stressed that it should be combined with a minimum BTW hours
requirement, which would be ``the most effective means to ensure that
training providers furnish high quality training and that they
thoroughly assess the skills of the trainees.''
    On the other hand, NASDPTS stated it is ``unaware of any practical,
measurable and universally acceptable means of employing an outcomes-
based approach in lieu of a required number of BTW hours.'' Minnesota
stated that if ``performance standards'' are adopted in lieu of a
minimum BTW hours requirement, ``[t]his would defeat the purpose of
requiring comprehensive entry-level driver training and will add
another skewing variable to the purposed baseline of measuring the
effectiveness of training in reducing crashes by tracking it through
CDLIS.'' CVTA thought FMCSA's question regarding possible alternatives
to a minimum BTW hours requirement was misleading, ``as the FMCSA seems
to suggest that a performance or outcomes approach has not been
selected. Clearly it has.''
    FMCSA Response: For the reasons discussed below, this final rule
does not require any minimum number of BTW hours for the completion of
the Class A and B curricula, as proposed in the NPRM. In today's final
rule, the proficient completion of the BTW portions of the Class A and
B curricula is based solely on the training instructor's assessment of
each driver-trainee's individual performance of the required BTW
elements of the range and public road training. The final rule retains
the definitions of ``BTW range training'' and ``BTW public road
training,'' as proposed, so that successful completion of the training
requires that, unless otherwise noted, all elements of the BTW
curricula be proficiently demonstrated while the driver-trainee has
actual control of the power unit during a driving lesson on a range or
public road. Consistent with the NPRM, the final rule does not require
a minimum number of BTW hours for either the P or S endorsement
curriculum.
    FMCSA carefully considered all comments submitted in response to
the questions noted above. Clearly, as evidenced by the volume and
breadth of comments received on the proposed BTW hours requirement,
this issue is significant for a variety of stakeholders affected by
today's rule. And, as we noted in the NPRM, ``the issue of a
`performance-based' approach to BTW training versus an approach
requiring that a minimum number of hours be spent in BTW training was
the most thoroughly debated issue within the ELDTAC'' (81 FR 11944,
11956 (March 7, 2016)). The Agency's conclusion that the final rule
should not, at this time, impose a mandatory minimum number of BTW
hours for the Class A and Class B training, is primarily due to the
fact that, despite the best efforts of FMCSA and the ELDTAC, we were
not able to obtain sufficient quantitative data linking mandatory
minimum BTW training hours with positive safety outcomes, such as crash
reduction, following publication of the NPRM.
    Consistent with the Agency's objective to produce data-driven
regulations that balance motor carrier safety with efficiency, FMCSA
has long recognized the value of quantitative correlative evidence
supporting ELDT. For example, in withdrawing the 2007 NPRM to establish
minimum training requirements for entry-level CMV operators, which
proposed a required minimum number of BTW hours, FMCSA noted the need
``to gather supporting information on the effectiveness of ELDT'' (78
FR 57585, 57587 (September 19, 2013)). Indeed, at the ELDTAC's initial
meeting on February 26, 2015, the Agency presented on the topic of data
gathering and economic analysis as a rule development priority, and a
Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work Group was established within the
ELDTAC.\6\ In the March 2016 NPRM,

FMCSA again requested ``any additional data on the safety benefits of
requiring EDLT . . . (e.g., demonstrated crash reduction as a result of
training)'' (81 FR 11944, 11953 (March 7, 2016)). Unfortunately, the
Agency did not receive any data that could be used in a quantitative
analysis to support the rulemaking.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, February 26-27, 2015. For more
information concerning the Cost-Benefit Analysis/Data Needs Work
Group's efforts to compile data related to the efficacy of entry-
level driver training, see the Work Group's meeting minutes posted
on the ELDTAC's Web site, at eldtac.dot.gov.
    \7\ FMCSA specifically addresses the ATRI and C.R. England
studies, referenced in comments, in the RIA. For the reasons
discussed therein, the Agency does not rely on either of those
studies to draw conclusions regarding the correlation between
training hours and safety outcomes. Further, we note that the ATRI
conclusions on which ATA and other commenters rely are described by
ATRI as ``preliminary results.'' ATRI concludes its analysis with
the observation that its findings ``indicate the need for further
research on driver training and driver safety, beginning with
additional data collection and analysis as part of the present
study.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As several commenters who opposed the minimum hours requirement
noted, Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
requires that Federal agencies propose or adopt regulations that ``to
the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt''.\8\ In light of this Executive Order, and bearing in mind
the Agency's obligation to identify and use ``the least burdensome
tools for achieving regulatory ends,'' \9\ FMCSA has determined not
impose a mandatory minimum BTW hours requirement in today's rule. In
the Agency's judgment, a training standard in which BTW proficiency is
achieved according to the instructor's assessment of individual
performance of required range and public road maneuvers is a more
flexible, and thus less burdensome, option than mandatory minimum hours
because it recognizes that driver-trainees will complete BTW training
at a pace that reflects their varying levels of individual ability.
FMCSA emphasizes, however, that instructors must cover all elements of
the curricula and document the driver-trainee's demonstration of
proficiency in the required BTW skills, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Executive Order 12866, section 1(b)(8) (October 4, 1993);
Executive Order 13563, section 1(b)(4) (January 21, 2011).
    \9\ Executive Order 13563, section 1(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to fulfill the statutory mandate set forth in MAP-21, the
Agency established the ELDTAC and, as required under the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act, relied on the Committee's consensus findings to the
maximum extent possible as the basis for the NPRM. In the hope that the
final rule development process would yield reliable data to support
mandatory minimum BTW hours, FMCSA, as a member of the ELDTAC,
supported the requirement in combination with an outcomes-based
approach, as reflected in the Committee's Consensus Agreement.
    FMCSA believes it was appropriate to propose minimum BTW hours for
the Class A and B curricula, based on the ELDTAC's estimation of the
time an average driver-trainee would need to demonstrate BTW
proficiency. However, as some commenters noted, that approach could
potentially result in the unintended consequence of effectively
penalizing high-performing trainees who may be capable of achieving BTW
proficiency in less time than the proposed required minimum. Based on
the ELDTAC discussions, the Agency does not believe the proportion of
high-performing trainees capable of completing the BTW curricula in
significantly less time than the proposed minimums represents a
substantial percentage of entry-level drivers. However, it is important
to avoid, if possible, imposing unnecessary training costs on that
population.
    FMCSA acknowledges the numerous comments supporting minimum BTW
hours as a ``common sense'' and intuitively effective means of ensuring
that entry-level drivers receive adequate training to safely operate
CMVs. As noted below, the Agency will continue to evaluate the impact
of minimum BTW hours on CMV safety. Because the final rule does not
include a minimum hours requirement as proposed, many of the comments
that raised concerns regarding that approach are now moot. Accordingly,
FMCSA does not specifically respond to comments suggesting that the
requirement would discourage prospective applicants from obtaining a
CDL, dissuade motor carrier employers from providing ELDT, or require
training providers to obtain additional equipment.
    The Agency's adoption of a proficiency-based BTW training standard
in lieu of minimum hours notwithstanding, FMCSA believes that the
ELDTAC process was highly constructive, and we greatly appreciate the
time, effort and expertise put forth by ELDTAC members. The Committee's
collective expertise allowed us to propose detailed minimum ELDT
curricula and training instructor qualifications, which are largely
retained in the final rule.
    Our decision not to include the minimum BTW hours as part of the
Class A and B curricula should not necessarily be construed as the
Agency's last word on this subject. In order to gather data which will
allow FMCSA to perform a thorough post-rule evaluation, we require in
today's rule that all individual training certifications submitted to
the TPR by training providers include the total number of BTW hours
spent by each driver-trainee in achieving proficiency, as determined by
the training instructor. Collecting this information will allow the
Agency to compare the CMV driving records of drivers who received
varying amounts of BTW training, and to draw conclusions regarding the
extent to which hours of BTW training correlate to safer driving
outcomes. This data will also assist in the Agency's oversight of
training providers.
    The Agency will thus continue to assess whether minimum BTW hours
requirements are necessary to improve CMV safety, and, if so, at what
levels. Should FMCSA ultimately decide, on the basis of post-rule
quantitative data, to revisit the issue of mandatory minimum BTW hours
for entry-level driver training, we will do so through notice-and-
comment rulemaking. We note, however, that today's rule does not
prohibit States or training providers from requiring a minimum number
of BTW hours, as many CMV driver training programs currently do.
    While the final rule does not impose mandatory minimum BTW hours,
FMCSA nevertheless expects that, based on the extensive experience of
CMV driver training organizations represented on the ELDTAC,\10\ most

driver-trainees will still spend approximately 30 and 15 hours BTW
demonstrating proficiency in the required Class A and Class B curricula
elements, respectively. The 30 BTW hours for Class A and the 15 BTW
hours for Class B are based on the ELDTAC's informed estimation of the
minimum amount of time the average driver-trainee would need to
repetitively and proficiently demonstrate all of the required BTW
skills set forth in the curricula. As described by the ABA, a member of
the ELDTAC, in its comments, ``[t]he minimum [required BTW hours] was
based on the experience of current training providers' ability to
deliver a basic program and ensure that all of the material was
covered.'' Similarly, Advocates, also a member of the ELDTAC, commented
that the minimum BTW hours requirement ``reflects the consensus
determination of the ELDTAC about the lowest level of BTW training that
is necessary under the training curriculum . . .'' Accordingly, the
Agency is retaining 30- and 15-hours for the Class A and B curricula,
respectively, as the basis for estimating the costs of the final rule,
as discussed in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Members of the ELDTAC included a variety of CMV driver
training experts, including the Professional Truck Drivers Institute
(PTDI), a non-profit organization that develops uniform skill
performance, curriculum and performance standards for the trucking
industry; the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving
Schools (NAPFTDS), a non-profit organization whose membership
includes more than 100 publicly funded schools that operate truck
driver training programs; and the Commercial Vehicle Training
Association (CVTA), a national trade association representing the
proprietary truck driving schools in the U.S. and Canada, with
member school locations in 41 states graduating approximately 50,000
entry-level drivers per year. In addition to FMCSA, the remaining
members of the ELDTAC are: FMCSA, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
American Bus Association, Paraprofessional and School-Related
Personnel, American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO), Amalgamated
Transit Union (AFL-CIO), American Trucking Associations, Citizens
for Reliable and Safe Highways, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance,
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, Great West Casualty
Company, Greyhound Lines, Inc., International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle Division,
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, National Association of
Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools, National Association of Small
Trucking Companies, National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services, National School Transportation Association,
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Professional Truck
Drivers Institute, Stevens Transport, Spoon Trucking, Truckload
Carriers Association, Truck Safety Coalition, United Motorcoach
Association, and Women in Trucking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Agency's judgment, the extensive CMV driver training
expertise represented on the ELDTAC is a credible basis for FMCSA's
assessment of the cost of compliance with the BTW portions of the Class
A and Class B curricula. FMCSA expects, however, that some trainees
will demonstrate BTW proficiency in less than 30 or 15 hours and that
others will require more time to achieve a proficient level of
performance of the required BTW elements of those curricula.
Accordingly, actual costs of compliance for these trainees will be
lower or higher than the costs estimated in the RIA, but the Agency
currently has no data on which to determine variations in cost for
trainees who achieve BTW proficiency in either less time or more time
than the average student.
    Under today's rule, BTW proficiency is determined solely by the
instructor's evaluation of how well the driver-trainee performs the
fundamental vehicle control skills and driving procedures set forth in
the curricula. In the final rule, FMCSA clarifies this point in the
introduction to the Class A and B curricula. As a number of commenters
observed, a proficiency-based standard based entirely on individual
skill levels and learning abilities, rather than a mandatory minimum
number of hours spent on either a range or public road, will permit
skilled trainees to demonstrate proficiency more efficiently than
adherence to a minimum training time. Accordingly, since the final rule
does not require minimum BTW hours, there is no need to permit highly
proficient trainees to ``opt out'' of that requirement, as several
commenters requested.
    Instructors will also determine how much or how little training is
required for individual skills, as proposed in the NPRM. The final
rule, therefore, emphasizes the individual trainee's attainment of
performance goals as set forth in the curricula and evaluated by the
instructor. As IOUE noted in its comments, since there is no
requirement that training providers devote a specified amount of time
to individual curriculum topics in the core BTW curricula, training
programs will have ``the latitude to emphasize topics that present the
greatest safety challenges'' in the operation of CMVs in various
segments of the motor carrier industry.
    Although today's rule adopts a minimum set of driving skills in
which proficiency must be demonstrated, the Agency does not define
``proficiency''. The instructor, based on his/her professional
judgment, must decide at what point the driver-trainee demonstrates the
proficient performance of required skills and the instructor will
determine the amount of time each driver-trainee needs to spend on the
range and public road portions of the curricula. However, FMCSA
believes that demonstrated proficiency requires some level of
successful repetition of the required BTW curricula elements, as
determined by the instructor. In other words, performing each required
maneuver correctly one time does not mean that the trainee has
demonstrated proficiency. In the Agency's view, a ``one and done''
approach is essentially the equivalent of the CDL skills tests. MAP-21
requires that FMCSA establish ELDT requirements addressing the
knowledge and skills necessary for the safe operation of a CMV (49
U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)(A)). Since the CDL skills testing protocols in part
383 were in place years before Congress enacted the ELDT requirements
in MAP-21, we conclude that Congress intended that the BTW training
requirements be more extensive than a simple one-time demonstration of
skills. In addition, as noted above, the ELDTAC's estimation of the 30
and 15 hours to successfully complete the BTW elements of the Class A
and B curricula assumed some level of repetition of required
skills.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Agency notes that a number of commenters opposed to
the BTW minimum hours requirement proposed a ``Master Trip Sheet'' as a
preferable alternative. Trip sheets are a means to document the
repeated successful demonstration of required skills. The Master Trip
Sheet specifically considered by the ELDTAC, and endorsed by ATA \12\
and other commenters, contained the individual BTW Class A curriculum
elements; it also included space for the instructor to note that the
driver-trainee correctly performed each BTW element, a total of five
times, in order to demonstrate proficiency. (The ELDTAC assumed fewer
repetitions would be necessary to demonstrate proficiency in Class B
BTW skills).\13\ The use of that Master Trip Sheet as a means of
documenting proficiency therefore assumes that effective BTW training
involves some degree of repetition, or practice, of the required
skills. (The use of a Master Trip Sheet as a tool for documenting
driver-trainees' proficiency under today's rule is discussed further
below.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Final Regulatory Impact Analysis for FMCSA's response
to ATA's assertion that, had the Agency conducted a detailed
analysis of the ELDTAC Master Trip Sheet alternative, in accordance
with the directives of OMB Circular A-4 ``a performance-based BTW
requirement would have prevailed'' over the minimum hours
requirement because it would have produced a more favorable cost
benefit analysis.
    \13\ ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 28-29, 2015. p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, individual commenters also endorsed the value of the
repeated demonstration of required skills. For example, Werner
Enterprises noted that ``[a] requirement expressed in terms of
consistent demonstration of applicable skills is more appropriate [than
minimum BTW hours] and would serve as a better predictor of increased
safety outcomes.'' Similarly, TCA stated that ``[t]ruck driving is a
skill . . . through which repetition and practice will almost certainly
increase a driver's awareness and performance when operating equipment
on our highways.''
    In the Agency's judgment, safe CMV driving, like many other skills,
requires some level of repetition and practice. Repetition of required
skills also increases the likelihood that driver-trainees will have the
opportunity to demonstrate their proficiency under a wider array of
road and weather conditions than a ``one time'' demonstration,
particularly with regard to public road training. For example, the
proficient entry and exit of an interstate

