Entry-Level Driver Training: United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS); Petition for Reconsideration of Original Application for Exemption, 54588-54590 [2022-19133]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
54588
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2022 / Notices
2000, and Delegation of Authority No.
523 of December 22, 2021.
Stacy E. White,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional
and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department
of State.
[FR Doc. 2022–19130 Filed 9–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–05–P
operations in accordance with FAA’s
Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, as published in
the Federal Register on February 16,
1999.
Issued in Denver, Colorado on August 30,
2022.
Marc Miller,
Acting Manager, Denver Airports District
Office.
[FR Doc. 2022–19121 Filed 9–2–22; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
Federal Aviation Administration
Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To
Release Airport Property at the
Colorado Springs Airport, Colorado
Springs, Colorado
Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions
on Proposed Highway in California
Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Department of
Transportation.
ACTION: Notice; correction.
AGENCY:
Federal Aviation
Administration, (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of request to release
airport property.
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to rule and
invite public comment on the release
and sale of a 100.74-acre parcel of land
at the Colorado Springs Airport.
DATES: Comments are due within 30
days of the date of the publication of
this notice in the Federal Register.
Emailed comments can be provided to
Mr. Michael Matz, Project Manager/
Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports
District Office, michael.b.matz@faa.gov,
(303) 342–1251.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Troy Stover, Assistant Director of
Aviation for Economic Development,
Colorado Springs Airport, 7770 Milton
E. Proby Parkway Suite 50, Colorado
Springs, CO 80916, Troy.Stover@
coloradosprings.gov, (719) 238–0398; or
Michael Matz, Project Manager/
Compliance Specialist, Denver Airports
District Office, 26805 E 68th Ave. Suite
224, Denver, CO 80249,
michael.b.matz@faa.gov, (303) 342–
1251. Documents reflecting this FAA
action may be reviewed at the above
locations.
SUMMARY:
SUMMARY:
The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to release property at the Colorado
Springs Airport under the provisions of
49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The proposal
consists of 100.74 acres of land located
on the South side of the airport, shown
as Parcels 10–A, 10–B, 19A–A, and
19A–B on the Airport Layout Plan. The
parcel lies partially inside the Peak
Innovation Business Park, North of
Milton E. Proby Parkway. The FAA
concurs that the parcel is no longer
needed for airport purposes. The
proposed use of this property is
compatible with existing airport
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Sep 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
This Notice makes a
correction to a prior Notice of
Limitation on Claims for Judicial
Review on a highway project in the
County of San Mateo, State of
California, to correct the reference to
Action being taken.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yolanda Rivas, Senior Environmental
Planner, California Department of
Transportation, District 4, 111 Grand
Avenue, Oakland, CA 95901. Office
Hours: 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Pacific
Standard Time, telephone (510) 506–
1461 or email yolanda.rivas@dot.ca.gov.
For FHWA, contact Shawn Oliver at
(916) 498–5048 or email Shawn.Oliver@
dot.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
An electronic copy of this document
may be downloaded from the Office of
the Federal Register’s website at
www.FederalRegister.gov and the
Government Publishing Office’s website
at www.GovInfo.gov.
Background
On May 11, 2022, at 87 FR 28858,
FHWA advised the public of final
agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C.
139(l)(1). It further advised that a claim
seeking judicial review of the Federal
agency actions on the highway project
would be barred unless the claim is
filed on or before October 11, 2022. In
that document, the Action in the
heading of the Notice incorrectly read
‘‘Notice of Limitation on Claims for
Judicial Review of Actions by the
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the United States Forest
Service (Plumas National Forest) to
PO 00000
Frm 00140
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
issue a special use permit to Caltrans.’’
The Action heading is corrected to read
‘‘Notice of Limitation on Claims for
Judicial Review of Actions by the
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).’’
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
Program Number 20.205, Highway
Planning and Construction. The
regulations implementing Executive
Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to
this program.)
Authority: 23 U.S.C. 139(l)(1).
Antonio Johnson,
Director, Planning, Environment and Right
of Way, Federal Highway Administration,
California Division.
[FR Doc. 2022–19122 Filed 9–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2019–0139]
Entry-Level Driver Training: United
Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS); Petition for
Reconsideration of Original
Application for Exemption
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition;
denial of petition for reconsideration of
original application for exemption.
