Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators, 57585-57587 [2013-22772]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
In this supplemental proposal, EPA
proposes to approve Delaware’s MVEBs
for 2009 (Table 1) and also proposes to
approve Delaware’s MVEBs for 2012
(Table 2) which Delaware had requested
EPA to approve in its April 25, 2012 SIP
submission. A supplemental TSD, dated
August 26, 2013, discusses EPA’s
analysis and support for this proposal
approving Delaware’s MVEBs for 2009
and 2012 and is available on line at
www.regulations.gov, Docket No. EPA–
R03–OAR–2010–0141.
Accordingly, EPA continues to
believe that the MVEBs for 2009 meet
applicable requirements for such
budgets for purposes of the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS and asserts the MVEBs
for 2012 likewise meet applicable
requirements for budgets for
transportation conformity purposes for
New Castle County in Delaware. As a
result of EPA’s finding, New Castle
County must use the MVEBs from the
April 25, 2012 SIP submittal for future
conformity determinations for the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
IV. Summary of Reproposal
Based on the foregoing reasons, EPA
proposes to approve the Delaware
attainment plan submitted for the
Philadelphia Area. EPA believes that the
attainment plan submitted by Delaware
for the Philadelphia Area, though not
expressed in terms of subpart 4
requirements, substantively meets the
requirements of that subpart for
purposes of approval under section
110(k). EPA is also updating
information related to EPA’s proposed
approval of the MVEBs for New Castle
County, Delaware, solely for purposes of
transportation conformity for this Area.
EPA solicits comments on this
supplemental proposal, but only with
respect to the specific issues raised in
this rulemaking action. EPA is not
seeking comment on any other aspect of
the November 19, 2012 NPR as those
issues have already been adequately
addressed. The purpose of this
supplemental proposal is limited to
review of the attainment plan submitted
by Delaware for the Philadelphia Area
in light of the D.C. Circuit Court’s
decision in NRDC v. EPA, EPA’s further
evaluation of Delaware’s submitted
attainment plan, and EPA’s desire for
public input into how it should proceed
in light of the NRDC v. EPA decision
when acting on the pending attainment
plan for this Area for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this supplemental
proposed rule pertaining to the
Delaware 1997 annual PM2.5 attainment
plan for the Philadelphia Area, does not
have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57585
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 12, 2013.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2013–22829 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
[FMCSA–2007–27748]
RIN 2126–AB06
Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
AGENCY:
FMCSA withdraws its
December 26, 2007, notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed new
entry-level driver training standards for
individuals applying for a commercial
driver’s license (CDL) to operate
commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The Agency
withdraws the 2007 proposal because
commenters to the NPRM, and
participants in the Agency’s public
listening sessions in 2013, raised
substantive issues which have led the
Agency to conclude that it would be
inappropriate to move forward with a
final rule based on the proposal. In
addition, since the NPRM was
published, FMCSA received statutory
direction on the issue of entry level
driver training (ELDT) from Congress
via the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP–21)
reauthorization legislation. Finally, the
Agency tasked its Motor Carrier Safety
Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to
provide ideas the Agency should
consider in implementing the MAP–21
requirements. In consideration of the
above, the Agency has concluded that a
new rulemaking should be initiated in
lieu of completing the 2007 rulemaking.
DATES: The NPRM ‘‘Minimum Training
Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,’’
RIN 2126–AB06, published on
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
57586
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
December 26, 2007 (72 FR 73226), is
withdrawn on September 19, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this Notice of
withdrawal, contact Mr. Richard
Clemente, Transportation Specialist,
FMCSA, Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, (202) 366–4325, MCPSD@
dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background/General Issues Raised
During Comment Period and Listening
Sessions
After the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals remanded the May 21, 2004
final rule, titled ‘‘Minimum Training
Requirements for Entry Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators’’
(69 FR 29384), to the Agency for further
consideration, FMCSA published an
NPRM on December 26, 2007, entitled
‘‘Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators’’ (72 FR 73226). The Agency
received more than 700 comments to its
proposal. Additionally, on January 7,
2013, and March 22, 2013, FMCSA held
listening sessions on ELDT. While most
commenters expressed support for the
ELDT ‘‘concept,’’ they had divergent
views on several of the proposed rule’s
key provisions.
