

Administrator may ask the provider to
submit additional information or attend
a conference to discuss the removal. If
the provider does not provide the
information requested, or does not
attend the scheduled conference, the
Associate Administrator may dismiss
the request for administrative review.
(2) Decision on administrative review.
The Associate Administrator will
complete the administrative review and
notify the provider in writing of the
decision. The decision constitutes final
Agency action. If the Associate
Administrator deems the removal to be
invalid, FMCSA will reinstate the
provider’s listing on the TPR.
(e) Emergency removal. In cases of
fraud, criminal behavior, or willful
disregard of the regulations in this
subpart or in which public health,
interest, or safety requires, the
provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section are not applicable. In these
cases, the Director may immediately
remove a provider from the TPR. In
instances of fraud or other criminal
behavior by a training provider in which
driver-trainees have knowingly
participated, FMCSA reserves the right
to retroactively invalidate training
conducted under this subpart. A
provider who has been removed under
the provisions of this paragraph may
request an administrative review of that
decision as described under paragraph
(d) of this section.
(f) Reinstatement to the Training
Provider Registry. (1) Any time after a
training provider’s voluntary removal
from the TPR, the provider may apply
to the Director to be reinstated.
(2) No sooner than 30 days after the
date of a provider’s involuntary removal
from the TPR, the provider may apply
to the Director to be reinstated. The
provider must submit documentation
showing completion of any corrective
action(s) identified in the notice of
proposed removal or final notice of
removal, as applicable.
§ 380.725 Documentation and record
retention.

(a) Applicability. The documentation
and retention of records required by this
subpart apply to entities that meet the
requirements of subpart F of this part
and are eligible for listing on the
Training Provider Registry (TPR).
(b) Document retention. All training
providers on the TPR must retain the
following:
(1) Self-certifications by all accepted
applicants for behind-the-wheel (BTW)
training attesting that they will comply
with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations in parts 40, 382, 383 and
391, as well as State and/or local laws,

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88794

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

related to alcohol and controlled
substances testing, age, medical
certification, licensing, and driver
records, as required in 380.707(a). (2) A
copy of the driver-trainee’s commercial
learner’s permit(s) or commercial
driver’s license, as applicable, as
required in 380.707(a).
(3) Instructor qualification
documentation indicating driving and/
or training experience, as applicable, for
each instructor and copies of
commercial driver’s licenses and
applicable endorsements held by BTW
instructors or theory instructors, as
applicable.
(4) The Training Provider Registration
Form submitted to the TPR.
(5) The lesson plans for theory and
BTW (range and public road) training
curricula, as applicable.
(6) Records of individual entry-level
driver training assessments as described
in § 380.715.
(c) Retention of records. Training
providers listed on the TPR must retain
the records identified in paragraph (b) of
this section for a minimum of three
years from the date each required record
is generated or received, unless a record,
such as a BTW instructor’s CDL, has
expired or been canceled, in which case
the most recent, valid CDL should be
retained, if applicable. The provisions of
this part do not affect a training
provider’s obligation to comply with
any other local, State, or Federal
requirements prescribing longer
retention periods for any category of
records described herein.
Appendix to Part 380 [Redesignated as
Appendix F to Part 380]
■ 6. The appendix to part 380 is
redesignated as appendix F to part 380.
■ 7. Add appendices A through E to part
380 to read as follows:

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Appendix A to Part 380—Class A—CDL
Training Curriculum
Class A CDL applicants must complete the
Class A CDL curriculum outlined in this
Appendix. The curriculum for Class A
applicants pertains to combination vehicles
(Group A) as defined in 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1).
There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for theory training, but the
training instructor must cover all topics set
forth in the curriculum. There is no required
minimum number of instruction hours for
BTW (range and public road) training, but the
training instructor must cover all topics set
forth in the BTW curriculum. BTW training
must be conducted in a CMV for which a
Class A CDL is required. The instructor must
determine and document that each drivertrainee has demonstrated proficiency in all
elements of the BTW curriculum, unless
otherwise noted. Consistent with the
definitions of BTW range training and BTW
public road training in § 380.605, a

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

simulation device cannot be used to conduct
such training or to demonstrate proficiency.
Training instructors must document the total
number of clock hours each driver-trainee
spends to complete the BTW curriculum. The
Class A curriculum must, at a minimum,
include the following:
Theory Instruction
Section A1.1 Basic Operation
This section must cover the interaction
between driver-trainees and the CMV. Drivertrainees will receive instruction in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) and will be introduced to the basic
CMV instruments and controls. Training
providers will teach driver-trainees the basic
operating characteristics of a CMV. This
section must also teach driver-trainees how
to properly perform vehicle inspections,
control the motion of CMVs under various
road and traffic conditions, employ shifting
and backing techniques, and properly couple
and uncouple combination vehicles. Drivertrainees must familiarize themselves with the
basic operating characteristics of a CMV.
Unit A1.1.1 Orientation
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
the combination vehicle driver training
curriculum and the components of a
combination vehicle. The training providers
must teach the safety fundamentals, essential
regulatory requirements (e.g., overview of
FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials
Regulations), and driver-trainees’
responsibilities not directly related to CMV
driving, such as proper cargo securement.
This unit must also cover the ramifications,
including driver disqualification provisions
and fines, for non-compliance with parts 380,
382, 383, and 390 through 399 of the
FMCSRs. This unit must also include an
overview of the applicability of State and
local laws relating to the safe operation of the
CMV, stopping at weigh stations/scales,
hazard awareness of vehicle size and weight
limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV
height restrictions), and bridge formulas.
Unit A1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
vehicle instruments, controls, and safety
components. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees to read gauges and
instruments correctly and the proper use of
vehicle safety components, including safety
belts and mirrors. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees to identify, locate,
and explain the function of each of the
primary and secondary controls including
those required for steering, accelerating,
shifting, braking systems (e.g., ABS,
hydraulic, air), as applicable, and parking.
Unit A1.1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
This unit must teach the driver-trainees to
conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections as
specified in §§ 392.7 and 396.11, including
appropriate inspection locations. Instruction
must also be provided on enroute vehicle
inspections.
Unit A1.1.4 Basic Control
This unit must introduce basic vehicular
control and handling as it applies to
combination vehicles. This unit must include

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

instruction addressing basic combination
vehicle controls in areas such as executing
sharp left and right turns, centering the
vehicle, maneuvering in restricted areas, and
entering and exiting the interstate or
controlled access highway.
Unit A1.1.5 Shifting/Operating
Transmissions
This unit must introduce shifting patterns
and procedures to driver-trainees to prepare
them to safely and competently perform basic
shifting maneuvers. This unit must include
training driver-trainees to execute up and
down shifting techniques on multi-speed
dual range transmissions, if appropriate. The
training providers must teach the importance
of increased vehicle control and improved
fuel economy achieved by utilizing proper
shifting techniques.
Unit A1.1.6

Backing and Docking

This unit must teach driver-trainees to
back and dock the combination vehicle
safely. This unit must cover ‘‘Get Out and
Look’’ (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading
facilities, knowledge of backing set ups, as
well as instruction in how to back with the
use of spotters.
Unit A1.1.7

Coupling and Uncoupling

This unit must provide instruction for
driver-trainees to develop the skills necessary
to conduct the procedures for safe coupling
and uncoupling of combination vehicle units,
as applicable.
Section A1.2

Safe Operating Procedures

This section must teach the practices
required for safe operation of the
combination vehicle on the highway under
various road, weather, and traffic conditions.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees the Federal rules governing the
proper use of seat belt assemblies (§ 392.16).
Unit A1.2.1

Visual Search

This unit must teach driver-trainees to
visually search the road for potential hazards
and critical objects, including instruction on
recognizing distracted pedestrians or
distracted drivers.
Unit A1.2.2

Communication

This unit must instruct driver-trainees on
how to communicate their intentions to other
road users. Driver-trainees must be instructed
in techniques for different types of
communication on the road, including
proper use of headlights, turn signals, fourway flashers, and horns. This unit must cover
instruction in proper utilization of eye
contact techniques with other drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Unit A1.2.3

Distracted Driving

This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
FMCSRs related to distracted driving and
other key driver distraction driving issues,
including improper cell phone use, texting,
and use of in-cab technology (e.g., §§ 392.80
and 392.82). This instruction will include
training in the following aspects: visual
attention (keeping eyes on the road); manual
control (keeping hands on the wheel); and
cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the
task and safe operation of the CMV).

