Attachment F - Minimum Training Requirement Final Rule

29384

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 380
[Docket No. FMCSA–1997–2199]
RIN 2126–AA09

Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA)
establishes standards for mandatory
training requirements on four specific
topics for entry-level operators of
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs),
who are required to hold or obtain a
commercial driver’s license (CDL). This
action responds to a study mandated by
the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 that found the
private sector training of entry-level
drivers in the heavy truck, motorcoach,
and school bus industries was
inadequate. The purpose of this rule is
to enhance the safety of CMV operations
on our nation’s highways.
DATES: Effective Date: The effective date
is July 20, 2004, except for § 380.500,
which is effective from July 20, 2004,
through June 30, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ronald Finn, CDL Team, Office of
Safety Programs (MC–ESS), (202) 366–
0647, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents
Background
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle
Driver Training
Driver Safety Initiatives
Summary of NPRM Provisions
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
Comments on Specific Issues in Proposed
Rules
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Regulatory Text

Background
Section 4007(a)(1) of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1991 (Title IV of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L.
102–240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2151) directed
the U.S. Department of Transportation
to study ‘‘the effectiveness of the efforts
of the private sector to ensure adequate
training of entry-level drivers of

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

commercial motor vehicles.’’ In
preparing the study, the agency had to
solicit the views of interested persons.
The agency was also required by sec.
4007(a)(2) to ‘‘commence a rulemaking
proceeding on the need to require
training of all entry-level drivers of
commercial motor vehicles’’ and
establish Federal minimum training
requirements. This legislation built on
the prior authorities of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) (the
predecessor agency to FMCSA).
The enactment of ISTEA occurred in
December 1991. This sec. 4007
rulemaking began before the agency had
implemented the CDL regulations fully.
The principal regulation of the CDL
program did not become effective until
April 1992, when CMV drivers could
not operate CMVs without first having
taken and passed written and driving
tests and have the State issue the CDL.
When Congress mandated entry-level
driver training the full impact of the
CDL program on motor carrier safety
was not known. FMCSA has had twelve
years of experience with testing and
licensing CMV drivers. FMCSA now
knows the CDL program improved the
quality of CMV drivers. Given the
impact of the CDL program over the last
12 years, FMCSA has taken a basic
approach in this rulemaking to improve
safety.
In the early 1980’s, FHWA
determined that a need existed for
technical guidance in the area of truck
driver training. Research at that time
had shown that many driver-training
schools offered little or no structured
curricula or uniform training programs
for any type of CMV.
To help correct this problem, the
agency developed, and in 1985 issued,
the ‘‘Model Curriculum for Training
Tractor-Trailer Drivers’’ (1985, GPO
Stock No. 050–001–00293–1), which
incorporated the agency’s ‘‘Proposed
Minimum Standards for Training
Tractor Trailer Drivers’’ (1984). The
Model Curriculum, as it is known in the
industry, is a broad set of
recommendations that incorporates
standardized minimum core curriculum
guidelines and training materials, as
well as guidelines pertaining to
vehicles, facilities, instructor hiring
practices, graduation requirements, and
student placement. Curriculum content
includes the following areas: Basic
operation, safe operating practices,
advanced operating practices, vehicle
maintenance, and non-vehicle activities.
The Professional Truck Driver
Institute (PTDI) was created in 1986 by
the motor carrier industry to certify
training programs offered by truck
driver training schools. Originally

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

named the Professional Truck Driver
Institute of America, the group changed
its name in 1998 to reflect the addition
of Canada to the organization. The
Model Curriculum is the base from
which the PTDI’s certification criteria
were derived. The PTDI, in mid-1988,
began certifying truck-driver training
programs across the country. As of
February 2003, approximately 64
schools in 27 States and Canada have
received the PTDI certification.
Although many schools have a number
of truck driving courses, most have only
one course certified by PTDI.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 31301
et seq.), although not directly targeted at
driver training, was intended to improve
highway safety. Its goal was to ensure
that drivers of large trucks and buses
possess the knowledge and skills
necessary to safely operate those
vehicles on public highways. The
CMVSA established the CDL program
and directed the FHWA to establish
minimum Federal standards, which
States must meet when licensing CMV
drivers. The CMVSA applies to virtually
anyone who operates a CMV in
interstate or intrastate commerce,
including employees of Federal, State,
and local governments. As defined by
the implementing regulation (49 CFR
383.5), a CMV is a motor vehicle or
combination of motor vehicles used in
commerce to transport passengers or
property if the vehicle meets one or
more of the following criteria:
(a) Has a gross combination weight
rating (GCWR) of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds)
inclusive of a towed unit with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds).
(b) Has a GVWR of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds).
(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more
passengers, including the driver.
(d) Is of any size and is used in the
transportation of hazardous materials as
defined in 49 CFR 383.5.
In accordance with the CMVSA, all
drivers of CMVs must possess a valid
CDL in order to be properly qualified to
operate the vehicle(s) they drive. In
addition to passing the CDL knowledge
and skills tests required for the basic
vehicle group, all persons who operate
or expect to operate any of the following
vehicles, which have special handling
characteristics, must obtain
endorsements under 49 CFR 383.93:
(a) Double/triple trailers.
(b) Passenger vehicles.
(c) Tank vehicles.
(d) Vehicles transporting hazardous
materials as defined in 49 CFR 383.5.

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
For all endorsements, the driver is
required to pass a knowledge test. The
driver must also pass a skills test to
obtain a passenger endorsement.
The CDL standards do not require the
comprehensive driver training proposed
in the Model Curriculum because the
CDL is a licensing standard as opposed
to a training standard. Accordingly,
there are no prerequisite Federal or
State training requirements to obtain a
CDL.
The agency also completed two
projects that contributed to an enhanced
understanding of driver training.
Although they were not specifically
designed to address one type of driver
training versus another or to address
specific items that would be included in
a minimum training standard, they do
provide perspective on the importance
of driver training and the need for
minimum training requirements. The
first project took place in December
1994 and involved focus groups to
obtain information about highway safety
issues relating to commercial motor
carriers. The second project was the
1995 National Truck and Bus Safety
Summit. A copy of the ‘‘1995 Truck and
Bus Safety Summit, Report of
Proceedings’’ is in the public docket.

In the ANPRM, the agency asked 13
questions, which addressed training
adequacy standards, curriculum
requirements, the CDL, the definition of
‘‘entry-level driver,’’ and training, pass
rates and costs.
The agency received 104 comments to
the ANPRM. There was no consensus
among the commenters on the issue of
mandated entry-level driver training.
The heavy truck and bus industries
were against mandated training; the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
was in favor. When the agency
published a notice on April 25, 1996,
reopening the docket (61 FR 18355), it
received 48 additional comments on a
training adequacy study and cost-benefit
analysis. On November 13, 1996, the
agency held a public meeting at the
Department of Transportation
headquarters in Washington, DC, to
discuss mandatory training for entrylevel CMV drivers. There were 26
persons who participated at the public
meeting.
A detailed analysis of the questions in
the ANPRM and comments received by
the agency appeared in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published in the Federal Register on
Friday, August 15, 2003 (68 FR 48863).

Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Pursuant to section 4007(a)(2) of
ISTEA, the agency began a rulemaking
proceeding on the need to require
training of all entry-level CMV drivers.
On June 21, 1993, the agency published
in the Federal Register an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) (58 FR 33874).
The ANPRM stated ‘‘Although transit
buses (designed to transport 16 or more
passengers) also meet the definition of
a CMV, they will not be considered
because these vehicles are almost all
operated by municipalities or other
public agencies. Because the ISTEA
specifies that the FHWA [Federal
Highway Administration] report on the
effectiveness of ‘private sector efforts’ to
ensure adequate training of CMV
drivers, we believe Congress intended to
exclude training of transit bus drivers
from this rulemaking.’’ In addition, the
ANPRM explained that ‘‘Although the
definition of a CMV in the Motor Carrier
Safety Act of 1984 included a weight
threshold of 10,001 pounds or more (49
CFR 390.5), the FHWA believes any
potential CMV training standard should
be considered an additional CDL
requirement and thus subject to the
higher jurisdictional threshold of that
program.’’ The CDL program’s higher
jurisdictional thresholds were discussed
above.

Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle
Driver Training
Concurrent with the development of
the ANPRM, the agency conducted a
study completed in 1995, as required by
section 4007(a)(1) of the ISTEA, on the
effectiveness of private sector efforts to
train entry-level CMV drivers. The
agency limited the study to drivers in
the heavy truck (26,001 or more
pounds), motorcoach, and school bus
industries. A copy of the study
‘‘Adequacy of Commercial Motor
Vehicle Driver Training’’ is in docket
FMCSA–1997–2199. The findings are
summarized in the NPRM, and
indicated that neither the heavy truck,
motorcoach, nor school bus segments of
the CMV industry were providing
adequate entry-level driver training.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

Driver Safety Initiatives
This final rule is part of an overall
FMCSA effort to improve its driver
safety programs. These include
improvements to the CDL tests and a
study on graduated licensing. Section
4019 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (Pub. L. 105–178;
June 9, 1998) (TEA–21) requires the
agency to determine whether the current
system of CDL testing is an accurate
measure of an applicant’s knowledge
and skill needed to operate a CMV.
More specifically, the agency is
examining the various CDL skill test

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29385

components to determine whether
testing modifications are necessary. The
agency plans to coordinate with the
Driver License and Control Committee
of the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators to determine if
the required skill tests can be given in
a more efficient and less costly manner.
Section 4019 of TEA–21 also required
the agency to identify the costs and
benefits of a graduated licensing system.
The agency published a notice in the
Federal Register on February 25, 2003,
asking for public comment on whether
a graduated licensing system for CMV
operators is a workable concept (68 FR
8798). The agency plans to use this
information to help determine the costs
and benefits of a graduated CDL.
The agency published an interim final
rule in the Federal Register on May 13,
2002 (67 FR 31978), establishing a
process to ensure that new entrant
motor carriers are knowledgeable about
applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). Many new
entrant motor carriers are entry-level
driver owner-operators. The rule
requires a safety audit to educate the
motor carrier on compliance with the
FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials
Regulations, and identify areas where
the motor carrier may be deficient in
terms of compliance. The safety audit
examines selected motor carrier records
and assesses the adequacy of the new
entrant’s basic safety management
controls. Areas covered include
qualification of drivers and hours of
service of driver requirements for
employers. The agency intends to
improve the safety performance of new
entrants by providing educational and
technical assistance to new motor
carriers as they begin their new
business. This new entrant process will
include the verification of training for
entry-level drivers in today’s final rule:
(1) Driver qualification requirements; (2)
hours of service of drivers; (3) driver
wellness; and (4) whistleblower
protection.
Finally, the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP) is a
Federal grant program that provides
financial assistance to States, the
District of Columbia, and eligible
territories to conduct roadside
inspections and other enforcement
activities designed to improve CMV
safety. The goal of the MCSAP is to
reduce the number and severity of
crashes and hazardous materials
incidents involving CMVs through
uniform, consistent, and effective safety
programs. Investing grant funds in
appropriate safety programs increases
the likelihood that CMV safety defects,
driver deficiencies, and unsafe motor

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29386

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

carrier practices will be detected and
corrected before they become
contributing factors to crashes. Since
1984, the MCSAP has provided an
effective forum for FMCSA and States to
work cooperatively to improve motor
carrier, CMV, and driver safety. Even
though roadside inspections remain the
primary activity under the program, the
States also perform a variety of other
enforcement activities including
compliance reviews of motor carrier
operations. The compliance review
provides the agency with an additional
opportunity to verify motor carrier
compliance with driver entry-level
training requirements.
This final rule represents FMCSA’s
most recent action to improve driver
safety. It establishes minimum training
standards by requiring entry-level
drivers to receive training in driver
qualification requirements, hours of
service of drivers, driver wellness, and
whistleblower protection. These
training areas are not covered by the
CDL tests. Each of these areas focuses on
the CMV driver, who the agency
believes is key to promoting safety on
our nation’s highways. FMCSA believes
that training in these four areas will
serve to set a floor of safety for entrylevel drivers.
Summary of NPRM Provisions
For purposes of the NPRM, FMCSA
defined an entry-level driver as a person
with less than two years experience
operating a CMV that required a CDL.
However, drivers with one-year
experience operating such a CMV, who
have a good driving record, would be
grandfathered and therefore would not
have to take the proposed training. The
proposal did not specify what a good
driving record would look like.
In the NPRM, the agency proposed
training for entry-level drivers based on
three main principles. First, the agency
directed the NPRM to drivers included
in the 1995 study discussed above, i.e,
only drivers in the heavy truck,
motorcoach, and school bus industries.
Excluded were: (1) Transit bus drivers
subject to Federal Transit
Administration regulations; (2) drivers
operating property-carrying CMVs with
gross vehicle weight ratings under
26,001 pounds; (3) drivers operating
hazardous material laden CMVs not
required to placard the CMV in
accordance with 49 CFR part 172,
subpart F (§§ 172.500 through 172.560);
and (4) drivers operating CMVs laden
with any quantity of a material listed as
a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73.
Second, the agency focused the NPRM
to drivers who operate in interstate
commerce subject to the Motor Carrier

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

Safety Act of 1984. Third, the agency
narrowed the NPRM to those training
topics that extend beyond the scope of
the CDL test.
The NPRM thus addressed: (1) Driver
medical qualification and drug and
alcohol testing, (2) driver hours of
service rules, (3) driver wellness, and (4)
whistleblower protection. The agency
believed that training in these four areas
would serve to set a floor of safety for
entry-level CMV drivers, and at the
same time represent a reasonable cost
investment for drivers or employers to
implement. The NPRM did not specify
a required number of hours for the
training, but the agency’s costeffectiveness estimate was premised on
10.5 hours of training for heavy truck
and motorcoach drivers and 4.5 hours of
training for school bus drivers. The
NPRM proposed only two training
topics for school bus drivers: driver
wellness and whistleblower protection.
The NPRM included a specific
discussion of what would be covered in
each of the four areas of this training.
The NPRM proposed that the
employer would have to maintain
evidence of the instruction for review by
an FMCSA official seeking to verify that
the training requirement had been met.
Informal, unverifiable, or
undocumented communication between
the entry-level driver and his or her
employer would not be acceptable. A
training certificate that a driver had
received the training would be
maintained in the driver’s personnel
file. Employers would have had to
ensure that currently employed entrylevel drivers, who did not qualify for
grandfathering, receive the required
training no later than 90 days after the
regulations go into effect.
Discussion of Comments to the NPRM
The FMCSA received 38 written
comments on the NPRM. Commenters
included motor carriers, associations,
training organizations, a union, a public
interest organization, and individuals.
General Support
Eleven commenters generally support
the FMCSA’s proposal. For example, the
American Trucking Associations (ATA)
states, ‘‘ATA generally supports the
proposed minimum training
requirements and FMCSA’s overall
efforts to improve the Commercial
Driver’s License (CDL) program.’’ The
National Private Truck Council, Inc.
(NPTC), Consolidated Safety Services,
Inc. (CSS), American Moving and
Storage Association (AMSA), the Tree
Care Industry Association (TCIA),
McLane Company, Inc. (McLane), TriState Semi Driver Training, Inc. (Tri-

