Entry-Level Driver Training: SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc.; Application for Exemption, 78764-78766 [2022-27775]

Agencies

• Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78764-78766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27775]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0169]


Entry-Level Driver Training: SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc.; 
Application for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for 
exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the exemption application 
from SBL Truck Driving Academy, Inc. (SBL). SBL sought an exemption 
from the theory and behind-the-wheel (BTW) instructor requirements 
contained in the entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations for two 
of its instructors. SBL specifically requested an exemption from the 
requirement that instructors have at least two years of experience 
driving a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) requiring a commercial 
driver's license (CDL) of the same or higher class and/or the same 
endorsement level for which training is to be provided. FMCSA analyzed 
the exemption application and public comments and determined that the 
application lacked evidence that would ensure an equivalent or greater 
level of safety than would be achieved absent such exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and 
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle 
Safety Standards; Telephone: 202-366-2722. Email: 
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or 
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone 
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket 
number ``FMCSA-2021-0169'' in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' 
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first 
notice listed, and click ``View Related Comments.''
    To view documents mentioned in this notice as being available in 
the docket, go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket number 
``FMCSA-2021-0169'' in the keyword box, click ``Search,'' and chose the 
document to review.
    If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket 
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., ET, 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 to grant 
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 
(FMCSRs). 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

Current Regulatory Requirements

    The ELDT regulations, implemented on February 7, 2022, and set 
forth in 49 CFR 380, subparts F and G, established minimum training 
standards for individuals applying for certain CDLs and defined 
curriculum standards for theory and BTW training. The ELDT regulations 
also established an online training provider registry (TPR), 
eligibility requirements for providers to be listed on the TPR, and 
requirements for instructors. Under 49 CFR 380.713, a training provider 
must use instructors

[[Page 78765]]

who meet the definitions of ``Theory instructor'' and ``Behind-the-
wheel (BTW) instructor,'' set forth in 49 CFR 380.605. The definitions 
of ``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605 
require that instructors hold a CDL of the same (or higher) class, with 
all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV for which training is to 
be provided, and have either: (1) a minimum of 2 years of experience 
driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the same or higher class and/or the 
same endorsement; or (2) at least 2 years of experience as a BTW CMV 
instructor.

Applicant's Request

    SBL seeks an exemption from the requirement in 49 CFR 380.713 that 
a training provider use instructors who meet the definitions of 
``Theory instructor'' and ``BTW instructor'' in 49 CFR 380.605. SBL 
states that it has two employees who do not have two years of required 
driving experience. SBL states the employees were qualified to provide 
training prior to implementation of the ELDT regulations on February 7, 
2022, have Class A CDLs with tanker endorsements, and are medically 
qualified.
    SBL argues that the instructor qualifications required by the ELDT 
regulations will have a severe negative impact on its business and on 
the driver shortage. SBL requests an exemption that would allow the two 
instructors to provide instruction without having two years of driving 
experience while they accumulate the required level of experience. They 
assert that the exemption would allow for full instructor staffing, 
resulting in a ``50% increase of approximately 96 students annually.'' 
If the exemption is not granted, SBL states that it would be forced to 
terminate these employees and seek to replace them with other 
instructors with unproven track records.
    SBL reasons that FMCSA has included ``grandfathering'' provisions 
in the implementation of other new rules and therefore should apply a 
``grandfathering'' provision to the ELDT requirements relating to 
driving experience. SBL points to 49 CFR 380.603 which provides that 
individuals who obtained a Commercial Learner's Permit (CLP) before 
February 7, 2022, are not required to comply with the ELDT rule if they 
obtain a CDL before the CLP expires. SBL is requesting similar 
consideration for State-licensed instructors who met applicable Federal 
requirements prior to February 7, 2022.