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Unit A1.2.4 Speed Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to
manage speed effectively in response to
various road, weather, and traffic conditions.
The instruction must include methods for
calibrating safe following distances taking
into account CMV braking distances under an
array of conditions including traffic, weather,
and CMV weight and length.
Unit A1.2.5 Space Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees about
the importance of managing the space
surrounding the vehicle under various traffic
and road conditions.
Unit A1.2.6 Night Operation
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
the factors affecting the safe operation of
CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally,
driver-trainees must be instructed in changes
in vision, communications, speed space
management, and proper use of lights, as
needed, to deal with the special problems
night driving presents.
Unit A1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions
This unit must teach driver-trainees about
the specific problems presented by extreme
driving conditions. The training provide will
emphasize the factors affecting the operation
of CMVs in cold, hot, and inclement weather
and on steep grades and sharp curves. The
training provider must teach proper tire
chaining procedures.
Section A1.3 Advanced Operating Practices
This section must introduce higher-level
skills that can be acquired only after the more
fundamental skills and knowledge taught in
the prior two sections have been mastered.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees about the advanced skills necessary
to recognize potential hazards and must
teach the driver-trainees the procedures
needed to handle a CMV when faced with a
hazard.
Unit A1.3.1 Hazard Perception
The unit must teach driver-trainees to
recognize potential hazards in the driving
environment in order to reduce the severity
of the hazard and neutralize possible
emergency situations. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a
potential threat to the safety of the
combination vehicle and suggest appropriate
adjustments. The instruction must emphasize
hazard recognition, visual search, adequate
surveillance, and response to possible
emergency-producing situations encountered
by CMV drivers in various traffic situations.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees to recognize potential dangers and
the safety procedures that must be utilized
while driving in construction/work zones.
Unit A1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery,
Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
This unit must teach the causes of skidding
and jackknifing and techniques for avoiding
and recovering from them. The training
providers must teach the importance of
maintaining directional control and bringing
the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible
distance while operating over a slippery
surface. This unit must provide instruction in

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

appropriate responses when faced with CMV
emergencies. This instruction must include
evasive steering, emergency braking, and offroad recovery, as well as the proper response
to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers. The instruction
must include a review of unsafe acts and the
role the acts play in producing or worsening
hazardous situations.
Unit A1.3.3
Crossings

Railroad-Highway Grade

This unit must teach driver-trainees to
recognize potential dangers and the
appropriate safety procedures to utilize at
railroad (RR)-highway grade crossings. This
instruction must include an overview of
various Federal/State RR grade crossing
regulations, RR grade crossing environments,
obstructed view conditions, clearance around
the tracks, and rail signs and signals. The
training providers must instruct drivertrainees that railroads have personnel
available (‘‘Emergency Notification
Systems’’) to receive notification of any
information relating to an unsafe condition at
the RR-highway grade crossing or a disabled
vehicle or other obstruction blocking a
railroad track at the RR-highway grade
crossing.
Section A1.4 Vehicle Systems and
Reporting Malfunctions
This section must provide entry-level
driver-trainees with sufficient knowledge of
the combination vehicle and its systems and
subsystems to ensure that they understand
and respect their role in vehicle inspection,
operation, and maintenance and the impact
of those factors upon highway safety and
operational efficiency.
Unit A1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis of
Malfunctions
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
identify major combination vehicle systems.
The goal is to explain their function and how
to check all key vehicle systems, (e.g., engine,
engine exhaust auxiliary systems, brakes,
drive train, coupling systems, and
suspension) to ensure their safe operation.
Driver-trainees must be provided with a
detailed description of each system, its
importance to safe and efficient operation,
and what is needed to keep the system in
good operating condition.
Unit A1.4.2

Roadside Inspections

Maintenance

This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
the basic servicing and checking procedures
for various engine and vehicle components
and to help develop their ability to perform
preventive maintenance and simple
emergency repairs.

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88795

Section A1.5 Non-Driving Activities
This section must teach driver-trainees the
activities that do not involve actually
operating the CMV.
Unit A1.5.1 Handling and Documenting
Cargo
This unit must teach the basic theory of
cargo weight distribution, cargo securement
on the vehicle, cargo covering, and
techniques for safe and efficient loading/
unloading. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the basic cargo security/cargo
theft prevention procedures. The training
provider must teach driver-trainees the basic
information regarding the proper handling
and documentation of HM cargo.
Unit A1.5.2 Environmental Compliance
Issues
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
recognize environmental hazards and issues
related to the CMV and load, and also make
the driver-trainee aware that city, county,
State, and Federal requirements may apply to
such circumstances.
Unit A1.5.3 Hours of Service Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
understand that there are different hours-ofservice (HOS) requirements applicable to
different industries. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees all applicable HOS
regulatory requirements. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees to
complete a Driver’s Daily Log (electronic and
paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the consequences
(safety, legal, and personal) of violating the
HOS regulations, including the fines and
penalties imposed for these types of
violations.
Unit A1.5.4 Fatigue and Wellness
Awareness
This unit must teach driver-trainees about
the issues and consequences of chronic and
acute driver fatigue and the importance of
staying alert. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees wellness and basic
health maintenance information that affect a
driver’s ability to safely operate a CMV.
Unit A1.5.5 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees
appropriate post-crash procedures, including
the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition
immediately after the crash and notify
authorities or assign the task to other
individuals at the crash scene. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees how to
protect the area; obtain emergency medical
assistance; move on-road vehicles off the
road in minor crashes so as to avoid
subsequent crashes or injuries; engage
flashers; place reflective triangles and other
warning devices for stopped vehicles; and
properly use a fire extinguisher, if necessary.
The training providers must instruct drivertrainees in post-crash testing requirements
related to controlled substances and alcohol.
Unit A1.5.6 External Communications
This unit must teach driver-trainees in the
value of effective interpersonal
communication techniques/skills to interact

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88796

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

with enforcement officials. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the
specifics of the roadside vehicle inspection
process, and what to expect during this
activity. Driver-trainees who are not English
speakers must be instructed in FMCSA
English language proficiency requirements.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees the impact that violating Federal and
state regulations has on their driving records
and their employing motor carrier’s records.
Unit A1.5.7 Whistleblower/Coercion
This unit must teach the driver-trainees
about the right of an employee to question
the safety practices of an employer without
incurring the risk of losing a job or being
subject to reprisals simply for stating a safety
concern. The training providers must instruct
driver-trainees in the whistleblower
protection regulations in 29 CFR part 1978.
The training providers must teach the
procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents
of coercion from motor carriers, shippers,
receivers, or transportation intermediaries.
Unit A1.5.8 Trip Planning
This unit must address the importance of
and requirements for planning routes and
trips. This instruction must address planning
the safest route, planning for rest stops,
heavy traffic areas, railroad-highway grade
crossing safe clearance and ground clearance
(i.e., ‘‘high center’’), the importance of
Federal and State requirements on the need
for permits, and vehicle size and weight
limitations. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees in the correct
identification of restricted routes, the pros
and cons of Global Positioning System (GPS)/
trip routing software, and the importance of
selecting fuel-efficient routes.
Unit A1.5.9 Drugs/Alcohol
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
rules applicable to controlled substances
(including prescription drugs) and alcohol
use and testing related to the operation of a
CMV.
Unit A1.5.10 Medical Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
Federal rules on medical certification,
medical examination procedures, general
qualifications, responsibilities, and
disqualifications based on various offenses,
orders, and loss of driving privileges (49 CFR
part 391, subparts B and E).
Behind-the-Wheel—Range
BTW range training must teach driving
exercises related to basic vehicle control
skills and mastery of basic maneuvers, as
covered in §§ 383.111 and 383.113 of this
chapter, necessary to operate the vehicle
safely. The training providers will teach
activities in this unit on a driving range as
defined in § 380.605. The training provider
must teach ‘‘Get Out and Look’’ (GOAL) to
the driver-trainee as it applies to units A2.2–
2.6.
Unit A2.1 Vehicle Inspection Pre-Trip/
Enroute/Post-Trip
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in conducting pre-trip and posttrip inspections as specified in §§ 392.7 and
396.11, including appropriate inspection

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

locations. Instruction must also be provided
on enroute vehicle inspections.

signaling intentions and effectively
communicating with other drivers.