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

State), the Commercial Vehicle Training
Association (CVTA), American Bus
Association (ABA), the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA), and the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
(IBT) make similar statements. CVTA
states that it ‘‘believes that the Proposed
Rules represent a first step in
recognizing the need for formal training
for entry-level drivers.’’ The ABA states,
‘‘we believe that minimum training
requirements for entry-level drivers are
long overdue.’’ The CVSA states, ‘‘We
would like to first acknowledge the
agency’s continued commitment to
safety—and the fact that training is a
critical component. The commercial
vehicle industry indeed is a profession.
Highly skilled workers are required,
both in industry and enforcement. Thus,
we support this rulemaking because we
believe it will save lives.’’ The IBT
states, ‘‘most motor carrier employers do
not provide their entry-level drivers
adequate training or instruction. The
IBT thus supports FMCSA’s efforts to
correct this problem.’’
Several commenters endorse the
proposal to require training in the four
prescribed areas. CSS endorsed rules
that mandatory training in (1) driver
qualifications; (2) driver hours of service
rules; (3) driver wellness; and (4)
whistleblower protection are important
additions covering areas not treated by
CDL testing. AMSA, McLane, and TriState state that they or their members
already include some or all of these
topics in their training.
In addition to providing general
support, most of these commenters
provide comments and suggestions on
specific provisions in the proposed rule,
which are described below.
The Proposal Is Too Burdensome
Central Tech states that, except for
whistleblower protection, most good
driver training schools already cover the
four proposed topics. However, the
NPRM places the burden for training in
these subject areas back on the trucking
companies. Central Tech questions how
companies would comply with the
certificate requirement if these
companies rely on the training provided
by the schools. The commenter asks, are
the ‘‘schools that already train in these
areas going to be required to issue a
separate certificate?’
The Petroleum Marketers Association
of America (PMAA) states that requiring
10.5 hours for the proposed training
would be an unreasonable amount of
time for PMAA members. The
commenter states, ‘‘PMAA members are
small companies with sometimes only a
few employees. If one of those
employees is unavailable for over a day,

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
this will have a serious financial impact
on our member’s operations.’’
FMCSA Response: Although the
proposal does not specify a required
number of hours for the training, the
agency estimates that an employer or
other training provider would need to
devote about 10 hours of training for all
heavy truck, motorcoach, and private
contractor school bus drivers. These are
nationwide estimates of the average
length of time needed to train drivers in
the four required subject areas.
Today’s final rule allows employers to
provide the required training in a range
of settings. Various entities can provide
the training, including the employer, a
training school, or a class conducted by
consortia or associations of employers.
The proposal discussed that currently
employed drivers will be entitled to a
90-day grace period. The FMCSA has
determined that drivers that began
driving CMVs within 10 months before
today’s final rule and two months after
today’s final rule will be considered
currently employed drivers subject to
this 90-day grace period. These drivers
are permitted to operate a CMV during
the 90-day period pending the
completion of training. The agency also
believes that employers can train these
entry-level drivers in shifts.
In response to Central Tech’s question
about whether schools that already train
in the areas made final today will be
required to issue a separate certificate,
the training provider would not have to
issue the entry-level driver a separate
training certificate. However, the
training school’s certificate or diploma
given to the driver must have wording
that is substantially in accordance with
the wording of the training certificate
contained in this final rule.
The Proposal Will Not Ensure Safety
Six commenters state that the
proposals in the NPRM will not ensure
better driver safety training or improve
safety in general.
The United Motorcoach Association
(UMA) states that, along with school
buses, the motorcoach industry is the
safest mode of ground passenger
transportation. ‘‘There is no evidence
either in existing data or anecdotal
evidence that shows that the proposals
in this NPRM will do anything to
improve our already superior safety
record.’’
The National Solid Wastes
Management Association (NSWMA)
states that the proposed training may
divert training time and resources away
from more meaningful methods of
improving safe driving, such as on-thejob observations by route supervisors.
Similarly, C. R. England, Inc. states that,

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

‘‘training in current topics that may be
more effective in deterring the types of
target accidents may be displaced to
accommodate the proposed mandated
hours. The overall effect may result in
an increase in accidents.’’
The Truckload Carriers Association
(TCA) states that information on the
four topics is already being voluntarily
provided to drivers by many carriers.
The National Association of Publicly
Funded Truck Driver Schools
(NAPFTDS) and the National Ground
Water Association (NGWA) make
similar comments.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
this final rule will promote safety
because it covers new areas not covered
by the CDL tests and it places a training
responsibility on employers and entrylevel drivers. However, the rule does not
mandate training hours. The FMCSA
believes motor carriers must address
training needs to properly train
inexperienced drivers. FMCSA is
emphasizing that these requirements are
a training responsibility by placing the
entry-level driver training requirements
in part 380. Compliance will be checked
at the carrier’s place of business during
a compliance review. Because the
requirement is not a driver licensing
issue to be administered by the State
licensing agency, enforcement officials
will not check for compliance at
roadside.
The CMV driver is key to truck and
bus safety. The rule is part of FMCSA’s
overall effort to improve its safety
programs. These efforts include
improvements to the CDL tests, a
graduated licensing study, the new
entrant motor carrier standards, and the
MCSAP program. Viewed in this overall
context, the FMCSA believes this
overall effort will improve the safety of
entry-level drivers and meet the
Congressional directive for rulemaking.
This final rule is one prong of the
overall effort. See also the FMCSA’s
discussion above in reference to Central
Tech’s comments.
The Proposal Does Not Comply With the
Statute
The Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (AHAS) strongly object to the
proposed rule on the basis that it does
not comply with Section 4007(a) of the
ISTEA. AHAS states, ‘‘Although the
FMCSA was directed by Congress in
Section 4007(a) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Assistance Act
of 1991 (ISTEA), Public Law 102–240
(December 18, 1991), to conduct
rulemaking on the need for entry-level
driving training, the agency in this
notice clearly seeks to evade that
legislative directive.’’

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29387

AHAS states that in the review of the
effectiveness of private sector entrylevel driver training required by section
4007(a), the FHWA found that private
sector efforts at transmitting basic CMV
driver skills and knowledge training are
fundamentally inadequate, yet in the
NPRM preamble FMCSA stated ‘‘the
CDL gives the novice driver the basic
knowledge and skill necessary to
operate a CMV.’’
AHAS also states that under section
4007(a) FMCSA is required to submit a
report to Congress if it determines that
entry-level driver training is not
necessary. The report is to explain why
such training is not needed and must
include a benefit-cost analysis to justify
the decision. AHAS states:
Neither the FMCSA nor the FHWA has
issued a study to support such a negative
finding. On the contrary, the results of the
research conducted to [sic] show that basic
skills and knowledge training in the private
sector are inadequate. Yet the FMCSA has
proposed leaving these inadequate efforts
undisturbed by federal regulation designed to
advance the quality of entry-level
commercial driver skills and knowledge.
Instead, the agency only proposes to require
that novice drivers receive instruction in four
additional areas: driver qualifications, hours
of services governing commercial driver duty
time, driver wellness, and whistle blower
protection. * * * No baseline training of any
kind is required in this notice; the agency is
content to allow currently inadequate
approaches to ensuring basic driver
competence in the operation of large trucks
and buses to remain unchanged. * * * The
proposed novice driver training is a legally
insufficient response to the statutory
mandate and clearly violates legislative
intent.

The Sage Corporation (Sage) states
that the proposed training program will
have little impact on whether entrylevel drivers are receiving adequate
training.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA
believes its proposal meets the
requirements of the statute to improve
private sector training. The agency
stated in the CDL final rule on July 21,
1988 (53 FR 27628) that at least ‘‘20
States waive testing if the classified
driver’s license applicants meet certain
conditions, such as certification of
training and testing by their employer,
and two States recognize training
schools.’’ The States also have had the
liberty to impose more stringent public
sector training efforts than the minimum
necessary to pass their CDL tests.
The agency requires four minimum
training areas for operating in interstate
commerce. FMCSA does not believe it
should duplicate training that the public
and private sectors provide a driver to
operate a CMV before taking the CDL

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29388

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

tests. The agency believes that the four
additional areas in today’s final rule
will provide entry-level drivers with
fundamental knowledge necessary for
beginning operations in interstate
commerce: (1) Driver qualification
requirements; (2) hours of service of
drivers; (3) driver wellness; and (4)
whistleblower protection. The ongoing
FMCSA efforts to address the adequacy
of CDL testing is the better place to
focus training issues over the actual
operation of CMVs than in this
rulemaking.
Proposal Should Be Performance Based
C. R. England comments that instead
of mandating the hours required for
training, the FMCSA should set
standards and allow drivers and
employers to determine the most
appropriate methods for meeting those
standards. CVSA also stated that the
training should be performance-based to
accurately reflect the level of
understanding by the participants.
FMCSA Response: The agency
proposed a set of standards that would
allow drivers and employers to
determine the most appropriate
methods for meeting those standards.
The agency believes the entry-level
training in this rule is performancebased because the agency specifies the
general content of the four topic areas of
required training. However, the agency
believes CVSA’s comments imply a
testing format that the agency cannot
oversee and does not want to require of
an employer. Employers, however, may
test their entry-level drivers or have
them tested. The required training does
not specify the number of hours of
training, but provides estimates that the
agency used as averages across the
heavy truck, motorcoach, and private
contractor school bus industries.
Further information on the estimates
may be found in the cost-effectiveness
analysis in the docket, and is
summarized in the NPRM.
Training Topics Should Be Part of CDL
Program
Nine commenters state that the goal of
improving driver safety would be better
realized if the training topics contained
in the proposed rule were made part of
the CDL curriculum. The commenters
are: NRMCA, PMAA, Colorado Ready
Mixed Concrete Association/Colorado
Rock Products Association (CRMCA/
CRPA), National School Transportation
Association (NSTA), C.R. England, Inc.,
AMSA, UMA, ABA, and NPTC. Most of
the commenters believe that this would
be the least costly way to accomplish
the desired training in the four subject
areas proposed. Several of the

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

commenters make the further point that
the responsibility for ensuring that this
training has occurred should be with the
State licensing agency rather than the
employer. NPTC states that making the
new training requirement part of the
CDL licensing process would mean that
an employer could assume that a driver
with a valid CDL has received the
appropriate training.
NPTC believes that incorporating the
driver training into the CDL would
assist employers in the event of
litigation arising from a vehicle collision
where the adequacy of the driver’s
training is at issue. Similarly, C.R.
England, Inc. states that if the proposed
requirements are not added to the
testing requirements of the CDL, ‘‘the
CDL competency is undermined to the
point of putting carriers at legal risk for
using inexperienced drivers.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
that requiring the State to administer,
and enforce at roadside inspections, the
entry-level driver training requirements
would add an unnecessary complication
to the CDL program. FMCSA believes
the training certificate in the driver
personnel or qualification file is
sufficient documentation that a driver
has met the entry-level driver training
requirement.
The FMCSA believes motor carriers
should address training needs to
properly train inexperienced drivers. By
placing the entry-level driver training
requirements in part 380, FMCSA is
emphasizing that these requirements are
a training responsibility and that
compliance will be checked at the
carrier’s place of business during a
compliance review. Because the
requirement is not a driver licensing
issue to be administered by the State
licensing agency, enforcement officials
will not check for compliance at
roadside. (Roadside enforcement
officials may, however, check an entrylevel driver’s CDL to verify the presence
of proper endorsements, such as
passenger or school bus endorsements.)
Mandatory Training Standards
Among the nine commenters that
address the issue whether training
should be made mandatory, seven favor
mandatory training, and two oppose it.
NADA and Tri-State oppose
mandatory training. Tri-State expresses
concern at what it labeled a ‘‘one size
fits all’’ approach. This commenter
favors an approach that identifies
competencies expected of a safe driver
and then measures those competencies
through outcome testing. NADA
believes that entry-level drivers would
collectively benefit from a more rigorous
training regime. It also believes that the

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Model Curriculum should be declared
‘‘the basis for training adequacy,’’ and
that the four areas covered by the NPRM
could then be added to the Model
Curriculum. At the same time, NADA
objects to a Federal mandate for entrylevel training. Similarly, McLane ‘‘urges
FMCSA to revise the existing Model
Curriculum or develop a new
supplemental curriculum to reflect
these new minimum training
requirements.’’
The eight commenters who favor
mandatory training give reasons similar
to those discussed earlier under the
topic ‘‘Current CDL training
inadequate.’’ [Daecher, NATFTDS,
FVTC, Future Truckers of America
(FTA), Tri-State, CVTA, CVSA, and
CSS.] That is, most believe that a
minimum mandatory training
requirement is needed because, as
NADA states, ‘‘mere acquisition of a
CDL does not properly prepare a
potential driver for safe operation of
CMVs on the nation’s highways.’’ CVTA
suggests that the rule require that a CDL
applicant complete all Model
Curriculum courses. Training in all
courses should total at least 160 hours,
CVTA recommends.
FVTC requests FMCSA to withdraw
the current proposal and to act on the
FHWA’s July 1995 report, ‘‘Assessing
the Adequacy of Commercial Motor
Vehicle Driver Training.’’ The
commenter states that the report
concluded that ‘‘of those heavy truck
carriers that hire entry-level drivers only
one in 10 would be expected to provide
adequate training.’’
Daecher states that the Model
Curriculum fails to include training on
the use of anti-lock brake systems or
engine retarders.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA is making
the training standards mandatory. The
agency believes the standards have to be
mandatory to be effective at improving
interstate driver proficiency in the four
topics selected. FMCSA has identified
the four competencies expected of a safe
driver operating in interstate commerce.
FMCSA is leaving the outcome testing
to the employers. The FMCSA believes
the 160-hour Model Curriculum training
course is too burdensome. However, if
an employer believes its drivers need
that amount of training, it may provide
that amount.
FMCSA did not include engine
retarders, as Daecher suggests, because
there is no requirement that vehicles be
equipped with such a device. Training
in anti-lock brake systems is covered on
the CDL test. The required skills test in
§ 383.113 lists the ability to stop the
vehicle, as well as air brake application.
FMCSA believes CDL examiners will