Hours-Based vs. Performance-Based
Driver Training
Several industry organizations
expressed opposition to the proposed
mandate of a specific minimum number
of training hours. Instead, these
commenters support a performancebased approach to training that would
allow an individual to move through the
training program at his/her own pace.
Essentially, a driver who demonstrated
mastery of one skill would be able to
move to the next skill. The driver would
not have to repeat continually or
practice a skill for a prescribed amount
of time—2 hours, for example—if the
driver could master the skill in 20
minutes.
Other commenters, however, did
support a minimum hours-based
approach to training. They stated that
FMCSA must specify the minimum
number of instructional hours in order
to be consistent with the original Model
Curriculum of the 1980s.1 Additionally,
some supporters of an hours-based
training approach believed that the
Agency’s proposal did not involve
sufficient hours (particularly behindthe-wheel hours) to train a driver
adequately. Finally, other commenters
1 In 1985, FHWA issued the ‘‘Model Curriculum
for Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers’’ (1985, GPO
Stock No. 050–001–00293–1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
suggested a hybrid of the hours-based
and performance-based approaches.
Several commenters asserted that by
establishing a minimum number of
hours required for training, the Agency
would create a Federal standard that
would eliminate certain Federal loan
options otherwise available to students
enrolled in driver training programs.
They claimed that the U.S. Department
of Education (ED) would refuse to
authorize Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL) or Direct Loan funding to
programs more than 50 percent longer
than the minimum 120- or 90-hour
programs for Class A and B/C CDL
applicants proposed by the FMCSA.
However, commenters contended
further that if courses were to be capped
at 180 or 135 hours—50 percent longer
than the Agency’s proposed Class A or
B/C programs—to comply with one
aspect of ED’s regulations, they would
then fail to meet the 300-hour minimum
required to be eligible for FFEL and
Direct Loan funding. One individual at
a listening session disputed this claim.
He said it was a misconception that
training schools would not offer longer
courses if drivers could not qualify for
Title IV student funding.
Accreditation
The NPRM proposed to require that
all commercial driver-training schools
be accredited by an agency recognized
by either ED or the Council on Higher
Education Accreditation. Most
commenters opposed the accreditation
process because they claimed it is a long
and costly process that would not
necessarily result in better training of
the students because the accreditation is
not ‘‘program specific.’’ In other words,
the training institution may obtain
accreditation, but the accreditation
would not be specific to the driver
training program’s course content. They
argued that accreditation might restrict
the number of schools where drivers
could receive training.
Alternatives suggested included
allowing training institutions to selfcertify, subject to Federal or other
oversight, or voluntarily to obtain 3rd
party certification or accreditation.
However, other commenters believed
that even stricter control of training
schools should be exercised by the
Federal and/or State governments.
Passenger Driver Training
Commenters from the motorcoach
industry stated that they were an
‘‘afterthought’’ in the NPRM.
Specifically, they stated that there was
no mention of the Model Motorcoach
Driver Training Curriculum in the
proposed rule. One motorcoach
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
company asserted that its in-house
training program is much more rigorous
than the Agency proposal and that it
continually tests and re-trains its
drivers. Others believed that the
proposed training program would have
particularly adverse consequences for
the motorcoach industry as few
institutions offer training specific to that
segment of the industry. Additionally,
concerns were expressed that existing
company training programs for entrylevel drivers would cease as they would
no longer be able to hire the entry-level
drivers they train.
The school bus industry, in particular,
questioned its inclusion in the proposed
rule. Commenters asserted that the
safety record of school buses shows that
the industry’s own driver training,
based on State requirements, is
effective. Implementing the NPRM
would increase the costs significantly
for school bus operators with no
demonstrable increase in safety.