Unit A2.2 Straight Line Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing various straight line backing
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.

Unit A3.4 Visual Search
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for visually
searching the road for potential hazards and
critical objects.

Unit A2.3 Alley Dock Backing (45/90
Degree)
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing 45/90 degree alley dock
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.
Unit A2.4 Off-Set Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing off-set right and left backing
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.
Unit A2.5 Parallel Parking Blind Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing parallel parking blind side
positions/maneuvers to appropriate criteria/
acceptable tolerances.
Unit A2.6 Parallel Parking Sight Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing sight side parallel parking
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.
Unit A2.7 Coupling and Uncoupling
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
coupling, inspecting, and uncoupling
combination vehicle units, as applicable.
Behind-the-Wheel—Public Road
The instructor must engage in active twoway communication with the driver-trainees
during all active BTW public road training
sessions. Skills described in paragraphs A3.8
through 3.12 of this section must be
discussed during public road training, but
not necessarily performed. Driver-trainees are
not required to demonstrate proficiency in
the skills described in paragraphs A3.8
through 3.12.
Unit A3.1 Vehicle Controls Including: Left
Turn, Right Turns, Lane Changes, Curves at
Highway Speeds, and Entry and Exit on the
Interstate or Controlled Access Highway
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
initiating vehicle movement, executing left
and right turns, changing lanes, navigating
curves at speed, entry and exit on the
interstate or controlled access highway, and
stopping the vehicle in a controlled manner.
Unit A3.2 Shifting/Transmission
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting.
Unit A3.3 Communications/Signaling
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for

PO 00000

Frm 00066

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Unit A3.5 Speed and Space Management
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper habits and techniques
for adjusting and maintaining vehicle speed,
taking into consideration various factors such
as traffic and road conditions. Driver-trainees
must demonstrate proficiency in maintaining
proper speed to keep appropriate spacing
between the driver-trainee’s CMV and other
vehicles. Instruction must include methods
for calibrating safe following distances under
an array of conditions including traffic,
weather, and CMV weight and length.
Unit A3.6 Safe Driver Behavior
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in safe driver behavior during
their operation of the CMV.
Unit A3.7 Hours of Service (HOS)
Requirements
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in the basic activities required by
the HOS regulations, such as completing a
Driver’s Daily Log (electronic and paper),
timesheet, and logbook recap, as appropriate.
Unit A3.8 Hazard Perception
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their
ability to recognize potential hazards in the
driving environment in time to reduce the
severity of the hazard and neutralize possible
emergency situations. Driver-trainees must
demonstrate the ability to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a
potential threat to the safety of the
combination vehicle and suggest appropriate
adjustments.
Unit A3.9 Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade
Crossing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the
ability to recognize potential dangers and to
demonstrate appropriate safety procedures
when RR-highway grade crossings are
reasonably available.
Unit A3.10 Night Operation
Driver-trainees must be familiar with how
to operate a CMV safely at night. Training
providers must teach driver-trainees that
night driving presents specific circumstances
that require heightened attention on the part
of the driver. Driver-trainees must be taught
special requirements for night vision,
communications, speed, space management,
and proper use of lights.
Unit A3.11 Extreme Driving Conditions
Driver-trainees must be familiar with the
special risks created by, and the heightened
precautions required by, driving CMVs under
extreme driving conditions, such as heavy
rain, high wind, high heat, fog, snow, ice,
steep grades, and sharp curves. Drivertrainees must demonstrate their ability to
recognize the changes in basic driving habits
needed to deal with the specific challenges

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
presented by these extreme driving
conditions.
Unit A3.12 Skid Control/Recovery,
Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
Driver-trainees must know the causes of
skidding and jackknifing and techniques for
avoiding and recovering from them. Drivertrainees must know how to maintain
directional control and bring the CMV to a
stop in the shortest possible distance while
operating over a slippery surface. Drivertrainees must be familiar with proper
techniques for responding to CMV
emergencies, such as evasive steering,
emergency braking, and off-road recovery.
They must also know how to prevent or
respond to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers.

Appendix B to Part 380—Class B—CDL
Training Curriculum
Class B CDL applicants must complete the
Class B CDL curriculum outlined in this
Appendix. The curriculum for Class B
applicants pertains to heavy straight vehicles
(Group B) as defined in 49 CFR 383.91(a)(2).
There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for theory training, but the
training instructor must cover all the topics
in curriculum. There is no required
minimum number of instruction hours
required for BTW (range and public road)
training, but the training instructor must
cover all topics set forth in the BTW
curriculum. BTW training must be conducted
in a CMV for which a Class B CDL is
required. The instructor must determine and
document that each driver-trainee has
demonstrated proficiency in all elements of
the BTW curriculum unless otherwise noted.
Consistent with the definitions of BTW range
training and BTW public road training in
§ 380.605, a simulation device cannot be
used to conduct such training or to
demonstrate proficiency. Training instructors
must document the total number of clock
hours each driver-trainee spends to complete
the BTW curriculum. The Class B curriculum
must, at a minimum, include the following:

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Theory Instruction
Section B1.1 Basic Operation
This section must cover the interaction
between driver-trainees and the CMV. Drivertrainees will receive instruction in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) and will be introduced to the basic
CMV instruments and controls. This section
must also teach driver-trainees how to
perform vehicle inspections, control the
CMVs under various road and traffic
conditions, employ shifting and backing
techniques, and couple and uncouple, as
applicable. Driver-trainees must familiarize
themselves with the basic operating
characteristics of a CMV.
Unit B1.1.1 Orientation
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
the commercial motor vehicle driver training
curriculum and the components of a
commercial motor vehicle. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the
safety fundamentals, essential regulatory
requirements (i.e., overview of FMCSRs/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

hazardous materials (HM) regulations), and
driver-trainees’ responsibilities not directly
related to driving. This unit must also cover
the ramifications and driver disqualification
provisions and fines for non-compliance with
parts 380, 382, 383, and 390 through 399 of
the FMCSRs. This unit must also include an
overview of the applicability of State and
local laws relating to the safe operation of the
CMV, stopping at weigh stations/scales,
hazard awareness of vehicle size and weight
limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV
height restrictions), and bridge formulas.
Unit B1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
vehicle instruments, controls, and safety
components. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees to read gauges and
instruments correctly and the proper use of
vehicle safety components, including safety
belts and mirrors. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees to identify, locate,
and explain the function of each of the
primary and secondary controls including
those required for steering, accelerating,
shifting, braking systems (e.g., ABS,
hydraulic, air), as applicable, and parking.
Unit 1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
The training provider must teach the
driver-trainees to conduct pre-trip and posttrip inspections as specified in §§ 392.7 and
396.11, including appropriate inspection
locations. Instruction must also be provided
on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit B1.1.4 Basic Control
This unit must introduce basic vehicular
control and handling as it applies to
commercial motor vehicles. This unit must
include instruction addressing basic CMV
controls in areas such as executing sharp left
and right turns, centering the vehicle,
maneuvering in restricted areas, and entering
and exiting the interstate or controlled access
highway.
Unit B1.1.5 Shifting/Operating
Transmissions
This unit must introduce shifting patterns
and procedures to driver-trainees to prepare
them to safely and competently perform basic
shifting maneuvers. This unit must teach
driver-trainees to execute up and down
shifting techniques on multi-speed dual
range transmissions, if appropriate. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees
the importance of increased fuel economy
achieved by utilizing proper shifting
techniques.
Unit B1.1.6 Backing and Docking
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
back and dock the combination vehicle
safely. This unit must cover ‘‘Get Out and
Look’’ (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading
facilities, knowledge of backing set ups, as
well as instruction in how to back with use
of spotters.
Section B1.2 Safe Operating Procedures
This section must teach the practices
required for safe operation of the CMV on the
highway under various road, weather, and
traffic conditions. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees the Federal rules
governing the proper use of seat belt
assemblies (§ 392.16).