or other controlled access highway could potentially be demonstrated in
both wet and dry weather, which would provide the instructor with a
more complete picture of the trainee's ability to successfully navigate
real-world situations. The importance of training under conditions
trainees will face as CMV drivers was noted in a December 2015 survey
of long-haul truckers, conducted by the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). The NIOSH survey found that 38
percent of the respondents believed they did not receive adequate
entry-level driver training to ``safely drive a truck under all road
and weather conditions'' (emphasis added).\14\ However, under the final
rule, training instructors maintain the flexibility to determine the
extent to which the successful repetitive performance of required
skills demonstrates proficiency for individual driver-trainees on a
case-by-case basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ G.X. Chen, et al., Accident Analysis and Prevention, NIOSH
national survey of long-haul truck drivers: Injury and safety
(2015), available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.09.001
(accessed October 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in the NPRM, instructors also maintain flexibility to
select the specific means or method by which a driver-trainee's
proficient performance of required BTW skills is recorded in order to
comply with the documentation requirements in Sec.  380.715(b). As
noted above, instructors will also need to capture the total number of
hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing BTW training, so that
this information can be included in the training certifications
submitted to the TPR, as required in Sec.  380.717. Nothing in today's
rule prohibits the use of Master Trip Sheets to document either the
driver-trainee's proficient demonstration of BTW skills or the total
number of hours spent in completing the BTW curriculum, as required in
Sec.  380.715(b).
    The NPRM did not propose a minimum hours requirement for BTW
training in either the P or the S endorsement curricula, and, for the
reasons discussed above, the final rule does not include such
requirements. However, the final rule does require that training
providers who certify, through the TPR, the successful completion of
the P and/or S BTW (range and public road) curricula, must indicate the
total number hours spent by each driver-trainee in completing the BTW
curriculum. FMCSA will use this information to assist us in a post-rule
evaluation of whether, and to what extent, varying amounts of BTW
training impact the safe operation of passenger-carrying CMVs and
school busses.

12. Minimum Number of Theory Hours

    The NPRM set forth minimum theory curricula requirements for the
Class A and Class B CDLs and the P, S, and H endorsements. As proposed,
the training provider must cover all curriculum topics and assess
driver-trainees' understanding of the material in a written or
electronic format. Driver-trainees must receive a minimum score of 80
percent on the theory assessment. FMCSA did not propose a minimum
number of required hours for any of the theory curricula.
    Comments: The VA DMV recommended a minimum number of hours for
theory instruction in order to provide consistency across training
programs. VA DMV also noted that ``not having a minimum period assigned
to the theory training will make it difficult for FMCSA or SDLA
auditors to ensure the necessary training is provided.''
    FMCSA Response: Today's final rule does not impose any minimum
number of required hours for completion of any of the theory curricula.
The Agency believes that the final rule ensures an appropriate minimum
standard for entry-level driver theory instruction by prescribing
specific topics for each of the five theory curriculum, requiring the
training provider to cover all topics, and requiring that driver-
trainees demonstrate their understanding of the material by achieving
on overall minimum score of 80 percent on the theory assessment. Each
of these requirements is verifiable through an audit by FMCSA or its
authorized representative.
    Further, this approach retains flexibility for training providers
and driver-trainees to cover the required topics at a pace that is
comfortable for them. FMCSA also notes that, as with the other
requirements established in the final rule, the individual topics of
the theory curricula represent the minimum amount of knowledge
necessary for ELDT. Today's rule permits States and individual training
providers to require that driver-trainees complete additional theory
topics.

13. Clock vs. Academic Hours

    In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed allowing training providers flexibility
by using either clock-hours or academic hours (i.e., 50 minutes)
depending on the type of entity that offers the training (e.g. motor
carriers vs. community college). FMCSA requested comment on this
proposal and asked whether there is a discernable difference between
the two concepts.
    Comments: The NSTA commented that, since there is a need for set-up
and administrative time prior to actual training, ``the concept of
academic hours is appropriate for all training providers,'' regardless
of type. CVTA stated that, while ``training providers should be allowed
to use whichever unit is best for their program,'' the ELDTAC Consensus
Agreement ``clearly indicated that BTW should be measured in 50 minute
hours.'' Accordingly, CVTA believes that in the final rule, BTW time
should be based on academic hours, which is ``the predominant
measurement of schools and training providers.''
    Other commenters, including NAPT, ABA, Schneider, and the VA DMV,
supported the NPRM's approach of allowing training providers to decide
whether they would use clock or academic hours because the flexibility
would accommodate the specific training being delivered. These
commenters generally did not perceive a discernible difference between
the two concepts.
    The DMTA thought there was an obvious difference between the two
concepts, but did not object to the use of academic hours ``so long as
an equivalency is maintained so that the actual time spent at
activities is equal to the clock hours required by FMCSA.'' Utah
commented that if the Agency ``is going to allow the usage of credit
hours, FMCSA needs to define how many practical hours should be
considered a credit hour.''
    An individual commenter noted that for every six academic hours,
``you have lost one hour of clock hour training time.'' Other
commenters said that if academic hours are allowed, then the total
hours should be increased to match the clock hours. The Delaware
Department of Education (DDE) commented that, while trainers understand
what an hour on the clock means, many would not know how to interpret
an academic hour. Michigan commented that, in its experience, truck
schools misuse terms such as ``academic hours'' and ``credit hours'' to
``grossly'' misrepresent actual training time. DTCC and NGWA also
recommended that clock hours should be used as the standard training
unit.
    FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, the Agency uses the term
``clock hours'' (i.e., 60 minutes) as the standard measurement of BTW
training time. We note that the resolution of this issue remains
relevant. Although the final rule does not mandate minimum BTW hours,
training providers must document and report the actual number of hours
that each driver-trainee spends

in completing BTW training (under Sec. Sec.  380.715 and 380.717, as
revised).
    Based on the commentary, FMCSA is concerned that exclusive use of
the term ``academic hour,'' or permitting either term to be used at the
training provider's discretion, would cause confusion and inconsistency
in the documentation of BTW delivery, even if FMCSA attempted to
convert ``academic hours'' to ``clock hours,'' or vice-versa, as some
commenters suggested. FMCSA therefore believes that ``clock hour'' is a
term that is easily understood by all training entities and consistent
with a uniform minimum standard

14. Duplication Between CLP Knowledge Test and Theory Training

    FMCSA requested comment on whether there is duplication between
ELDT theory training and the CLP exam and, if so, whether such
duplication should be minimized or eliminated.
    Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments in response to this
question. Most commenters, including OOIDA, Schneider, DTCC, NYAPT,
Delaware Motor Transport Association, DDE, and Werner, asserted that,
to the extent duplication exists, it serves to reinforce key concepts
and should not be eliminated. Werner noted, however, that ``[a]ny
duplication that does not have a demonstrable benefit to the driver-
trainee or the general public should be minimized to the extent
practical.'' The VA DMV commented that ``[r]eceiving the information in
multiple mediums will assist in reinforcing the information with
drivers and lead to better retention of the information.''
    Michigan believes that, while the CLP exam and ELDT theory training
cover the same subject matter, each serves a distinct purpose. ``The
CLP exam measures for minimum competency for the purposes of allowing a
driver to begin training. The theory training should build on that
minimum competency and improve the entry-level driver's skills . . .''
CVTA also noted that, while the CLP exam and theory training address
many of the same topics, ``. . . the theory portion should not be
eliminated or minimized because it teaches many additional subjects, in
greater depth than are covered on the Commercial Learner's Permit
exam.''
    NRECA did not find any duplication between theory training and the
CLP exam. On the other hand, Driver Holdings LLC believed there is
duplication and requested that it ``be eliminated from the ELDT theory
training.'' Several individual CMV driving trainers also requested that
duplication be minimized or eliminated. Farris Brothers, Inc. commented
that, if driver-trainees complete ELDT theory training, a CLP should
then be issued. Utah, noting that ``applicants who are completing the
minimum training will have already completed the knowledge exam,''
asked whether driver-trainees' knowledge should, in effect, be tested
twice, or would it be better to ``test the application of that
knowledge through various skills tests.'' The Iowa DOT commented that
``[i]t would be reasonable through training to eliminate the need for
knowledge tests at the SDLA . . . while allowing the SDLA to test
randomly or when evidence exists to warrant a re-test.''
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees with commenters who suggest that, to
the extent duplication between the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory
training exists, it should not be minimized or eliminated because some
degree of repetition benefits driver-trainees by reinforcing the core
concepts of safe CMV driving. Therefore, as proposed, all of the
curricula in today's rule retain a theory training component.
    As several commenters noted, the CLP knowledge test and ELDT theory
training serve separate and distinct functions in CMV driver education.
Theory training, as set forth in today's rule, is designed to provide
driver-trainees with substantive understanding of the operating
characteristics of the vehicles they intend to operate, safe driving
practices, and the legal and medical requirements related to CMV
driving. The CLP knowledge test is designed to assess whether CDL
applicants have sufficient knowledge of basic concepts related to the
safe operation of CMVs. FMCSA believes that the two approaches each
represent important and distinct elements of CMV driver education.