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
test entry-level drivers on anti-lock
brake application and inspection of the
anti-lock brake system in State CDL
tests.
Comments on Specific Issues in
Proposed Rules
General Applicability
Several commenters ask for
clarification on applicability or make
suggestions as to whom it should apply.
TCIA seeks confirmation that the rule
only applies to CDL drivers and not to
commercial drivers who drive vehicles
under 26,001 gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR). UMA objects that FMCSA
bases its entry-level driver training
almost solely on the heavy truck
industry, but applies the rule to the
motorcoach industry, which has a better
safety record. In addition, UMA believes
that including motorcoach drivers in the
NPRM, but exempting transit bus
drivers from the training standards, is
flawed. UMA states that the premise
that transit operations are somehow
safer than motorcoach operations is not
borne out by the data. UMA urges
FMCSA to exempt the motorcoach
industry.
CVSA disagrees with the proposed
rule applying only to ‘‘drivers who drive
in interstate commerce and are subject
to the CDL requirements.’’ It believes
the safety related standards should be
the same for all CDL drivers whether
they are interstate or intrastate drivers.
The CDL requirements should be
applied evenly across the board.
FMCSA Response: The final rule is
applicable to all persons subject to the
CDL requirements in 49 CFR part 383
operating in interstate commerce, as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5. It will include
all motor vehicles, trucks,
motorcoaches, buses, school buses, or
combinations of motor vehicles used in
interstate commerce to transport
passengers or property if the motor
vehicle—
(a) Has a gross combination weight
rating of 11,794 kilograms or more
(26,001 pounds or more) inclusive of a
towed unit(s) with a gross vehicle
weight rating of more than 4,536
kilograms (10,000 pounds); or
(b) Has a gross vehicle weight rating
of 11,794 or more kilograms (26,001
pounds or more); or
(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more
passengers, including the driver; or
(d) Is of any size and is used in the
transportation of any material that has
been designated as hazardous under 49
U.S.C. 5103 and is required to be
placarded under subpart F of 49 CFR
part 172 (§§ 172.500 through 172.560),

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

or any quantity of a material listed as a
select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73.
The rule will not apply to persons
subject to the Federal Transit
Administration’s jurisdiction or to
persons excepted by 49 CFR 390.3(f),
including transportation performed by
the Federal government, a State
government, any political subdivision of
a State, any agency that has been
established under a compact between
States that has been approved by the
Congress of the United States, or any
school bus operations as defined in 49
CFR 390.5.
The agency chose not to include
drivers subject to Federal Transit
Administration regulations and other
Federal, State, and local government
agencies in the rulemaking because
these vehicles are almost all operated by
municipalities or other public agencies.
ISTEA specified that the agency report
on the effectiveness of ‘‘private sector
efforts’’ to ensure adequate training of
CMV drivers. Therefore, FMCSA
believes Congress intended to exclude
training of transit bus drivers and other
Federal, State, and local government
agencies from this rulemaking. See 58
FR 33874 (June 21, 1993).
Non-transit motorcoach operations are
included in today’s final rule because
Congress specifically wanted the agency
to study the effectiveness of ‘‘private
sector efforts’’ to ensure adequate
training of CMV drivers. The agency
studied the motorcoach industry’s
private sector training efforts and found
them to be inadequate. FMCSA believes
that the training adequacy study had a
sufficiently diverse group of cargo and
passenger carriers to be representative of
the CMV industry the agency regulates.
Exempt School Buses
National School Transportation
Association (NSTA) urges the FMSCA to
exempt school bus drivers from the
required driver training outlined in this
rule. NSTA does not oppose meaningful
driver training for school bus drivers,
but disagrees with the agency’s
arguments to include school bus drivers.
NSTA explains that its industry is 40
percent safer than transit drivers who
are exempt from this rule. As
justification for exempting transit
operators (and for exempting some
school bus operators from two of the
requirements), the NPRM cites the fact
that those entities are not subject to
parts 350 through 399 of the FMCSRs.
NSTA claims this is a disingenuous
argument, because FMCSA does subject
these entities to CDL requirements (part
383) and to drug and alcohol testing
requirements. NSTA submits that
training requirements could be tied to

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29389

the CDL just as the drug and alcohol
requirements are, ensuring that all
drivers receive training in topics the
agency considers essential for safe
driving.
NSTA states that ‘‘the agency also
cites FTA training materials as a reason
to exempt transit operators * * * ’’
There is no indication that the materials
cover the areas proposed in this rule; in
fact, the FTA training materials appear
to be less comprehensive than much of
the State-required school bus training.
Therefore, if it is reasonable to exempt
transit operations from the
requirements, then it is reasonable to
exempt all school bus operations as
well. On the other hand, if the agency
believes that the proposed training
requirements will reduce crashes, then
all drivers should be subject to them.
Regarding proposed entry-level driver
training standards for school bus
drivers, a school bus contractor opposes
federally mandated driver training
standards and believes the process
should be left to the States, and
enforced by the States. In addition, it
states that the cost of training would be
a hardship on already over-stretched
public school budgets.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
private sector school bus operations
must be included in today’s final rule.
The ISTEA directed the agency to study
the effectiveness of the efforts of the
private sector to ensure adequate
training of entry-level drivers of CMVs.
The agency limited the study to those
drivers required to hold a CDL to
operate a CMV, including private sector
school bus drivers. The study found
training for this type of CMV driver to
be inadequate. Sec. 4007(a)(2) required
the agency to do the rulemaking.
The agency must also clarify a
possible misunderstanding. The
statutory mandate underpinning this
rulemaking focuses the agency to
address only ‘‘private sector efforts.’’
The agency is clarifying the
applicability for the final rule. Today’s
final rule applies only to private school
bus contractors, e.g., employers and
drivers operating school buses in the
private sector. Thus, the exceptions
provided by § 390.3(f)(1) and (2) apply
to today’s final rule.
In response to the NSTA comment,
the NPRM incorrectly stated that
government transit drivers are exempt
from parts 350 through 397 of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs). The reference in
the NPRM to the exemption to parts 350
through 397 of the FMCSRs should have
included the phrase ‘‘except as
otherwise provided.’’ Section 390.3(f)(1)
and (2) provide that unless otherwise

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29390

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

specifically provided, the rules in 49
CFR parts 350 through 399 do not apply
to—
(1) All school bus operations as
defined in 49 CFR 390.5; and
(2) Transportation performed by the
Federal government, a State, or any
political subdivision of a State, or an
agency established under a compact
between States that has been approved
by the Congress of the United States
* * * The agency has corrected the
NPRM misstatement in the final rule.
FMCSA disagrees with the school bus
contractor which opposes federallymandated driver training standards and
believes the process should be left to,
and enforced by the States. The agency
is changing the training topics for
school bus drivers in this final rule. The
specifics will be discussed later under
the heading Training Topics.
If the NSTA has suggestions that it
believes will improve the FTA’s training
materials for alcohol and controlled
substances testing, the agency suggests
NSTA contact the FTA directly. The
agency believes that FTA is the best
qualified to comment on the
comprehensiveness of its training
materials.
FMCSA is encouraged by the NSTA
statement that school bus drivers
receive pre-service training of at least 40
hours and in-service training of at least
10 hours. The agency believes this
shows that the additional amount of
time spent learning about driver
qualifications, hours of service, driver
wellness, and whistleblower protection
would not be unduly burdensome.
Entry-Level Driver Definition and
Grandfathering
The proposal defined an entry-level
driver as a driver with less than two
years experience operating a CMV with
a CDL. One commenter agrees with this
definition. However, several
commenters suggest that the definition
should be a driver with one year or less
of such experience. ATA and several
other commenters stated that by using
this definition, the need for a
grandfathering clause for drivers with
between one and two years of driving
experience would be eliminated. This
would save employers and drivers time
and money without sacrificing safety. In
addition, employers would no longer
have the burden of ensuring that an
individual claiming eligibility for the
grandfathering provisions is actually
eligible, and Certificates of
Grandfathering would not be necessary.
Several commenters recommend a
definition based on miles or hours that
a commercial vehicle has been driven.
The proposed definition does not allow

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

for quantifying operating hours or miles.
Several commenters stated that safety
comes through practical application of
knowledge learned and improves with
experience. If experience is quantified
with actual miles or hours of operation
in a vehicle, then a driver is more likely
to develop and refine safe operating
practices. Conversely, without a
quantifying measure, one could not
determine how much operating
experience a CDL holder would have
who occasionally operated a CMV
within the two year time period. Under
this quantifying measure, the
grandfathering clause may not be
necessary.
TCA believes that ‘‘carriers should
only have to train drivers newly
entering the industry. A review of the
preamble to the rule demonstrates
clearly that FMCSA’s proposal to
require training for all drivers in the
industry for less than one year was
based on the arbitrary comments it
received in response to the ANPRM and
public meeting and not based on any
scientific study. In TCA’s opinion, there
is no scientific justification.’’ The IBT,
however, recommends that all drivers
with less than two years of driving
experience be subject to the mandatory
training requirements and that drivers
with less than five years experience be
required to receive written information
on the subject matter covered in
training.
Several comments were received
regarding the grandfathering provision
proposed at § 380.505 in the NPRM. For
example, CSS recommends that an
individual must certify and provide
evidence in order to be grandfathered.
CVSA believes that a few items should
be changed in the grandfathering clause
requirements. The recommendations
include: (1) Altering § 380.505(b)(3),
which as proposed read, ‘‘No
suspension, revocation, or cancellation
of his/her CDL,’’ to include the term
disqualification; (2) including a
definition of the term ‘‘at fault’’; (3)
changing § 380.505(c)(1) from ‘‘Is
regularly employed in a job’’ to ‘‘Is
employed in a job’; and (4) giving the
employer the choice of either
grandfathering a driver, if he or she
meets the requirements, or requiring the
driver to attend an entry-level training
course. CVSA also remarks that a
grandfathered driver is required to
prove that he or she meets the
grandfathering requirements before an
employer can allow him or her to
operate a CMV, while the entry-level
driver is allowed to operate a CMV for
90 days before receiving the required
training. CVSA believes the standard
should be uniform and consistent.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

AMSA recommends allowing eligible
drivers to waive the training
requirements through the grandfather
provision for 14 or 16 months following
the effective date of the rule to allow for
an adequate time to communicate the
grandfather provisions to potential
drivers and to give carriers the time
necessary to establish internal
certification and reporting systems.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
that operating experience helps CMV
drivers reduce crashes caused by driver
error. In today’s final rule, the agency
adopts the ATA’s comment to change
the definition of entry-level driver to a
driver with less than one-year
experience operating CMVs. The agency
believes safety will continue to be
served by allowing only one year of
experience rather than two years of
experience. FMCSA will also have a
much simpler rule for employers to
follow. FMCSA has no reason to believe
based on comments and other available
data that defining an entry-level driver
as one year or less will have a negative
impact on safety.
The agency also agrees with the ATA
that a grandfather provision is
unnecessary, in view of the decision to
change the definition of entry-level
driver to a driver with less than oneyear experience. The change in the
definition of entry-level driver will
reduce the burden on employers to train
currently employed drivers.
The agency believes an employer can
more readily determine if a driver is an
entry-level driver from the one-year
experience criteria than by counting
hours or miles driven, as suggested by
the Future Truckers of America, CVTA,
NEI, and Tri-State. The employer may
not have access to accurate information
on hours or miles driven by the driver.
The NPRM contained the requirement
that the driver ‘‘is regularly employed in
a job’’ to ensure that drivers have
adequate experience in order to qualify
for grandfathering. Upon further
reflection of the comments by CVSA
and AMSA, FMCSA has decided to
eliminate the grandfathering provision
from the final rule. However, the agency
still must specify who is a currently
employed entry-level driver for today’s
final rule.
Therefore, drivers that began driving
CMVs between 10 months before today’s
final rule and the effective date will be
considered currently employed entrylevel drivers subject to today’s final rule
and must obtain the training required by
this rule no later than 90 days after the
effective date of the rule. These drivers
are permitted to operate a CMV during
the 90-day period pending the
completion of training. A student entry-

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
level driver, an individual who will
begin operating a CMV in interstate
commerce after the effective date of this
final rule July 21, 2004, must receive the
minimum training required by this
action before driving a CMV. Thus, all
student drivers will be subject to this
rule after its effective date.
After the effective date, a driver or
potential driver having less than one
year experience operating a CMV for
which 49 CFR part 383 requires a CDL
must receive the training required by
this subpart before operating a CMV
defined in § 383.5 in interstate
commerce.
Entry-Level Driver Training Topics—
General
The training topics covered in the
proposal were driver qualification,
hours of service, driver wellness, and
whistleblower. In general, CVSA
believes that the listed training
requirements may have merit on their
own. However, it does not believe the
topics address all of the training areas
necessary for an entry-level driver.
CVSA suggests that a training program
for entry-level drivers should include a
minimum required number of hours of
training in parts 383, 391, 392, 393, 395,
and 396. CVSA also suggests that the
training program include skill training.
CVSA realizes ‘‘that some of these areas
may be covered while preparing for the
CDL tests, but if the objective is to
improve the safety of our highways,
reinforcing the safety regulations will
only do more to help us achieve our
goal.’’
FMCSA Response: CDL tests cover
driving skills and the driver-applicable
parts of 49 CFR parts 392, 393, and 396
of the FMCSRs. Part 392 is entitled
‘‘Driving of Commercial Motor
Vehicles.’’ Part 393 is entitled ‘‘Parts
and Accessories Necessary for Safe
Operation’’ and part 396 is entitled
‘‘Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance.’’
The Interstate Commerce Commission,
another predecessor agency of the
FMCSA, based each of these three parts
on ‘‘State motor vehicle laws and
regulations * * *’’ See the NPRM for
these parts of July 8, 1936 (1 FR 738).
Also, 49 CFR 383.111(a) requires each of
these parts be covered in the CDL
knowledge test.
The agency does not believe
mandating hours for training will
achieve the desired goal of the agency,
performance-based regulations. An
employer or training provider able to
train a potential driver in less time than
mandated may believe it must fill in
extra material that will be burdensome
to the driver and employer, but may not
raise the driver’s safety to any

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

measurable extent. The FMCSA has
included training in Parts 391 and 395
of the FMCSRs, because training in
these areas will be most beneficial to
entry-level drivers who will operate in
interstate commerce.
The agency believes today’s final rule
and the other FMCSA safety program
initiatives discussed elsewhere will
improve overall entry-level driver
safety. These include the agency’s
graduated licensing rulemaking, the
MCSAP program, its crash causation
study (which may assist in determining
the need for future driver training
topics), its new motor carrier entrant
program, and its active CDL fraud
program.
In addition, FMCSA notes that there
are other Federal requirements that
address security-related training, which
will benefit entry-level and other CMV
drivers. These include: (1) The Research
and Special Program Administration’s
security awareness and in-depth
security training requirements at 49 CFR
172.704; (2) the hazard communication
program training required by the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the Department of
Labor (29 CFR 1910.120 or 1910.1200)
and the Environmental Protection
Agency (40 CFR 311.1); and (3) LCV
training requirements in 49 CFR 380.201
through 380.205 published on March
30, 2004 (69 FR 16722). Although entrylevel personnel are not eligible to drive
LCVs, motor carriers that operate these
vehicles may well extend security
training to the rest of their driver
population.
These programs and requirements
will result in improved entry-level
driver highway safety in the CMV
industry and will help to improve the
safety of those seeking to drive CMVs in
the future.
Driver Qualification
The IBT supports the inclusion of
driver qualifications as a new training
topic. The IBT explains that on the issue
of driver qualifications, many drivers
are unfamiliar with or misunderstand
the medical qualifications required by
the FMCSA. This problem is
exacerbated by the fact that these
qualifications may change periodically.
For example, changes have recently
been made regarding cardiovascular and
diabetes requirements, and the
conditions of drivers themselves will
change over time. In this respect, the
IBT thinks entry-level drivers would
benefit from an explanation of the
requirements and the importance of
being aware of current requirements. In
fact, the IBT suggests that drivers would

