[Federal Register: December 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 246)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73225-73249]
[DOCID:fr26de07-30]

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

Part VI

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

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

49 CFR Parts 380, 383 and 384

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 380, 383, and 384

[Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748]
RIN 2126-AB06

Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to revise the standards for mandatory training
requirements for entry-level operators of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate operations who are required to possess a
commercial driver's license (CDL). The proposed rule would not apply to
drivers who currently possess a CDL or obtain a CDL before a date 3
years after a final rule goes into effect. Following that date, persons
applying for new or upgraded CDLs would be required to successfully
complete specified minimum classroom and behind-the-wheel training from
an accredited institution or program. The State driver-licensing agency
would only issue a CDL if the applicant presented a valid Driver
Training Certificate obtained from an accredited institution or
program. This NPRM would strengthen the Agency's entry-level driver
training requirements as a means to enhance the safety of CMV
operations on our Nation's highways.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You must include Docket ID Number FMCSA-2007-27748 for this
rulemaking, your name, mailing address, or an email address to ensure
that we can identify you so that your comments may be considered. You
may submit your comments through the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS), under Docket ID Number FMCSA-2007-27748, by any one of the
following methods:
     Electronic: You may submit documents electronically
through the online FDMS docket Web site at http://www.regulations.gov.

This site is the preferred method for receiving comments/submission.
Follow the instructions for submissions.
     Mail/Hand Delivery: You may submit documents by mail or
hand delivery to the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Ave, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. DOT will scan the
submission and post it to FDMS.
     Fax: You may fax your submissions to<PHONE_NUMBER>. DOT
will scan the submission and post it to FDMS.
     Confidential and Proprietary Information, and Sensitive
Security Information: Comments/submissions containing this type of
information should be appropriately marked as containing such
information and submitted by mail or hand delivery to the DOT's Docket
Management Facility. This type of information will not go in the public
docket, but will be placed in a separate file to which the public does
not have access.
     Accessing and Searching FDMS: All comments will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information provided. Anyone may access FDMS to submit comments, or
review and copy all comments and background material received on a
particular rulemaking. Please see Privacy Act issues below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments/submissions entered into any of our dockets in FDMS by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement published in the
Federal Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division (MC-PSD), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This section is organized as follows:

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
II. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. History
     Curriculum Standards
     CMVSA: Minimum Uniform Standards for CDLs
     ISTEA: Entry-Level Driver Training
     The Adequacy Report
     Previous Rulemakings
     DC Circuit Decision
     Training Research and Studies
    C. Request for Comment on the Need for the Regulation
III. General Discussion of the Proposals
    A. Scope and Applicability
    B. Curriculum Content
    C. Training Providers
    D. Compliance and Enforcement
    E. Implementation Date
    F. Changes to Existing Rules
IV. Section-by-Section Explanation of Changes
    A. Subparts A-E of part 380 and Appendix to Part 380
    B. Subpart F of part 380 and Appendix B to Part 380
     Section 380.600, Compliance date for entry-level
drivers
     Section 380.601, Purpose and scope
     Section 380.603, Applicability
     Section 380.605, Definitions
     Section 380.607, Requirement to complete entry-level
driver training
     Section 380.609, Entry-level driver-instructor
requirements
     Section 380.611, Driver testing
     Appendix B, Entry-Level Driver Training Curriculum
    C. Part 383, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements
and Penalties
    D. Part 384, State Compliance With Commercial Driver's License
Program
V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    D. Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    F. Privacy Impact Assessment
    G. Federalism
    H. Civil Justice Reform
    I. Protection of Children
    J. Taking of Private Property
    K. Energy Effects

I. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is based on the authority
of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of
1984, as well as the mandate of section 4007(a) of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). The rulemaking
also responds to a 2005 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit).
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 provides that ``The Secretary of
Transportation may prescribe requirements for--(1) qualifications and
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and
equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours
of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor
private carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation'' [49
U.S.C. 3502(b)].
    This NPRM is intended to improve the ``safety of operation'' of
entry-level ``employees'' who operate large commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) by ensuring that they receive appropriate training before
obtaining a commercial driver's license (CDL).
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 provides concurrent authority
to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and

vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary of Transportation to
``prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety. The
regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for commercial
motor vehicles.'' Although this authority is very broad, the Act also
includes specific requirements: ``At a minimum, the regulations shall
ensure that--(1) commercial motor vehicles are maintained, equipped,
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on
operators of commercial motor vehicles do not impair their ability to
operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of
commercial motor vehicles is adequate to enable them to operate the
vehicles safely; and (4) the operation of commercial motor vehicles
does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the
operators'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(a)].
    This NPRM is based primarily on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), requiring
regulations to ensure that CMVs are ``operated safely,'' and
secondarily on section 31136(a)(2), to the extent that untrained entry-
level drivers might be given responsibilities that exceed their ability
to operate CMVs safely. The NPRM would ensure training of entry-level
drivers to operate CMVs safely and to meet the operational
responsibilities imposed on them. This rulemaking does not address
medical standards for drivers [section 31136(a)(3)] or possible
physical effects caused by driving CMVs [section 31136(a)(4)].
    Section 4007(a) of ISTEA (Public Law 102-240, December 18, 1991,
105 Stat. 1914, 2151) directed the Secretary of Transportation to
undertake rulemaking on the need to require training of all entry-level
drivers of ``commercial motor vehicles.'' The Agency published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject on June 21, 1993
(58 FR 33874), an NPRM on August 15, 2003 (68 FR 48863), and a final
rule on May 21, 2004 (69 FR 29384).
    The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 defined a CMV, in part, as a
vehicle operating in ``interstate commerce'' [49 U.S.C. 31132(1)]. The
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, which created the CDL
program, defined a CMV, in part, as a vehicle operating in
``commerce,'' a term separately defined to cover both interstate
commerce and operations that ``affect'' interstate commerce [49 U.S.C.
31302(2), (4)]. Although both of these definitions were in effect when
section 4007(a) was enacted (and still are), Congress did not specify
whether an entry-level driver training rulemaking should be limited to
``CMV'' drivers in interstate commerce, or whether it should also
encompass ``CMV'' drivers in intrastate commerce.
    Article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution gives Congress
the authority to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has
held that Congress may also legislate on matters ``affecting interstate
commerce,'' a phrase generally treated as equivalent to intrastate
commerce. Federal legislation is presumed, therefore, to apply only to
interstate commerce unless it reveals some indication of a
Congressional intent to reach intrastate commerce. Neither section
4007(a) nor its legislative history includes evidence of any such
intent. Under these circumstances, the Agency concluded that entry-
level driver training may be required only for CMV drivers who intend
to operate in interstate commerce. In view of the greater risks
associated with larger vehicles and those transporting hazardous
materials and passengers, as well as the special requirements Congress
has imposed on drivers of such vehicles (particularly the CDL and the
subsequent drug and alcohol testing program), FMCSA concluded that
training requirements should focus on entry-level drivers applying for
a CDL who intend to operate in interstate commerce.
    Three parties petitioned the DC Circuit for review of the 2004
rule. The court held that FMCSA had failed to consider important
aspects of an adequate entry-level training program and remanded the
rule to the Agency for further consideration (Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 429 F.3d
1136 (DC Cir. 2005)). This NPRM addresses the issues raised by the
court.
    Before prescribing any regulations, FMCSA must consider their
``costs and benefits'' [49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)]. Those
factors are discussed below in the section on ``Regulatory Analyses and
Notices.''