PO 00000

Frm 00067

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88797

Unit B1.2.1 Visual Search
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
visually search the road for potential hazards
and critical objects, including instruction on
recognizing distracted pedestrians or
distracted drivers. This unit must include
instruction in how to ensure a drivertrainee’s personal security/general awareness
in common surroundings such as truck stops
and/or rest areas and at shipper/receiver
locations.
Unit B1.2.2 Communication
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to
communicate their intentions to other road
users. Driver-trainees must be instructed in
techniques for different types of
communication on the road, including
proper use of headlights, turn signals, fourway flashers, and horns. This unit must cover
instruction in proper utilization of eye
contact techniques with other drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.
Unit B1.2.3 Distracted Driving
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
FMCSRs related to distracted driving and
other key driver distraction driving issues,
including improper cell phone use, texting,
and use of in-cab technology (e.g., §§ 392.80
and 392.82). This instruction will include
training in the following aspects: Visual
attention (keeping eyes on the road); manual
control (keeping hands on the wheel); and
cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the
task and safe operation of the CMV).
Unit B1.2.4 Speed Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to
manage speed effectively in response to
various road, weather, and traffic conditions.
The instruction must include methods for
calibrating safe following distances under an
array of conditions including traffic, weather
and CMV weight and length.
Unit B1.2.5 Space Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees about
the importance of managing the space
surrounding the vehicle under various traffic
and road conditions.
Unit B1.2.6 Night Operation
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
the factors affecting the safe operation of
CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally,
driver-trainees must be instructed in changes
in vision, communications, speed, space
management, and proper use of lights, as
needed, to deal with the special problems
night driving presents.
Unit B1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
specific problems presented by extreme
driving conditions. The training will
emphasize the factors affecting the operation
of CMVs in cold, hot, and inclement weather
and on steep grades and sharp curves. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees
the proper tire chaining procedures in this
unit.
Section B1.3 Advanced Operating Practices
This section must introduce higher-level
skills that can be acquired only after the more
fundamental skills and knowledge taught in
the prior two sections have been mastered.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88798

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

The training providers must teach drivertrainees the advanced skills necessary to
recognize potential hazards and must teach
driver-trainees the procedures needed to
handle a CMV when faced with a hazard.
Unit B1.3.1 Hazard Perception
The unit must provide instruction for
recognizing potential hazards in the driving
environment in order to reduce the severity
of the hazard and neutralize possible
emergency situations. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a
potential threat to the safety of the CMV and
suggest appropriate adjustments. The
instruction must emphasize hazard
recognition, visual search, adequate
surveillance, and response to possible
emergency-producing situations encountered
by CMV drivers in various traffic situations.
The training providers must also teach
driver-trainees to recognize potential dangers
and the safety procedures that must be
utilized while driving in construction/work
zones.
Unit B1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery,
Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
This unit must teach the causes of skidding
and jackknifing and techniques for avoiding
and recovering from them. The training
providers must teach the importance of
maintaining directional control and bringing
the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible
distance while operating over a slippery
surface. This unit must provide instruction in
appropriate responses when faced with CMV
emergencies. This instruction must include
evasive steering, emergency braking, and offroad recovery, as well as the proper response
to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers. The instruction
must include a review of unsafe acts and the
role the acts play in producing or worsening
hazardous situations.
Unit B1.3.3 Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
recognize potential dangers and appropriate
safety procedures to utilize at railroad (RR)highway grade crossings. This instruction
must include an overview of various Federal/
State RR grade crossing regulations, RR grade
crossing environments, obstructed view
conditions, clearance around the tracks, and
rail signs and signals. The training providers
must instruct driver-trainees that railroads
have personnel available (‘‘Emergency
Notification Systems’’) to receive notification
of any information relating to an unsafe
condition at the RR-highway grade crossing
or a disabled vehicle or other obstruction
blocking a railroad track at the RR-highway
grade crossing.
Section B1.4 Vehicle Systems and
Reporting Malfunctions
This unit must provide entry-level drivertrainees with sufficient knowledge of the
CMV and its systems and subsystems to
ensure that they understand and respect their
role in vehicle inspection, operation, and
maintenance and the impact of those factors
upon highway safety and operational
efficiency.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Unit B1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis of
Malfunctions
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
identify major vehicle systems. The goal is to
explain their function and how to check all
key vehicle systems, as appropriate (e.g.,
engine, engine exhaust auxiliary systems,
brakes, drive train, coupling systems, and
suspension) to ensure their safe operation.
Driver-trainees must be provided with a
detailed description of each system, its
importance to safe and efficient operation,
and what is needed to keep the system in
good operating condition.
Unit B1.4.2

Roadside Inspections

This unit must instruct driver-trainees on
what to expect during a standard roadside
inspection conducted by authorized
personnel. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees on what vehicle and driver
violations are classified as out-of-service
(OOS), including the ramifications and
penalties for operating a CMV when subject
to an OOS order as defined in section 390.5.
Unit B1.4.3 Maintenance
This unit must introduce driver-trainees to
the basic servicing and checking procedures
for various engine and vehicle components
and to help develop their ability to perform
preventive maintenance and simple
emergency repairs.
Section B1.5 Non-Driving Activities
This section must teach driver-trainees
activities that do not involve actually
operating the CMV, e.g., proper cargo
securement.
Unit B1.5.1 Handling and Documenting
Cargo
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic theory of cargo weight distribution,
cargo securement on the vehicle, cargo
covering, and techniques for safe and
efficient loading/unloading. The training
providers must also teach driver-trainees the
basic cargo security/cargo theft prevention
procedures. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the basic information
regarding the proper handling and
documentation of HM cargo.
Unit B1.5.2 Environmental Compliance
Issues
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
recognize environmental hazards and issues
related to the CMV and load, and also make
aware that city, county, State, and Federal
requirements may apply to such
circumstances.
Unit B1.5.3 Hours of Service Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees to
understand that there are different hours-ofservice (HOS) requirements applicable to
different industries. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees all applicable HOS
regulatory requirements. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees to
complete a Driver’s Daily Log (electronic and
paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the consequences
(safety, legal, and personal) of violating the
HOS regulations, including the fines and

PO 00000

Frm 00068

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

penalties imposed for these types of
violations.
Unit B1.5.4 Fatigue and Wellness
Awareness
The issues and consequences of chronic
and acute driver fatigue and the importance
of staying alert will be covered in this unit.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees about wellness and basic health
maintenance information that affect a driver’s
ability to safely operate a CMV.
Unit B1.5.5 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
appropriate post-crash procedures, including
the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition
immediately after the crash and notify
authorities, or assign the task to other
individuals at the crash scene. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees how to
protect the area; obtain emergency medical
assistance; move on-road vehicles off the
road in minor crashes so as to avoid
subsequent crashes or injuries; engage
flashers; place reflective triangles and other
warning devices for stopped vehicles; and
properly use a fire extinguisher, if necessary.
The training providers must instruct drivertrainees in post-crash testing requirements
related to controlled substances and alcohol.
Unit B1.5.6 External Communications
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
the value of effective interpersonal
communication techniques/skills to interact
with enforcement officials. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees the
specifics of the roadside vehicle inspection
process, and what to expect during this
activity. Driver-trainees who are not native
English speakers must be instructed in
FMCSA English language proficiency
requirements and the consequences for
violations. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees the implications of violating
Federal and state regulations will have on
their driving records and their employing
motor carrier’s records.
Unit B1.5.7 Whistleblower/Coercion
This unit must teach the driver-trainees
about the right of an employee to question
the safety practices of an employer without
incurring the risk of losing a job or being
subject to reprisals simply for stating a safety
concern. The training providers must instruct
driver-trainees in the whistleblower
protection regulations in 29 CFR part 1978.
The training providers must teach drivertrainees the procedures for reporting to
FMCSA incidents of coercion from motor
carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation
intermediaries.
Unit B1.5.8 Trip Planning
This unit must address the importance of
and requirements for planning routes and
trips. This instruction must address planning
the safest route, planning for rest stops,
heavy traffic areas, railroad-highway grade
crossing safe clearance and ground clearance
(i.e., ‘‘high center’’), the importance of
Federal and State requirements on the need
for permits, and vehicle size and weight
limitations. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the correct