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29391

also benefit from continuing training
and updates in this area.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA agrees
with the IBT that many drivers are
unfamiliar with or misunderstand the
required medical qualifications. The
agency published a final rule on October
5, 2000, in the Federal Register (65 FR
59363) which updated on one form the
instructions for performing and
recording physical examinations, the
medical examination report, the
instructions to the medical examiner,
the advisory criteria, and the medical
examiner’s certificate. The consolidated
form contains information on
cardiovascular conditions and diabetes
which should be included as part of a
training presentation on driver
qualification requirements. Drivers will
be better informed on medical
qualification requirements through a
combination of the revised medical form
and the training requirements in today’s
final rule.
The types of subjects employers
should cover include the following
medical topics: Loss of a limb;
impairment of a limb; diabetes mellitus
standard for drivers currently requiring
insulin for control; cardiovascular
disease standards for conditions known
to be accompanied by syncope,
dyspnea, collapse, or congestive cardiac
failure; respiratory dysfunction
standards; procedures for the clinical
diagnosis and treatment of high blood
pressure; standards for rheumatic,
orthopedic, muscular, neuromuscular,
or vascular disease; epilepsy standards
including conditions likely to cause loss
of consciousness; psychiatric disorders
including mental conditions which
affect the driver’s operation of the CMV,
vision standards, hearing standards, and
diagnosis of alcoholism as a disease;
alternative physical qualification
standards for the loss or impairment of
limbs; and vision and diabetes
exemption program requirements.
The following drivers must be
medically examined: new drivers,
drivers with expired medical cards, and
drivers whose ability to perform their
normal duties has been impaired by a
physical or mental injury or disease.
Additional types of subjects
employers should cover in driver
qualification should include the
following: A discussion of driver
qualification standards under § 391.11,
driver responsibilities under § 391.13,
and disqualifications based on various
offenses, orders, and loss of driving
privileges under § 391.15.
Hours of Service
The IBT strongly supports training in
hours-of-service regulation. Given the

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29392

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

recent changes to the regulation, IBT
agrees that drivers would benefit from
instruction on the requirements set forth
in the regulation. ABA recognizes that
hours of service of drivers is certainly
an important element of training for
entry-level drivers, but it believes that
fatigue management is an element of
basic hours-of-service training and
should not be treated as a separate item
or section for training purposes. The
NGWA believes training may already
exist for hours-of-service compliance.
They want to know whether FMCSA
will be adopting different rules and
application in this area, and if so, what
would it be.
FMCSA Response: The FMCSA has
shown that crashes occur as a result of
CMV driver error caused by inattention.
Inattention can be the result of driver
fatigue. Hours-of-service training should
teach fatigue prevention strategies and
the causes of fatigue. Hours-of-service
training will help the driver learn how
to maintain good sleep hygiene.
Training should include the new hoursof-service regulations for truck drivers.
Motor carriers began complying with
the new rule earlier this year.
The FMCSA agrees with the ABA that
fatigue management should be a part of
hours-of-service training. Today’s rule
lists fatigue management as one
example of what should be included in
hours-of-service training. The others
would include: the hours a driver is
allowed to drive and work each shift;
the mandatory off-duty times between
shift periods; record of duty status
preparation and filing; and exceptions
to the rules.
The FMCSA is unaware of the specific
HOS training that the NGWA references
in its comment. The NGWA, however,
may use any training it believes
complies with the intent of this final
rule to teach interstate CMV drivers how
to comply with the requirements of 49
CFR part 395.
Driver Wellness
Driver wellness is another entry-level
training topic. Most commenters are
strongly opposed to the addition of this
topic. Specifically, commenters
question how this topic falls under the
auspices of DOT and FMCSA.
Commenters argue that this topic
oversteps the agency’s bounds with
respect to individual driver privacy. For
example, CRMCA/CRPA states, ‘‘while
driver qualifications, hours of service,
and whistle blower protection are valid
areas of training, driver wellness,
including personal behavior of diet and
exercise, although important, is not
within the purview of the FMCSA.’’
NGWA asks, ‘‘On what legal grounds do

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

you [FMCSA] justify the invasion of
individual privacy to regulate
employees’ non-working time?’’ ABA
criticizes the addition of this training,
claiming that part 382 already mandates
drug/alcohol training. Requiring further
training in this area is repetitive and
costly with no additional benefit.
Training regarding the monitoring of
specific medical conditions is best left
to medical professionals.
The IBT supports the new training
and comments that driver wellness is a
very important issue to the IBT and its
members. The IBT believes that driver
welfare can be improved with training
and instruction on the health threats
faced by long-haul drivers, such as heart
disease and diabetes, as well as the
connection between those medical
conditions and the potential for
disqualification. The IBT explains that if
drivers more fully understand both the
health risks and the risk of job loss,
many preventable diseases could
potentially be avoided.
FMCSA Response: The agency’s
authority to require entry-level driver
training on driver wellness can be found
in 49 U.S.C. 31131, 31133, and 31136,
in addition to ISTEA Sec. 4007(a). Sec.
31131(b)(3) states that Congress finds
‘‘enhanced protection of the health of
CMV operators is in the public interest’’
and Sec. 31133(a) provides in relevant
parts that the agency may:
(8) Prescribe recordkeeping and
reporting requirements;
(9) Conduct or make contracts for
studies, development, testing,
evaluation, and training; and
(10) Perform other acts the Secretary
considers appropriate.
Sec. 31136 specifically requires that
the FMCSRs ensure that driving
conditions do not impair the driver’s
physical condition.
The agency agrees with the IBT that
driver welfare could be improved with
training and instruction in many areas,
including heart disease and diabetes.
The purpose of driver wellness training
is to provide medical information to the
driver so that the driver can make
informed life style choices. The agency
is not attempting to regulate a driver’s
off-duty activities. FMCSA respects the
fact that the driver may have his or her
personal idea on the meaning of
maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
Moreover, this training does not require
drivers to self disclose personal medical
information to anyone. Nonetheless,
FMCSA recognizes drivers who operate
CMVs cross country may be away from
their primary care providers a
substantial part of the year and can
benefit substantially from a heightened
understanding of driver wellness issues.

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Driver wellness topics could include
stress, sleep apnea, how to maintain
healthy blood cholesterol, blood
pressure, and weight, as well as the
importance of periodic health
monitoring and testing, diet, and
exercise. Many of these items could also
be combined with the driver
qualification training requirements that
require a doctor to inquire about and
test for numerous physical conditions.
Driver wellness, however, should
inform the driver what should be
considered on a daily and monthly basis
to maintain a healthy lifestyle. For
example, in discussing topics about
blood pressure, diet, and exercise, an
employer may want to address the
benefits of a healthy lifestyle, but also
mention that the medical qualification
requirements are written in terms of
minimum standards for safe driving,
including guidelines for blood pressure
and diabetes mellitus.
The current requirement in § 382.601
to provide a policy on the misuse of
alcohol and use of controlled substances
does duplicate the proposed
requirement in 380.503(a) to provide
training in Part 382 drug and alcohol
testing. Because training in drug and
alcohol testing is already required in
§ 382.601, the FMCSA has removed that
requirement from the required wellness
training in today’s final rule.
Whistleblower Protection
The last proposed entry-level training
topic was whistleblower protection.
Several commenters remark that there
are other methods for drivers to learn
about whistleblower protection besides
instituting new training. For example,
TCIA comments that training on this
subject already exists in one form or
another. Because the protection already
exists by statute, TCIA also believes it
is redundant to require that
documentation of this training be placed
in the driver qualification file. BrownLine, Inc. comments that a statement
read and signed during orientation
would accomplish the same goal as
training. ABA suggests that the
whistleblower provision does not
appear to fit into this rulemaking action.
The IBT, however, agrees that drivers
should be made aware that
whistleblower protections exist, and
also be made aware of the exact nature
and extent of the protections offered.
The NGWA believes training may
already exist for OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration)
compliance with whistleblower
protection. It wants to know whether
FMCSA will be adopting different rules
and application in this area, and if so,
what would it be.

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
FMCSA Response: The agency agrees
with the IBT that drivers should be
aware that whistleblower protection
exists, and also be made aware of the
exact nature and extent of the
protections offered. Training informs
the driver and other employees of the
right to question the safety practices of
an employer without the employee’s
risk of losing a job or being subject to
reprisals. The requirement allows an
employer to use existing training if it
meets the requirements of § 380.503.
The agency believes that a statement
read and signed by the employee may
not give the employee the complete
understanding that can come from
training. Acceptable alternatives include
training provided by a school and
exposure of the entry-level driver to a
professionally-prepared audio or video
covering the required topics.
The FMCSA is unaware of any
specific OSHA training that the NGWA
refers to in its comment, other than the
OSHA ‘‘Truck and Bus Poster’’ number
3113, available from OSHA. The
NGWA, however, may use any training
it believes complies with the intent of
this final rule to teach interstate CMV
drivers how to meet the whistleblower
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31105 and the
Department of Labor’s rules in 29 CFR
part 1978 about how to send in a
complaint blowing the whistle on a
violator.
Answers to Questions About Other
Training Areas
In the NPRM, FMCSA requested
comments about entry-level training in
other areas such as operation of fire
extinguishers. ATA responds that motor
carriers typically cover topics like fire
extinguisher training in their general
safety programs. Requiring such training
is not necessary. However, NGWA
supports fire extinguisher training.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees
with the ATA that many employers
already cover fire extinguisher training
in their general safety programs.
Therefore, FMCSA has not mandated
fire extinguisher training in this final
rule.
Responsibility To Conduct Training
NGWA asks, ‘‘Precisely what entity
will be considered appropriate to
conduct the training?’’ This commenter
asks whether the employer is required
to fund the training done by an outside
entity, or instead may conduct the
training. It also asks whether training
offered by other motor carrier outlets
would be sufficient to fulfill the
requirement.
TCIA considers it extremely
important that their member companies

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

have the ability to administer and
implement the training. TCIA states that
without this ability, this entire proposed
mandate will become extremely
cumbersome, and difficult to comply
with. Therefore, TCIA requests that the
authority to conduct the mandated
training be retained by the employer.
FMCSA Response: This final rule
allows the employer considerable
latitude in determining what entity can
provide the required training. Examples
include the employer, a training school,
or a class conducted by a consortium or
association of employers. The question
of who pays for the required training is
an employer/employee issue. FMCSA
has no ability to pay for training because
the Congress did not appropriate funds
for that purpose.
FMCSA believes most employers will
bear the training costs for currently
employed entry-level drivers. Most
entry-level drivers, however, will
probably bear most of the training costs
after October 18, 2004, because the
FMCSA believes most employers will
not hire a driver unless the entry-level
driver has had the training by a third
party training provider’s school.
Employer Recordkeeping
Responsibilities—General
Under the rule, several provisions
establish new recordkeeping
responsibilities for employers. For
example, employers must maintain a
proof of training certificate. CVSA asks:
What safeguards are available to prevent
the falsification of the training certifications?
How long are the third party training
providers required to maintain records on
their students? What is the reason for
requiring third party trainers to provide the
original and a copy to the driver? Why can
the driver not be responsible for making their
own copies?

FMCSA Response: The FMCSA has
made specific changes to clarify today’s
final rule. The first change ensures that
FMCSA places requirements only on
employers and drivers. Another change
is the training certificate now contains
the name, address, and telephone
number of the training provider. The
final rule has removed the proposal for
copies to be made by a specific entity
or person. Civil penalties are available
for violations of 49 CFR 390.35(b) and
(c). The employer may contact the
training provider if he or she has a
question about the authenticity of the
training certificate provided by the
driver. FMCSA considers the civil
penalties and the ability of the employer
to contact the training provider to be
sufficient safeguards against
falsification.

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29393

Third party training providers are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the agency.
Therefore, the training providers may
implement their own recordkeeping
requirements. The FMCSA has changed
the final rule to require employers to
ensure that drivers obtain a training
certificate if the driver meets the
requirements to obtain an original
certificate by a training provider.
Training Documents Should Follow
Driver
Daecher and ABA both comment that
training and the training certificate
should follow the driver. If a driver
completes training that meets the
minimum requirements specified by the
agency, he or she should not be required
to be retrained by a subsequent
employer. ABA explains that proper
documentation of previous training
should be provided to the new employer
and should be maintained in the
driver’s qualification file. A employer
may choose to retrain the driver at its
discretion.
FMCSA Response: Today’s final rule
allows a subsequent employer to accept
a copy of a training certificate from a
previous employer or other training
provider. The certificate or diploma
must then be maintained in the driver’s
personnel or qualification file. The rule
does not require the employer to retrain
a driver who has received the training
required by § 380.503 and who has a
training certificate meeting the
requirements of § 380.515.
Paperwork Burden/Recordkeeping
Four commenters address the
paperwork and recordkeeping
requirements in the proposed rule.
NRMCA agrees that the four training
subjects are valuable topics for entrylevel drivers, but believes that
‘‘requiring employers to record and file
documentation of training on these
subjects would only create more costs,
paperwork and administrative burdens
to employers in our industry.’’
Similarly, a commenter involved in
school bus transportation states that
time spent on recordkeeping interferes
with a company’s ability to perform its
duties.
NRMCA, PMAA, and CRMCA/CRPA
object to the proposed requirement that
training records be kept for three years
after the driver’s employment has
ended. These commenters cite the high
turnover rate in their industry and state
that this requirement would create a
burdensome amount of paperwork.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA is
requiring the employer to record and
file documentation of training on these
subjects so that the employer may

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29394

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

demonstrate that the employer’s entrylevel drivers received the required
training. The employers subject to this
rule already must have driver
qualification or personnel files to store
the documents required by §§ 382.401,
383.31, 383.33, 383.35, and 391.51.
Record retention is not new to
employers subject to the FMCSRs. For
example, the records required by
§ 382.401 are required to ‘‘be
maintained by the employer while the
individual performs the functions
which require the training and for two
years after ceasing to perform those
functions.’’ See § 382.401(b)(4). In
addition, the records required by
§ 391.51 are required to ‘‘be retained for
as long as a driver is employed by that
motor carrier and for three years
thereafter.’’ See § 391.51(c). However,
FMCSA has considered the comments of
NRMCA, PMAA, and CRMCA/CRPA
and its need to review records during a
compliance review at an employer’s
principal place of business. The FMCSA
believes it will only need the employers
to maintain training certificate records
for, at most, one year after the driver
leaves the employer’s operation.
Thus, FMCSA believes it is reasonable
to change the record retention period to
as long as the employer employs the
driver and for one year thereafter. This
will allow FMCSA to adequately enforce
the requirement.
Training Certificates
CVSA suggests two changes to make
the training certificate a more effective
document. First, the proposed
requirements should be stated as
‘‘requirements in accordance with
§ 380.503.’’ Second, CVSA suggests
adding the driver’s license number, the
e-mail address of the training provider,
and the date of issuance to the training
certificate.
FMCSA Response: Section 380.515
now requires the training certificate to
contain a statement that the driver has
completed the training in accordance
with § 380.503. The agency agrees that
the date of issuance of the training
certificate is important information to
include on the training certificate and
has added this requirement to the final
rule. The agency disagrees that the
driver license number should be added
to the training certificate because the
number may change if the driver
transfers his or her CDL to another State.
Likewise, the agency believes a training
provider’s email address is not
necessary on the training certificate
because it already contains the name,
address, and telephone number of the
training provider. The employer should
have sufficient information to contact