15. Core Curricula--Class A and Class B CDLs

    FMCSA proposed a Class A and B CDL core curriculum. The Class A
curriculum addressed the knowledge and skills necessary to safely
operate combination vehicles (Group A), while the Class B curriculum
pertains to heavy straight vehicles (Group B). The proposed curricula
set forth training topics specific to the underlying CDL class, all
elements of which must be taught and assessed. The Agency requested
comment on the scope and content of the proposed curricula.
    Comments: The Agency received a number of comments regarding the
content of the individual core curricula. Some commenters suggested
adding topics to one or more of the curricula, while others believed
that certain elements should be removed.
    Schneider recommended that the Class A BTW-public road curriculum
include a requirement to practice entry and exit of the interstate,
noting that it ``often encounters newly licensed drivers who enter its
finishing program without any experience operating a CMV on a highway
or interstate.'' CM Air Brake and Electrical Training Services, LLC,
commented that the ELDT rulemaking presents a unique opportunity to
``ensure that drivers have a sufficient understanding of air brake
systems to actually recognize whether or not the brake systems on their
vehicles are functioning properly.''
    The AAR supported the NPRM's requirement that driver-trainees be
trained in recognizing potential dangers and appropriate safety
procedures for use at railroad grade crossings. AAR suggested that, in
addition, driver-trainees should be instructed that railroads have
personnel available at the posted Emergency Notification System (ENS)
telephone numbers to receive notification of any information relating
to an unsafe condition at the railroad-highway grade crossing, such as
a warning system malfunction at the railroad-highway grade crossing, or
a disabled vehicle or other obstruction blocking a railroad track at
the railroad-highway grade crossing.
    An individual commenter, noting that improperly inflated tires
increase braking distances and contribute to punctures and blowouts,
suggested that load-to-tire inflation tables be included in the ELDT
curricula.
    Truckers Against Trafficking (TAT) suggested adding an element to
the Class A and B curricula addressing human trafficking in the
trucking industry, focusing on ``the understanding and recognition of
this crime, along with the action steps to be taken.'' Other commenters
suggested adding the following training topics: (1) As part of trip
planning--instruction, practice, and evaluation for map reading
utilizing an atlas; (2) overview of the requirements of the ELDT
regulation along with information on how to report a non-compliant
school; (3) whistleblower protection regulations in 29 CFR part 1978
and the procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of coercion from
motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries;
(4) driver wellness and basic health maintenance that affect a driver's
ability to safely operate a CMV; and (5) Federal rules pertaining to
physical qualifications of CMV drivers, including medical certification
and medical examination procedures.

    The Agency also received comments suggesting that certain topics be
removed from various curricula, primarily because the topic did not
directly apply to the commenter's occupation or segment of the
industry. For example, AAR said that railroad employees should not be
required to demonstrate skills like alley dock backing or other skills
similarly unrelated to their job functions. UPS commented that several
proposed elements in the theory portion of the Class A curriculum,
including photographing the scene and assessing weather and signage
conditions post-crash, ``do not correspond to specific substantive
safety requirements and are inconsistent with prudent operations.''
    Minnesota suggested that the rule ``address training requirements
for non-fifth wheel combinations in addition to the traditional
tractor-trailer combinations,'' noting that if CDL holders are
restricted to operating a non-fifth wheel combination, ``training
curricula needs to be developed to address the needs of operating this
type of class A combination vehicle safely.''
    DDE commented that school bus drivers will typically have a Class B
CDL with P and S endorsements. DDE noted that many elements of the
Class B theory curriculum are not applicable to school buses, including
coupling and uncoupling combination vehicles, hazardous materials
regulations, stopping at weigh stations, awareness of surroundings
including truck stops/rest areas, tire chain procedures, theory of
cargo weight distribution, cargo securement, and hours of service.
    Finally, several commenters, including Minnesota DPS, DTCC, and
Century College, suggested that certain ``dangerous driving maneuvers''
or ``extreme driving conditions'' in the Class A and B BTW public road
curricula, such as skid control and recovery, should be removed from
the BTW portion of the curricula and retained as theory topics only.
DTTC commented that ``[i]t would be impractical at best and dangerous
at worst to mandate [skid control and recovery] as part of BTW
training.''
    FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA revises the Class A
and B CDL curricula to add topics that, as suggested by commenters,
will improve the safe operation of CMVs, including proper entry and
exit of ramps on the interstate and other controlled access highways
and notification to railroad personnel of an unsafe condition at the
railroad-highway grade crossing.
    FMCSA adds specific cross references to applicable pre- and post-
trip inspection sections of the FMCSRs (i.e., Sec. Sec.  392.7 and
396.11) to all of the theory curricula, which include for example:
tires, wheels and rims, emergency equipment, and steering mechanisms.
    Although brakes were identified as a key vehicle system in the
``Identification and diagnosis of malfunctions'' portion of the
proposed Class A and B theory curricula, in the final rule the Agency
expanded the term to include specific types of CMV braking systems,
including ABS, hydraulic and air, as applicable. In response to the
comment regarding non-fifth wheel combinations for Group A vehicles, we
note that techniques for the proper coupling and uncoupling of
combination vehicles are included in the Class A theory curriculum and
that ``coupling devices'' are included within the scope of both pre-
trip and post-trip inspections in Sec. Sec.  392.7 and 396.11,
respectively. In addition, FMCSA adds the words ``as applicable'' after
``coupling and uncoupling combination vehicle units'' in the Class A
curriculum to indicate that more than one type of coupling device
exists.
    The Agency also made various conforming and organizational changes
to the curricula for purposes of clarity and consistency, most of which
are specifically noted below in the section-by-section explanation of
changes from the NPRM.
    The Agency notes that many of the suggested additions to the
training curricula were proposed in the NPRM and remain in the final
rule, including whistleblower protection in 29 CFR part 1978, reporting
incidents of coercion to FMCSA, physical qualification of drivers, and
driver wellness. While we did not include the reporting of non-
compliant training providers as a topic in the curricula, instructions
for doing so will be available on the ELDT Web site. FMCSA considers
human trafficking, suggested by TAT as an additional topic for the
training curricula, to be an extremely important issue. However, it is
not directly related to safe CMV driving skills, and therefore was not
included in the final rule. FMCSA notes that training providers are
free to add any topics they consider relevant to the training
experience, as long as the required elements of the ELDT curricula are
taught and assessed in compliance with today's rule.
    Additionally, FMCSA removed several elements from the ``Post-crash
procedures'' portion of the Class A and B theory curricula that, as UPS
noted, do not directly impact the safe operation of CMVs, including
photographing the scene, obtaining witness information, assessing skid
measurements, and assessing signage, road, and weather conditions. We
also note that the NPRM inadvertently included ``tire chaining
procedures'' in the BTW-public road portion of the Class B curriculum;
the Agency removed that element in the final rule. Tire chaining
procedures remain in the Class A and B theory curricula, as proposed.
    Finally, FMCSA disagrees with commenters suggesting that certain
training topics be deleted from the proposed curricula, or should not
apply to certain CDL holders, because they are not relevant to a
particular occupation or vehicle. Regardless of an applicant's
intentions at the time he or she obtains a CDL or endorsement, the
individual is in fact credentialed to operate a range of CMVs falling
within the CDL class or endorsement received. For example, although an
individual may intend to make a living as a school bus driver, if he or
she holds a Class A or Class B license in addition to the S and P
endorsements, that individual is considered qualified to operate any
CMV falling within those classifications, including straight trucks.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to require that these individuals receive
training commensurate with the CMV driving credentials they hold.
    In response to comments suggesting that certain driving skills,
such as hazard perception and skid control and recovery, be removed
from the Class A and Class B BTW public road curricula and retained as
theory topics only, FMCSA notes that these skills are not necessarily
intended to be performed by the driver-trainee. In the NPRM, the
following BTW skills were specifically designated as ``appropriate for
discussion during public road training or simulated, but not
necessarily performed'' (emphasis added): Hazard perception, railroad
(RR)-highway grade crossing, night operation, extreme driving
conditions, emergency maneuvers/skid avoidance, and skid control and
recovery (81 FR 11944, 11973 (March 7, 2016)).
    These topics remain in the BTW public road curricula because they
are appropriate for commentary instruction, in which the instructor
discusses the proper techniques for responding to these conditions
while the driver-trainee is behind-the-wheel of a CMV, even when such
conditions may not actually be encountered during the training session.
For example, an instructor could discuss adjustments to speed and
following distance that need to be made during periods of heavy rain,
even when actual driving conditions are dry. FMCSA believes that
commentary instruction during public road training provides a valuable
opportunity for

driver-trainees to reinforce safe driving behaviors in a contextual
learning environment. The Agency therefore retains these topics in both
the public road and theory portions of the curricula, as proposed. The
final rule clarifies that instructors must provide commentary
instruction for these elements of the BTW curricula. The final rule
also states that driver-trainees are not required to demonstrate
proficiency in these elements of the BTW curricula.
a. Night Driving/Operation
    As proposed, Class A and B CDL trainees would be required to
receive both theory and BTW (public road) instruction in night
operation of a CMV in order to recognize and respond to the special
problems that night driving presents. While training providers were
strongly encouraged to offer driver-trainees actual night-driving
experience where feasible, they would not be required to do so.
    Comments: Comments were mixed on the need to require driver-
trainees to operate CMVs at night. Truckers for a Cause stated that the
final rule should require ``actual BTW instruction during times of
darkness.'' One commenter suggested that the BTW hours requirement
should be no less than 200 hours, 50 of which should be night driving
hours.
    On the other hand, several training providers supported the NPRM's
approach of not making nighttime driving a requirement. Century College
commented that ``[a]dding a night driving component would add
instructional costs and insurance costs that would be prohibitive,''
noting that drivers could learn night driving operations from specific
employers after obtaining a CDL.
    FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, the BTW public road core
curricula do not require driver-trainees to operate a CMV at night.
Therefore, night driving must be discussed during public road training,
but not necessarily performed. In order to ensure that this topic is
sufficiently addressed during BTW public road training when actual
night driving is not feasible, the training instructor would, for
example, provide commentary instruction to convey how night driving
conditions differ from daytime driving, such as the impact of nighttime
glare on a driver's mirrors. As noted above, the final rule does not
require driver trainees to demonstrate proficiency in BTW elements they
are not required to perform, such as night driving.
b. Substitution of Simulators for BTW Training
    As defined in the NPRM, BTW training means training provided by a
qualified driver-instructor when driver-trainees have actual control of
the power unit during a driving lesson conducted either on a range or
public road. Therefore, as proposed, time spent on a driving simulation
device would not substitute for actual ``hands on the wheel'' training
on a range or public road. The NPRM did, however, include ``driving
simulation devices'' within the scope of ``theory instruction,'' thus
permitting simulator use to fulfill the proposed theory curricula
requirements.
    Comments: Virage Simulation (Virage) commented that three research
studies demonstrated that backing skills learned on a driving simulator
are equal to training in the truck. Virage stated that the ``continued
lack of support by the FMCSA for substitution of BTW hours with
simulation hours is somewhat perplexing in light of the express purpose
of the ELDT NPRM to establish `more extensive entry-level driver
training.' '' Virage proposed that FMCSA allow simulator-based training
for the substitution of up to 50 percent of the required BTW hours.
    Schneider suggested allowing for 10 percent of the BTW training
hours to be completed using driving simulation, noting that simulator
use will allow the training provider to expose the driver-trainee to
adverse conditions that are (1) not readily accessible in the training
provider's region (e.g., snow in the south or mountains in the
Midwest); and/or (2) too dangerous to purposefully recreate on the open
road for training purposes (e.g., a tire blowout or severe wind).
According to Schneider, allowing for simulated drive time will also
have the additional benefits of reducing fuel cost and lowering
emissions in the cost-benefit analysis for this rulemaking. ABA
requested that FMCSA ``recognize the value of simulators, and provide
additional flexibility for their use under this proposal.''
    FMCSA Response: The final rule does not require that a minimum
number of BTW training hours be completed. Accordingly, whether or not
simulation devices can be used to fulfill part of the proposed BTW
hours requirement is no longer an issue. However, in the Agency's
judgment, there is simply no substitute for the time a driver-trainee
actually spends behind the wheel and in direct control of a CMV during
range and public road training. Today's rule therefore does not permit
BTW training to be conducted by using a driving simulation device, and
a driver-trainee may not use a simulation device to demonstrate
proficiency. However, as discussed below, simulators may be used in
theory training.
    FMCSA agrees that simulators can provide valuable learning
opportunities to entry-level drivers to improve driving techniques and
introduce them to hazards and driving conditions they may expect to
encounter in their driving career. The Agency has previously recognized
the value of specified simulation technology for entry-level training
of CMV drivers.\15\ Accordingly, the final rule retains the definition
of ``theory instruction'' proposed in the NPRM, which specifically
includes ``driving simulation devices.'' Consequently, training
providers may use simulation technology in meeting any of the theory
curricula requirements for the Class A and B CDLs and the P, S, or H
endorsements. For example, simulation devices can allow a driver to
better understand how to react in potentially hazardous situations,
which cannot be prudently demonstrated on a public road. Simulators are
also useful in helping students understand how to effectively manage
emergency situations, such as tire blowouts, skid avoidance or control,
and collision avoidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Commercial Motor Vehicle Driving Simulator Validation Study
(SimVal): Phase II (Report No. FMCSA-RRR-10-044, October 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Manual v. Automatic Transmission--Class A and B Curricula
Requirements