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    In the early 1980's, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Office of Motor Carriers, predecessor to FMCSA, determined that there
was a need for technical guidance in the area of truck driver training.
Research showed that few driver training institutions offered a
structured curriculum or a standardized training program for any type
of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) driver. A 1995 study entitled
``Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training''
(the Adequacy Report) concluded, among other things, that effective
entry-level driver training needs to include behind-the-wheel
instruction on how to operate a heavy vehicle.
    In 2004, FMCSA implemented a training rule that focused on areas
unrelated to the hands-on operation of a CMV, relying instead on the
CDL knowledge and skills tests to encourage training in the operation
of CMVs. These current training regulations cover four areas: (1)
Driver qualifications; (2) hours of service limitations; (3) wellness;
and (4) whistleblower protection. In 2005, the DC Circuit held that the
Agency was arbitrary and capricious in promulgating the 2004 rule
because it ignored an important conclusion of its own 1995 Adequacy
Report, that behind-the-wheel training is essential. Therefore, in this
rulemaking FMCSA is proposing new training standards for entry-level
drivers that would include behind-the-wheel (BTW) as well as classroom
training. [Note: In this notice ``behind-the-wheel'' training includes
both training on public roads and training on private property,
sometimes called ``driving range'' training.]

B. History

Curriculum Standards
    The FHWA published a ``Model Curriculum for Training Tractor-
Trailer Drivers'' in 1985. The Model Curriculum provides non-regulatory
guidelines and training materials pertaining to vehicles, facilities,
instructor hiring practices, graduation requirements, and student
placement. Curriculum content addresses basic operation, safe operating
practices, vehicle maintenance, and non-vehicle activities. The Model
Curriculum reflects a consensus among experts at the time of its
publication. Its training standards are not based on any specific
research showing that drivers who received training of a particular
type or duration are less likely to be involved in crashes than drivers
receiving other kinds of training, or no systematic training at all.
    The 1985 Model Curriculum recommended the equivalent of a total of
148 \1\ hours of training, including on-

street training and additional hours of driving-range \2\ time. At the
time the Model Curriculum was published, the CDL program (49 CFR part
383) did not yet exist. The first CDLs were not issued until 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The original Model Curriculum referred to a total of 320
hours. However, these hours of training include periods when the
student is not receiving individual instruction, such as while
waiting his/her turn to use an available truck to practice driving
skills. Therefore, the Adequacy Report, identified later under this
heading, states in relation to the training curriculum established
by the Professional Truck Driver Institute (PTDI), which was based
on the Model Curriculum, that ``The PTDI[A] standard includes* * *
147.5 per-student hours. This is equivalent to the 320 class hours
required by the FHWA Model Curriculum'' (Adequacy Report, Executive
Summary, p. 26). There are several reasons for this variance in the
total hours of the respective training programs. First, FHWA's
curriculum includes topics, such as first-aid training, that are not
included in the PTDI curriculum. In addition, instructional time may
be calculated as either 60- or 50-minute hours. FHWA's curriculum
was based on a 50-minute clock, and PTDI's on a 60-minute clock. (In
this NPRM, 60-minute instructional hours are used unless otherwise
stated.) FHWA used a 3:1 ratio (student to instructor) for in-truck
training, and PTDI uses a 1:1 ratio. If a 3:1 ratio is used, it is
assumed that it will take 3 clock hours to achieve 1 hour of BTW
instruction for a student, since only one of the three students can
use the truck at a time. The others would have unproductive
``waiting time.''
    \2\ ``Driving range time'' refers to time operating a CMV on
private property, usually a large paved lot specially designed to
allow practice of basic driving operations and maneuvers. Some
schools' curricula include both observation and behind-the-wheel
time under range hours. This NPRM does not use ``range time'' in the
regulatory text and therefore the term is not defined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1986, the motor carrier, truck driver training school, and
insurance industries created the Professional Truck Driver Institute
(PTDI) to certify high-quality training programs offered by training
institutions. The PTDI used the truck driver Model Curriculum as the
basis for its certification criteria. On January 24, 1999, the PTDI
approved revisions to the curriculum and published three separate
standards:
     ``Skill Standards for Entry-Level Tractor-Trailer
Drivers;''
     ``Curriculum Standard Guidelines for Entry-Level Tractor-
Trailer Driver Courses;'' and
     ``Certification Standards and Requirements for Entry-Level
Tractor-Trailer Driver Courses.''
    As of December 2006, PTDI-certified courses are offered at 61
schools in 28 States and Canada, according to PTDI's Web site (http://www.ptdi.org
). PTDI estimates that approximately 10,000 students