AGENCY:
FMCSA announces its
decision to deny reconsideration of the
Agency’s initial denial of the
application for exemption filed by
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). UPS
originally sought exemption from a
provision in the Entry-Level Driver
Training (ELDT) final rule requiring two
years of experience for training
instructors. FMCSA denied that petition
on December 9, 2019. UPS believes that
its current process of preparing driver
trainers exceeds any skill set gained
merely by operating a tractor-trailer for
two years. UPS stated that its
reconsideration request would ensure
that it can continue to exceed the
current regulatory requirements and
provide proper training of its drivers
and improve highway and public safety.
FMCSA analyzed the petition for
reconsideration and the public
comments submitted, and determined
that the application lacked evidence
that would ensure that an equivalent
level of safety or greater would likely be
achieved absent such exemption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2022 / Notices
III. Background
Carrier Operations Division; Office of
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; (202) 366–2722; MCPSD@
dot.gov. If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the
docket, contact Dockets Operations,
(202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to
www.regulations.gov and insert the
docket number, FMCSA–2019–0139 in
the ‘‘Keyword’’ box and click ‘‘Search.’’
Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’
button and choose the document to
review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket
online by visiting Dockets Operations in
Room W12–140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 366–9317 or
(202) 366–9826 before visiting Dockets
Operations.
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must
publish a notice of each exemption
request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide
the public an opportunity to inspect the
information relevant to the application,
including any safety analyses that have
been conducted. The Agency must also
provide an opportunity for public
comment on the request.
The Agency reviews safety analyses
and public comments submitted, and
determines whether granting the
exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than,
the level that would be achieved by the
current regulation (49 CFR 381.305).
The decision of the Agency must be
published in the Federal Register (49
CFR 381.315(b)) with the reasons for
denying or granting the application and,
if granted, the name of the person or
class of persons receiving the
exemption, and the regulatory provision
from which the exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the
effective period (up to 5 years) and
explain the terms and conditions of the
exemption. The exemption may be
renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Sep 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
The ELDT final rule was adopted
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31305(c), and is
based in part on consensus
recommendations from the Agency’s
ELDT Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), a
negotiated rulemaking committee. The
rule enhances the safety of commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our
Nation’s highways by establishing a
minimum standard for ELDT and
increasing the number of drivers who
receive ELDT. The rule revised 49 CFR
part 380, Special Training
Requirements, to include, among other
things, driver training instructor
qualifications. Under 49 CFR 380.713 a
driver training instructor must have two
years’ experience and have held a
commercial driver’s license (CDL) for 2
years, as set forth in the definitions of
‘‘behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor’’
and ‘‘theory instructor’’ in 49 CFR
380.605.
On June 19, 2019, FMCSA published
a UPS application for exemption from
two provisions of the ELDT final rule
and requested public comment [84 FR
28623]. UPS specifically requested an
exemption from: (1) the requirement in
49 CFR 380.713 that a driver training
instructor hold a CDL and have 2 years’
experience driving a CMV, as set forth
in the definitions of behind-the-wheel
(BTW) instructor and theory instructor;
and (2) the requirement in 49 CFR
380.703(a)(7) to register each training
location in order to obtain a unique
Training Provider Registry number
applicable to that location.
The Agency received 112 comments,
including 58 supporting the requested
exemptions and 51opposing them.
Three other commenters had no
position either for or against the
application and provided no substantive
comments.
On December 9, 2019, the Agency
denied the UPS exemption request
because the application did not provide
an analysis of the safety impacts the
requested exemptions may cause, as
required by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(4), and
did not explain how the exemptions
would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying
with the current regulations, as required
by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5).
IV. Request for Reconsideration of
Agency Decision
On July 1, 2020, UPS requested that
FMCSA reconsider its original denial.
UPS believes that its current process of
preparing driver trainers exceeds any
skill set gained merely by operating a
tractor-trailer for 2 years. The company
PO 00000
Frm 00141
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
54589
also believes that a 2-year experience
requirement doesn’t automatically
equate to success as a CMV driver
trainer. UPS has provided the Agency
with updated information since the
original denial, explaining that many of
their locations have experienced
turnover issues with driver trainers
because of the ELDT rule changes in
2018. UPS added that it had to hire 100
candidates to attempt to net the 50
trainer positions it needed across the
United States. Of the 100 trainers hired,
UPS has been able to retain only 38.
V. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or
Greater Level of Safety
To ensure an equivalent level of
safety, UPS stated that its driver training
program is a train-the-trainer approach
that it believes is an industry-leading
curriculum that produces excellent
trainers and, by extension, excellent
CMV operators. When UPS became
aware of the ELDT rule changes, it was
in the process of making some
operational network enhancements that
would prompt significant hiring during
the following years. To get ahead of the
original ELDT rule compliance date of
February 7, 2020, UPS attempted to hire
trainers from outside of UPS to
supplement the certified trainers
already in place. UPS encountered
challenges throughout the training
process regarding these trainer
positions, mainly because of the level of
comprehensive training that they would
need to have and demonstrate as a
trainer. UPS claim of high turnover rate
in the trainer positions is pertinent to its
request for reconsideration of the
original denial.