Furthermore, the proposed rule might
exacerbate the school bus driver
shortage.
Post-CDL Training
Some NPRM commenters and others
who participated in the ELDT listening
sessions suggested that the Agency
consider regulatory actions beyond what
was proposed in the 2007 NPRM. For
example, several individuals and
organizations believe the Agency should
assess the merits of implementing a
graduated commercial driver’s license
(GCDL) system approach. This concept
would involve placing limits on the
operations of new CDL holders for
certain periods of time until the drivers
obtain enough experience to operate as
solo drivers, without restrictions or
limitation. For example, the GCDL
approach would require that the new
CDL holder work under the supervision
of an experienced driver or mentor as
part of a team operation before being
allowed to drive solo. Other
commenters stressed that their
companies are doing continuous
training/testing and that re-training of
individuals should be required. As
proposed, the 2007 NPRM would have
required training before an individual
obtained a CDL; the ‘‘finishing training’’
advocated by some commenters was not
discussed.
Participants in the listening sessions
held earlier this year also raised
concerns about the trainer/trainee
relationship. Several stated that behindthe-wheel training, either pre- or postCDL, requires that the trainer be in the
passenger seat of the cab providing
actual ‘‘hands-on’’ instruction.
Commenters cited specific instances of
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 182 / Thursday, September 19, 2013 / Proposed Rules
new CDL holders being paired with an
experienced driver, but on many
occasions the experienced driver was
resting in the sleeper-berth rather than
training/mentoring the new driver. They
believe that new CDL drivers should
receive a minimum of 6 months of onthe-job, behind the wheel training, with
the trainer required to ride in the
passenger seat and provide coaching
and mentoring rather than resting in the
sleeper berth. In addition, commenters
stated that trainers should meet
minimum experience and knowledge
requirements before being eligible to
train CDL applicants.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
MAP–21 Requirements
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21) Section
32304, ‘‘Commercial motor vehicle
operator training,’’ amends 49 U.S.C.
31305 to require the Agency to issue
regulations to establish minimum entrylevel training requirements for all
prospective CDL holders. Section 32304
specifically mandates that the training
regulations (1) Address the knowledge
and skills needed for safe operation of
a CMV, (2) address the specific training
needs of those seeking hazardous
materials and passenger endorsements,
(3) create a means of certifying that an
applicant for a CDL meets Federal
requirements, and (4) require training
providers to demonstrate that their
training meets uniform Federal
standards. The 2007 NPRM did not
address endorsement-related training or
the entry-level training of new intrastate
CDL applicants that is now mandated by
MAP–21; these additions would be a
significant change of direction.
After Congress enacted MAP–21,
FMCSA requested that its Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC)
consider the history of the ELDT issue,
including legislative, regulatory and
research background, and identify ideas
the Agency should consider in moving
forward with a rulemaking to
implement the MAP–21 requirements.
MCSAC issued its letter report in June
2013, which is available on the MCSAC
Web site: https://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.
Other Actions
Currently, FMCSA is conducting two
research projects to gather supporting
information on the effectiveness of
ELDT. Study 1 will randomly sample
CDL holders who received their license
in the last three years and were
identified as recently employed as a
CMV driver. This will be done using
information from the Motor Carrier
Management Information System and
the Commercial Driver License
Information System. The drivers’ safety
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 Sep 18, 2013
Jkt 229001
performance data from these two
systems will be analyzed against the
type and amount of training they
received. Study 2 will gather
information from various sources to
identify the relationship of training to
safety performance. The sources
include: Carriers; CDL training schools;
and State Driver’s License Agency
records for recently issued CDLs. This
study will also examine the safety
performance of drivers in two States
that have regulations dealing with
different aspects of CDL driver training.