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
identification of restricted routes, the pros
and cons of Global Positioning System (GPS)/
trip routing software, and the importance of
selecting fuel-efficient routes.
Unit B1.5.9

Drugs/Alcohol

This unit must teach driver-trainees the
rules applicable to controlled substances
(including prescription drugs) and alcohol
use and testing related to the operation of a
CMV.
Unit B1.5.10

Medical Requirements

This unit must teach driver-trainees the
Federal rules on medical certification,
medical examination procedures, general
qualifications, responsibilities, and
disqualifications based on various offenses,
orders, and loss of driving privileges (49 CFR
part 391, subparts B and E).
Behind-the-Wheel Range
This unit must teach driving exercises
related to basic vehicle control skills and
mastery of basic maneuvers, as covered in
§§ 383.111 and 383.113 of this chapter
necessary to operate the vehicle safely. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees
activities in this unit on a driving range as
defined in § 380.605. The training provider
must teach ‘‘Get Out and Look’’ (GOAL) to
the driver-trainee as it applies to units B2.2–
2.6.
Unit B2.1 Vehicle Inspection Pre-Trip/
Enroute/Post-Trip
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in conducting pre-trip and posttrip inspections as specified in §§ 392.7 and
396.11, including appropriate inspection
locations. Instruction must also be provided
on enroute vehicle inspections.
Unit B2.2 Straight Line Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing various straight line backing
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.
Unit B2.3 Alley Dock Backing (45/90
Degree)
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing 45/90 degree alley dock
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Unit B2.4 Off-Set Backing
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing off-set backing maneuvers to
appropriate criteria/acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.5 Parallel Parking Blind Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing parallel parking blind side
positions/maneuvers to appropriate criteria/
acceptable tolerances.
Unit B2.6 Parallel Parking Sight Side
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing sight side parallel parking
maneuvers to appropriate criteria/acceptable
tolerances.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Behind-the-Wheel Public Road
The instructor must engage in active twoway communication with the driver-trainees
during all active BTW public road training
sessions. Skills described in paragraphs B3.8
through 3.12 of this section must be
discussed during public road training, but
not necessarily performed. Driver-trainees are
not required to demonstrate proficiency in
the skills described in paragraphs B3.8
through 3.12.
Unit B3.1 Vehicle Controls Including: Left
Turns, Right Turns, Lane Changes, Curves at
Highway Speeds, and Entry and Exit on the
Interstate or Controlled Access Highway
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
initiating vehicle movement, executing left
and right turns, changing lanes, navigating
curves at speed, exiting and entering the
interstate, and stopping the vehicle in a
controlled manner.
Unit B3.2

Shifting/Transmission

Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting.
Unit B3.3

Communications/Signaling

Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for
signaling intentions and effectively
communicating with other drivers.
Unit B3.4

Visual Search

Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper techniques for visually
searching the road for potential hazards and
critical objects.
Unit B3.5 Speed and Space Management
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in proper habits and techniques
for adjusting and maintaining vehicle speed,
taking into consideration various factors such
as traffic and road conditions. Driver-trainees
must demonstrate proficiency in maintaining
proper speed to keep appropriate spacing
between the driver-trainee’s CMV and other
vehicles. Instruction must include methods
for calibrating safe following distances under
an array of conditions including traffic,
weather, and CMV weight and length.
Unit B3.6 Safe Driver Behavior
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in safe driver behavior during
their operation of the CMV.
Unit B3.7 Hours of Service (HOS)
Requirements
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in the basic activities required by
the HOS regulations, such as completing a
Driver’s Daily Log (electronic and paper),
timesheet, and logbook recap, as appropriate.
Unit B3.8 Hazard Perception
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their
ability to recognize potential hazards in the
driving environment in time to reduce the
severity of the hazard and neutralize possible
emergency situations. Driver-trainees must
demonstrate the ability to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a

PO 00000

Frm 00069

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

88799

potential threat to vehicle safety and suggest
appropriate adjustments.
Unit B3.9
Crossing

Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade

Driver-trainees must demonstrate the
ability to recognize potential dangers and to
demonstrate appropriate safety procedures
when RR-highway grade crossings are
reasonably available.
Unit B3.10

Night Operation

Driver-trainees must be familiar with how
to operate a CMV safely at night. Training
providers must teach driver-trainees that
night driving presents specific circumstances
that require heightened attention on the part
of the driver. Driver-trainees must be taught
special requirements for night vision,
communications, speed, space management,
and proper use of lights.
Unit B3.11

Extreme Driving Conditions

Driver-trainees must be familiar with the
special risks created by, and the heightened
precautions required by, driving CMVs under
extreme driving conditions, such as heavy
rain, high wind, high heat, fog, snow, ice,
steep grades, and curves. Training providers
must teach driver-trainees the basic driving
habits needed to deal with the specific
challenges presented by these extreme
driving conditions.
Unit B3.12 Skid Control/Recovery,
Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies
Driver-trainees must know the causes of
skidding and jackknifing and techniques for
avoiding and recovering from them. Drivertrainees must know how to maintain
directional control and bring the CMV to a
stop in the shortest possible distance while
operating over a slippery surface. Drivertrainees must be familiar with proper
techniques for responding to CMV
emergencies, such as evasive steering,
emergency braking, and off-road recovery.
They must also know how to prevent or
respond to brake failures, tire blowouts,
hydroplaning, and rollovers.

Appendix C to Part 380—Passenger
Endorsement Training Curriculum
Passenger (P) endorsement applicants must
complete the curriculum outlined in this
section, which applies to driver-trainees who
expect to operate CMVs in the any of the
vehicle groups defined in § 383.91(a)(1)–(3)
for which a P endorsement is required.
There is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for theory training, but the
training provider must cover all the topics set
forth in the curriculum. There is no required
minimum number of instruction hours for
BTW training, but training providers must
determine whether driver-trainees have
demonstrated proficiency in all elements of
the BTW curriculum. Training instructors
must document the total number of clock
hours each driver-trainee spends to complete
the BTW curriculum. The training must be
conducted in a passenger vehicle of the same
vehicle group as the applicant intends to
drive. The passenger endorsement training
must, at a minimum, contain the following:

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88800

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

Theory Instruction
Unit C1.1

Post-Crash Procedures

This unit must teach driver-trainees
appropriate post-crash procedures, including
the requirement that the driver, if possible,
assess his or her physical condition
immediately after the crash and notify
authorities, or assign the task to a passenger
or other individuals at the crash scene. Also,
training providers must teach driver-trainees
how to obtain emergency medical assistance;
move on-road vehicles off the road in minor
crashes so as to avoid subsequent crashes or
injuries; engage flashers, reflective triangles
and other warning devices for stopped
vehicles; and properly use a fire extinguisher
if necessary.
Unit C1.2