VI. Public Comments
On September 23, 2020, FMCSA
published notice of this reconsideration
request and sought public comments (85
FR 59850). The Agency received 113
total comments. The Owner-Operator
Independent Driver’s Association
(OOIDA) and the Commercial Vehicle
Training Association (CVTA) opposed
reconsideration of denial of UPS’
original application for exemption.
OOIDA opposed the initial exemption
request and argued that UPS failed to
present any new information that would
warrant reconsideration. The minimum
experience standards for trainers
included in the ELDT rule were built on
consensus recommendations of the
ELDTAC, a group of 26 industry
stakeholders, and are firmly rooted in
highway safety. OOIDA further
commented that the 2-year delay of the
ELDT rule compliance date until
February 7, 2022, issued by FMCSA
provides sufficient time for all entities,
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
54590
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 6, 2022 / Notices
jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES
including UPS, to prepare their
respective training programs and
comply with the rule’s new
implementation date.
CVTA reaffirmed its original
opposition to UPS’ exemption request.
CVTA referenced its ‘‘Pre-CDL
Instructor Certification Program’’
designed to train the trainer, and while
it agreed that the skills needed to
effectively teach versus the skills of
being a driver acquired by holding a
CDL for 2 years are different, CVTA
believes the uniform application of the
ELDT regulation for all training
providers should be established and
followed by anyone training pre-CDL
students. It is CVTA’s belief that
reconsideration, if granted, would set a
bad precedent.
Two other individuals opposed
reconsideration. Other reasons
presented by commenters included the
assertion that the lowering of the
requirements specified for driver
training instructors would open the
door for similar requests or even require
a change to the ELDT rule.
Most comments supporting
reconsideration were from individuals
including UPS drivers and current or
former UPS driver trainers. Most of
these commenters cited the excellence
of the UPS driver training program and
the overall company safety record. They
argued that the UPS training program is
one of the most comprehensive in the
industry, that its driver trainers are put
through an intense training program and
are required to follow strict methods
and procedures.
VII. FMCSA Safety Analysis and
Decision
FMCSA has evaluated UPS’ request
for reconsideration and the public
comments and has decided to deny the
request. The UPS reconsideration
request indicated that the company had
encountered challenges filling new
trainer positions in compliance with the
provisions of the ELDT final rule. UPS
stated that its internal Driver Trainer
School has produced what the company
believes to be the best trainers in the
industry and that its training provides a
consistently high standard through a
comprehensive, consistent training
format throughout the organization,
both for initial training and recurrent
annual training.
When the Agency established the
rules mandating ELDT, it relied upon
research indicating that the rules
improve CMV safety. The Moving
Ahead for Progress Act of the 21st
Century mandated that the FMCSA
issue regulations to establish minimum
entry-level training requirements for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:04 Sep 02, 2022
Jkt 256001
interstate and intrastate applicants
obtaining a CDL for the first time, CDL
holders seeking license upgrades, and
those seeking various CDL
endorsements. In response to that
statutory mandate, the Agency
published a final rule on ‘‘Minimum
Training Requirements for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,’’
on December 8, 2016 [81 FR 88732]. The
‘‘framework’’ for this rule was based on
the ELDTAC’s consensus
recommendations ‘‘to the maximum
extent possible consistent with its legal
obligations’’ as required under the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C.
563(a)(7)). These final regulations
outlined new eligibility standards that
training providers must meet to deliver
ELDT, including the qualification and
experience requirements for BTW and
Theory or Classroom instructors. As
OOIDA and CVTA indicated in their
opposing comments, the UPS
application does not provide an analysis
of the safety impacts that
reconsideration of the denial may cause.
It also does not provide
countermeasures to be undertaken to
ensure that the request would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the ELDT regulations.
The Agency cannot ensure that the
exemption would achieve the requisite
level of safety. The ELDT rule,
mandated by Congress, is based on the
‘‘framework’’ of the ELDTAC’s
consensus recommendations, including
the instructor requirements. The UPS
request for reconsideration must be
judged based on the exemption
standards in 49 CFR part 381. As
indicated above, UPS’ application fails
to meet those standards. The request for
reconsideration of the original
application for exemption is therefore
denied.
Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022–19133 Filed 9–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration
[Docket No: PHMSA–2022–0060]
Pipeline Safety: Information Collection
Activities: Voluntary Adoption of API
RP 1173 for Gas Distribution Systems
Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA), DOT.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00142
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
PHMSA invites public comments on its
intent to request Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approval of a new,
one-time information collection titled:
‘‘Voluntary Adoption of API RP 1173 for
Gas Distribution Systems.’’ The
proposed information collection would
provide data necessary to prepare the
report required by Section 205 of the
Protecting Our Infrastructure of
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES)
Act of 2020 for gas distribution systems.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
November 7, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted in the following ways:
E-Gov Website: https://
www.regulations.gov. This site allows
the public to enter comments on any
Federal Register notice issued by any
agency.
Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
West Building, Room W12–140,
Washington, DC 20590–0001.
Hand Delivery: Room W12–140 on the
ground level of DOT, West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9:00 a.m. and
5:00 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.
Instructions: Identify the docket
number, PHMSA–2022–0060 at the
beginning of your comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. You
should know that anyone is able to
search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our
dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the
comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
Therefore, you may want to review
DOT’s complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477) or visit
https://www.regulations.gov before
submitting any such comments.
Docket: For access to the docket or to
read background documents or
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov at any time or to
Room W12–140 on the ground level of
DOT, West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except federal holidays.
If you wish to receive confirmation of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54588-54590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19133]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0139]
Entry-Level Driver Training: United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS);
Petition for Reconsideration of Original Application for Exemption
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of petition for
reconsideration of original application for exemption.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny reconsideration of the
Agency's initial denial of the application for exemption filed by
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). UPS originally sought exemption from
a provision in the Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) final rule
requiring two years of experience for training instructors. FMCSA
denied that petition on December 9, 2019. UPS believes that its current
process of preparing driver trainers exceeds any skill set gained
merely by operating a tractor-trailer for two years. UPS stated that
its reconsideration request would ensure that it can continue to exceed
the current regulatory requirements and provide proper training of its
drivers and improve highway and public safety. FMCSA analyzed the
petition for reconsideration and the public comments submitted, and
determined that the application lacked evidence that would ensure that
an equivalent level of safety or greater would likely be achieved
absent such exemption.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
[[Page 54589]]
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; (202) 366-2722; [email protected]. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations, (202) 366-9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Viewing Comments and Documents
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0139 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is
there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before
visiting Dockets Operations.
II. Legal Basis
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).
III. Background
The ELDT final rule was adopted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 31305(c), and
is based in part on consensus recommendations from the Agency's ELDT
Advisory Committee (ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee. The
rule enhances the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations
on our Nation's highways by establishing a minimum standard for ELDT
and increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. The rule revised
49 CFR part 380, Special Training Requirements, to include, among other
things, driver training instructor qualifications. Under 49 CFR 380.713
a driver training instructor must have two years' experience and have
held a commercial driver's license (CDL) for 2 years, as set forth in
the definitions of ``behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor'' and ``theory
instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605.
On June 19, 2019, FMCSA published a UPS application for exemption
from two provisions of the ELDT final rule and requested public comment
[84 FR 28623]. UPS specifically requested an exemption from: (1) the
requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that a driver training instructor hold a
CDL and have 2 years' experience driving a CMV, as set forth in the
definitions of behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor and theory instructor;
and (2) the requirement in 49 CFR 380.703(a)(7) to register each
training location in order to obtain a unique Training Provider
Registry number applicable to that location.
The Agency received 112 comments, including 58 supporting the
requested exemptions and 51opposing them. Three other commenters had no
position either for or against the application and provided no
substantive comments.
On December 9, 2019, the Agency denied the UPS exemption request
because the application did not provide an analysis of the safety
impacts the requested exemptions may cause, as required by 49 CFR
381.310(c)(4), and did not explain how the exemptions would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulations, as
required by 49 CFR 381.310(c)(5).
IV. Request for Reconsideration of Agency Decision
On July 1, 2020, UPS requested that FMCSA reconsider its original
denial. UPS believes that its current process of preparing driver
trainers exceeds any skill set gained merely by operating a tractor-
trailer for 2 years. The company also believes that a 2-year experience
requirement doesn't automatically equate to success as a CMV driver
trainer. UPS has provided the Agency with updated information since the
original denial, explaining that many of their locations have
experienced turnover issues with driver trainers because of the ELDT
rule changes in 2018. UPS added that it had to hire 100 candidates to
attempt to net the 50 trainer positions it needed across the United
States. Of the 100 trainers hired, UPS has been able to retain only 38.
V. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety
To ensure an equivalent level of safety, UPS stated that its driver
training program is a train-the-trainer approach that it believes is an
industry-leading curriculum that produces excellent trainers and, by
extension, excellent CMV operators. When UPS became aware of the ELDT
rule changes, it was in the process of making some operational network
enhancements that would prompt significant hiring during the following
years. To get ahead of the original ELDT rule compliance date of
February 7, 2020, UPS attempted to hire trainers from outside of UPS to
supplement the certified trainers already in place. UPS encountered
challenges throughout the training process regarding these trainer
positions, mainly because of the level of comprehensive training that
they would need to have and demonstrate as a trainer. UPS claim of high
turnover rate in the trainer positions is pertinent to its request for
reconsideration of the original denial.
VI. Public Comments
On September 23, 2020, FMCSA published notice of this
reconsideration request and sought public comments (85 FR 59850). The
Agency received 113 total comments. The Owner-Operator Independent
Driver's Association (OOIDA) and the Commercial Vehicle Training
Association (CVTA) opposed reconsideration of denial of UPS' original
application for exemption. OOIDA opposed the initial exemption request
and argued that UPS failed to present any new information that would
warrant reconsideration. The minimum experience standards for trainers
included in the ELDT rule were built on consensus recommendations of
the ELDTAC, a group of 26 industry stakeholders, and are firmly rooted
in highway safety. OOIDA further commented that the 2-year delay of the
ELDT rule compliance date until February 7, 2022, issued by FMCSA
provides sufficient time for all entities,
[[Page 54590]]
including UPS, to prepare their respective training programs and comply
with the rule's new implementation date.
CVTA reaffirmed its original opposition to UPS' exemption request.
CVTA referenced its ``Pre-CDL Instructor Certification Program''
designed to train the trainer, and while it agreed that the skills
needed to effectively teach versus the skills of being a driver
acquired by holding a CDL for 2 years are different, CVTA believes the
uniform application of the ELDT regulation for all training providers
should be established and followed by anyone training pre-CDL students.
It is CVTA's belief that reconsideration, if granted, would set a bad
precedent.
Two other individuals opposed reconsideration. Other reasons
presented by commenters included the assertion that the lowering of the
requirements specified for driver training instructors would open the
door for similar requests or even require a change to the ELDT rule.
Most comments supporting reconsideration were from individuals
including UPS drivers and current or former UPS driver trainers. Most
of these commenters cited the excellence of the UPS driver training
program and the overall company safety record. They argued that the UPS
training program is one of the most comprehensive in the industry, that
its driver trainers are put through an intense training program and are
required to follow strict methods and procedures.
VII. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision
FMCSA has evaluated UPS' request for reconsideration and the public
comments and has decided to deny the request. The UPS reconsideration
request indicated that the company had encountered challenges filling
new trainer positions in compliance with the provisions of the ELDT
final rule. UPS stated that its internal Driver Trainer School has
produced what the company believes to be the best trainers in the
industry and that its training provides a consistently high standard
through a comprehensive, consistent training format throughout the
organization, both for initial training and recurrent annual training.
When the Agency established the rules mandating ELDT, it relied
upon research indicating that the rules improve CMV safety. The Moving
Ahead for Progress Act of the 21st Century mandated that the FMCSA
issue regulations to establish minimum entry-level training
requirements for interstate and intrastate applicants obtaining a CDL
for the first time, CDL holders seeking license upgrades, and those
seeking various CDL endorsements. In response to that statutory
mandate, the Agency published a final rule on ``Minimum Training
Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators,'' on
December 8, 2016 [81 FR 88732]. The ``framework'' for this rule was
based on the ELDTAC's consensus recommendations ``to the maximum extent
possible consistent with its legal obligations'' as required under the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 563(a)(7)). These final regulations
outlined new eligibility standards that training providers must meet to
deliver ELDT, including the qualification and experience requirements
for BTW and Theory or Classroom instructors. As OOIDA and CVTA
indicated in their opposing comments, the UPS application does not
provide an analysis of the safety impacts that reconsideration of the
denial may cause. It also does not provide countermeasures to be
undertaken to ensure that the request would likely achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by the ELDT regulations.
The Agency cannot ensure that the exemption would achieve the
requisite level of safety. The ELDT rule, mandated by Congress, is
based on the ``framework'' of the ELDTAC's consensus recommendations,
including the instructor requirements. The UPS request for
reconsideration must be judged based on the exemption standards in 49
CFR part 381. As indicated above, UPS' application fails to meet those
standards. The request for reconsideration of the original application
for exemption is therefore denied.
Robin Hutcheson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-19133 Filed 9-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