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

the training provider if he or she has a
question about the authenticity of the
training certificate. FMCSA believes it
should prescribe only the minimum
necessary to allow the employer to
check the entry-level driver has received
the training. The agency believes
training providers will put this
information on the form as a good
business practice.
Effective Date and Compliance Date
In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed to
make the final rule effective 60 days
after the date of publication in the
Federal Register and that employees
who do not qualify for grandfathering
must receive the required training
within 90 days of the effective date. The
CVSA, NGWA, NSTA, and McLane
believe that two months will be an
insufficient period of time to develop a
compliant training curriculum,
particularly if no new Model
Curriculum is issued by FMCSA on or
before the effective date of the rule.
NSTA believes it will take six months
to a year from the time the final rule is
published for it to develop high-quality
training materials and educate
instructors to deliver new training for
school bus drivers.
NSTA, NGWA, McLane, and TCA
state that requiring drivers who are not
grandfathered to receive the training
within 90 days would strain the
resources of many employers,
depending on the time of year and the
size and scope of the carrier’s
operations. These commenters request
at least six months within which to
comply with the training requirement.
TCIA requests that the grace period be
no less than 90 days, stating that ‘‘the
ninety day window to conduct,
document, and record the additional
training laid out in this proposal is an
absolute necessity.’’
Daecher believes that a 90-day period
is adequate for providing the required
training.
FMCSA Response: The agency
disagrees with TCIA, CVSA, NGWA,
NSTA, and McLane that employers need
more time to develop training materials.
The agency believes training materials
and courses on the four areas are
commercially available today.
Motorcoach and private contractor
school bus drivers are subject to the
same driver qualification file
requirements as truck drivers, and the
hours-of-service regulations for
motorcoach and school bus drivers did
not change earlier this year, as they did
for truck drivers. Thus, the training
commercial sources have developed for
HOS and driver qualification are already
available for the motorcoach industry

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

and will not need to be further
developed.
The agency also agrees with Daecher
that a 90-day period for providing the
training is adequate because only those
CMV drivers that began operating in
interstate commerce within the past 10
months are subject to training within
this 90-day grace period. An entry-level
driver that began driving CMVs in
interstate commerce 10 months before
today’s final rule will have one-year’s
experience on the effective date of this
rule, thereby subjecting the entry-level
driver to this rule’s training
requirement. Such a driver must be
trained within the 90-day grace period.
Other entry-level drivers that began
driving CMVs in interstate commerce
less than 10 months before today’s final
rule up to the effective date will also
have to have the training within the 90day grace period. A ‘‘student entry-level
driver’’ who will begin operating a CMV
in interstate commerce after the
effective date of this final rule July 21,
2004, must receive the minimum
training required by this action before
driving a CMV. Thus, all student drivers
will be subject to this rule after its
effective date.
Enforcement
Three commenters ask how FMCSA
plans to enforce the new requirements.
NSWMA is concerned about the
employer’s responsibility for
maintaining evidence of the training
content if its drivers obtain the required
training at a driver training school. The
commenter asks whether the carrier
must keep a copy of the training manual
from each training school.
CVSA comments that a roadside
enforcement officer would not have
access to any document that indicates
the driver is an entry-level driver. That
information would only be available
through a compliance review or safety
audit.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA is not
requiring the employer to keep a copy
of the training manual from each
training school. Agency field staff will
verify driver entry-level training by
reviewing the training certificate in the
employer’s possession during safety
compliance reviews and new entrant
safety audits of motor carrier records. In
addition, today’s final rule requirements
will be added to the checks the agency’s
staff already does for compliance with
hazardous material training
requirements required by the Research
and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA) under 49 CFR part 172, subpart
H (§§ 172.700 through 172.704) that are
similar in form to what today’s final rule
requires. RSPA requires employers to

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
check the content with the training
provider and documentation that each
person has received the training.
Economic Analysis
All of the nine commenters that
addressed the economic analysis raise
concerns about the estimated costs and
benefits in the NPRM and about the
methodology used in estimating those
costs and benefits.
Brown Line, Inc. says that mandated
training of all new entrants would create
an unnecessary burden on motor
carriers. TDI/CDI believes that
extending its training program hours
‘‘would cause severe economic stress to
trainees who are training usually away
from home, as well as taking care of
family.’’ NSWMA, C. R. England, Inc.,
TCIA, UMA, NGWA, and CVSA, all
raise questions about the methodology
used by FMCSA in estimating the costs
and benefits of the proposed rule.
NSWMA says that FMCSA appears to
have come up with numbers to meet a
predetermined outcome instead of using
data based on facts and science. ATA
questions how FMCSA plans to evaluate
the true impact of the regulation given
its estimate that 285 crashes would have
to be avoided each year for the rule to
be beneficial. C. R. England raises
numerous questions and concerns
related to the economic evaluation. It
questions what crash statistics were
evaluated, the sample size, number of
programs analyzed, how they were
selected, and how the crashes were
correlated with the training received. C.
R. England states that its average cost
per crash is at least 30 percent less than
FMCSA’s assumed cost.
C. R. England also questions the study
cited to support the return on
investment (ROI). England stated that
the study cited to support the ROI
(Schneider National, Inc.), indicated
that driver training reduced accidents
by 40 percent and used training specific
to hazardous driving conditions. It
believes this is not the type of training
FMCSA proposed and therefore the
study should not be used to support the
ROI for the proposal. It also states that
the ROI is based on the assumption that
implementing this rule would deter
between 285 and 315 truck-related
crashes each year, but that it was never
established that the type of training
being required has any direct effect on
these specific types of accidents. It
states that auditing costs were not
included in the ROI calculation.
C. R. England further states that if it
was able to eliminate all avoidable
crashes in a year it would only recover
8 to 13 percent of the cost of
implementing the proposed training and

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

that the funds expended could be used
more effectively in other ways to
prevent crashes.
UMA points out that because no
motorcoach driver schools exist, and
because only the largest motorcoach
companies have in-house driver training
programs, costs to its smaller members
would be high. UMA states that there
was a disconnect in the data used to
justify inclusion of the motorcoach
industry because that data included
transit crashes and it is FMCSA’s intent
to exempt transit buses from the
proposed rules.
TCIA says that because its member
drivers are trained arborists their
estimated hourly rate is much higher (in
the $20 to 25 range) than the rates used
by FMCSA, and further that TCIA
members were not even considered in
the NPRM’s cost estimates.
CVSA says that FMCSA’s hourly
estimates are woefully inadequate
because most training programs range
from two to nine weeks depending on
the category of training.
FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes
that clarifying language added to this
final rule will alleviate some of the
specific concerns and questions raised
by Brown Line, Inc., on mandating
training for all new entrants that would
create an unnecessary burden to
carriers. Additionally, FMCSA revised
its economic evaluation in developing
the final rule (changes are documented
in the section entitled, ‘‘Summary of
Costs and Benefits’’ elsewhere in this
document), and these changes, which
affected the total costs and threshold
analysis of the rule, should alleviate
some concerns. Brown Line, Inc. did not
offer specific examples or data on what
it deems to be an unnecessary burden
and as a result, FMCSA was unable to
review its evaluation or consider
specific changes in response. Likewise,
the agency was unable to review its
evaluation or consider specific changes
in response to TDI/CDI comments on
extended training program hours
causing severe economic stress to
trainees who are training away from
home. TDI/CDI provided no supporting
data or specific examples.
In response to CVSA’s comment that
FMCSA’s hourly estimates are woefully
inadequate because most training
programs range from two to nine weeks,
as well as TDI/CDI comments, FMCSA
has stated that it is not mandating a
specific number of training hours as part
of the final rule. The 10 hours of
additional training anticipated for entrylevel truck, motorcoach, and school bus
drivers, are estimates that were derived
for the purposes of estimating the
economic impacts. They were based on

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29395

guidelines established by the PTDI for
its instructors on the amount of time it
suggests should be dedicated to teach
this content and conversations with the
FMCSA CDL program staff. It is
conceivable that the actual time
required for an individual employer or
its trainer may vary according to
individual operating circumstances.
The FMCSA stated in its evaluation
that while ‘‘the impact of truck drivers’’
training is presumed to be positive,’’ it
also noted that ‘‘a few studies have
revealed ambiguous results’’ with regard
to the relationship between driver
training and safety. Many stakeholder
comments to the ANPRM stated or
implied that the relationship is positive,
and a number of case studies have
estimated a positive relationship.
However, given the ambiguity of past
research results, the FMCSA
approached the benefits analysis in
terms of the number of crashes the
proposed rule would have to deter to be
cost beneficial (or what is sometimes
referred to as ‘‘threshold analysis’’).
Responding to C. R. England’s
statement ‘‘that its average cost per
accident is at least 30 percent less than
FMCSA’s assumed cost,’’ and TCIA’s
assertion that ‘‘because its members’’
drivers are trained arborists their
estimated hourly rate is much higher (in
the $20–25 range) than the rates used by
FMCSA,’’ the agency’s preliminary
regulatory evaluation used average crash
cost statistics and wage rates taken from
national-level studies and/or data
sources. Specifically, the agency
obtained crash cost data from a study
entitled, ‘‘Costs of Large Truck- and
Bus-Involved Crashes,’’ developed for
FMCSA by Dr. Eduard Zaloshnja, Dr.
Ted Miller, and Rebecca Spicer, which
comprehensively estimated crash costs
as a function of the medical, emergency
services, property damage, lost
productivity and pain, suffering, and
quality of life-related costs associated
with large truck and bus crashes. The
Zaloshnja, Miller, and Spicer study
estimated these costs for all large truck
and bus crashes at a national level. In
its NPRM evaluation, FMCSA estimated
the anticipated impacts of its proposal
to society, which includes the affected
industry, state and local governments,
and the traveling public. Given this
focus, FMCSA usually initiates these
types of evaluations at the national
level, and generally uses, when
available, average wage, crash, and
crash cost statistics that represent the
industry and society as a whole. As
such, FMCSA is not able to estimate the
impacts of a rule to very small subsets
of the industry, such as a particular
carrier or a unique segment, and is

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29396

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

unlikely to use estimates provided by a
single organization in its calculations,
unless the agency is unable to locate
more nationally representative data.
FMCSA does not dispute that C. R.
England’s crash costs may be 30 percent
less than FMCSA’s national level
estimates or that TCIA’s average wage
rates may be higher than the industry as
a whole.
Responding to UMA’s statement that
there was a disconnect in the data used
to justify inclusion of the motorcoach
industry because that data included
transit crash data, again, FMCSA
generally uses national-level crash cost
estimates to evaluate the impacts of its
rules on society. The crash cost
estimates used in this evaluation are
aggregated averages, and are not useable
if FMCSA tries to exclude one particular
subset of the larger industry. As such,
the agency reports the average crash
costs for crashes involving large trucks.
Additionally, contrary to UMA’s belief
that the crash cost data were used to
justify the motorcoach industry’s
inclusion in the rule, the crash cost data
were simply used to estimate the level
at which the rule would become costbeneficial if implemented (based on the
average cost of a large truck crash).
FMCSA uses such an approach
(sometimes referred to as threshold
analysis) because of the above-noted
uncertainty with trying to estimate
specific, quantitative benefits of a
training-related rule. This approach
helps the reader and policy makers gain
a broader understanding of how likely
the rule is to be cost beneficial, given
the number of crashes motor carriers
would have to avoid. As noted above,
the agency included the ‘‘private sector’’
portion of the motorcoach industry in
its original training adequacy study, as
well as in the NPRM and in the final
rule, because the agency had interpreted
that Congress intended to include only
‘‘private sector efforts.’’
Regulatory Flexibility Act—Small
Business Concerns
The NGWA strongly disagrees with
agency statements that its NPRM
imposes a modest burden on small
entities because it largely proscribes the
actions of drivers rather than motor
carriers. NGWA states the small
business owner-operator is still the
person doing the paperwork. While that
individual is doing paperwork, he or
she cannot be working safely at the drill
site and creating revenue. Also, NGWA
cites FMCSA’s statement that there are
no current state or tribal regulations that
overlap with the proposal, asking ‘‘How
do you plan to ensure that if various
states and tribes adopt similar statutes,

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

they will be uniform with the federal
regulations—avoiding the likelihood of
misinterpretation by enforcement
officers?’
UMA states that FMCSA’s assumption
in its Regulatory Flexibility analysis that
only companies with six or fewer
drivers are to be considered small
businesses is in error. According to
UMA, the Small Business
Administration (SBA) considers
motorcoach companies to be small
based on the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) coding.
Under the NAICS codes (Subsector 485)
a motorcoach company is considered to
be a small business if its annual
revenues are $6 million or less. For
truck companies (Subsector 484) the
threshold is significantly higher at $21.5
million. The number of employees is
not used by the SBA in the
determination for small business ‘‘size.’’
According to UMA, if the SBA
definitions are incorporated into the
NPRM size determination, the universe
of businesses affected becomes much
greater. UMA and the SBA have
determined that as much as 95 percent
of the motorcoach industry meets the
SBA definition of ‘‘small business.’’
FMCSA Response: In reference to
NGWA comments about the inclusion of
employer paperwork costs, the FMCSA
did estimate the ‘‘opportunity cost’’ of
this rule to the driver (whether owneroperator or not). This is the cost of the
driver/owner-operator participating in
training, and thereby unable to use this
time to generate revenue for the
company. Traditional estimating
techniques for opportunity cost base
these on an hourly cost equal to the
driver’s wage rate. In the NPRM
analysis, the agency used a nationallevel average wage rate for truck and bus
drivers, including fringe benefits. The
wage data make no distinction between
those drivers who are owner-operators
and those drivers working for an
employer.
In response to the UMA comment,
‘‘FMCSA’s assumption in its Regulatory
Flexibility analysis that only companies
with 6 drivers or less are to be
considered small businesses is in error,’’
FMCSA has revised its regulatory
flexibility analysis to evaluate the
impact on companies by SBA’s
definition using annual revenue class.
FMCSA presents the results elsewhere
in today’s final rule under the heading
‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act.’’
The agency’s authority to promulgate
entry-level driver training requirements
can be found in 49 U.S.C. 31131, 31133,
and 31136, and Sec. 4007(a)(2) of
ISTEA. States do not have the authority
to preempt Federal safety regulation of