graduate from its certified courses annually.
CMVSA: Minimum Uniform Standards for CDLs
    The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C.
31301 et seq.) established a CDL program that includes national minimum
testing and licensing standards for operators of CMVs. The CMVSA
directed the Agency to establish minimum Federal standards that States
must meet when testing and licensing CMV drivers. The CMVSA applies to
anyone who operates a CMV in interstate or intrastate commerce,
including employees of Federal, State, and local governments. The goal
was to ensure that drivers of large trucks and buses possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to operate safely on public highways.
    In accordance with the CMVSA, all drivers of CMVs (as defined in
Sec.  383.5) must possess a valid CDL. In addition to passing the CDL
knowledge and skill tests required for the basic vehicle group, all
persons who operate or anticipate operating the following vehicles,
which have special handling or operational characteristics, must obtain
endorsements under Sec.  383.93 for:
     Double or triple trailers;
     Passenger vehicles;
     Tank vehicles;
     Vehicles required to be placarded for hazardous materials;
or
     School buses.
    The driver is required to pass a knowledge test for each
endorsement, plus a skills test to obtain a passenger vehicle
endorsement or school bus endorsement.
ISTEA: Entry-Level Driver Training
    The CDL standards require tests for knowledge and skills, but
neither the CMVSA nor the FMCSRs requires driver training. The private
sector, with guidance from FMCSA, has attempted to promote effective
training. Formal, supervised training is available from private truck
driver training schools, public institutions, and in-house motor
carrier programs. Many drivers take some sort of private-sector
training at their own expense. These courses vary in quality. Some
provide only enough training to pass the skills test. Generally,
however, with or without formal training, drivers individually prepare
for the CDL test by studying such areas as vehicle inspection
procedures, off-road vehicle maneuvers, and operating a CMV in traffic.
    By 1991, Congress had become concerned about the quality of this
training. As a result, section 4007(a)(1) of ISTEA required the Agency
to study the effectiveness of private sector training efforts, to
commence a rulemaking on the need to require training of entry-level
drivers of CMVs, and to report to Congress on the results.
The Adequacy Report
    In 1992, FHWA began to examine the effectiveness of private sector
training. The result was a 1995 report entitled ``Assessing the
Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training'' (the 1995
Adequacy Report), which the Secretary of Transportation transmitted to
Congress in 1996. A copy of the report is in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    In developing the Adequacy Report, the FHWA first assembled two
groups of people experienced in motor carrier operations: one from the
trucking sector and the other from the motorcoach and school bus
sectors. These groups first identified baseline training standards for
both the cargo- and passenger-transporting segments of the CMV
industry. The truck group selected the Model Curriculum as a baseline.
The bus group selected a combination of the Model Curriculum and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) ``School Bus
Driver Instructional Program,'' developed in 1974. The groups reached a
consensus on minimum requirements for the numbers of class and practice
driving hours, student/teacher ratios, and course topics.
    The question then was whether driver training could be effective in
the absence of the formal instruction embodied in the baseline
standards selected by the truck and bus experts. Without much analysis
or data, the FHWA concluded formal training \3\ is the key to adequate
training. The Adequacy Report defined ``effectiveness'' as ``the
prevalence or frequency with which the motor carriers * * * provided
formal training for their entry-level drivers'' (Adequacy Report,
Executive Summary, p. 2). Evidence of the relationship, if any, between
certain types and amounts of training and a reduction in crashes was
scarce and statistically questionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Entry-level training'' as the term is used in the Adequacy
Report, includes all pre-service, on-the-job, and in-service
training during the first 3 years of a driver's experience. ``Formal
training'' included only the pre-service training received through
established programs of instruction presented by schools or the
carriers (Id., p.13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The next step involved collecting information on and analyzing
training programs currently offered by the cargo and passenger segments
of the motor carrier industry. The groups developed an algorithm that
they used to quantitatively compare existing driver training with the
baselines.
    In the final step, the study surveyed both drivers and employers.
The survey asked 192 drivers what percentage of drivers they thought
were adequately trained by training schools.
    The conclusion of both the training analysis and the driver survey
was that the heavy truck, motorcoach, and school bus segments of the
CMV industry were not providing adequate entry-level driver training
(Id., p. 6). The Adequacy Report also stated that ``* * * it appears

