Entry-Level Driver Training NPRM, Federal Register 12/26/07

Entry-Level Driver Training NPRM, Federal Register 12/26/07

Entry-Level Driver Training NPRM, Federal Register 12/26/07

Background

  1. Statement of the Problem (73227)
  • FHWA determined need for technical guidance for truck driver training in 1980s
  • 1995 Adequacy Report concluded that effective ELDT must include behind the wheel (BTW) training
  • 2004 FMCSA implemented training regulations with no BTW training; 2005 DC Circuit found rule arbitrary and capricious, remanded decision
  1. History (73227)
  2. The Adequacy Report – 1995 Report by FHWA, used Model Curriculum as baseline standard, concluded that formal training is the key to adequate training, but found no conclusive data on incidence of crashes and the amount of training a driver had received
  3. DC Circuit Decision – Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety argued in DC Circuit that FMCSA ignored the conclusion of the Adequacy Report that BTW training was necessary; 12/05 Court remanded decision but did not vacate 2004 rule
  4. TrainingResearch Studies –TRB Synthesis 5 recommended 5 practices for improving ELDT: adherence to PTDI standards, finishing training for solo drivers, use of multimedia instructional materials, use of affordable simulation options, and employment of videos for non-driving issues; TRB Synthesis 13 describes 6 aspects of CMV training where shortcomings exist: content, instructional methods, trainers, training and curriculum design, measurement standards, and operator abilities
  5. Responding to TRB Conclusions – FMCSA is aware that more research is needed but believes that the proposed mandatory training standards should not be delayed any further while research continues; FMCSA invites comments (73230) to its responses to each of the 6 shortcomings identified by TRB Synthesis 13
  6. Request for Comment on the Need for the Regulation (73231)
  7. FMCSA believes proposal will reduce the chances of an entry-level driver’s involvement in a crash but notes the absence of formal data supporting this hypothesis; requests comments (73231) that would address any of the research gaps that make it impossible to demonstrate a relationship between increases in systematic training and improved safety

General Discussion of the Proposal

  1. Scope and Applicability (73231)
  2. Proposal would require that an applicant for a CDL had successfully completed classroom and BTW (44 hours class A, 32 hours class B/C) training prior to receiving a CDL; proposal would apply to all persons applying for any class of CDL for the 1st time to operate CMVs in interstate commerce and to persons upgrading their CDL class
  3. Proposal would become operational 3 years following the effective date of the final rule; once rule is operational, a person whose CDL has been revoked or had expired more than 4 years earlier would be required to meet the training standards
  4. Proposal requires a person applying for a CDL to provide a Driver Training Certificate to the State driver’s license agency (SDLA), state would have to include record of certificate in the Commercial Driver License Information System and retain a copy
  5. Curriculum Content (73232)
  6. Curriculum developed by FMCSA through analyzing components of Model Curriculum, PTDI core curriculum, and the curricula of surveyed training facilities; based on components that directly relate to safely operating a CMV
  7. FMCSA believes specifying minimum hours of training and the percentage of training BTW is necessary but requests comments (73232) on methods of ensuring the adequacy and quality of training if minimum hours were not specified , including behind the wheel training, asks to what extent performance standards could be substituted for mandatory training time
  8. FMCSA is concerned with matching specific curriculum requirements to classes of CDLs and asks the following questions (73232):
  1. Would a separate “add on” component be needed specifically for those changing from one class to another or adding a specific endorsement?
  2. Invites comments/proposals about matching specific curricula components to licensing actions involving SDLA; e.g., if a driver wants to upgrade from a class B to a class A CDL, what training should be required, and what type of training certificate should be presented to the SDLA? Should the driver be required to complete the entire Class A classroom and BTW training, or should a more limited supplemental training curriculum be required? Should a supplemental curriculum include modifications to both the classroom and BTW components?
  3. Proposed ELDT curriculum contains 44 hours of BTW experience for class A applicants and 32 hours for class B/C applicants, FMCSA believes the skills required for classes B and C are similar enough to be covered by the same training program; BTW hours for each CDL class must be conducted in a vehicle that is representative of the type which the applicant needs the CDL to operate
  4. Drivers who are currently required to obtain hazmat/passenger carrying endorsements would still be required to obtain those endorsements
  5. FMCSA seeks comments (73233) on content and extent of proposed training for class A and class B/C applicants and whether a separation of class B and class C requirements into individual curricula would have merit. If so, what type of content should be included in each curriculum? Comments are sought on the minimum specifications for the type pf vehicle that should be required for class B and C BTW training. FMCSA seeks comments/data on correlation between hours and content of training and the driving records of persons completing such training.
  6. Minimum Hours of Training Proposed

Class A Applicants

SectionClassroom hoursBTW hours Total hours

Basic Operation / 20 / 24 / 44
Safe operating Practices / 8 / 17 / 25
Advanced operating practices / 15 / 3 / 18
Vehicle maintenance / 7 / 0 / 7
Non-driving activities / 26 / 0 / 26
TOTAL / 76 / 44 / 120
PERCENTAGE / 63% / 37% / 100%

Class B/C Applicants

SectionClassroom hoursBTW hours Total hours

Basic Operation / 15 / 18 / 33
Safe operating Practices / 8 / 12 / 20
Advanced operating practices / 11 / 2 / 13
Vehicle maintenance / 5 / 0 / 5
Non-driving activities / 19 / 0 / 19
TOTAL / 58 / 32 / 90
PERCENTAGE / 64% / 36% / 100%
  • NPRM does not propose to authorize substitution of simulator training for the minimum hours of BTW training; FMCSA requests (73233) references to studies showing the effectiveness of simulator training and comments on the potential for substitution such training for actual driving time
  • Following training, trainee must pass knowledge and skills tests to show mastery of required information; tests must be based on training provided and cover the entire range of information, maneuvers, and operations taught; only qualified instructors may administer/score tests
  1. Training Providers (73234)
  2. Training provider/program would have to be accredited by US Department of Education (ED) or by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA); motor carrier training programs would have to be accredited to count as ELDT programs
  3. FMCSA seeks comments (73234) regarding the appropriateness of accreditation as a means of maintaining quality control over the training provided, the ability of existing entry-level training facilities to acquire accreditation, and the necessity of acknowledging CHEA in addition to ED as an entity that may recognize accrediting agencies for purposes of this ELDT. Comments are also sought on any possible alternatives to accreditation that would accomplish similar objectives
  4. Compliance and Enforcement (73234)
  5. Entry-Level driver would receive a Driver Training Certificate following successful completion of the required training; certificate would include information about the driver and training institution and a certifications signed by an official of the training institution; entry-level driver would provide certificate to the SDLA prior to receiving a CDL
  1. Implementation Date (73234)
  2. FMCSA proposes to begin requiring compliance with the requirements set forth in the NPRM 3 years after the effective date of the final rule; believes 3 year period would provide states with sufficient time to make any changes that may be required to implement training regulations; seeks comments (73234) about the ability of states to carry out the proposals within the 3 year timeframe and on the length of the implementation period in general
  3. Timeframe should also allow time for the driver training industry to develop and begin offering training that meets the proposed requirements as well as to obtain accreditation; seeking comments (73234) about existing student capacity at training schools and whether the proposed 3 year timeframe is appropriate; seeks comments about the probable costs of ELDT and any anticipated impacts on carrier operations
  4. Changes to the Existing Rule (73235)
  5. Current 4 part ELDT required by subpart E of part 380 would be incorporated into new subpart F
Top View