IV. Method To Ensure an Equivalent or Greater Level of Safety

    To ensure an equivalent level of safety, SBL offers a list of the 
qualifications for the two driver training instructors for whom the 
exemption is requested. According to SBL, both individuals meet the 
qualifications that were required prior to implementation of the ELDT 
rule; both have Class A CDLs with tanker endorsements; both are 
medically qualified; both graduated from a State-licensed truck driver 
training school; both have taught over the road driving; both have 
previously trained commercial drivers; one individual worked as a 
commercial driver; and both have the ability to instruct all topics 
required by the ELDT regulations.
    SBL indicates that the request for the exemption ``places no known 
negative safety impact'' and avers that SBL will continue to adhere to 
all applicable State and Federal regulations that govern the safe 
operation of CMVs. SBL notes that the two instructors met the 
qualification requirements of the South Carolina Department of Motor 
Vehicles, in effect prior to implementation of the ELDT regulations, 
and their instruction has not negatively impacted safety. Those 
requirements allow instructors with fewer than two years of driving 
experience to deliver training.
    SBL also cites to a 2013 Bureau of Transportation Statistics report 
stating that motor vehicle fatalities in 2010 were trending downward. 
SBL also cites to a 2008 American Transportation Research Institute 
(ATRI) report that found no relation between driver training duration 
and subsequent driver safety performance. A copy of SBL's application 
for exemption is available for review in the docket for this notice.

V. Public Comments

    On May 25, 2022, FMCSA published notice of SBL's application and 
requested public comment [87 FR 31930]. The Agency received nine 
comments. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA) 
strongly opposed the exemption request. OOIDA commented that they were 
one of the primary industry stakeholders on the ELDTAC when the 
``framework'' of the ELDT rule was agreed upon during the negotiated 
rulemaking, including support of the provision that required CDL 
experience for training instructors, as CDL experience is essential to 
deliver comprehensive training to entry-level drivers. OOIDA believes 
there is no substitute for an experienced BTW trainer and employing 
these instructors will help achieve the objectives of the ELDT 
regulations. OOIDA states that exempting instructors without CDL 
experience will not result in an equivalent or greater level of safety 
than is now required by the ELDT regulations. OOIDA added that the 
delayed implementation of the ELDT final rule, from 2020 to 2022, 
allowed even more time for training providers to meet the requisite CMV 
driving experience, or the minimum experience required to serve as a 
BTW CMV instructor under the ELDT regulations.
    Seven other individual commenters opposed the requested exemption, 
while only one commenter supported the request. Of those opposing the 
exemption, a number cited similar concerns raised by OOIDA, i.e., that 
the ELDT rule was agreed upon through the negotiated rulemaking process 
and, therefore, the rule's ``key'' provisions should not be changed. 
Another commenter stated that if SBL's petition is approved, the Agency 
may as well remove the two-year requirement for instructors, and that 
other CDL driver training schools will request similar relief. The only 
commenter supporting the request noted that SBL stated that these 
individuals have trained before and should be allowed to be 
grandfathered in as qualified instructors.

VI. FMCSA Safety Analysis and Decision

    FMCSA has evaluated SBL's application and the public comments. The 
Agency concludes that SBL presented insufficient evidence to establish 
that not complying with the provisions of the ELDT regulations relating 
to driving experience requirements for CMV instructors would meet or 
exceed the level of safety achieved by complying with the ELDT 
regulations. Although SBL provides the resumes of the two instructors 
for whom it seeks the exemption, SBL has not demonstrated that allowing 
the instructors to provide ELDT without the required experience would 
achieve an equivalent level of safety as would be achieved by complying 
with the ELDT instructor qualification requirements. SBL cites to 2010 
data indicating a downward trend in motor vehicle fatalities, however, 
that data is not relevant to whether not complying with the ELDT 
regulations provides an equivalent level of safety (https://www.bts.gov/content/motor-vehicle-safety-data). As to the 2008 ATRI 
study SBL cites, FMCSA and the ELDTAC considered that study, along with 
other studies, during the rulemaking. FMCSA concluded that data quality 
and

[[Page 78766]]

methodological issues prevented the study from being used as definitive 
guidance and further noted that ATRI described the study's results as 
preliminary. Further, the ATRI study is not determinative of whether 
the ELDT provided by the individuals subject to this exemption request 
would achieve a level of safety equivalent to that achieved by 
complying with the current instructor qualifications.
    The Agency concurs with commenters stating allowing some 
individuals to provide ELDT without the required driving experience 
could open the door for similar exemption requests. If exemptions are 
granted on a widespread basis, such a result would be inconsistent with 
a primary goal of the ELDT regulations, which was to establish a 
uniform Federal minimum ELDT standard.
    For the above reasons, SBL's exemption application is denied.

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-27775 Filed 12-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P