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

employers engaged in interstate
commerce. The agency recognizes the
right of Indian tribes to promulgate
training requirements for entry-level
drivers of their tribe while these drivers
are operating on Indian territory.
However, these tribal entry-level drivers
are subject to FMCSA jurisdiction if
they operate in interstate commerce.
Miscellaneous
CVSA suggests that the proposed
rules should be located in part 383,
which contains other CDL driver related
regulations. Locating these rules in a
new part 380 will create confusion for
both enforcement officials and industry,
according to CVSA. CVSA also suggests
correcting a typographical error in
§ 380.509 by changing ‘‘the employer or
potential employee’’ to ‘‘the employer or
potential employer.’’
FMCSA Response: FMCSA is
correcting the typographical error.
FMCSA, however, does not agree with
the CVSA’s comment about co-locating
the training requirements in 49 CFR part
383. The training requirements are
similar to the training requirements for
drivers of longer combination vehicles
that are located in 49 CFR part 380, and
the agency believes this part should
include all general driver training
requirements.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this
action is a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of E.O. 12866, and
is significant within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures
(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980;
44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979)
because of significant public interest in
the issues relating to CMV safety and
training of certain CMV drivers. The
final rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under
E.O. 12866.
The agency is adding § 380.500 to
specify when employers and drivers
must comply with this final rule. The
effective date cited in the DATES heading
at the top of this document is the date
that the final rule amendments affect the
current Code of Federal Regulations
published by the Government Printing
Office. Employers and drivers may
begin to comply with this final rule on
or before the effective date for this final
rule.
FMCSA is making the effective date
60 days after the date of publication in
the Federal Register. Drivers who first

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
began operating a CMV in interstate
commerce requiring a CDL between 10
months before today’s final rule and five
months after today’s final rule must
receive the training required no later
than the end of the five-month period.
The agency will be using the Federal
Register’s date calculation method and
the date may be slightly longer
depending upon whether a weekend or
Federal holiday occurs at the end of the
90-day period.
After the five-month period, a driver
or potential driver having less than one
year experience operating a CMV for
which 49 CFR part 383 requires a CDL,
must receive the training required by
this subpart before operating a CMV
defined in § 383.5 in interstate
commerce.
Section 380.500 is only necessary for
a limited period until all affected
employers learn about the new rule,
begin complying with it, and the 90-day
grace period have passed. Therefore, the
FMCSA has added language to the
DATES section that will only make this
section effective in the Code of Federal
Regulations temporarily from the
effective date through June 30, 2005.
After June 30, 2005, the Government
Printing Office will remove this section
from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Thus, the October 1, 2005, edition and
all subsequent editions of the Code of
Federal Regulations will not contain
§ 380.500.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Background
This final rule is required by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991. The FMCSA
proposed that entry-level commercial
drivers receive mandatory training in
the following content areas: driver
qualifications, hours of service of
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle
blower rights. This final rule will
require an applicant to complete entrylevel driver training that includes these
four content areas and furnish a copy of
the training certificate to the employer
in cases where someone other than the
employer provides the training. An
employer could not allow an entry-level
driver to operate a CMV on the public
road in interstate commerce unless the
driver has received the required training
and the employer receives the
documentation of training. The one
exception would be within the first
three months of the rule, when existing
drivers with 12 months of driving
experience within the industry would
be allowed 90 days from the effective
date to acquire the mandated training.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

The FMCSA has conducted a
regulatory evaluation of this final rule in
accordance with Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ The
FMCSA estimates today’s final rule to
cost $26 million in the first year of
implementation and $14 million
annually thereafter (undiscounted). The
higher costs in the first year are the
result of this rule’s impact on some
existing drivers (i.e., those with less
than 12 months of experience), who
must undertake the required training
within the first 90 days of the rule’s
implementation. Total discounted costs
of this rule are $121 million over 10
years. If the higher first-year costs are
spread out evenly over the 10-year
analysis period to achieve the same total
discounted cost of $121 million, the
average annual cost of the final rule is
$16 million (undiscounted). The
FMCSA derived this $16 million
average annual undiscounted cost
estimate so that it could estimate the
number of crashes that would have to be
avoided each year for the rule to be cost
beneficial (i.e., threshold analysis) and
for use in the small business impact, or
regulatory flexibility, analysis.
At an average cost per truck-related
crash of $79,873 (including fatal, bodily
injury, and property-damage-only
crashes) in 2002 dollars, this final rule
would have to prevent 201 truck-related
crashes in each year of the analysis
period to be cost-beneficial. For the
32,400 entry-level drivers that must
receive training in any given year, the
agency estimates this represents a 5percent reduction in the anticipated
crashes they would have had, if it
assumes their crash risk is roughly equal
to that of the industry average. Because
the crash risk profile of entry-level
drivers is likely to be significantly
higher than the overall driver
population (due to their lack of driving
experience relative to all other drivers),
it is reasonable to assume that less than
a 5-percent reduction in crashes by this
driver group would be required for this
rule to be cost-beneficial. The 201
crashes represent five one-hundredths
of one percent (or 0.05 percent) of the
average total number of truck-related
crashes reported annually (estimated at
445,000 in 1999 and 2000).
Analytical Revisions Between NPRM
and Final Rule Stages
FMCSA notes here that its estimates
of the costs associated with this rule
have been revised since the issuance of
the NPRM analysis. Specifically, while
its estimates of the first year costs are
higher ($26 million for the final rule
versus $25 million in the NPRM), the
total discounted costs associated with

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29397

the rule are lower ($121 million for the
final rule versus $173 million in the
NPRM). The increase in first-year costs
and decrease in total costs are due to
several revisions made to the analysis as
FMCSA obtained, or was presented
with, additional or new information
between the NPRM and final rule stages.
Regarding first-year costs, FMCSA
initially failed to include the first-year
costs associated with training existing
drivers with less than 12 months of
driving experience. Offsetting these
additional costs, the agency removed
the costs associated with training
existing drivers with 12 to 24 months of
experience previously affected by the
‘‘grandfather’’ clause as defined in the
NPRM. Because the final rule eliminates
this ‘‘grandfather’’ provision for drivers
with 12 to 24 months of interstate
commercial driving experience, FMCSA
removed these costs from the analysis.
Regarding total costs, the agency had
initially included in the analysis for the
NPRM, the cost of training entry-level
drivers operating both in interstate and
intrastate commerce. Because the final
rule specifies that only entry-level
drivers operating in interstate commerce
must comply with today’s final rule, the
agency adjusted downward its estimate
of the number of entry-level drivers who
must receive training under this final
rule. Additionally, the final rule makes
explicit that only non-governmental
sector entities are subject to these entrylevel training requirements, which
resulted in a significant downward
revision in the number of school bus
drivers affected, because the vast
majority work for local governments and
the vast majority of school bus trips are
intrastate in nature (i.e., home-to-school
and vice versa). This reduction in the
number of affected drivers reduced the
overall costs of the final rule.
Additionally, the initial analysis
included in the NPRM estimated the
training that would be required for
entry-level truck and motorcoach
drivers at 10.5 hours. Because the final
rule eliminated the instruction for
alcohol and controlled substances
testing, FMCSA reduced its estimate of
the average number of training hours
necessary to instruct entry-level drivers
in the four content areas by one-half
hour from 10.5 hours to 10 hours.
Finally, because the entry-level training
rule would apply only to school bus
drivers employed by non-governmental
entities (mostly contractors to local
educational agencies), FMCSA
increased the number of hours of
training required for these drivers from
4.5 hours to 10 hours.
FMCSA provides a summary of costs
in the next section. For a complete

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29398

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

discussion of the assumptions made,
data used, and analysis performed in
this regulatory evaluation, please refer
to the docket, where the agency has
placed a copy of the full regulatory
evaluation.
Costs
The largest cost component of this
rule is the cost to provide training to
entry-level operators of trucks, school
buses, and motorcoaches over 26,000
pounds GVWR. Training costs include
both the direct cost to train drivers and
the (opportunity) cost of drivers’ time.
The two key factors in estimating the
training costs are the number of drivers
who will need training and the training
hours they will have to undertake.
The FMCSA estimates that employers
or training entities will teach, on
average, 10 hours of coursework to
entry-level drivers of trucks, school
buses, and motorcoaches in the four
subject areas. FMCSA estimates the two
content areas of driver qualifications
and hours of service together would
consume about 5.5 hours of training
time (down from the 6 hours estimated
in the NPRM when alcohol and drug
testing training had been proposed). The
driver wellness training would also
consume about 4 hours, while FMCSA
estimates coursework on whistle blower
protection should consume about 30
minutes. FMCSA based the training
hours estimate for all drivers on
information provided in the instructor’s
guide for the Professional Truck Drivers
Institute’s (PTDI) accredited training
courses, the instructor’s guide for the
Model Curriculum for motorcoach
drivers, and discussions held with
FMCSA CDL program staff in the Office
of Safety Programs.
Using data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), the total number of
entry-level truck drivers entering the
industry is estimated at 58,600 per year
for the next 10 years, while the entrylevel drivers required for growth and
replacement for the school bus and
motorcoach industry are estimated at
17,800 and 2,100 per year, respectively,
also over the next 10 years. As is
discussed below, only a certain
percentage of these drivers must comply
with today’s final rule.
The BLS data make no distinction
between those drivers operating in
interstate commerce and those operating
in intrastate commerce. Because the
final rule specifies that its requirements
apply only to entry-level drivers
operating in interstate commerce,
FMCSA adjusted the above estimates
accordingly. Data obtained from the
Motor Carrier Management Information
System on the number of drivers

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

operating in interstate commerce for
FMCSA-regulated entities reveals that
78 percent of drivers were operating in
interstate commerce, while 22 percent
were operating in intrastate commerce.
This is surely an overestimate of the
number of drivers operating in interstate
commerce as a percent of total drivers,
because the MCMIS database only
contains information on motor carriers
required to register with FMCSA
(generally those operating large CMVs in
interstate commerce). Therefore, it does
not adequately represent the population
of motor carriers (and thus drivers)
operating solely in intrastate commerce.
Additionally, data from the 1997
Commodity Flow Survey indicate that
54 percent of shipments moved by forhire truck (as measured in tons) traveled
less than 50 miles (FMCSA presumes
most of these shipments would be
intrastate shipments). In the case of
shipments moved by private trucks
(again, as measured in tons), the
percentage that traveled less than 50
miles was 79 percent. Given the above
data, it is reasonable to assume that the
ratio of interstate carriers to the total
motor carrier population is closer to 50
percent, and that the breakdown of
interstate drivers relative to the total
driver population would also be closer
to 50 percent. However, in cases where
employers provide the training for their
entry-level drivers, the FMCSA believes
it is logical to assume that the motor
carrier would plan to train a greater
proportion of its entry-level drivers than
that necessary to meet the short-term
requirements of the regulation. Doing so
provides the carrier with greater
flexibility in scheduling freight and
passenger movements, should the
proportion of its interstate-based
shipments and charters suddenly
increase. At the same time, FMCSA
believes that these carriers are highly
unlikely to train 100 percent of their
entry-level drivers to operate in
interstate commerce if only half its
revenue is generated by such business,
because doing so would result in a sunk
cost with little potential ROI. As such,
FMCSA assumed in this analysis that on
average carriers would train 75 percent
of their entry-level truck and
motorcoach drivers, thereby allowing
them to operate in interstate commerce.
Also, in using the 75-percent
assumption, FMCSA ensures that it will
not underestimate the number of entrylevel truck and motorcoach drivers who
will receive training as a result of this
rule. With regard to whether the
employer actually provides the training
to entry-level drivers or the drivers
themselves fund the training makes

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

little difference from the perspective of
this economic evaluation, because such
costs represent transfers between one
industry party and another. The goal of
this regulatory evaluation is to estimate
the impacts to society as a result of the
rule’s implementation. The group of
industry participants to whom the costs
apply is of lesser immediate concern (at
least until the small business impact, or
regulatory flexibility, analysis is
performed). With regard to the training
costs associated with this rule, it is
likely that in some cases the employer
will provide the training for its existing
entry-level drivers and for those new
drivers entering its workforce each year,
whereas in other cases, employers might
expect that new drivers who wish to
work for them would have already
acquired such training. With regard to
owner-operators, they alone would most
likely incur the full cost of training,
given their dual roles as driver and
company owner.
In estimating the number of entrylevel school bus drivers affected by this
rule, our March 24, 2004 (69 FR 13803)
ANPRM withdrawal notice addressing
interstate school bus operations of local
educational agencies revealed that about
one third of school bus drivers worked
for non-governmental entities (or those
that would be subject to this rule).
However, not all of these drivers would
be expected to receive training that
would allow them to operate school
buses in interstate commerce, because
the number of non-home-to-school
interstate trips by local education
agencies represent less than 1 percent of
all school district trips. And, as was the
case with entry-level truck and
motorcoach drivers, FMCSA assumed
that a non-governmental employer
would train one and one-half times
more drivers than would be
immediately required by this final rule,
because this provides the employer with
short-term flexibility in its operations,
should the need for interstate school bus
trips increase suddenly.
Therefore, in examining the total
number of entry-level drivers
potentially affected by this rule in any
given year, FMCSA incorporates the
adjustments discussed above. For entrylevel truck drivers, a maximum of
43,950 (or 75 percent of 58,600) must
comply, although a further adjustment
is discussed below. For entry-level
motorcoach drivers, the number is 1,575
(75 percent of 2,100). And for entrylevel school bus drivers, the number is
85 (or one percent of the 32 percent of
17,800 entry-level drivers entering the
industry each year, multiplied by 1.5).
Regarding entry-level truck drivers, an
additional issue must be considered:

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
The number of entry-level truck drivers
who graduate from training courses that
already teach the content addressed
under this final rule. In this analysis,
FMCSA assumed that 30 percent of the
applicable entry-level heavy truck
drivers (or 13,185 of 43,950 total) would
not need any additional training, as they
are assumed to attend a PTDI or similar
accredited training program (i.e., PTDI
accredited courses already include these
content areas in their curriculum).
FMCSA bases this assumption on
information obtained regarding the
number of accredited programs as a
percent of total driver training
programs. For the remaining 70 percent
(or 30,765 entry-level truck drivers),
FMCSA assumed that the potential
drivers either receive training from a
non-accredited training program or they
receive informal training from the
employers. Therefore, this 70 percent of
entry-level truck drivers would require
approximately 10 hours of training per
driver on the four subject areas
mentioned above. The total hours of
training provided under the final rule
for the entry-level heavy truck drivers is
estimated at 307,650 hours per year. For
those drivers who already receive some
type of formal (yet non-accredited)
employer-or third-party training, it is
quite possible that employers (or thirdparty training providers) might reduce
the amount of training time spent on
other, non-required subject matter, so
that the net increase in training per
truck driver would be less than 10
hours. However, in the absence of
specific information on the types of
subject matter that training entities
might omit from these training programs
to offset the new training costs, FMCSA
assumed a net increase of 10 hours for
estimating the costs of this rule.
FMCSA assumes that the additional
hours of training for an entry-level
motorcoach driver would be 10 hours.
The instructor’s guide to the Model
Curriculum for training motorcoach
drivers includes 5 hours of logbook
training but only about an hour on
safety and wellness issues (including
topics such as the correct lifting of
heavy objects and identifying prohibited
cargo). The FMCSA does not have
information on the proportion of entrylevel motorcoach drivers following
training under the Model Curriculum.
Therefore, the FMCSA estimates that
1,575 entry-level drivers of
motorcoaches would require 10 hours of
training on driver qualifications, hours
of service for drivers, driver wellness,
and whistle blower protection for a total
of 15,750 hours of training per year.
Regarding entry-level school bus
drivers working for non-governmental