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the
NPRM
After reviewing the MAP–21
requirements, comments to the 2007
NPRM, participants’ statements during
the Agency’s public listening sessions
held earlier this year, and the MCSAC’s
June 2013 letter report, FMCSA has
determined that it would be
inappropriate to continue with the
rulemaking initiated in 2007. The
Agency believes a new rulemaking
would provide the most effective
starting point for implementing the
MAP–21 requirements. A new
rulemaking would provide the Agency
and all interested parties the
opportunity to move forward with a
proposal that focuses on the MAP–21
mandate and makes the best use of the
wealth of information provided by
stakeholders since the publication of the
2007 NPRM.
In consideration of the above, the
Agency withdraws the December 26,
2007, NPRM. However, the rulemaking
to carry out the MAP–21 entry-level
training requirement will solicit
comments from all interested parties,
including those who may wish to
reiterate their previous remarks. That
new rulemaking will be based on the
results of the studies referenced above,
public comments responsive to the
statutory mandate, and the specific
requirements of § 32304 of MAP–21.
Issued under the authority of delegation in
49 CFR 1.87.
Dated: August 27, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013–22772 Filed 9–18–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57587
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 771
Federal Transit Administration
49 CFR Part 622
[Docket No. FHWA–2013–0049]
FHWA RIN 2125–AF59; FTA RIN 2132–AB14
Environmental Impact and Related
Procedures—Programmatic
Agreements and Additional
Categorical Exclusions
Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
This notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) provides interested
parties with the opportunity to
comment on proposed changes to the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) joint procedures
that implement the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
revisions are prompted by enactment of
the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP–21). This NPRM
proposes to: add new categorical
exclusions (CE) for FHWA and FTA,
allow a State department of
transportation (State DOT) to process
certain CEs without FHWA’s detailed
project-by-project review and approval
(as long as the action meets specified
constraints), and allow Programmatic
Agreements between FHWA and States
that would permit States to apply
FHWA CEs on FHWA’s behalf. The
FHWA and FTA seek comments on the
proposals contained in this notice.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before November 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that you do not
duplicate your docket submissions,
please submit them by only one of the
following means:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., West Building
Ground Floor Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001;
• Hand Delivery: West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is (202) 366–9329;
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19SEP1.SGM
19SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57585-57587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22772]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384
[FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB06
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA withdraws its December 26, 2007, notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that proposed new entry-level driver training
standards for individuals applying for a commercial driver's license
(CDL) to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce. The Agency withdraws the 2007 proposal because commenters to
the NPRM, and participants in the Agency's public listening sessions in
2013, raised substantive issues which have led the Agency to conclude
that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based
on the proposal. In addition, since the NPRM was published, FMCSA
received statutory direction on the issue of entry level driver
training (ELDT) from Congress via the Moving Ahead for Progress in the
21st Century Act (MAP-21) reauthorization legislation. Finally, the
Agency tasked its Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) to
provide ideas the Agency should consider in implementing the MAP-21
requirements. In consideration of the above, the Agency has concluded
that a new rulemaking should be initiated in lieu of completing the
2007 rulemaking.
DATES: The NPRM ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' RIN 2126-AB06, published on
[[Page 57586]]
December 26, 2007 (72 FR 73226), is withdrawn on September 19, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this Notice
of withdrawal, contact Mr. Richard Clemente, Transportation Specialist,
FMCSA, Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, (202) 366-4325,
MCPSD@dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background/General Issues Raised During Comment Period and Listening
Sessions
After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the May 21, 2004
final rule, titled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators'' (69 FR 29384), to the Agency for
further consideration, FMCSA published an NPRM on December 26, 2007,
entitled ``Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial
Motor Vehicle Operators'' (72 FR 73226). The Agency received more than
700 comments to its proposal. Additionally, on January 7, 2013, and
March 22, 2013, FMCSA held listening sessions on ELDT. While most
commenters expressed support for the ELDT ``concept,'' they had
divergent views on several of the proposed rule's key provisions.