    As proposed in the theory portion of the Class A and B curricula,
the topic ``shifting/operating transmissions'' is described as an
introduction to ``basic shifting patterns and procedures,'' which will
enable the trainee to perform basic shifting maneuvers, including
executing ``up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range
transmissions if appropriate.'' The description of the ``shifting/
transmission'' topic in the BTW-public road curricula requires driver-
trainees to ``demonstrate proficiency in proper techniques for
performing safe and fuel-efficient shifting and making any necessary
adjustments in the process.''
    Noting that some carriers utilize only CMVs equipped with automatic
transmissions, FMCSA invited comment on whether there should be an
option to forego this element of the training for driver-trainees who
intend to operate only automatic transmission-equipped CMVs. The NPRM
also noted that, currently, drivers who take their CDL skills test in a
CMV equipped with an

automatic transmission must have an indication on their CDL that the
driver is restricted from operating a CMV with a manual transmission,
49 CFR 383.95(c)(1).
    Comments: Most of the comments on this issue said driver-trainees
should be trained in the type of CMV they intend to operate. Werner
Enterprises (Werner) commented that FMCSA should permit operators of
automatic transmission vehicles to forego the instruction on manual
shift transmissions, noting that requiring manual transmission training
for drivers who intend to operate CMVs equipped only with automatic
transmissions ``will take valuable training time which could be better
devoted to further developing other skill areas.'' According to Werner,
approximately 70 percent of CMVs currently produced are equipped with
automatic transmissions; both manufacturers and carriers agree that
this trend towards automatic transmission CMVs is likely to continue.
ATA, stating that it ``foresees broad adoption of automatic
transmissions in the future,'' suggested that ``FMCSA should seriously
consider giving training providers the flexibility to train drivers for
the equipment they expect to drive.''
    C.R. England also stated that the NPRM ``lacks flexibility because
it does not allow reduced training hours for restricted licenses.''
Noting, for example, that ``if a driver intends to drive an automatic
transmission vehicle and receive a restricted license, less training is
required'' C.R. England suggested that ``required BTW time for a Class
A or Class B license with a manual transmission restriction be reduced
by \1/3\.''
    Schneider and the California Department of Motor Vehicles (CA DMV)
both noted that, if driver-trainees opt to receive training only in an
automatic transmission vehicle, the training provider would need to
indicate that on the training certificate uploaded to the TPR and
States must be able to accept and store that information on the
electronic driving record.
    NASDPTS noted that since almost all school buses are now equipped
with automatic transmissions, there is no value in qualifying school
bus drivers to operate manual transmission-equipped vehicles. DDE and
NAPT also supported the option to forego the manual transmission
element because school buses have automatic transmissions.
    However, several commenters opposed permitting driver-trainees to
obtain training only in an automatic transmission-equipped CMV. The
Iowa DOT said ``the training should be inclusive and not specific to
the transmission.'' In addition, the Iowa DOT thought the NPRM was
unclear regarding the situation in which a driver changes jobs or the
type of vehicle, asking whether a driver ``would have to take the
training over again if they drive a manual transmission because they
were trained in the `automatic only' curriculum?''
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA agrees that ELDT requirements should be
flexible enough to accommodate a driver-trainee's choice to operate a
CMV equipped with an automatic transmission. The final rule does not
require that ELDT occur in a CMV equipped with a manual transmission.
On further review of the ELDTAC meeting record, the Agency believes
this flexibility was already intended. For example, during the
development of the ``shifting/operating transmissions'' component of
the theory portion of the Core A and B curricula, the words ``if
appropriate'' were added to the topic description, so that it would
read as follows: ``[t]his must include training each trainee to execute
up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed dual-range
transmissions, if appropriate'' (emphasis added).\16\ A slightly
revised version of the ``shifting/operating transmissions'' topic,
which included the ``if appropriate'' modifier, appeared in the NPRM.
FMCSA therefore infers that the ELDTAC recognized that training in this
theory topic would necessarily vary according to the type of
transmission the driver-trainee intends to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ ``Proposed Core Curriculum'', ELDTAC Meeting, April 23-24,
2015, available at www.FMCSA.dot.gov/advisory-committees/eldtac/meetings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The description of ``shifting/transmission'' as a component of the
BTW-public road training for Class A, initially presented to the ELDTAC
by the Core Curriculum Working Group at its third meeting on April 9-
10, 2015, remained largely unchanged throughout the remainder of the
ELDTAC's meetings.\17\ The description, cited above, simply refers to
the driver-trainee's ability to demonstrate proficiency in ``proper''
shifting techniques and to make ``necessary adjustments.'' There is no
reference to either manual or automatic transmissions.\18\ An identical
description of the ``shifting/transmission topic'' was subsequently
adopted as part of the Class B BTW-public road curriculum. Again, the
Agency infers that the proposed definition was intentionally not
transmission-specific in order to permit driver-trainees to receive BTW
training in the type of CMV they intend to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The words ``safe and fuel efficient'' were added to the
BTW-public road description of the ``shifting/transmission'' topic
and the word ``required'' was deleted at the ELDTAC meeting on May
14-15, 2015. See ELDTAC Meeting Minutes, May 14-15, 2015.
    \18\ Section 383.5 defines a manual transmission as ``a
transmission utilizing a driver-operated clutch that is activated by
a pedal or lever and a gear-shift mechanism operated by either hand
or foot.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA's conclusion is further supported by the fact that, as
several commenters noted, the prevalence of automatic transmission-
equipped vehicles in the Group A and B classifications is currently
significant and is widely expected to increase over time. In light of
this clear trend toward automatic transmission-equipped CMVs, it defies
logic to presume that the ELDTAC intended to require that all driver-
trainees receive training on a manual transmission, regardless of
whether they intend to operate a CMV so equipped, or would be required
to do so in the course of their employment. The Agency regrets any
confusion caused by posing the question of whether driver-trainees
should be permitted to ``opt out'' of manual transmission training.
Further, FMCSA notes that States, in administering the CDL skills test,
``must check the vehicle in which the applicant takes his or her test
is representative of the vehicle group the applicant has certified that
he or she operates or expects to operate'' (Sec.  383.73(b)(2)).
Accordingly, the NPRM proposed, and the final rule requires, that
training vehicles must be in the same group and type that the driver-
trainee intends to operate for the CDL skills test (Sec.
380.711(b)).The Agency notes that, in addition to the manual
transmission restriction discussed above, other restrictions currently
apply to air brakes and non-fifth wheel connections (Sec.  383.95(a),
(b) and (d)). In the final rule, the Agency adds ``as applicable'' to
the brake-related topic descriptors in the Class A and B curricula and
the coupling descriptor in the Class A curricula, to clarify that
driver-trainees are free to select a training curriculum that is
appropriate for the type of CMV they intend to operate.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Existing regulations require that, if a CDL applicant fails
the air brake component of the knowledge test, the State must
indicate that restriction on the applicant's CLP (Sec.
383.95(a)(1)). In such cases, the applicant could complete BTW
training only in a vehicle that is not equipped with any type of air
brakes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the final rule does not require that driver-trainees
complete a minimum number of BTW training

hours, the question of whether required minimums should be lowered if
BTW training occurs in an automatic transmission-equipped vehicle is
now moot. However, FMCSA does not believe there would have been any
basis on which to reduce the proposed required BTW time when driver-
trainees receive training in a specific type of CMV, such as an
automatic-transmission equipped vehicle or a vehicle not equipped with
air brakes. First, we note that the BTW hours requirements proposed in
the NPRM reflected the total minimum amount of time it would take the
average driver-trainee to proficiently perform the required skills; the
ELDTAC did not ascribe any set number of hours to the performance of
specific tasks. More importantly, as explained above, the Agency
believes that, by keeping the curriculum topic descriptions broad, the
ELDTAC intended to permit flexibility in the type of training
delivered, based on the driver-trainee's choice of vehicle within a
designated group. The ELDTAC agreed to assign a specified number of BTW
hours for the Class A and B curricula after the curricula had been
unanimously adopted by the full committee. FMCSA therefore concludes
that, if the proposed BTW minimum hours requirements had been retained
in the final rule, a reduction in the minimum number of BTW hours based
on any specific vehicle type would not have been justified. The Agency
therefore continues to assume that most driver-trainees will spend at
least 30 and 15 hours to complete the Class A and Class B BTW
curricula, respectively.
    Contrary to the assertion of commenters who noted that, if a
driver-trainee completes training in an automatic transmission-equipped
vehicle, the training provider would need to indicate that on the
trainee's ELDT certification the provider electronically submits to the
TPR, there is no need to identify the specific transmission type in
which the driver completed BTW training. As noted in the NPRM and in
today's rule, each BTW curriculum requires only that the training be
conducted in a vehicle representative of the applicable class or
endorsement. As explained above, there is no ``automatic transmission
only'' training designation. Driver-trainees will take BTW training in
the type of CMV they intend to operate and, consequently, in which they
expect to take the CDL skills test. The training certificate would
simply indicate, for example, that the individual completed training
applicable to a Class A or Class B CDL.
    In response to the Iowa DOT's question concerning what, if any,
ELDT requirements would apply to drivers who obtain ``automatic
transmission only'' training and subsequently have that restriction
removed from the CDL by taking a skills test in a manual transmission-
equipped vehicle, the answer is that no further ELDT would be required.
Again, FMCSA notes there is no ``automatic transmission only'' training
designation. An applicant who takes the CDL skills test in a CMV
subject to a restriction (e.g., a CMV equipped with an automatic
transmission), and who subsequently has that restriction removed
following successful completion of a skills test in a non-restricted
vehicle, is not required to obtain any further ELDT. In today's rule,
FMCSA revises Sec.  380.603 to clarify that the ELDT requirements do
not apply to drivers who simply have a restriction removed from their
CDL.