Other Emergency Procedures

This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
managing security breaches, on-board fires,
emergency exit and passenger evacuation
training, medical emergencies, and
emergency stopping procedures including
the deployment of various emergency hazard
signals. Instruction must also include
procedures for dealing with mechanical
breakdowns and vehicle defects while
enroute.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Unit C1.3 Vehicle Orientation
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic physical and operational characteristics
of passenger-carrying CMV (e.g. bus and
motor coach), including overall height,
length, width, ground clearances, rear
overhang, Gross Vehicle Weight and Gross
Vehicle Weight Rating, axle weights, wheels
and rims, tires, tire ratings, mirrors, steer
wheels, lighting, windshield, windshield
wipers, engine compartments, basic electrical
system, brake systems, as applicable, and
spare tire storage. Additionally, training
providers must instruct driver-trainees in
techniques for proper driver seat and mirror
adjustments.
Unit C1.4 Pre-Trip, Enroute, and Post-Trip
Inspection
This unit must teach the driver-trainee the
importance of pre-trip, enroute, and post-trip
inspections; and provide instruction in
techniques for conducting such inspections
as stated in §§ 392.7 and 396.11, and
demonstrate their ability to inspect the
following:
(1) Emergency exits;
(2) Passenger-carrying CMV interiors
(including passenger seats as applicable);
(3) Restrooms and associated
environmental requirements;
(4) Temperature controls (for maintaining
passenger comfort);
(5) Driver and passenger seat belts.
Additionally, training providers must
instruct driver-trainees in procedures, as
applicable, in security-related inspections,
including inspections for unusual wires or
other abnormal visible materials, interior and
exterior luggage compartments, packages or
luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or
vehicle tampering. Finally, training providers
must instruct driver-trainees in cyclingaccessible lifts and procedures for inspecting
them for functionality and defects.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Unit C1.5 Fueling
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on
the significance of avoiding refueling a bus
while passengers are onboard and the
imperative of avoiding refueling in an
enclosed space.
Unit C1.6 Idling
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
importance of compliance with State and
local laws and regulations, including for
example, idling limits, fuel savings; and the
consequences of non-compliance, including
adverse health effects and penalties.
Unit C1.7 Baggage and/or Cargo
Management
In this unit, training providers must teach
driver-trainees:
(1) Proper methods for handling and
securing passenger baggage and containers,
as applicable.
(2) Procedures for identifying and
inspecting baggage and containers for
prohibited items, such as hazardous
materials.
(3) Proper handling and securement of
devices associated with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, including
oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other
associated apparatuses.
Unit C1.8 Passenger Safety Awareness
Briefing
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to
brief passengers on safety topics including
fastening seat belts, emergency exits,
emergency phone contact information, fire
extinguisher location, safely walking in the
aisle when the bus is moving, and restroom
emergency push button or switch.
Unit C1.9 Passenger Management
In this unit, training providers must teach
driver-trainees:
(1) Proper procedures for safe loading and
unloading of passengers prior to departure,
including rules concerning standing
passengers and the standee line.
(2) Procedures for dealing with disruptive
passengers.
Unit C1.10 Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) Compliance
Along with addressing the proper
operation of accessibility equipment (e.g.,
lifts), this must teach driver-trainees the
applicable regulations and proper procedures
for engaging persons with disabilities or
special needs under the ADA. Training must
cover passengers with mobility issues,
engaging passengers with sight, hearing, or
cognitive impairments, and recognizing the
permitted use of service animals.
Unit C1.11 Hours of Service (HOS)
Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
HOS regulations that apply to drivers for
interstate passenger carriers. Training
providers must teach driver-trainees the basic
activities required by the HOS regulations,
such as completing a Driver’s Daily Log
(electronic and paper), timesheet, and
logbook recap, as appropriate. Training
providers must teach driver-trainees how to
recognize the signs of fatigue and basic

PO 00000

Frm 00070

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

fatigue countermeasures as a means to avoid
crashes.
Unit C1.12 Safety Belt Safety
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
Federal rules governing the proper use of
safety restraint systems by CMV drivers, as
set forth in § 392.16.
Unit C1.13 Distracted Driving
This unit must teach driver-trainees
FMCSA regulations that prohibit drivers from
texting or using hand-held mobile phones
while operating their vehicles (e.g., §§ 392.80
and 392.82); and must teach the serious
consequences of violations, including
crashes, heavy fines, and impacts on a motor
carrier’s and/or driver’s safety records, such
as driver disqualification.
Unit C1.14 Railroad (RR)-Highway Grade
Crossings and Drawbridges
This unit must instruct driver-trainees in
applicable regulations, techniques, and
procedures for navigating RR-highway grade
crossings and drawbridges appropriate to
passenger buses.
Unit C1.15 Weigh Stations
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
weigh-station regulations that apply to buses.
Unit C1.16 Security and Crime
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic techniques for recognizing and
minimizing physical risks from criminal
activities.
Unit C1.17 Roadside Inspections
This unit must teach driver-trainees what
to expect during a standard roadside
inspection conducted by authorized
personnel. Training providers must teach
driver-trainees what passenger-carrying
vehicle and driver violations are classified as
out-of-service (OOS), including the
ramifications and penalties for operating a
CMV when subject to an OOS order as
defined in § 390.5.
Unit C1.18 Penalties and Fines
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
potential consequences of violating driverrelated regulations, including impacts on
driver and motor carrier safety records,
adverse impacts on the driver’s Preemployment Screening Program record;
financial penalties for both the driver and
carrier; and possible loss of CMV driving
privileges.
Behind the Wheel—Range and Public Road
This BTW training consists of exercises
related to basic vehicle control skills and
mastery of basic maneuvers necessary to
operate the vehicle safely. Activities in this
unit will take place on a driving range or a
public road as defined in § 380.605. The
instructor must engage in active
communication with the driver-trainees
during all BTW training sessions.
Unit C2.1 Vehicle Orientation
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their
familiarity with basic passenger-carrying
CMV physical and operational characteristics
including overall height, length, width,

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
ground clearances, rear overhang, gross
vehicle weight and gross vehicle weight
rating, axle weights, wheels and rims, tires,
tire ratings, mirrors, steer wheels, lighting,
windshield, windshield wipers, engine
compartments, basic electric system, and
spare tire storage. Additionally, drivertrainees must demonstrate techniques for
proper driver’s seat and mirror adjustments.
Unit C2.2 Pre-Trip, Enroute, and Post-Trip
Inspection
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in conducting such pre-trip,
enroute and post-trip inspections of buses
and key components of §§ 392.7 and 396.11,
and demonstrate their ability to inspect the
following:
(1) Emergency exits;
(2) Passenger-carrying CMV interiors
(including passenger seats as applicable);
(3) Restrooms and associated
environmental requirements;
(4) Temperature controls (for maintaining
passenger comfort); and
(5) Driver and passenger seat belts.
Additionally, driver-trainees must
demonstrate their knowledge of procedures,
as applicable, in security-related inspections,
including inspections for unusual wires or
other abnormal visible materials, interior and
exterior luggage compartments, packages or
luggage left behind, and signs of cargo or
vehicle tampering. Driver-trainees must be
familiar with the operation of cyclingaccessible lifts and the procedures for
inspecting them for functionality and defects.
For passenger-carrying vehicles equipped
with said lifts and tie-down positions, trainee
must demonstrate their ability to operate the
cycling-accessible lifts.
Unit C2.3 Baggage and/or Cargo
Management
In this unit, driver-trainees must
demonstrate their ability to:
(1) Properly handle passenger baggage and
containers to avoid worker, passenger, and
non-passenger related injuries and property
damage;
(2) Visually inspect baggage and containers
for prohibited items, such as hazardous
materials and identify such items;
(3) Properly handle and secure devices
associated with ADA compliance including
oxygen, wheeled mobility devices, and other
associated apparatuses.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Unit C2.4
Briefing

Passenger Safety Awareness

Driver-trainees must demonstrate their
ability to brief passengers on safety on topics
including: Fastening seat belts, emergency
exits, emergency phone contact information,
fire extinguisher location, safely walking in
the aisle when the bus is moving, and
restroom emergency push button or switch.
Unit C2.5

Passenger Management

In this unit, driver-trainees must
demonstrate their ability to safely load and
unload passengers prior to departure and to
deal with disruptive passengers.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

Unit C2.6 Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proper
procedures for safely navigating railroadhighway grade crossings in a passengercarrying CMV.