Hours-Based vs. Performance-Based Driver Training
Several industry organizations expressed opposition to the proposed
mandate of a specific minimum number of training hours. Instead, these
commenters support a performance-based approach to training that would
allow an individual to move through the training program at his/her own
pace. Essentially, a driver who demonstrated mastery of one skill would
be able to move to the next skill. The driver would not have to repeat
continually or practice a skill for a prescribed amount of time--2
hours, for example--if the driver could master the skill in 20 minutes.
Other commenters, however, did support a minimum hours-based
approach to training. They stated that FMCSA must specify the minimum
number of instructional hours in order to be consistent with the
original Model Curriculum of the 1980s.\1\ Additionally, some
supporters of an hours-based training approach believed that the
Agency's proposal did not involve sufficient hours (particularly
behind-the-wheel hours) to train a driver adequately. Finally, other
commenters suggested a hybrid of the hours-based and performance-based
approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1985, FHWA issued the ``Model Curriculum for Training
Tractor-Trailer Drivers'' (1985, GPO Stock No. 050-001-00293-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several commenters asserted that by establishing a minimum number
of hours required for training, the Agency would create a Federal
standard that would eliminate certain Federal loan options otherwise
available to students enrolled in driver training programs. They
claimed that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) would refuse to
authorize Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) or Direct Loan funding
to programs more than 50 percent longer than the minimum 120- or 90-
hour programs for Class A and B/C CDL applicants proposed by the FMCSA.
However, commenters contended further that if courses were to be capped
at 180 or 135 hours--50 percent longer than the Agency's proposed Class
A or B/C programs--to comply with one aspect of ED's regulations, they
would then fail to meet the 300-hour minimum required to be eligible
for FFEL and Direct Loan funding. One individual at a listening session
disputed this claim. He said it was a misconception that training
schools would not offer longer courses if drivers could not qualify for
Title IV student funding.
Accreditation
The NPRM proposed to require that all commercial driver-training
schools be accredited by an agency recognized by either ED or the
Council on Higher Education Accreditation. Most commenters opposed the
accreditation process because they claimed it is a long and costly
process that would not necessarily result in better training of the
students because the accreditation is not ``program specific.'' In
other words, the training institution may obtain accreditation, but the
accreditation would not be specific to the driver training program's
course content. They argued that accreditation might restrict the
number of schools where drivers could receive training.
Alternatives suggested included allowing training institutions to
self-certify, subject to Federal or other oversight, or voluntarily to
obtain 3rd party certification or accreditation. However, other
commenters believed that even stricter control of training schools
should be exercised by the Federal and/or State governments.
Passenger Driver Training
Commenters from the motorcoach industry stated that they were an
``afterthought'' in the NPRM. Specifically, they stated that there was
no mention of the Model Motorcoach Driver Training Curriculum in the
proposed rule. One motorcoach company asserted that its in-house
training program is much more rigorous than the Agency proposal and
that it continually tests and re-trains its drivers. Others believed
that the proposed training program would have particularly adverse
consequences for the motorcoach industry as few institutions offer
training specific to that segment of the industry. Additionally,
concerns were expressed that existing company training programs for
entry-level drivers would cease as they would no longer be able to hire
the entry-level drivers they train.
The school bus industry, in particular, questioned its inclusion in
the proposed rule. Commenters asserted that the safety record of school
buses shows that the industry's own driver training, based on State
requirements, is effective. Implementing the NPRM would increase the
costs significantly for school bus operators with no demonstrable
increase in safety. Furthermore, the proposed rule might exacerbate the
school bus driver shortage.
Post-CDL Training
Some NPRM commenters and others who participated in the ELDT
listening sessions suggested that the Agency consider regulatory
actions beyond what was proposed in the 2007 NPRM. For example, several
individuals and organizations believe the Agency should assess the
merits of implementing a graduated commercial driver's license (GCDL)
system approach. This concept would involve placing limits on the
operations of new CDL holders for certain periods of time until the
drivers obtain enough experience to operate as solo drivers, without
restrictions or limitation. For example, the GCDL approach would
require that the new CDL holder work under the supervision of an
experienced driver or mentor as part of a team operation before being
allowed to drive solo. Other commenters stressed that their companies
are doing continuous training/testing and that re-training of
individuals should be required. As proposed, the 2007 NPRM would have
required training before an individual obtained a CDL; the ``finishing
training'' advocated by some commenters was not discussed.