17. Class C CDL Curriculum

    FMCSA did not propose a curriculum for Class C CDL training because
a Group C vehicle must be designed to transport 16 or more passengers
(including the driver) or any hazardous materials as defined in 49 CFR
383.5. As such, the driver of a Group C vehicle needs a P, S, or H
endorsement. The NPRM proposed training curricula for each of these
endorsements. In addition, because Group C vehicles weigh less than
26,001 pounds, the Agency does not believe it is necessary to prescribe
BTW training comparable to the other classes of CDL.
    Comments: Washington DOL commented that ``[s]ince a Class C driver
must be getting a passenger, school bus or hazardous materials
endorsement to obtain the CDL, Class C drivers should be required to
meet the same minimum behind-the-wheel training requirements as Class B
drivers to ensure public safety.'' The State of Michigan commented that
it ``is satisfied that entry-level Class C drivers will receive
sufficient training through endorsement training,'' but noted that ``if
endorsement training is eliminated from the final rule then the issue
of Class C training should be examined.'' The NYAPT commented that it
is unclear whether the proposed regulations would apply to Class C CDL
holders who drive smaller school buses, including ``Type A'' buses.
NYAPT requested that FMCSA clarify that issue, stating that ``these
drivers should be covered by the regulations given their
responsibilities for transporting our children.''
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not include a Class C CDL curriculum in
today's final rule. As explained in the NPRM, the Agency believes that
Class C license holders will receive the appropriate training required
for any of the three endorsements applicable to a Class C license. For
example, an applicant wishing to transport passengers in a Group C
vehicle must complete the P endorsement training, which includes both
theory and BTW components. Similarly, under today's rule, a driver, a
driver of a ``Type A'' (i.e., ``short'') school buses designed to carry
ten or more passengers, would be required to complete the theory and
BTW portions of both the P and S curricula.
    We note that, under the final rule, applicants for the H
endorsement are not required to obtain BTW training because there is no
State-administered skills test for the H endorsement. As noted
previously, applicants for the H endorsement will already have a Class
A or B CDL, or will be concurrently obtaining a Class A or B CDL at the
time they apply for the H endorsement, or intend to transport hazardous
materials in a vehicle for which a Class A or Class B CDL is not
required. Consequently, H endorsement applicants must complete the
theory curriculum set forth in Appendix E of Part 380 before taking the
State-administered knowledge test required to obtain that endorsement.

18. Passenger Endorsement Training

    The NPRM included a curriculum to address the specific training
needs of a CMV driver seeking a P endorsement. There was no minimum
number of hours proposed for either the theory or BTW (range and public
road) portions of the P endorsement training, but the training provider
must cover all of the topics set forth in the curriculum. Additionally,
the training must be conducted in a representative vehicle for the P
endorsement.
    Comments: Comments on this issue were generally supportive. The ABA
commented that specialized training should be required before an
endorsement is conferred because motor coach driving operations require
a unique skill set. ABA urged adoption of the Model Motorcoach
Curriculum (MMC) and encouraged the use of motorcoach/P endorsement
training providers, stating that most truck driving schools are not
able to address motorcoach driving skills. ABA believes the rule will
increase the transparency of training provider course offerings and
make it easier for individuals to find training providers. Overall, ABA
believes this will likely result in an

increase in training providers for the motorcoach industry, as well as
an increase in hiring opportunities for drivers. In addition to ABA,
the UMA and bus safety groups supported the P curriculum.
    The DDE commented that the theory curriculum for the P endorsement
had additional items not applicable to school bus operations, e.g.,
techniques of photographing an accident scene, skid measurements,
baggage and cargo management, identifying prohibited and acceptable
materials, hours of service, weigh station obligations, and CVSA out-
of-service criteria. DDE stated it would not have trainers qualified to
teach the additional material in the P endorsement curriculum. An
individual commenter suggested that the reference to CVSA inspections
be removed from the S and P curricula ``since the class A/B truck
driver will have a better chance of being at a roadside [inspection]
than a school bus driver.''
    The AAR stated that certain elements of the P curriculum, including
inspection of restrooms and handling of passenger baggage, should not
be required for railroad employees who drive crew vehicles, as those
vehicles ``are not equipped with restrooms and the drivers do not
handle passenger baggage.''
    The NYAPT had no objection to the curriculum content prescribed for
attainment of the P endorsement, but expressed concern over the
potential impact the rigorous training requirements will have on school
bus driver recruitment and hiring.
    Two commenters believed that limousine drivers should not be
required to complete the proposed curriculum for the P endorsement
training. Minnesota Chauffeured Limousine Association (MCLA) stated
that the limousine industry ``already faces difficulty trying to obtain
drivers because of the stipulations put on us by the insurance
companies,'' predicting that ``with these new regulations, it will be
almost impossible to hire drivers or promote drivers to achieve a
passenger endorsement.'' The National Limousine Association (NLA) noted
the positive safety record of the passenger-carrying motor vehicle
industry, suggesting that the P endorsement training should not be
required for smaller CMVs such as vans, shuttles, and mini-coaches. NLA
is not aware of any ``pressing concerns in the pre-arranged passenger
ground transportation industry that would necessitate additional new
training requirements for those vehicles.''
    In addition, NLA noted that the majority of its members own vehicle
fleets comprised primarily of sedans. The organization expressed
concern that ``[i]f the company has one CMV that does interstate work,
then the company will be required to train all of its drivers since
they may at some point be needed to drive the CMV.'' NLA therefore
concluded that ``there should be some exemption [from P endorsement
requirements] for very small operators.''
    FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA retains the passenger
P endorsement curriculum largely as proposed. The Agency adds
drawbridge safety procedures to the theory portion of the P curriculum
and deletes several topics unrelated to safe operation of passenger-
carrying CMVs. These changes are discussed below in the ``Section-by-
Section Explanation of Changes from the NPRM.''
    In response to ABA's suggestion that the Agency adopt the MMC, we
note that the MMC is not necessarily intended for entry-level drivers.
Rather, the MMC is a comprehensive training curriculum for
motorcoaches, more likely to be used in ``finishing'' training for
newly-hired drivers who have already obtained the P endorsement. In
contrast, the P endorsement curriculum in today's rule focuses on the
basic specific skills that a driver-trainee will need to master in
order to safely operate a passenger-carrying CMV.
    Part 383 currently requires that anyone seeking the S endorsement
also pass the knowledge and skills tests for obtaining the P
endorsement (Sec.  380.123(a)(1)). In response to comments that the
proposed P curriculum included topics unrelated to the operation of a
school bus, such as cargo management and weigh station obligations, we
note that such topics are extremely relevant to common carrier motor
coach operations, which are also covered by the P endorsement, and are
thus retained in today's rule.
    In the Agency's judgment, any CMV driver holding a P endorsement
should be capable of safely operating representative passenger vehicles
covered by that endorsement, regardless of whether or not the
individual also holds the S endorsement and intends to drive only
school buses. Similarly, Class B holders who operate railroad crew
vehicles may not intend to operate other types of passenger vehicles,
such as a motor coach, but holding a Class B CDL with a P endorsement
permits them to do so, and they should be trained accordingly.
    In addition, there is no justification for excepting drivers of
``smaller CMVs such as vans, shuttles, and mini-coaches,'' from the P
endorsement curriculum requirements, as suggested by NLA. The fact
remains that these smaller Group C vehicles are used to transport
passengers. Therefore, it is important that drivers of these vehicles
receive passenger endorsement-specific training which allows them to
acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for their safe operation.
    The Agency does not believe that the P curriculum requirements in
today's rule will ``kill the passenger transportation business'' by
making it too difficult to hire limousine drivers as MCLA asserted. To
the contrary, better trained drivers may make it less difficult to
obtain liability insurance. In addition, to the extent that limousine
companies currently provide P endorsement training to employees or
potential employees or wish to begin providing such training, they may
be listed on the TPR if they meet the eligibility requirements set
forth in Sec. Sec.  380.703 and 380.719 of the final rule.
    Finally, as noted below in the discussion of the S endorsement
curriculum, FMCSA does not anticipate that the training requirements in
today's rule will hinder school bus driver recruitment and hiring. The
majority of jurisdictions currently impose school bus driver training
requirements that meet or exceed the minimum standard established in
the final rule. Under both the NPRM and the final rule, such training
programs would be eligible for listing on the TPR. In order to make
this clearer, we amend the definition of ``training provider'' in
today's rule to specifically include local/State governments and school
districts.

19. School Bus Endorsement Training

    The NPRM included a curriculum to address the specific training
needs of a CMV driver seeking an S endorsement. The NPRM did not
propose a minimum number of required hours for either the theory or BTW
(range and public road) portions of the S endorsement training, but the
training provider must cover all of the topics in the curriculum. BTW
training must also be conducted in a representative vehicle for the S
endorsement.
    Comments: Comments were mixed on the proposed S endorsement
training. The NASDPTS believes the proposed curriculum is appropriate.
Furthermore, NASDPTS is confident that training provided by most States
and school districts throughout the nation is consistent with, and in
many cases exceeds, the training outlined in the NPRM. The National
School Transportation Association (NSTA) also endorsed the proposed
curriculum, noting that it ensures that all entry-level drivers will
receive the necessary amount of training on all vital elements

of safe student transportation. Other commenters also supported the
proposed S endorsement curriculum, asserting that since many States
already cover these topics in their mandated school bus driver
training, the proposed curriculum is appropriate as a minimum national
standard.
    The DMTA supported S endorsement training, but stated that no BTW
time should be mandated since the trainee would already have a Class B
CDL or would need to meet the Class B training mandate (which includes
a BTW requirement). Some commenters believed the proposed S endorsement
training is unnecessary because school bus drivers in most States are
currently subject to rigorous training requirements from their State
Highway Patrols or Departments of Education. Consequently, they claim
that school bus drivers are already among the best trained groups of
CDL drivers and have the best safety record. The NYAPT expressed
concern that ``the rigorous training programs and provider network in
place will be supplanted by these new requirements and result in lower
levels of quality and intensity of training.'' Accordingly, NYAPT
requested that ``FMCSA consider ways to grand-parent existing programs
that meet or exceed the proposed high training standards . . .''
    NYAPT also commented that the new requirements could likely have an
effect on the shortage of school bus drivers, stating that ``[t]his
training regimen, however well intended, will make it more difficult
for drivers to be brought on-line in school bus operations.'' A number
of SDLAs, including the North Dakota Department of Transportation, the
Iowa DOT, and the Delaware DMV, opposed the inclusion of the S
endorsement training, also asserting that requiring entry-level
training for school bus drivers would negatively impact the school
districts in their States, which are currently struggling to hire
drivers. Several commenters also noted that MAP-21 did not mandate S
endorsement training.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA retains the S endorsement training in the
final rule. As we acknowledged in the NPRM, while MAP-21 did not
specifically require the adoption of S endorsement training
requirements, the statute did include the P endorsement within the
scope of required ELDT. In light of the fact that part 383 currently
requires that anyone seeking to obtain an S endorsement also obtain a P
endorsement, including the S endorsement training requirements in
today's rule is entirely consistent with MAP-21. FMCSA believes that
retaining the S curriculum in the final rule will improve safety by
providing a more complete approach to training that involves the
transportation of all CMV passengers, including school children.
    FMCSA does not believe the final rule unduly burdens those
jurisdictions that already maintain reasonable S training requirements.
As noted above, States or localities currently requiring that school
bus drivers obtain S training that meets or exceeds the minimum
standard established by today's rule will be minimally impacted because
the rule does not impose additional training requirements on those
programs. Any provider who currently offers S endorsement training that
is equivalent to, or more stringent than, the curriculum set forth in
proposed Sec.  380.621 (now appendix D to part 380) could be eligible
for listing on the TPR, presuming all instructor qualifications and
other requirements are met. Entities eligible for listing on the TPR
include, for example, individual school districts, State agencies or
departments, and third-parties that contract with States or localities.
The Agency revises the definition of ``training provider'' in Sec.
380.605 of the final rule to make this more clear. The Agency notes,
however, that it is up to individual training providers to determine
whether they meet the requirements of today's rule.
    FMCSA disagrees with the DMTA's position that the S endorsement
training curriculum should not include a BTW component. According to
DMTA, S endorsement BTW training would be redundant since the driver-
trainee would either already have a Class B CDL or would be required to
obtain a Class B CDL and thus complete a curriculum that includes at
least 15 hours of BTW training. First, we note that, even in the
absence of a 15 hour minimum BTW requirement (which was not retained in
the final rule), the school bus-specific BTW training requirements in
today's rule do not duplicate the Class B curriculum requirements for
BTW on either the range or public road. The range/public road component
of the S endorsement curriculum describes six maneuvers, specific to
the operation of a school bus, in which the driver-trainee must
demonstrate proficiency, as determined by the instructor.
    When a driver-trainee who has not previously held a CDL intends to
concurrently obtain a Class B CDL, as well as the P and S endorsements,
the trainee can elect to take the Class B BTW training in a school bus.
In such situations, BTW instructors will ensure that the range and road
maneuvers required as part of the S endorsement training will be
addressed in addition to the maneuvers required by the Class B
curriculum. It would be up to the instructor to determine the point at
which the driver-trainee demonstrates the school bus-specific
competencies. FMCSA also notes that, for driver-trainees who
concurrently obtain training for the Class B CDL and the P and S
endorsements from the same training provider, the provider would
electronically submit certification to the TPR indicating that the
individual completed each of the three curricula.
    In addition, not all driver-trainees wishing to obtain the S
endorsement will necessarily have or need to obtain a Class B CDL.
Those who intend to drive ``Type A'' school buses below a GVWR of
26,001 pounds would not need to hold or obtain a Class B CDL in order
to obtain the S endorsement. Similarly, a driver who previously
obtained a Class B CDL by completing BTW training and taking the CDL
skills test in a straight truck, and who subsequently wishes to add the
S endorsement to his or her CDL in order to drive school buses, must
complete the BTW requirements specific to the operation of a school
bus.
    Commenters who asserted that the S endorsement training would
either cause or exacerbate a shortage of school bus drivers did not
offer any specific information in support of their claims, other than
to note that ``additional'' training requirements would make it more
difficult to find qualified drivers. We do not find this generic
argument a persuasive basis for either eliminating or reducing the S
endorsement curriculum.
    As previously discussed, for those States and localities that
already require training in the safe operation of a school bus, today's
rule will likely have marginal impact as long as those training
programs, at a minimum, follow the S endorsement curriculum as set
forth in Appendix D and become listed on the TPR. For those
jurisdictions presently without mandated training that meets this
minimum standard, today's rule ``raises the bar'' for safety by
requiring that school bus drivers be adequately trained. In the
Agency's judgment, that is the paramount consideration for any
jurisdiction or entity responsible for transporting children.