Appendix D to Part 380—School Bus
Endorsement Training Curriculum

88801

Vehicle Weight Rating, axle weights, wheels
and rims, tires, tire ratings, mirrors, steer
wheels, lighting, windshield, windshield
wipers, engine compartments, basic electrical
system, brake systems, as applicable, and
spare tire storage. Additionally, the training
providers must instruct driver-trainees in
techniques for proper driver seat and mirror
adjustments.

School bus (S) endorsement applicants
must complete the curriculum outlined in
this section, which applies to driver-trainees
who expect to operate a ‘‘school bus’’ as
defined in § 383.5. There is no required
minimum number of instruction hours for
theory training, but the training provider
must cover all the topics set forth in the
curriculum. There is no required minimum
number of instruction hours for BTW
training, but the training provider must
determine whether driver-trainees have
demonstrated proficiency in all elements of
the BTW curriculum. Training instructors
must document the total number of clock
hours each driver-trainee spends to complete
the BTW curriculum. The training must be
conducted in a school bus of the same
vehicle group as the applicant intends to
drive. The school bus endorsement training
must, at a minimum, include the following:

Unit D1.4 Post-Crash Procedures
This unit must instruct driver-trainees on
the proper procedures following a school bus
crash. The instruction must include use of
fire extinguisher(s), first aid kit(s), tending to
injured passengers, post-crash vehicle
securement, notification procedures,
deciding whether to evacuate the bus, data
gathering, and interaction with law
enforcement officials.

Theory Instruction

Unit D1.6 Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
dangers trains present and the importance of
the school bus driver and students strictly
following railroad crossing procedures.
Instruction must be given on the types of
crossings, warning signs and devices, and
State and local procedures and regulations
for school buses when crossing railroadhighway grade crossings.

Unit D1.1 Danger Zones and Use of Mirrors
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
danger zones that exist around the school bus
and the techniques to ensure the safety of
those around the bus. These techniques
include correct mirror adjustment and usage.
The types of mirrors and their use must be
discussed, as well as the requirements found
in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) 111 (49 CFR 571.111). Training
providers must teach driver-trainees the
dangers of ‘‘dart-outs.’’ Training providers
must teach driver-trainees the importance of
training students how to keep out of the
danger zone when around school buses and
the techniques for doing so.
Unit D1.2 Loading and Unloading
This unit must be instruct driver-trainees
on the laws and regulations for loading and
unloading, as well as the required procedures
for students waiting at a bus stop and
crossing the roadway at a bus stop. Special
dangers involved in loading and unloading
must be specifically discussed, including
procedures to ensure the danger zone is clear
and that no student has been caught in the
doorway prior to moving the vehicle.
Instruction also must be included on the
proper use of lights, stop arms, crossing
gates, and safe operation of the door during
loading and unloading; the risks involved
with leaving students unattended on a school
bus; and the proper techniques for checking
the bus for sleeping children and lost items
at the end of each route.
Unit D1.3 Vehicle Orientation
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic physical and operational characteristics
of school buses, including overall height,
length, width, ground clearances, rear
overhang, Gross Vehicle Weight and Gross

PO 00000

Frm 00071

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Unit D1.5 Emergency Exit and Evacuation
This unit must teach driver-trainees their
role in safely evacuating the bus in an
emergency and planning for an emergency in
advance. Training must include proper
evacuation methods and procedures, such as
the safe evacuation of students on field and
activity trips who only occasionally ride
school buses and thus may not be familiar
with the procedures.

Unit D1.7 Student Management
This unit must teach driver-trainees how to
manage student behavior on the bus to
ensure that safety is maintained and the
rights of others are respected. Specific
student management techniques must be
discussed, including warning signs of
bullying and the techniques for managing
student behavior and administering
discipline. Training providers must teach
driver-trainees to avoid becoming distracted
by student behavior while driving, especially
when crossing railroad tracks and during
loading and unloading.
Unit D1.8 Special Safety Considerations
This unit must teach the driver-trainees the
special safety considerations and equipment
in school bus operations. Topics discussed
must include use of strobe lights, driving in
high winds, safe backing techniques, and
preventing tail swing crashes.
Unit D1.9 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
This unit must teach the driver-trainees the
importance of pre-trip, enroute, and post-trip
inspections; and provide instruction in
techniques for conducting such inspections
of buses as stated in §§ 392.7 and 396.11, and
additionally demonstrate their ability to
inspect the following:
(1) Stop arms,
(2) Crossing arms,

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

88802

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

(3) Emergency exits,
(4) Fire extinguishers,
(5) Passenger seats,
(6) First aid kits,
(7) Interior lights, and
(8) Temperature control (for maintaining
passenger comfort).
Training providers must instruct drivertrainees in State and local requirements, as
applicable, for inspection of school bus
equipment.
Unit D1.10 School Bus Security
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
security issues facing school bus drivers.
Training providers must also teach drivertrainees potential security threats, techniques
for preventing and responding to security
threats, how to recognize and report
suspicious behavior, and what to do in the
event of a hijacking or attack on a school bus.
Unit D1.11 Route and Stop Reviews
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
importance of planning their routes prior to
beginning driving in order to avoid
distraction while on the road. The training
provider must also teach driver-trainees the
techniques for reviewing routes and stops, as
well as State and local procedures for
reporting hazards along the route and at bus
stops.
Behind the Wheel—Range and Public Road
This unit must consist of exercises related
to basic vehicle control skills and mastery of
basic maneuvers. Activities in this unit will
take place on a driving range or a public road
as defined in § 380.605. The instructor must
engage in active communication with the
driver-trainees during all active training
sessions.
Unit D2.1 Danger Zones and Use of Mirrors
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the
techniques necessary to ensure the safety of
persons in the danger zone around the bus.
Driver-trainees must practice mirror
adjustment and usage. The types of mirrors
and their use are shown, and cones used to
demonstrate the requirements of 49 CFR
571.111.
Unit D2.2 Loading and Unloading
Driver-trainees must demonstrate the
loading and unloading techniques learned in
the theory portion of the training. Drivertrainees must demonstrate checking the
vehicle for sleeping children and lost items
at the end of the route.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

Unit D2.3 Emergency Exit and Evacuation
Driver-trainees must demonstrate their role
in safely evacuating the bus in an emergency.
Unit D2.4 Special Safety Considerations
Driver-trainees must demonstrate safe
backing techniques and demonstrate their
ability to avoid tail swing crashes by using
reference points when making turns.
Unit D2.5 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections
Driver-trainees must demonstrate
proficiency in conducting pre-and post-trip
inspections, as stated in §§ 392.7 and 396.11,
and of school bus-specific equipment, such
as mirrors, stop arms, crossing arms,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

emergency exits, fire extinguishers, passenger
seats, first aid kits, interior lights, and
temperature control.

the types and quantities of HM that can and
cannot be transported in these vehicles/
situations.

Unit D2.6 Railroad-Highway Grade
Crossings
Driver-trainees must demonstrate proper
procedures for safely navigating railroadhighway grade crossings in a school bus.

Unit E1.7 Bulk Packages
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
specialized requirements for transportation of
cargo in bulk packages, including cargo
tanks, intermediate bulk containers, bulk
cylinders and portable tanks. The unit must
include training in the operation of
emergency control features, special vehicle
handling characteristics, rollover prevention,
and the properties and hazards of the HM
transported. Training providers must teach
driver-trainees methods specifically designed
to reduce cargo tank rollovers including, but
not limited to, vehicle design and
performance, load effects, highway factors,
and driver factors.