Participants in the listening sessions held earlier this year also
raised concerns about the trainer/trainee relationship. Several stated
that behind-the-wheel training, either pre- or post-CDL, requires that
the trainer be in the passenger seat of the cab providing actual
``hands-on'' instruction. Commenters cited specific instances of
[[Page 57587]]
new CDL holders being paired with an experienced driver, but on many
occasions the experienced driver was resting in the sleeper-berth
rather than training/mentoring the new driver. They believe that new
CDL drivers should receive a minimum of 6 months of on-the-job, behind
the wheel training, with the trainer required to ride in the passenger
seat and provide coaching and mentoring rather than resting in the
sleeper berth. In addition, commenters stated that trainers should meet
minimum experience and knowledge requirements before being eligible to
train CDL applicants.
MAP-21 Requirements
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
Section 32304, ``Commercial motor vehicle operator training,'' amends
49 U.S.C. 31305 to require the Agency to issue regulations to establish
minimum entry-level training requirements for all prospective CDL
holders. Section 32304 specifically mandates that the training
regulations (1) Address the knowledge and skills needed for safe
operation of a CMV, (2) address the specific training needs of those
seeking hazardous materials and passenger endorsements, (3) create a
means of certifying that an applicant for a CDL meets Federal
requirements, and (4) require training providers to demonstrate that
their training meets uniform Federal standards. The 2007 NPRM did not
address endorsement-related training or the entry-level training of new
intrastate CDL applicants that is now mandated by MAP-21; these
additions would be a significant change of direction.
After Congress enacted MAP-21, FMCSA requested that its Motor
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) consider the history of the
ELDT issue, including legislative, regulatory and research background,
and identify ideas the Agency should consider in moving forward with a
rulemaking to implement the MAP-21 requirements. MCSAC issued its
letter report in June 2013, which is available on the MCSAC Web site:
https://mcsac.fmcsa.dot.gov.
Other Actions
Currently, FMCSA is conducting two research projects to gather
supporting information on the effectiveness of ELDT. Study 1 will
randomly sample CDL holders who received their license in the last
three years and were identified as recently employed as a CMV driver.
This will be done using information from the Motor Carrier Management
Information System and the Commercial Driver License Information
System. The drivers' safety performance data from these two systems
will be analyzed against the type and amount of training they received.
Study 2 will gather information from various sources to identify the
relationship of training to safety performance. The sources include:
Carriers; CDL training schools; and State Driver's License Agency
records for recently issued CDLs. This study will also examine the
safety performance of drivers in two States that have regulations
dealing with different aspects of CDL driver training.
FMCSA Decision To Withdraw the NPRM
After reviewing the MAP-21 requirements, comments to the 2007 NPRM,
participants' statements during the Agency's public listening sessions
held earlier this year, and the MCSAC's June 2013 letter report, FMCSA
has determined that it would be inappropriate to continue with the
rulemaking initiated in 2007. The Agency believes a new rulemaking
would provide the most effective starting point for implementing the
MAP-21 requirements. A new rulemaking would provide the Agency and all
interested parties the opportunity to move forward with a proposal that
focuses on the MAP-21 mandate and makes the best use of the wealth of
information provided by stakeholders since the publication of the 2007
NPRM.
In consideration of the above, the Agency withdraws the December
26, 2007, NPRM. However, the rulemaking to carry out the MAP-21 entry-
level training requirement will solicit comments from all interested
parties, including those who may wish to reiterate their previous
remarks. That new rulemaking will be based on the results of the
studies referenced above, public comments responsive to the statutory
mandate, and the specific requirements of Sec. 32304 of MAP-21.
Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87.
Dated: August 27, 2013.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2013-22772 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