20. Hazardous Materials Endorsement Training

    FMCSA proposed training for individuals seeking an H endorsement.
As noted above, the current requirements to obtain an H endorsement,
set forth in Sec.  383.121, do not include a State-administered skills

test, because the H endorsement is not linked to a specific vehicle
group or type of vehicle. Accordingly, the proposed H endorsement
curriculum did not include a BTW component. The NPRM did not require a
minimum number of hours for completing the H theory curriculum.
    The Agency sought comment on the scope and content of the proposed
curriculum and on whether the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration's (PHMSA) hazardous materials employee training
regulations in 49 CFR 172.704 could be used or modified to satisfy the
proposed H endorsement training requirements.
    Comments: The State of Minnesota asked whether the H endorsement
training would need to be completed prior to the applicant taking the
State-administered H endorsement knowledge test. Minnesota noted that
since the proposed H endorsement theory curriculum ``closely mirrors
the information in the hazardous materials section of the AAMVA CDL
manual,'' the proposed endorsement training may not be necessary. The
NGPA also commented that the proposed H endorsement curriculum is
``superfluous'' because State governments already provide training
guidance for the H endorsement knowledge test, which includes material
that ``is analogous to the proposal''. Additionally, NGPA noted that
propane motor carriers already have a ``profound incentive to provide
appropriate training on hazardous material operations, including all
elements detailed in the proposal.''
    Schneider requested that FMCSA remove the requirement for H
endorsement training or, in the alternative, demonstrate the benefit
from training. Schneider noted that H endorsement applicants are
already required to pass a knowledge test as a condition of obtaining
the endorsement and that, under the proposed rule, ``the driver would
also be required to pay to complete this course work.'' Accordingly,
``Schneider believes the driver would demonstrate the same level of
knowledge with or without the ELDT training and, therefore, the benefit
of this training is not likely to justify the costs.''
    The PMAA supported ``provisions in the NPRM designed to establish
an improved core curriculum for Hazardous Materials endorsements.''
    OOIDA does not support substituting hazardous materials regulations
(HMR) training in 49 CFR 172.704 to satisfy the H endorsement training
in the proposed rule, noting that ``the ELDTAC hazardous materials
curriculum recommendations were carefully developed by a clear
consensus.'' On the other hand, the Iowa DOT commented that
substituting PHMSA's HMR training for the H endorsement training
proposed in the NPRM ``seems reasonable and would establish a more
universal standard for HAZMAT training.''
    FMCSA Response: As noted in our discussion of the legal basis for
this rulemaking, MAP-21 requires that minimum ELDT standards address
the specific training needs of a CMV operator seeking an H endorsement
(49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(2)). The Agency therefore does not have the legal
authority to remove the H endorsement training requirements from the
final rule, and they are retained as proposed. Further, FMCSA concludes
that PHMSA's hazardous materials training requirements in Sec.  172.704
may not be used to satisfy the H endorsement curriculum requirements in
today's rule because the PHMSA regulations do not address the CMV-
related topics included in the H endorsement curriculum. Finally, motor
carriers and other entities that currently provide H endorsement
training that meets or exceeds the minimum standard established in the
final rule could continue to do so, as long as they are listed on the
TPR in accordance with the eligibility requirements set forth in
Sec. Sec.  380.703 and 380.719.

21. Refresher Training

    FMCSA proposed refresher training for any CDL holder who is
disqualified from operating a CMV under Sec.  383.51(b) through (e).
The NPRM proposed that a CDL holder be required to complete refresher
training from a provider listed on the TPR prior to retaking the State-
administered skills test to reinstate his or her Class A or Class B
CDL. Under the NPRM, the State may not restore full CMV driving
privileges until the disqualification period is completed and the State
receives notification that the driver completed refresher training.
FMCSA did not propose a minimum number of required hours for the
refresher training, but required that the training provider cover all
topics in the curriculum. As proposed, disqualified drivers taking
refresher training would obtain a restricted CDL solely for the purpose
of completing the BTW portion of the refresher training curriculum. The
Agency specifically invited comment on the practical implications of
implementing that proposed requirement. FMCSA also invited comment on
whether a driver disqualified under Sec.  383.52 (imminent hazard)
should also be required to complete refresher training before his or
her CDL is reinstated.
    Comments: Several comments recognized the value of refresher
training. Advocates, DMTA, and the electric trades (EEI/NRECA/APPA)
supported the idea of refresher training for drivers disqualified under
49 CFR 383.51(b) through (e). The State of Michigan supports refresher
training ``only for reinstatement of lapsed CDLs, major CDL violations,
imminent hazard, Sec.  383.51, and Sec.  383.52.'' NYAPT believes that
``it is appropriate to require CDL holders who have been disqualified
or put on suspension to engage in some form of corrective training
before they are allowed to resume their licensed status.''
    Several commenters noted that the term ``refresher training'' may
also pertain to training for CMV drivers whose CDLs have lapsed for
some period of time. San Juan College suggested that, in the final
rule, the Agency change the term to `Reinstatement Training' ``to
differentiate the training required for ``highway-safety'' related
issues from the current refresher training programs that are not
related to a safety issue.'' Another commenter suggested that FMCSA
make clear that refresher training is not a short cut to initially
getting a license.
    A number of comments opposed all or part of the refresher training
proposal. The ODOT questioned FMCSA's stated premise for refresher
training, noting that ``[t]rained, experienced drivers may make
mistakes or poor decisions in their driving behavior, but that does not
mean they have suddenly lost their ability to safely operate a CMV.''
The North Dakota DOT commented that the proposal ``will have a direct
administrative impact on the State's workload and lend itself to
confusion for the public.'' The CA DMV stated that its ``system would
require significant program modification in order to prevent the
issuance of a CDL when refresher training was not completed.'' The VA
DMV commented that the refresher training requirement would burden
drivers subject to a 60-day disqualification, ``since a driver who is
convicted of two speeding tickets in a three year period would be
required to obtain an ``R'' restriction on his CLP/CDL, complete theory
and BTW training (with fees) and return to DMV to have the ``R''
restriction lifted.'' AAMVA noted that, while it ``appreciates the need
for refresher training, the requirement for refresher training for all
violations incorporated under Sec.  383.51 would drastically increase
the volume and demand for operators requiring

such training prior to operational authorization of a commercial
vehicle.''
    A number of commenters pointed out various logistical and
implementation issues associated with the States' limited reinstatement
of the CDL to permit driver-trainees to complete the BTW portion of the
refresher training curriculum, as proposed in Sec.  383.95(h). The
State of Minnesota said that having to provide limited privileges for
refresher training would be an undue burden on SDLAs. The commenter
noted that, in addition, ``Minnesota currently has a conflict with the
`R' restriction as that letter code is already used for something else
in MN and this most likely is the case in many other states.'' The
State of Michigan commented that ``the proposal for a limited license
that allows for a training period when a person is currently under a
suspension/revocation violates the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act
(MCSIA) that was very specific that CDL drivers were not to be issued a
limited term (restricted) license.''
    The NY DMV commented that ``[t]here are too many variables to
consider to implement a `limited CDL' and would be putting a heavy
burden on the States to program and monitor.'' The ODOT said that
``requirement for the SDLA to issue a `restricted CDL' for the purpose
of the BTW portion of the refresher training is unmanageable and
burdensome.'' The Nebraska DMV, the State of Montana-DOJ/MVD, the Iowa
DOT, the CA DMV, and the Delaware DMV also expressed concerns regarding
the practical difficulties associated with a temporary reinstatement of
the CDL in order for the holder to complete refresher training. AAMVA
asked what evidence would be provided which would allow an individual
``to operate a CMV for the sole purpose of satisfying the refresher
training.''
    FMCSA Response: The final rule does not include a requirement for
refresher training. The Agency removed the provision based primarily on
the SDLAs' comments identifying specific ways in which implementation
and administration of the proposed refresher training requirement would
be difficult and burdensome to administer. Based on the comments, it is
reasonable to assume that requiring an individual to obtain a
restricted license solely for the purpose of completing the BTW road
training would cause confusion for law enforcement, SDLAs, and
individual drivers.
    Further, the States impose their own reinstatement protocols on CDL
holders who have been disqualified, some of which include remedial
driver education and/or a requirement that the driver re-take the
State-administered skills test as a condition of CDL reinstatement.\20\
FMCSA therefore concludes that States should maintain their current
flexibility to determine when, and on what basis, disqualified CDL
holders will be reinstated. Accordingly, the final rule removes any
reference to or requirement for refresher training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Drivers who are required to take a State-administered
skills test in order to reinstate their CDL would not be subject to
the training requirements of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Training Requirements for Driver-Trainees Obtaining Multiple CDL
Credentials

    In the NPRM, FMCSA proposed a Class A CDL core curriculum; a Class
B CDL core curriculum and curricula for the P, S, and H endorsements.
The curricula for Class A and B CDLs and the P and S endorsements are
comprised of both theory and BTW (range and public road) elements.
Individuals seeking the H endorsement would be required to complete
theory training only. As explained previously, the H endorsement is not
linked to any specific vehicle group or type of vehicle; consequently,
there is no skills test required in order to obtain it. The Agency's
responses to the comments below address the curriculum requirements
applicable to driver-trainees seeking multiple CDL credentials.
    Comments: The NY DMV noted that it is not clear whether a driver
who is applying for a Class A or B CDL, as well as the P and S
endorsements at the same time, must undergo multiple trainings and
obtain certification in all three training curricula. NY DMV requested
that FMCSA clarify that ``more than one training curriculum and
certification would be required if undertaking the skills testing at
the same time for more than one of the applicable Class CDLs or
endorsements.''
    NY DMV also noted that the NPRM is not clear regarding the
obligations of driver-trainees undertaking multiple curricula when some
of those curricula have overlapping elements in theory and/or BTW
instruction. They posed the following example: ``a trainee undergoes
the Class A curriculum, then wants to undergo the Class B curriculum,
may the Training Provider offer them reduced theory and/or BTW
instruction, if the trainee took the same theory and/or BTW instruction
form the Class A curriculum?'' Other commenters wanted to know whether
a driver upgrading from a Class B CDL to a Class A CDL would have to
complete the entire Class A curriculum. The Nebraska DMV asked whether
``anything completed for the Class B training count[s] toward the Class
A requirement.'' San Juan College, noting that the Class A and Class B
curricula are virtually identical but for the inclusion of ``coupling/
uncoupling'' in Class A training, stated that ``there should be some
training required to upgrade from Class B to Class A, but it should
only relate to skill required for pulling a trailer.''
    The DDE commented that the NPRM does not address the requirements
that a driver with a Class A CDL would need to meet in order to drive a
school bus, i.e. ``just do the theory and BTW curriculum for `P' & `S'
endorsements or also complete the Class B theory and BTW curricula?''
The CA DMV noted that the NPRM apparently requires that a person
seeking a P, S, and/or H endorsement for a Class A or B CDL meet the
specific endorsement training requirements in addition to the
``standard training requirements for the specified class of CDL.''
However, CA DMV commented that ``that fact is not clearly noted in the
proposed language'' and requested that FMCSA clarify these
requirements.
    The DE DMV commented that ``[r]equiring additional training on top
of Class A and B core `entry-level' training for a specific endorsement
is unnecessary'' because ``the applicant has already obtained the
knowledge base necessary to operate a CMV.'' DE DMV also noted that it
currently requires 12 hours of classroom training and 6 hours of BTW
training for the ``S application,'' which ``falls short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.'' DE DMV asserted that if the
NPRM's S endorsement training requirements were adopted in the final
rule, ``major changes to our current State laws, regulations and
procedures will need to be made in order to meet this mandate.''
    FMCSA Response: As proposed in the NPRM, the final rule requires
that a training provider cover all theory and/or BTW topics in the
curriculum for the applicable Class or endorsement in order for a
driver-trainee to complete the training. The Agency acknowledges that
there is overlap in some of the curricula content. For example, the
topics included in both theory and BTW curricula for the Class A and B
CDLs are virtually identical in most respects. However, there is a
significant difference in the types of CMVs to which the Class A and B
CDLs apply. Group A includes combination vehicles with a Gross
Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) of 26,001 pounds or more, provided the
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle

being towed exceeds 10,000 pounds (Sec.  383.91(a)(1)). Group B
includes heavy straight vehicles (i.e., non-combination) with a GVWR of
26,000 pounds or more, or any such vehicle towing vehicle not in excess
of 10,000 pounds GVWR (Sec.  383.91(a)(2)).
    The different operating characteristics of these two distinct
vehicle groups require that many of the elements in the Class A and B
curricula, though topically the same, be taught in ways tailored to the
specific vehicle class. Space management, extreme driving conditions,
pre-trip inspection, and backing are examples of topics that would call
for different methods of instruction depending on the underlying
vehicle class. The current CDL skills testing process accounts for the
difference in handling characteristics between and among vehicle groups
by requiring that the driving tests must be given in a representative
vehicle for a given vehicle group (Sec.  383.91(b)). Similarly, today's
rule requires that BTW training be conducted in representative vehicles
for the class or endorsement for which training is provided. To the
extent there is overlap between the Class A and B curricula, FMCSA
agrees with the numerous commenters who noted that some level of
repetition in training is acceptable as a means of reinforcing core
concepts and competencies. Moreover, since the final rule does not
require any minimum number of hours for BTW training, Class B CDL
holders can reasonably expect to demonstrate proficiency in the Class A
BTW elements in less time.
    In response to the NY DMV's question regarding whether a Class A
CDL holder, having already completed Class A training, who wishes to
obtain a Class B CDL would have to complete the Class B training
curriculum, the answer is no. Currently, any Class A CDL holder is
permitted to drive a CMV in either Group B or Group C without taking
the related knowledge/skills tests (Sec.  383.91(c)(1)). Today's rule
does not change existing part 383 licensing requirements; therefore, no
additional training would be required under those circumstances.
    We note, however, that the ELDT requirements established in today's
rule apply to persons who take a skills test either to obtain a Class A
or B CDL for the first time, to upgrade to a Class A from a Class B,
and to upgrade to a Class A or B from a Class C. Accordingly, after the
compliance date of the final rule, a Class B CDL holder wishing to
upgrade to a Class A CDL would be required to complete the entire Class
A curricula (theory and BTW) before taking the skills test for the
Class A CDL. Class C CDL holders seeking to upgrade to a Class A or B
CDL would need to complete that curriculum before taking the applicable
skills test. In addition, anyone holding a Class A, B, or C CDL who
wants to obtain a P and/or S endorsement would need to complete the
entire P and/or S endorsement curricula (theory and BTW) before taking
the State-administered skills test in a representative passenger
vehicle. Similarly, any CDL holder seeking an H endorsement must
complete the H endorsement theory curriculum before taking the State-
administered knowledge test.
    As noted above, the DE DMV asserted that Class A or B holders
already ``have the knowledge base to operate'' a CMV and should
therefore not be required to undergo any additional endorsement-related
training. To the contrary, the Agency believes it is both necessary and
appropriate that CDL holders obtaining either the P or the S
endorsement be trained specifically in the safe operation of the
passenger vehicle(s) they will be licensed to operate.
    Several commenters had questions regarding the ELDT requirements
for driver-trainees obtaining more than one CDL credential at the same
time. For example, DDE asked whether a Class A CDL holder wishing to
obtain the S endorsement would need to complete the Class B, S, and P
endorsement curricula. In that situation, the CDL holder would need to
complete both portions of the S curriculum since the applicant would be
required to take a State-administered skills test in order to obtain
the endorsement. Because Sec.  383.123(a)(1) currently requires that S
endorsement applicants must also pass the knowledge and skills test for
obtaining the P endorsement, the applicant must also complete the
theory and BTW portion of the P endorsement training curriculum. The
Class A CDL holder in this example would not need to complete the ELDT
curriculum for the Class B CDL because, as previously stated, under
Sec.  383.91(c)(1), a Class A CDL holder is already licensed to operate
a Group B (or Group C) vehicle.
    As noted above, the DE DMV expressed concern that the DDE's current
training program for the S endorsement, which requires 12 hours of
classroom and 6 hours of BTW training, ``falls well short of the
requirements set forth in this rule.'' We believe that concern is
unfounded since the NPRM did not require any minimum number of hours
for completion of either the theory or BTW portions of the S
endorsement curriculum, and today's rule does not include such
requirements. In order to comply with the minimum standard established
by the final rule, existing programs simply must cover the S
endorsement curriculum, and the instructor must determine that the
driver-trainee is proficient in the knowledge and skills covered by the
training. As stated previously, States are free to impose training
requirements that exceed this minimum standard.

23. Training Materials

    As proposed, training providers that train more than three driver-
trainees annually must provide written training materials addressing
the applicable curricula to each driver-trainee. Providers training
three or fewer driver-trainees annually were not subject to this
requirement.
    Comments: The VA DMV asked ``whether FMCSA will provide training
materials, such as instructor manuals and student manuals, for use by
training providers or whether FMCSA will provide a list of approved
vendors where compliant training materials may be obtained.'' NYAPT
inquired ``as to the intention of FMCSA to provide course of study
related to the theory portion of the training to enable training
entities to simply deliver already approved training programs in the
future.''
    IUOE recommended that the Agency ``post written training materials
on-line and develop an interactive, on-line training program for the
theory portion of the Core Curricula'', noting that this approach would
``provide a feasible mechanism'' through which FMCSA could ensure
quality and uniformity of training. IUOE also noted that FMCSA-
sponsored training and testing would ``reduce by one-third the costs of
ELDT borne by individual workers.'' Similarly, OOIDA commented that
``FMCSA should be able to create the necessary training and assessment
for the theory curriculum'', which would prevent disparity among ELDT
providers and provide a basis for tracking training performance.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA does not intend to provide written or
electronic training materials for any of the curricula set forth in
today's rule, nor will the Agency endorse or certify specific materials
or vendors. The minimum curricular standards in the final rule are
designed to provide sufficient topical guidance to theory training
providers, while allowing those providers to determine the specific
content and format of their training materials. The Agency anticipates
that there will be variations in ELDT curricula based on a training
provider's

presentation preferences and the needs of the driver-trainees they
serve. In addition, training providers are permitted to add additional
curriculum elements they deem appropriate. Accordingly, FMCSA-provided
theory training materials represents an approach entirely inconsistent
with the flexibility envisioned by today's rule.
    FMCSA anticipates that the final rule will encourage new entrants
into the market for ELDT services, which will increase the availability
of innovative and cost-effective alternatives from which driver-
trainees may choose. In addition, many motor carrier employers seeking
qualified driver applicants currently provide ELDT (including training
materials) at little or no cost to the driver-trainee, and the Agency
has no basis to anticipate that will change as a result of the final
rule. Because IUOE offered no substantiation for its claim that FMCSA-
provided online training materials would reduce driver-trainees' costs
by one-third, the Agency is unable to respond directly to that
assertion.
    As noted above, the final rule makes no distinction based on the
size of the training provider; therefore, smaller training entities are
subject to the requirement that written training materials must be
provided to driver-trainees.

24. Sequence of ELDT

    In the NPRM, FMCSA did not propose that the theory, BTW-range, and
BTW-public road training occur in a specific sequence, but requested
comment on whether there should be a particular order for any of the
required curricula. The Agency also requested comment on whether theory
training should be required before a driver-trainee takes the State-
administered knowledge test to obtain a CLP.
    Comments: FMCSA received a number of comments supporting the NPRM's
approach, which allows training providers the flexibility to determine
how they would structure and sequence their programs. According to
DTCC, many schools have been very successful in training CDL drivers
using a variety of curricular sequencing and that ``[t]o take this
academic freedom away would cause undue hardship to the training
providers and students alike.''
    ATA agreed that training providers should be granted flexibility to
determine when to teach various elements of the ELDT curricula, noting
that many of CDL training schools currently provide instruction in
most, if not all, of the curricula elements proposed in the NPRM. Over
the years, the experience of those providers has taught them the best
sequence in which to teach various elements. Additionally, ATA stated
that maintaining this flexibility will encourage innovative and
adaptive training programs that could greatly improve collective
understanding of effective CDL training.
    The VA DMV suggested that the final rule should require that theory
and BTW-range instruction be provided before the BTW-public road
portion of the training in order to ``ensure that drivers have a basic
understanding of the laws governing CMVs and what to expect before
beginning operation of a vehicle.'' AAMVA commented that it would be
``logical'' to provide theory training prior to any BTW ``where an
increased element of danger is introduced into the environment,'' also
noting that prior theory training would increase the value and
efficiency of BTW training. AAMVA recommended that ``range hours
precede public road training to limit public exposure to drivers that
have not had BTW training in a controlled environment.'' The State of
Michigan favored requiring that ``some'' theory instruction be
completed before beginning BTW training, Michigan also commented that
the final rule should require that theory training ``be coordinated
with'' BTW training and, if not, ``states should be allowed to require
such coordination.''
    VU asked whether driver-trainees will be required to complete the
full ten hours of range training for a Class A CDL before proceeding to
the public road portion of the training.
    AAMVA also commented that theory training should not be a mandatory
requirement for taking the SDLA knowledge test, but should be made
available to students who may want to use theory training to aid in
their preparation for obtaining a CLP. San Juan College commented that,
although completion of the theory portion of the ELDT does not need to
be required before taking the State-administered CLP written tests,
applicants would be much better prepared to take the CLP tests after
completing their theory training. VU strongly believes that driver-
trainees should not be required to take theory training before
obtaining a CLP, noting that a student's ability to obtain a CLP,
whether prior to or during the theory training, will facilitate the
timely completion of the BTW portion of the training.
    FMCSA Response: In today's final rule, FMCSA retains the approach
proposed in the NPRM; there is no mandatory order in which the theory,
BTW-range, and BTW-public road training must be administered, nor does
the rule require that theory training must be completed before
obtaining a CLP. The Agency believes it is appropriate to allow the
training providers to determine how to structure their programs and
best serve the needs of their students. Accordingly, the final rule
does not require that a certain portion of range training precede the
public road portion of BTW training for either a Class A or Class B
CDL. However, as we noted in the NPRM, FMCSA expects that, for any of
the BTW curricula established in today's rule, trainers will require
that driver-trainees master basic vehicle control maneuvers in a
controlled environment before allowing them to operate a CMV on a
public road. In addition, if States currently have or wish to impose
requirements for sequential or integrated ELDT, nothing in the final
rule prohibits them from doing so.

25. ELDT Instructor Qualifications

    The NPRM proposed that, among other things, ELDT instructors
providing theory and BTW training must be ``experienced drivers''
having at least one year of experience in either CMV operation or
driver training instruction. The Consensus Agreement noted the ELDTAC's
preference for two or more years of CMV driving experience. FMCSA
requested comment on whether a two-year experience requirement would
affect the applicability of State laws relating to instructors or
training providers.
    The NPRM also proposed that BTW instructors complete training in
the public road portion of the curriculum in which they are
instructing.
a. BTW Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
    Comments: Most commenters supported a minimum of two years of
experience operating a CMV; however, several commenters thought the
minimum of CMV driving experience should be five years. Truckers for a
Cause strongly disagreed with the length of the proposed experience
requirement, stating that ``[i]t does not mandate enough experience to
properly train a CLP holder.'' Truckers for a Cause recommended that
experience be specified as either 200,000 miles of ``logged over the
road driving'' or 3000 hours of ``paycheck documented driving work
time.'' Similarly, Minnesota noted that its CDL BTW instructor
qualifications refer to hours of experience, i.e., ``3000 hours within
the last five years of experience operating the class of vehicle for
which instruction will be provided.''