Appendix E to Part 380—Hazardous
Materials Endorsement Training
Curriculum
Hazardous materials (H) endorsement
applicants must complete the Hazardous
materials curriculum, which apply to drivertrainees who intend to operate CMVs used in
the transportation of hazardous materials
(HM) as defined in § 383.5. Driver-trainees
seeking an H endorsement, as defined in
§ 383.93(c)(4), must complete this curriculum
in order to take the State-administered
knowledge test for the H endorsement. There
is no required minimum number of
instruction hours for theory training, but the
training provider must cover all the topics in
the curriculum. The HM curriculum must, at
a minimum, include the following:
Theory Instruction
Unit E1.1 Basic Introductory HM
Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic HM competencies, including applicable
FMCSR requirements when HM is being
transported. The training provider must also
teach driver-trainees HM communication
requirements including: Shipping paper
requirements, marking, labeling, placarding,
emergency response information, and
shipper’s responsibilities.
Unit E1.2 Operational HM Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
basic competencies for transportation of HM.
Unit E1.3 Reporting HM Crashes and
Releases
The unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper procedures and contacts for the
immediate notification related to certain HM
incidents, including instruction in the proper
completion and submission of HM Incident
Reports.
Unit E.4 Tunnels and Railroad (RR)Highway Grade Crossing Requirements
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper operation of an HM vehicle at RRhighway grade crossings and in vehicular
tunnels.
Unit E1.5 Loading and Unloading HM
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper loading and unloading procedures for
hazardous material cargo. Training providers
must also teach driver-trainees the
requirements for proper segregation and
securement of HM, and the prohibitions on
transporting certain solid and liquid poisons
with foodstuffs.
Unit E1.6 HM on Passenger Vehicles
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
various requirements for vehicles
transporting passengers and property, and

PO 00000

Frm 00072

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Unit E1.8 Operating Emergency Equipment
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
applicable requirements of the FMCSRs and
the procedures necessary for the safe
operation of the motor vehicle. This includes
training in special precautions for fires,
loading and unloading, operation of cargo
tank motor vehicle equipment, and shut-off/
shut-down equipment.
Unit E1.9 Emergency Response Procedures
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper procedures and best practices for
handling an emergency response and postresponse operations, including what to do in
the event of an unintended release of an HM.
All training, preparation, and response efforts
must focus on the hazards of the materials
that have been released and the protection of
people, property, and the environment.
Unit E1.10 Engine (Fueling)
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
procedures for fueling a vehicle that contains
HM.
Unit E1.11 Tire Check
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper procedures for checking the vehicle
tires at the start of a trip and each time the
vehicle is parked.
Unit E1.12 Routes and Route Planning
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper routing procedures that they are
required to follow for the transportation of
radioactive and non-radioactive HM.
Unit E1.13 Hazardous Materials Safety
Permits (HMSP)
This unit must teach driver-trainees the
proper procedures and operational
requirements including communications,
constant attendance, and parking that apply
to the transportation of HM for which an
HMSP is required.

PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S
LICENSE STANDARDS;
REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES
8. The authority citation for part 383
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et
seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L.

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
106–159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec.
1012(b) of Pub. L. 107–56, 115 Stat. 272, 297,
sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144,
1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112–141, 126 stat.
405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

§ 383.71 Driver application and
certification procedures.

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES2

(a) * * *
(3) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a
person must complete the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of
this chapter before taking the skills test
for a Class A or B CDL for the first time,
or a skills test for a passenger (P) or
school bus (S) endorsement for the first
time, or the knowledge test for a
hazardous materials (H) endorsement
for the first time. The training must be
administered by a provider listed on the
Training Provider Registry.
(b) * * *
(11) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a
person must complete the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of
this chapter before taking the skills test
for a Class A or B CDL, a passenger (P)
or school bus (S) endorsement for the
first time or the knowledge test for a
hazardous materials (H) endorsement
for the first time. The training must be
administered by a provider listed on the
Training Provider Registry.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(3) Comply with the requirements
specified in paragraph (b)(8) of this
section to obtain a hazardous materials
endorsement;
(4) Surrender the previous CDL; and
(5) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a
person must complete the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of
this chapter before taking the skills test
for upgrading to a Class A or B for the
first time; or adding a passenger or
school bus endorsement to a CDL for the
first time; or knowledge test for
hazardous materials endorsement for
the first time. The training must be
administered by a provider on the
Training Provider Registry.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Amend § 383.73 by revising
paragraph (b)(3) introductory text and

VerDate Sep<11>2014

18:00 Dec 07, 2016

Jkt 241001

paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and by adding
paragraphs (b)(10), (e)(8), and (p) to read
as follows:

PART 384—STATE COMPLIANCE
WITH COMMERCIAL DRIVER’S
LICENSE PROGRAM

§ 383.73

■

State procedures.

9. Amend § 383.71 by adding
paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(11), revising
paragraphs (e)(3) and (4), and adding
paragraph (e)(5) to read as follows:

■

88803

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) Initiate and complete a check of
the applicant’s driving record to ensure
that the person is not subject to any
disqualification under § 383.51, or any
license disqualification under State law,
does not have a driver’s license from
more than one State or jurisdiction, and
has completed the required training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380 of
this subchapter. The record check must
include, but is not limited to, the
following:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) A check with the CDLIS to
determine whether the driver applicant
already has been issued a CDL, whether
the applicant’s license has been
disqualified, or if the applicant has been
disqualified from operating a
commercial motor vehicle; and
beginning February 7, 2020, before an
applicant is issued a Class A or Class B
CDL, or a passenger (P), school bus (S),
or hazardous materials (H) endorsement,
whether the applicant has completed
the training required by subpart F of
part 380 of this subchapter;
*
*
*
*
*
(10) Beginning on February 7, 2020,
not conduct a skills test of an applicant
for a Class A or Class B CDL, or a
passenger (P) or school bus (S)
endorsement until the State verifies
electronically that the applicant
completed the training prescribed in
subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(8) Beginning on February 7, 2020, not
issue an upgrade to a Class A or Class
B CDL, or a passenger (P), school bus
(S), or hazardous materials (H)
endorsement, unless the applicant has
completed the training required by
subpart F of part 380 of this subchapter.
*
*
*
*
*
(p) After February 7, 2020, the State
must notify FMCSA that a training
provider in the State does not meet
applicable State requirements for CMV
instruction.

PO 00000

Frm 00073

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

11. The authority citation for part 384
is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301, et seq.,
and 31502; secs. 103 and 215 of Pub. L. 106–
59, 113 Stat. 1753, 1767; sec. 32934 of Pub.
L. 112–141, 126 stat. 405, 830 and 49 CFR
1.87.
■

12. Add § 384.230 to read as follows:

§ 384.230

Entry-level driver certification.

(a) Beginning on February 7, 2020, a
State must comply with the
requirements of § 383.73(b)(3)(ii),
(b)(10), and (e)(8) to verify that the
applicant completed the training
prescribed in subpart F of part 380.
(b)(1) A State may issue a CDL to
individuals who obtain a CLP before
February 7, 2020, who have not
complied with subpart F of part 380 of
this subchapter so long as they obtain a
CDL before the CLP or renewed CLP
expires.
(2) A State may not issue a CDL to
individuals who obtain a CLP on or after
February 7, 2020, unless they comply
with subpart F of part 380 of this
subchapter.
■ 13. Add § 384.235 to subpart B to read
as follows:
§ 384.235 Entry-level driver training
provider notification.

The State must meet the entry-level
driver training provider notification
requirement of § 383.73(p).
■ 14. In § 384.301, add paragraph (j) to
read as follows:
§ 384.301 Substantial compliance—
general requirements.

*
*
*
*
(j) A State must come into substantial
compliance with the requirements of
subpart B of this part and part 383 of
this chapter in effect as of February 6,
2017, but not later than February 7,
2020.
Issued under the authority of delegation in
49 CFR 1.87: November 16, 2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–28012 Filed 12–7–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\08DER2.SGM

08DER2

File Type	application/pdf
File Title	2016-28012.pdf
Author	robert.armstrong
File Modified	2020-03-15
File Created	2016-12-08