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

entities, this rulemaking will result in
10 hours of additional training for each
entry-level driver. Therefore, for the 85
entry-level school bus drivers affected
by this rule each year, FMCSA estimates
a total of 850 hours of training per year.
To be conservative, FMCSA used a
figure of $25 per hour of training in this
analysis to calculate the direct costs of
training (calculated via an average cost
of $4,000 per training course divided by
4 weeks divided by 40 hours per week).
This translates into $250 of direct
training costs for a 10-hour course. The
agency believes that this is a reasonable
estimate of the total hourly cost to train
drivers (whether or not the training is
provided by the employer or a third
party) because it falls well within the
range of training cost estimates provided
in comments to the ANPRM. In reality,
employer-based training could very well
be less than $25/hour in certain cases
(i.e., assuming new physical space is not
leased by the employer to conduct the
training, the training is self-directed by
the driver, and/or the training is
computer-based), but to be conservative
the agency used the same figure whether
the training was employer-or third
party-based so as not to underestimate
employer and/or driver costs. It is likely
that some employers (and third-party
providers) may take advantage of
computer-based (i.e., web-based, selfdirected) training to provide entry-level
drivers with the necessary instruction,
since such training is generally less
costly than more traditional classroomstyle training in cases where many
drivers must be trained. However, in the
absence of estimates on the percentage
of drivers that would likely utilize
computer-based training methods, we
assumed all would partake in more
traditional (classroom-style) methods to
obtain the necessary training.
To arrive at a truck driver’s wage rate,
FMCSA used a figure of $14.75 per
hour, which is an average from three
recent national wage/employment
surveys (including the Current
Population Survey). FMCSA added 31
percent to cover the cost of fringe
benefits, an estimate developed in the
Hours of Service of Drivers regulatory
evaluation. (It is a weighted average of
the fringe benefits for private and forhire carriers, based on data from the
ATA and the BLS.) The 31 percent
increase brings total compensation to
$19.32.
Regarding a motorcoach driver’s
wage, FMCSA used a figure of $9.98 per
hour obtained from the BLS 2001
National Occupational Employment and
Wage survey. This figure represents the
25th percentile wage estimate for an
entry-level motorcoach driver and the

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29399

agency used it because entry-level
drivers generally earn at the low range
of the industry wage standards. Again,
31 percent is added to cover the cost of
fringe benefits, resulting in a total
hourly wage estimate of $13.07 per
hour.
Regarding a school bus driver’s wage,
FMCSA used a figure of $7.67 per hour
obtained from the BLS 2001 National
Occupational Employment and Wage
survey. This figure represents the 25th
percentile wage estimate for an entrylevel school bus driver and the agency
used it because entry-level drivers
generally earn at the low range of the
industry wage standards. Again, 31
percent is added to cover the cost of
fringe benefits, resulting in a total
hourly wage estimate of $10.05 per
hour.
To get the total unit cost of training
per hour (i.e., including both direct
training costs and the drivers’ cost of
time), FMCSA added the relevant
estimate of the driver’s wage rate for
truck, school bus, and motorcoach
drivers to the average hourly cost of
training discussed earlier. For example,
for an entry-level truck driver, the unit
cost of training is $44.32 an hour
($19.32 of foregone driver wages plus
$25 in actual training costs). For entrylevel motorcoach drivers, it is $38.07
per hour ($13.07 of foregone driver
wages plus $25 in actual training costs)
and for entry-level school bus drivers,
FMCSA estimates the total training cost
at $35.05 per hour ($10.05 of foregone
driver wages plus $25 in actual training
costs).
Taking these hourly training costs for
each type of entry-level driver (based on
median wage rates and an average
hourly cost of training) and applying
them to the average 10 hours of training
for each type of driver and the number
of entry-level drivers in each category,
the agency developed an estimate of
total annual training costs of this rule.
To do so, FMCSA multiplied the
hours of training required for each type
of driver by the total number of drivers
in that driver group per year by the
applicable hourly wage rate to drivers in
each group (including direct wage and
costs of training). The result is an
annual training cost of $14 million (after
rounding) for the 32,400 entry-level
truck, motorcoach, and school bus
drivers affected by this rule.
Note however, that in the first year of
the rule’s implementation, currently
employed drivers with less than 12
months of driving experience will be
required to return for training in the
four content areas specified above.
Therefore, FMCSA expects an
additional 32,400 drivers with less than

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29400

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

12 months of driving experience to
return for training within 90 days of the
rule’s effective date. Because there is a
60-day period between today’s final rule
and its effective date, the percentage of
drivers with 11 to 12 months of driving
experience today (or 17 percent,
assuming an equal distribution of new
drivers each month) will become
exempt from the rule’s training
requirements upon its effective date.
Therefore, 27,000 entry-level drivers
with 10 months or less of driving
experience will be required to return for
training within the first year of this rule.
These 27,000 drivers represent 83
percent (or 10 of 12 months worth) of
the original 32,400 entry-level drivers in
the industry with less than 12 months
of driving experience. The cost to train
these 27,000 drivers is roughly $12
million in the first year (or 83 percent
of the $14 million required to train all
32,400 new drivers in the first year of
this rule). Note that in years 2 through
10 of the analysis period, the average
annual training costs are just $14
million (undiscounted), or the amount
required in training costs for 32,400 new
drivers entering the industry in that
year.
In addition to training costs for entrylevel drivers, FMCSA estimated recordkeeping costs for drivers or their
employers who must file and retain a
training certificate as proof that the
training occurred. FMCSA had no data
to determine what percentage of existing
certificates would meet today’s
requirements, so it assumed all
employers of entry-level drivers must
receive and store a training certificate.
The agency recognizes that in many
cases a new training certificate may not
have to be issued (if the existing
certificate contains the necessary
information regarding the supplemental
training required in the four content
areas discussed above). The Paperwork
Reduction Act analysis for this rule
estimates that the handling costs for
each driver-training certificate is 10
minutes per year. Using the average
hourly wage rates for new truck,
motorcoach, and school bus drivers
discussed above (including fringe
benefits), and dividing by 60, FMCSA
obtains a ‘‘per minute’’ wage rate with
which to estimate record-keeping costs.
To a per minute wage rate of $0.32,
$0.17, and $0.22 for entry-level truck,
school bus, and motorcoach drivers,
respectively, FMCSA multiplied 10
minutes of record-keeping costs per year
for the applicable 32,400 drivers
entering the industry each year (30,765
truck, 1,575 motorcoach, and 85 school
bus drivers). The result is an annual

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

record-keeping cost of roughly $100,000
(undiscounted, after rounding).
However, as was done for the training
costs, the record issuance and filing
costs of the rule will be 83 percent
higher in the first year, given that there
will be an additional 27,000 drivers
with 10 months or less of driving
experience for whom training
certificates will be issued in the first
year. (In addition to the 32,400 new
drivers for whom FMCSA assumed
employers or training entities must
issue training certificates.) As a result,
first-year record issuance and filing
costs will equal almost $200,000, and
annual record issuance and filing costs
thereafter will be roughly $100,000
(undiscounted). Additionally, FMCSA
expects that the record-keeping
requirement will be multi-year in
nature, because the final rule states that
employers must maintain training
certificate records for one year beyond
the date the driver’s employment ends
with an employer. For this analysis, the
agency assumed that employers would
maintain each driver’s training
certificate an average of three years. As
such, in years 2 through 10 of the
analysis period, annual record retention
costs of this final rule are roughly
$300,000. Regardless of whether the
agency assumed employers would retain
entry-level driver training certificates
two or three years as the average time,
the total discounted costs of this rule
did not change significantly.
The agency also estimated a marginal
cost to inspect these entry-level drivertraining certificates, which the agency
estimated would occur as part of a
motor carrier compliance review
(because no new auditing programs
were discussed in detail). However,
because in recent years compliance
reviews have been conducted on fewer
than two percent (or 10,000 of 650,000)
of all motor carriers in a given year, and
the time to review entry-level driver
training certificates would most likely
be less than one minute per record, the
additional costs associated with this
activity were so low that they did not
change the annual cost estimates after
rounding.
Total first-year costs associated with
this rule equal $26 million, with annual
costs in years 2 through 10 equal to $14
million (undiscounted). Total
discounted costs for this rule over the
10-year analysis period are $121
million.
Benefits
The total number of crashes
potentially avoided by the final rule (or
direct benefits) is difficult to quantify,
largely because of the variability in

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

study results about the impact of
training on CMV crash reduction. This
variability is most likely due to the wide
variation in quality of driver training
programs and the difficulty associated
with estimating statistically the
relationship between a single input
(training) and an outcome (safety) when
working with very large data sets.
However, several case studies reveal
that driver-training programs reduced
crashes by two to 40 percent. Because of
the relatively modest costs (estimated at
an annual average of $16 million
(undiscounted, after rounding), today’s
final rule would have to deter up to 201
truck-related crashes (fatal, injuryrelated, and property-damage-only
crashes combined) each year in order to
be cost beneficial (i.e., where the rule’s
benefits exceed its costs).
To develop the estimate of the
number of truck- and bus-related
crashes that must be avoided each year
for the rule to be cost beneficial, FMCSA
used crash cost estimates from a recent
study by Zaloshnja, et al., which
estimated the average cost of a crash
involving a large truck (i.e., those with
more than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight) at $79,873 (in 2002 dollars).
Dividing the average annual
undiscounted costs of the rule ($16
million) by this average cost per truckrelated crash ($79,873) allows us to
arrive at the cost-beneficial threshold of
201 annual crashes. To be costbeneficial, the rule must prevent 201
crashes by the 32,400 entry-level drivers
affected by its provisions each year. For
the 32,400 entry-level drivers FMCSA
estimates must comply in any given
year by this rule, this represents a 5percent reduction in their crashes if
FMCSA assumes their crash risk is
roughly equal to that of the industry
average. Because intuitively FMCSA
knows that the crash risk profile of
entry-level drivers is much higher than
that for the overall driver population (as
is the case with new versus experienced
employers), FMCSA would anticipate
that less than a 5-percent reduction in
crashes by this driver group would be
required for this rule to be costbeneficial.
Additionally, FMCSA anticipates that
the likely reduction in crashes may also
result in carriers having lower insurance
bills. The extent to which their
premiums would fall is unknown, as the
specific reduction in crashes is
unknown. Because of the level of
uncertainty, FMCSA did not attempt to
estimate this benefit. While a reduction
in insurance rates may be a benefit to a
carrier, it is not a social benefit. The
lower rates primarily reflect a
monetized value of the reduction in

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
crash costs. In other words, premiums
go down by the amount insurance
claims have fallen, so including this as
a benefit would be double counting. A
reduction in the real cost of
administering insurance would
constitute a real net benefit. However, it
is unlikely that any such reductions
would be substantial.
The 201 crashes that must be avoided
for the rule to be cost beneficial
represent five one-hundredths of one
percent (or 0.05 percent) of the average
total number of truck-related crashes
reported annually (estimated at 445,000
in 1999 and 2000).
A complete copy of the regulatory
evaluation is in the public docket.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the
agency has evaluated the effects of this
rulemaking on small entities. In
addition, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations
(or proposals) on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen
any adverse effects on these businesses.
The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
must cover the following topics.
(1) A description of the reasons why
the action by the agency is being
considered.
(2) A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
final rule.
(3) A description, and where feasible,
an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the final rule would
apply.
(4) A description of the projected
reporting, record-keeping, and other
compliance requirements of the final
rule, including an estimate of the classes
of small entities that will be subject to
the requirement and the types of
professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
(5) An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the final rule.
Reason the Action Is Being Considered
Section 4007(a)(2) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 directed the Secretary of
Transportation to undertake a
rulemaking on the need for training for
entry-level CMV drivers.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

Objective and Legal Basis for This
Action
The objective for this action is to
reduce the number of crashes caused by
entry-level CMV drivers. Congress was
specifically concerned about the
number of crashes caused by inadequate
driver training, and believes that better
training will reduce these types of
crashes. As noted above, the legal basis
for this rule is section 4007(a)(2) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991.
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Action Applies
This action applies to those small
entities regulated by the FMCSA that
hire entry-level truck, school bus, and
motorcoach drivers. It is difficult to
determine exactly how many small
employers will be affected by this final
rule, because it is not known year-toyear how many small employers on
average would be likely to hire an entrylevel driver. However, as of June 2003,
there were 650,000 motor carriers on the
FMCSA’s Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS) census
file. This includes both for-hire and
private motor carriers. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) defines
small businesses in the motor carrier
industry based on thresholds for average
annual revenues, below which SBA
considers a motor carrier small. For
trucking companies, the threshold is
$21.5 million in annual sales, while for
the motorcoach and related industries
the threshold is $6 million in annual
sales. Data from the 1997 Economic
Census (U.S. Census Bureau), North
American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) Code 4841, ‘‘General
Freight Trucking,’’ indicates that 99
percent of ‘‘general freight’’ trucking
firms had less than $25 million in
annual sales in 1997 (which most
closely corresponds to the SBA
threshold of $21.5 million for motor
carriers). In the case of passenger (or
motorcoach) carriers, the 1997
Economic Census NAICS Code 4855,
‘‘Charter Bus Industry,’’ indicates that
94 percent of charter bus firms had less
than $5 million in annual sales in 1997
(which most closely corresponds to the
SBA threshold of $6 million for
passenger carriers). In the case of school
bus service, the 1997 Economic Census

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29401

NAICS Code 485410, ‘‘School Bus
Service,’’ indicates that 96 percent of
school bus service firms had less than
$5 million in annual sales in 1997
(which most closely corresponds to the
SBA threshold of $6 million for this
group of carriers).
Because the FMCSA does not have
annual sales data on private carriers, it
assumes the revenue and operational
characteristics of the private trucking
firms are generally similar to those of
the for-hire motor carriers. Regardless of
which of the above percentages is used
(99, 94, or 96 percent), FMCSA
estimates that over 600,000 of the
approximately 650,000 total motor
carriers in the MCMIS Census File meet
the definition of small businesses.
Recall that the agency estimated that
employers would hire 32,400 entry-level
drivers affected by this rule each year on
average by the motor carrier industry.
Also recall that total discounted
compliance costs of this final rule were
estimated at $121 million over the 10year analysis period (2004–2013), or an
average annual cost of $16 million
(undiscounted) in compliance costs.
The FMCSA divided the average annual
cost of $16 million by the 32,400 entrylevel drivers affected by the rule each
year, and arrived at an average
compliance cost of less than $500 per
driver, whether the cost is incurred by
drivers who are owner-operators or by
the employer providing the training for
each of its entry-level drivers). As stated
above, FMCSA does not know how
many small firms would be hiring one
or more of these entry-level drivers in
any given year, although with 87
percent of the industry employing six or
fewer drivers, it is reasonable to assume
that any single small trucking company
would be hiring no more than two
drivers per year on average. As such,
each small carrier (whether an employer
or owner-operator) would incur, on
average, between $500 and $1000 in
compliance costs per year to hire at
most two entry-level drivers affected by
this rule.
Data from the 1997 Economic Census,
NAICS Code 4841 (General Freight
Trucking), NAICS Code 4855 (Charter
Bus Industry), and NAICS Code
4854101 (School Bus Service), are
contained in the following three tables.