    Other commenters, including NAPT and ATD, urged FMCSA to allow a
maximum degree of flexibility in setting instructor qualifications.
Virginia requested the final rule make clear ``that these are minimum
requirements so that the states have flexibility in requiring
additional criteria.'' ATD expressed concern that ``overly restrictive
instructor qualification requirements would unduly limit the number and
availability of qualified instructor/trainers.'' DTCC commented that
the final rule should specify that the instructor's experience pertain
to the classification of CMV in which instruction is being provided.
    FMCSA Response: In today's rule, FMCSA increases the minimum level
of CMV driving or instructional experience from one year, as proposed,
to two years. Accordingly, the rule requires that BTW instructors hold
a CDL of the same (or higher) class, with all endorsements necessary to
operate the CMV for which training is to be provided, and have either a
minimum of two years of experience driving a CMV requiring a CDL of the
same or higher class and/or the same endorsement or at least two years
of experience as a BTW CMV instructor. In addition, as proposed in the
NPRM, BTW instructors must meet all applicable State requirements for
CMV instructors. Accordingly, nothing in the final rule prohibits
States from imposing more stringent qualifications for BTW instructors,
such as a requirement that they have at least five years of CMV driving
experience.
    FMCSA believes this approach, which reflects the ELDTAC's
preference for at least two years of CMV driving or BTW instruction
experience, as well as the opinion of numerous commenters, establishes
a sufficient minimum qualification standard for BTW instructors. We
also note that the instructional requirements described above are now
incorporated directly into the definition of ``BTW instructor'' in
Sec.  380.603, rather than in the definition of ``experienced driver,''
as proposed. Consequently, the term ``experienced driver'' does not
appear in the final rule.
    Finally, we note the final rule does not include the requirement,
proposed in the NPRM, that certain BTW instructors must have completed
training in the public road portion of the curriculum in which they are
instructing. The Agency believes the higher level of CMV driving
experience now required makes that additional requirement unnecessary.
b. Theory Instructors--Level of CMV Driving or Instruction Experience
    Comments: The NY DMV requested that FMCSA clarify how the proposed
definition of ``experienced driver'' applies to theory instructor
qualification requirements.
    FMCSA Response: As noted above, the final rule does not use the
term ``experienced driver.'' The qualifications for theory instructors
are now incorporated directly into the definition of ``theory
instructor'' in Sec.  380.605. Under the final rule, theory instructors
must hold a CDL of the same (or higher) class, and with all
endorsements necessary, to operate the CMV for which training is to be
provided, and have a minimum of two years of experience driving a CMV
requiring a CDL of that class or endorsement or at least two years of
experience as a BTW CMV instructor. The NPRM proposed that theory
instructors have a minimum of one year of CMV driving or instruction
experience. The two-year level of CMV driving or instruction experience
is thus commensurate with the BTW instructor qualifications described
above.
    In addition, FMCSA deletes the proposed qualification that theory
instructors must have audited or instructed the portion of theory
training that they intend to provide. On further consideration, we
concluded that this qualification standard is insufficient because it
does not require that the theory instructor have actual CMV driving or
instructional experience. In the final rule, the Agency adds an
exception to the theory instructor qualifications set forth in Sec.
380.605: An instructor is not required to hold a CDL of the same (or
higher) class and with all endorsements necessary to operate the CMV
for which training is to be provided, as long as the instructor
previously held a CDL of that class and meets all other qualification
requirements. The Agency makes this change in order to permit retired
CMV drivers, who may have many years of experience operating a CMV but
who no longer hold a CDL, to provide theory instruction. As noted
below, this change responds to a comment regarding the valuable
experience that such drivers possess.
    The final rule requires that, as proposed, theory instructors must
also meet any applicable State requirements for CMV instructors.
However, today's rule includes a limited exception to that requirement
when online theory training is provided. Because the nature of online
training makes it available literally anywhere there is an internet
connection, it would be impractical to expect an online provider to
meet multiple (and possibly conflicting) State-based requirements
pertaining to CMV theory instructors. Therefore, State-based
qualification requirements otherwise applicable to theory instructors
would not apply to those instructors who provide content for online
providers. The Agency adds a requirement pertaining to theory providers
who offer online content in any of the theory curricula included in
today's rule: They must ensure that the online theory curriculum
content is prepared and/or delivered by theory instructors who meet the
qualifications described above (e.g., two years of CMV driving or BTW
instruction experience).
c. Additional Instructor Qualification Issues
    Comments: Truckers for a Cause suggested that ``older experienced
drivers who may no longer be able to obtain a DOT medical card'' be
able to qualify as instructors under the final rule.
    FMCSA Response: FMCSA adds an exception to the BTW instructor
qualifications in today's rule: A BTW instructor who provides training
on a range that is not a public road does not need to hold a CDL of the
same or higher class, and with all endorsements necessary, for which
training is to be provided, as long as he or she previously held a CDL
of the same or higher class, and with all endorsements necessary to
operate the vehicle for which training is to be provided, has at least
two years of CMV driving experience or CMV instruction experience,
meets applicable State requirements, and meets the driving history
requirements for BTW instructors, as discussed below. This limited
exception allows older drivers, some of whom may be retired from
driving or are no longer medically qualified to operate a CMV on a
public road, to teach entry-level drivers during the range portion of
BTW training. However, since any instructor who provides BTW range
training on a public road or BTW public road training would need to
hold a CDL, this exception would not apply to training conducted under
either of those circumstances. (See Sec.  380.605 for BTW instructor
qualifications and requirements.)

26. BTW Instructors' CMV Driving History

    The NPRM proposed that within the past two years, BTW instructors
must not have had any CMV-related convictions for the offenses
identified in Sec.  383.51(b) through (e). It also required

training providers to utilize public road BTW instructors whose driving
records meet applicable Federal and State requirements.
    Comments: All comments addressing this issue agreed that a BTW
instructor's driving record is relevant in determining whether the
instructor is qualified. Both DMTA and DTCC commented that, because of
the serious nature of the offenses identified in Sec.  383.51(b)
through (e), any driver disqualified for any of those offenses should
be permanently barred from engaging in BTW instruction. OOIDA commented
that three of the offenses proposed as a basis for disqualifying a BTW
instructor (i.e., speeding excessively, following the vehicle ahead too
closely, and railroad-highway grade crossing offenses) have the
potential to be ``cited incorrectly'' and thus should not be relied on
to determine an instructor's qualification. OOIDA also suggested that
the time period for disqualifying offenses should be five years, rather
than two years as proposed.
    An individual driver stated that instructors should ``have no
record of theft or violence of any kind, nor have had any record of
drug use or DUI.'' The NY DMV noted that, in addition to the offenses
identified in Sec.  383.51(b) through (e), ``there are many other
factors on a driving record that would make an instructor undesirable,
including, but not limited to, other sanctions, fraud, non-CMV
violations, and accidents,'' suggesting that FMCSA strengthen the
provision pertaining to an instructor's prior driving record. The ODOT
asked what is meant by the proposed requirement that an instructor's
driving record meet ``applicable Federal and State requirements.''
    FMCSA Response: In an effort to both simplify and clarify this
provision, today's rule states that if an instructor's CDL has been
suspended, revoked, or cancelled due to any of the disqualifying
offenses identified in Sec.  383.51, the instructor is prohibited from
engaging in BTW instruction for two years following the date his or her
CDL is reinstated following the disqualification. Anyone who loses the
privilege to drive a CMV due to engaging in any of these unsafe driving
behaviors should not be entrusted to teach entry-level drivers how to
safely operate a CMV.
    The Agency believes that the standard for BTW instructor
disqualification is more appropriately based on CDL suspension,
revocation, or cancellation, rather than on CMV-related convictions, as
proposed. This change reflects the fact that under Sec.  383.51,
certain offenses require more than one conviction before a driver's CDL
is suspended, cancelled, or revoked, while other offenses result in
loss of CDL driving privileges after the first conviction. The outcome
therefore varies according to the severity of the underlying offense.
Therefore, BTW instructor disqualification is based on the loss of CDL
driving privileges due to unsafe driving behaviors.
    We also note that the NPRM's proposed requirement that a BTW
instructor's driving record meet ``applicable Federal and State
requirements'' has been deleted from the final rule. FMCSA concludes
the language is unnecessary in light of the reference to ``applicable
State requirements for CMV instructors'' in the definition of ``BTW
instructor'' in Sec.  380.605.
    Finally, FMCSA reiterates that States are permitted to impose more
stringent BTW instructor requirements.

27. ``De-Certification'' of ELDT Instructors

    Comments: The NY DMV noted that the NPRM did not include processes
related to the ``de-certification'' or reinstatement of ELDT
instructors.
    FMCSA Response: Under today's rule, FMCSA has no role in certifying
training instructors. The final rule defines a minimum qualification
standard for BTW and theory instructors, but leaves it up to the
training provider to determine whether those qualifications, as well as
any applicable State requirements, are met. Further, FMCSA is not in a
position to evaluate a training provider's compliance with State
requirements. As part of the self-certification process, training
providers must attest, under penalty s of perjury, that they comply
with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  380.703 and 380.719 in order to be
eligible for initial and continued listing on the TPR. Those
requirements include utilizing BTW and/or theory instructors meeting
the criteria set forth in Sec.  380.713. Failure to meet State
requirements could result in the training provider's removal from the
TPR.

28. Self-Certification of Training Providers

    As proposed, in order to be listed on the TPR, a training provider
must meet the applicable eligibility requirements set forth in subpart
G and electronically submit a completed Training Provider Registration
Form affirming, under penalty of perjury, that the provider will teach
the FMCSA-prescribed curriculum that is appropriate for the CDL class
or endorsement. FMCSA did not propose that training providers be
accredited by a third-party organization in order to be eligible for
listing on the TPR.
    Comments: Commenters strongly supported the concept of training
provider self-certification. ATA supported the proposed requirement
that training providers self-certify because it will ensure there are
an adequate number of training providers available when the rule is
fully implemented. Furthermore, ATA believed that periodic audits will
confirm that these training providers are offering fully compliant
programs.
    The NMFTA was also supportive. It stated that while self-
certification processes are ``commonly viewed as suspect,'' in this
case FMCSA has proposed adequate safeguards to ensure they are
meaningful. NMFTA cited the proposed documentation retention
requirements and on-site audits or investigations by FMCSA as
additional enhancements to program integrity.
    ATD supports the self-certification proposal because a third-party
accreditation mandate would be too bureaucratic, inflexible, and
costly. They also noted that an accreditation model could result in an
insufficient supply of training options to meet industry demands.
    The Agency did not receive any comments opposing self-
certification.
    FMCSA Response: In today's rule, FMCSA retains the self-
certification approach for training providers, as proposed in the NPRM.
In response to specific comments, the Agency clarified some of the data
elements to be included in the Training Provider Registration Form,
which are discussed immediately below.

29. Training Provider Identification Form and Related Information
Requirements

    The proposed Training Provider Identification Report form (TPID
form), available in the NPRM docket, was designed to capture the
information necessary for registration on the TPR, such as identifying
business and training facility information, training provider type
(e.g., in-house, for-hire), and type of CDL training offered (i.e.,
specific CDL class or endorsement). The TPID also included a section
titled ``Third-Party Quality Control,'' in which providers could
indicate the CMV driver training third-party certification or
accreditation organizations with which they are affiliated. The
proposed form identified three organizations by name (i.e., PTDI, CVTA,
and NAPFTDS) and also provided a blank space in which applicants could
specifically identify other third-party groups to which they

belong. The NPRM proposed that training providers report changes in key
information within 30 days of the change and biennially submit an
updated TPID form to FMCSA. The Agency also noted that the TPR would
provide a way for individuals seeking training to find an eligible
provider meeting their specific needs.
    Comments: The State of Michigan supports the requirement for
training providers to report each training location (Sec.
380.703(a)(6)) and that each location have some unique identifier in