[Federal Register: May 21, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 29383-29405]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21my04-26]                         


[[Page 29383]]

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

Part IV





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration



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



49 CFR Part 380



Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle 
Operators; Final Rule


[[Page 29384]]


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

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

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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 
Sec.  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 
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 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.

[[Page 29385]]

    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.

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.
    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 entry-level 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).

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.

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 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

[[Page 29386]]

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 entry-level 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 (Sec. Sec.  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 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 
cost-effectiveness 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 entry-level 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), Tri-State Semi Driver Training, Inc. (Tri-
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 
Tri-State 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,

[[Page 29387]]

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-the-
job observations by route supervisors. Similarly, C. R. England, Inc. 
states that, ``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 entry-level 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.''
    AHAS states that in the review of the effectiveness of private 
sector entry-level 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 entry-level 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

[[Page 29388]]

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 performance-based 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 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 entry-level 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 
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 entry-level 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 Sec.  383.113 lists the ability to stop the 
vehicle, as well as air brake application. FMCSA believes CDL examiners 
will

[[Page 29389]]

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 
(Sec. Sec.  172.500 through 172.560), 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 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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 29390]]

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 
federally-mandated 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 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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. 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 one-year 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 entry-level 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-

[[Page 29391]]

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 Sec.  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 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 entry-level 
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 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 Sec.  391.11, driver responsibilities 
under Sec.  391.13, and disqualifications based on various offenses, 
orders, and loss of driving privileges under Sec.  391.15.

Hours of Service

    The IBT strongly supports training in hours-of-service regulation. 
Given the

[[Page 29392]]

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 hours-of-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 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.
    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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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. Brown-Line, 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.

[[Page 29393]]

    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 Sec.  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 
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.
    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 Sec.  380.503 and who has a training certificate 
meeting the requirements of Sec.  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 entry-level 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

[[Page 29394]]

demonstrate that the employer's entry-level 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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  382.401(b)(4). In addition, the records required 
by Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 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 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 
90-day 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 (Sec. Sec.  
172.700 through 172.704) that are similar in form to what today's final 
rule requires. RSPA requires employers to

[[Page 29395]]

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 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 entry-level 
truck, motorcoach, and school bus drivers, are estimates that were 
derived for the purposes of estimating the economic impacts. They were 
based on 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

[[Page 29396]]

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 cost-beneficial 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, 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 owner-operator 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 national-level 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 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 29397]]

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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 entry-level 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.
    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 5-percent 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 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 entry-level 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

[[Page 29398]]

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 entry-level 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 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 for-hire 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 
entry-level 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 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 entry-level 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 entry-level 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 entry-level 
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:

[[Page 29399]]

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 third-party 
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 entry-level 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 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, self-directed) training to provide 
entry-level drivers with the necessary instruction, since such training 
is generally less costly than more traditional classroom-style 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 for-hire 
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 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 entry-level 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 entry-level 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

[[Page 29400]]

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 entry-level drivers, FMCSA 
estimated record-keeping 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 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 driver-training 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 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, injury-related, 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 truck-related crash ($79,873) allows us to arrive at the cost-
beneficial threshold of 201 annual crashes. To be cost-beneficial, 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 5-percent 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 cost-
beneficial.
    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

[[Page 29401]]

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.

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-to-year how 
many small employers on average would be likely to hire an entry-level 
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 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 10-
year 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 entry-level 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.

[[Page 29402]]



                            Table 1.--Average Annual Revenues of Small Trucking Firms
                                   [NAICS Code 4841, General Freight Trucking]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Compliance costs
                                                        Number of firms     Average annual        ($1000)  as
                    Revenue size                          (percent of     revenues  per firm  percent of  annual
                                                        segment total)         (millions)     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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Compliance costs
                                                        Number of firms     Average annual        ($1000)  as
                    Revenue size                          (percent of     revenues  per firm  percent of  annual
                                                        segment total)         (millions)     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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Compliance costs
                                                        Number of firms     Average annual        ($1000)  as
                    Revenue size                          (percent of     revenues  per firm  percent of  annual
                                                        segment total)         (millions)     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://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=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' 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 Sec.  
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.).

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 ``entry-level driver'' as a person 
with less than one-year's experience operating a CMV as defined by 
Sec.  383.5 for any employer in interstate commerce from a period

[[Page 29403]]

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, hours-of-
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\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This 32,425 estimate for currently employed entry-level 
drivers consists of 30,765 student truck drivers, 1,575 student 
motorcoach drivers and 85 student school bus 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) x 10 minutes per 
motor carrier/training entity/60 minutes equals 5,404].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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

[[Page 29404]]

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.

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

    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 low-income 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 low-income 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 create disproportionate environmental 
health risks or safety risks to children.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    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.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    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.


0
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

0
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.


0
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.

Subpart E--Entry-Level Driver Training Requirements


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

    (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.


Sec.  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 Sec.  390.3(f) of this subchapter.


Sec.  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.


Sec.  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

[[Page 29405]]

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).


Sec.  380.505  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 Sec.  380.513 from the training provider.


Sec.  380.507  Driver responsibilities.

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


Sec.  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 Sec.  380.503.
    (b) Each employer must place a copy of the driver's training 
certificate in the driver's personnel or qualification file.
    (c) All records required by this subpart shall be maintained as 
required by Sec.  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.


Sec.  380.511  Employer recordkeeping responsibilities.

    The employer must keep the records specified in Sec.  380.505 for 
as long as the employer employs the driver and for one year thereafter.


Sec.  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.
    (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 ----------has 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]