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29402

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUES OF SMALL TRUCKING FIRMS
[NAICS Code 4841, General Freight Trucking]

Revenue size

Number of firms
(percent of
segment total)

Average annual
revenues
per firm
(millions)

Compliance costs
($1000)
as percent of
annual revenues
per firm

Less than $25 million .................................................................................................

*27,609

1.33

0.08

*99 percent of segment total.

TABLE 2.—AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUES OF SMALL PASSENGER CARRIERS
[NAICS Code 4855, Charter Bus Industry]

Revenue size

Number of firms
(percent of
segment total)

Average annual
revenues
per firm
(millions)

Compliance costs
($1000)
as percent of
annual revenues
per firm

Less than $5 million ...................................................................................................

*1,022

0.98

0.10

*94 percent of segment total.

TABLE 3.—AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUES OF SMALL PASSENGER FIRMS
[NAICS Code 4854101, School Bus Service]

Revenue size

Number of firms
(percent of
segment total)

Average annual
revenues
per firm
(millions)

Compliance costs
($1000)
as percent of
annual revenues
per firm

Less than $5 million ...................................................................................................

*2,397

0.60

0.17

*96 percent of segment total.

One criterion used by SBA to define
a ‘‘significant’’ economic impact to
small businesses is the impact on the
revenues of entities within a particular
sector. According to the SBA guidance
‘‘The Regulatory Flexibility Act: an
Implementation Guide for Federal
Agencies,’’ The Office of Advocacy, U.S.
Small Business Administration, May
2003, http://www.sba.gov/advo/laws/
rfaguide.pdf, ‘‘if the cost of a proposed
regulation exceeds one percent of the
gross revenues of the entities in a
particular sector’’ then the regulation
should be considered significant. The
impact of this regulation on the average
annual revenues of small firms in the
general freight trucking, charter bus, and
school bus industries is far less than one
percent per year in all cases (0.08, 0.10,
and 0.17 percent, respectively).
Therefore, FMCSA certifies that this
regulation will not have a significant
impact on the small businesses subject
to today’s final rule.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Final
Rule
This action imposes some relatively
minor record-keeping requirements on
employers. The primary employer
requirement is to verify drivers’

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

eligibility before allowing them to
operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
In addition, employers must maintain a
copy of the entry-level driver’s training
certificate in the driver’s personnel or
qualification file. Employers are
currently required to maintain a
personnel or qualification file for each
driver, as outlined in § 391.51 of the
FMCSRs. No special skills are required
to verify eligibility to operate a CMV or
to place a driver’s training certificate in
a personnel or qualification file.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting
Federal Rules
The FMCSA is not aware of any other
rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with today’s final rule.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 requires each agency to assess
the effects of its regulatory actions on
State, local, tribal governments, and the
private sector. This rule does not
impose an unfunded Federal mandate
resulting in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector of $100
million, adjusted for inflation, or more
in any one year. (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. It has been determined that this
rulemaking does not have a substantial
direct effect on States, nor would it limit
the policy-making discretion of the
States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor or
require through regulations. An analysis
of this proposal was made by the
FMCSA, and it has been determined
that the final rule, when promulgated,
would create a new collection of
information requiring OMB’s approval.
This PRA section addresses the
information collection burden for
activities associated with training and
certifying entry-level drivers.
Today’s final rule defines an ‘‘entrylevel driver’’ as a person with less than
one-year’s experience operating a CMV
as defined by § 383.5 for any employer
in interstate commerce from a period

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
that begins on July 20, 2003, and
thereafter. Entry-level drivers fall into
two categories—currently employed and
student entry-level drivers—that must
be trained in driver qualification, hoursof-service, driver wellness and whistle
blower protection requirements before
operating a CMV.
A ‘‘currently employed entry-level
driver’’ is an individual who began
operating a CMV in interstate commerce
for any employer one year before the
effective date of today’s rule. Such a
currently employed entry-level driver
with up to one-year’s worth of
experience must obtain the basic
training required by this rule no later
than October 18, 2004, or 90 days after
the effective date of this final rule. The
FMCSA is permitting such drivers to
operate a CMV during this 90-day
delayed compliance period pending
completion of the required training and
certification. The rule will permit the
motor carriers to train the currently
employed entry-level drivers in shifts so
that the employer does not have to cease
interstate operations pending the
completion of training. After the 90th
day, October 18, 2004, all currently
employed entry-level drivers must have
received the required training before
operating a CMV. Thus, after the 90-day
delayed compliance period, there will
be no more currently employed drivers
subject to this rule.
A ‘‘student entry-level driver’’ is an
individual who will begin operating a
CMV in interstate commerce after the
effective date of this final rule July 21,
2004, and must receive the minimum
training required by this action before
driving a CMV. Thus, all student drivers
will be subject to this rule after its
effective date.
Upon completing the required
minimum training for both currently
employed and student entry-level
drivers, the employer will give each
entry-level driver it trains, or ensure the
training provider gives each entry-level
driver, a copy of the training certificate.
Each employer that uses an entry-level
driver that has been trained by a
training provider other than the
employer must obtain a copy of the
training certificate from the driver or
training provider. The employer must
also retain and keep a copy of the
training certificate in the entry-level
driver’s personnel file or qualification
file so the employer can prove to the
FMCSA that the driver has received the
required minimum training.
The FMCSA estimates there are about
32,425 currently employed drivers 1
1 This 32,425 estimate for currently employed
entry-level drivers consists of 30,765 student truck

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

who need to be trained during the first
90 days after the rule is implemented.
The agency also estimates there would
be an annual burden to the motor carrier
or other training entity to complete,
photocopy, and file the training
certification form for the currently
employed entry-level driver that has
been trained to operate a CMV. FMCSA
estimates that this first-year information
collection activity will take 10 minutes,
resulting in an annual burden of 5,404
burden hours [32,425 (30,765 truck
drivers plus 1,575 motorcoach drivers
plus 85 school bus drivers equals
32,425) times 10 minutes per motor
carrier/training entity/60 minutes equals
5,404]. There will be no information
collection burden for currently
employed entry-level drivers in
subsequent years. This final rule
provides for no grandfathered or exempt
drivers.
FMCSA estimates that in the first year
and subsequent years, 32,425 student
entry-level drivers 2 will need the
minimum training required by this final
rule. There would be an annual burden
to the motor carrier or other training
entity to complete, photocopy and file
the certification form for these student
entry-level drivers. FMCSA estimates
that this information collection activity
will take 10 minutes, resulting in a first
year annual burden of 5,404 burden
hours [32,425 (30,765 truck drivers plus
1,575 motorcoach drivers plus 85 school
bus drivers equals 32,425) times 10
minutes per motor carrier/training
entity/60 minutes equals 5,404]; and in
subsequent years of 5,404 burden hours
[32,425 (30,765 truck drivers plus 1,575
motorcoach drivers plus 85 school bus
drivers equals 32,425) × 10 minutes per
motor carrier/training entity/60 minutes
equals 5,404].
Thus, the total first-year information
collection burden associated with this
final rule, when promulgated, is
estimated to be 10,808 burden hours
[5,404 burden hours for currently
employed entry-level drivers plus 5,404
burden hours for student entry-level
drivers equals 10,808 hours]. In
subsequent years, there would be no
information collection burden
associated with currently employed
entry-level drivers; and the burden
would drop as it relates to student
entry-level drivers to 5,404 burden
hours.
OMB Control Number: 2126–NEW.
drivers, 1,575 student motorcoach drivers and 85
student school bus drivers.
2 FMCSA’s 32,425 estimate for student entry-level
driver estimate consists of 30,765 student truck
drivers, 1,575 student motorcoach drivers and 85
student school bus drivers.

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29403

Title: Training Certification for Entry
Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators.
Respondents: First year 64,850;
subsequent years 32,425.
Estimated Annual Hour Burden for
the Information Collection: First year
10,808 hours; and subsequent years
5,404 hours.
Interested parties are invited to send
comments regarding any aspect of these
information collection requirements,
including, but not limited to: (1)
Whether the collection of information is
necessary for the performance of the
functions of the FMCSA, including
whether the information has practical
utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the collected
information, and (4) ways to minimize
the collection burden without reducing
the quality of the information collected.
If you submit copies of your
comments to the Office of Management
and Budget concerning the information
collection requirements of this
document, your comments to OMB will
be most useful if received at OMB by
June 21, 2004. You should mail, hand
deliver, or fax a copy of your comments
to: Attention: Desk Officer for the
Department of Transportation, Docket
Library, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503, fax: (202) 395–6566.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agency analyzed this final rule for
the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental
procedures Order 5610.1, issued March
1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action is
categorically excluded (CE) under
Appendix 2, paragraph 6.d. of the Order
from further environmental
documentation. That CE relates to
establishing regulations and actions
taken pursuant to the regulations
concerning the training, qualifying,
licensing, certifying, and managing of
personnel. In addition, the agency
believes that this action includes no
extraordinary circumstances that would
have any effect on the quality of the
environment. Thus, the action does not
require an environmental assessment or
an environmental impact statement.
We have also analyzed this rule under
the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA),
section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.),
and implementing regulations
promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency. Approval of this
action is exempt from the CAA’s

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

29404

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

General conformity requirement since it
involves policy development and civil
enforcement activities, such as,
investigations, inspections,
examinations, and the training of law
enforcement personnel. See 40 CFR
93.153(c)(2). It will not result in any
emissions increase nor will it have any
potential to result in emissions that are
above the general conformity rule’s de
minimis emission threshold levels.
Moreover, it is reasonably foreseeable
that the rule will not increase total CMV
mileage, change the time of day when,
or how, CMVs operate, the routing of
CMVs, or the CMV fleet-mix of motor
carriers. This action merely establishes
standards for minimum training
requirements for entry-level operators of
CMVs.

create disproportionate environmental
health risks or safety risks to children.

Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)

§ 380.500 Compliance date for training
requirements for entry-level drivers.

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

Executive Order 12372
(Intergovernmental Review)

The agency evaluated the
environmental effects of the proposed
action and alternatives in accordance
with Executive Order 12898 and
determined that there are no
environmental justice issues associated
with this rule. Environmental justice
issues would be raised if there were a
‘‘disproportionate’’ and ‘‘high and
adverse impact’’ on minority or lowincome populations. The agency
determined that there are no high and
adverse impacts associated with the
final rule. In addition, the agency
analyzed the demographic makeup of
the trucking industry, potentially
affected, and determined that there will
be no disproportionate impact on
minority or low-income populations.
This is based on the finding that lowincome and minority populations are
generally underrepresented in the CMV
driver occupations.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)
Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (April 23, 1997,
62 FR 19885), requires that agencies
issuing ‘‘economically significant’’ rules
that also concern an environmental
health or safety risk, or that an agency
has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, must
include an evaluation of these effects on
children. Section 5 of Executive Order
13045 directs an agency to submit for a
‘‘covered regulatory action’’ an
evaluation of its environmental health
or safety effects on children. The agency
evaluated the possible effects of the
action and determined that it will not

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

This action meets applicable
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
burden.
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
Private Property)
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under E. O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Program Number of 20.217,
Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372
regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and
activities do not apply to this program.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380
Driver training, Instructor
requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble,
FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III,
subchapter B, part 380 (added at 69 FR
16732, March 30, 2004, and effective
June 1, 2004) as set forth below:

■

PART 380—SPECIAL TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for this part
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31307,
and 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) of Pub. L.
102–240 (105 Stat. 2151–2152); and 49 CFR
1.73.

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

■

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

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

(a) Employers must ensure that each
entry-level driver has received the
training required by this subpart no later
than July 20, 2004, except as provided
in paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Each employer must ensure that
each entry-level driver who first began
operating a CMV in interstate commerce
requiring a CDL between July 20, 2003,
and October 18, 2004, has had the
required training no later than October
18, 2004.
§ 380.501

Applicability.

All entry-level drivers who drive in
interstate commerce and are subject to
the CDL requirements of part 383 of this
chapter must comply with the rules of
this subpart, except drivers who are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Transit Administration or who are
otherwise exempt under § 390.3(f) of
this subchapter.
§ 380.502

Definitions.

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

Entry-level driver training must
include instruction addressing the
following four areas:
(a) Driver qualification requirements.
The Federal rules on medical
certification, medical examination
procedures, general qualifications,
responsibilities, and disqualifications
based on various offenses, orders, and
loss of driving privileges (part 391,
subparts B and E of this subchapter).
(b) Hours of service of drivers. The
limitations on driving hours, the
requirement to be off-duty for certain
periods of time, record of duty status
preparation, and exceptions (part 395 of
this subchapter). Fatigue
countermeasures as a means to avoid
crashes.
(c) Driver wellness. Basic health
maintenance including diet and

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 99 / Friday, May 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations
exercise. The importance of avoiding
excessive use of alcohol.
(d) Whistleblower protection. The
right of an employee to question the
safety practices of an employer without
the employee’s risk of losing a job or
being subject to reprisals simply for
stating a safety concern (29 CFR part
1978).

(c) All records required by this
subpart shall be maintained as required
by § 390.31 of this subchapter and shall
be made available for inspection at the
employer’s principal place of business
within two business days after a request
has been made by an authorized
representative of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration.

§ 380.505

§ 380.511 Employer recordkeeping
responsibilities.

Proof of training.

An employer who uses an entry-level
driver must ensure the driver has
received a training certificate containing
all the information contained in
§ 380.513 from the training provider.
§ 380.507

Driver responsibilities.

Each entry-level driver must receive
training required by § 380.503.
§ 380.509

Employer responsibilities.

(a) Each employer must ensure each
entry-level driver who first began
operating a CMV requiring a CDL in
interstate commerce after July 20, 2003,
receives training required by § 380.503.
(b) Each employer must place a copy
of the driver’s training certificate in the
driver’s personnel or qualification file.

VerDate jul<14>2003

17:18 May 20, 2004

Jkt 203001

The employer must keep the records
specified in § 380.505 for as long as the
employer employs the driver and for
one year thereafter.
§ 380.513 Required information on the
training certificate.

The training provider must provide a
training certificate or diploma to the
entry-level driver. If an employer is the
training provider, the employer must
provide a training certificate or diploma
to the entry-level driver. The certificate
or diploma must contain the following
seven items of information:
(a) Date of certificate issuance.
(b) Name of training provider.

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4700

29405

(c) Mailing address of training
provider.
(d) Name of driver.
(e) A statement that the driver has
completed training in driver
qualification requirements, hours of
service of drivers, driver wellness, and
whistle blower protection requirements
substantially in accordance with the
following sentence:
I certify lllllhas completed training
requirements set forth in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations for entry-level
driver training in accordance with 49 CFR
380.503.

(f) The printed name of the person
attesting that the driver has received the
required training.
(g) The signature of the person
attesting that the driver has received the
required training.
Issued on: May 17, 2004.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 04–11475 Filed 5–20–04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\21MYR2.SGM

21MYR2