the present level of training adequacy is not likely to improve due to
the actions of the private sectors themselves (Id., pg. 7).''
    The Adequacy Report also made extensive comments on the form that
``adequate'' entry-level training would take. The report found that
there was general agreement among transportation and training officials
that the Model Curriculum, developed in the 1980's, represented an
``adequate content and approach for training truck drivers.'' The
report recommended the Model Curriculum as the starting point for
defining adequate training. It also included criteria involving ``* * *
classroom hours, practice (off-street and on-street) hours, student/
teacher ratios, behind-the wheel time, and course content topics (Id.,
p. 15).'' The Adequacy Report did not reach a conclusion as to whether
``testing-based,'' ``training-based'' or ``performance-based''
approaches to entry-level driver training would be more effective.
    The Adequacy Report took the intuitive position that entry-level
driver training is beneficial. However, it found ``* * * no evidence of
a relationship between adequacy of the training the driver reported
receiving and his/her frequency of crashes (Id., p. 10).'' The Adequacy
Report included a literature review that also failed to identify
studies or data indicating a positive correlation between driver
training and crash reduction (Id., p.22).
    The Adequacy Report stated, ``Few will argue that training is not
necessary for CMV drivers. It is hard to imagine someone safely
operating a heavy truck, motorcoach, or school bus without at least
guidance from an experienced operator and a chance to practice the
basic driving skills. FHWA and elements of the private sectors have
gone beyond this in recommending formal training for CMV drivers
because it is the only way to assure that all of the necessary
knowledge and skills are covered, using a structure that maximizes the
chances that learning will occur'' (Adequacy Report, Volume III, pp. 7-
24).
Previous Rulemakings
    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and Public Meeting.
Pursuant to section 4007(a)(2) of ISTEA, the Agency began a rulemaking
proceeding on the need to require training of all entry-level CMV
drivers. On June 21, 1993, the Agency published an ANPRM in the Federal
Register entitled ``Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training for All Entry
Level Drivers'' (58 FR 33874). The Agency asked 13 questions that
addressed training adequacy standards, curriculum requirements, the
CDL, the definition of ``entry-level driver,'' training, pass rates,
and costs. The Agency received 152 comments that were discussed in the
preamble to the subsequent NPRM.
    On November 13, 1996, twenty-six people participated in a public
meeting to discuss mandatory training for entry-level CMV drivers.
    There was no consensus in the written or oral comments on the issue
of mandated entry-level driver training.
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The FMCSA published an NPRM
in the Federal Register on Friday, August 15, 2003 (68 FR 48863). The
Agency received 38 comments; they were analyzed in the preamble to the
2004 final rule. For purposes of the NPRM, FMCSA defined an entry-level
driver as a person with less than two years experience operating a CMV
that requires a CDL.
    The Agency proposed training for entry-level drivers based on three
main principles. First, the Agency focused the NPRM requirements on
drivers included in the Adequacy Report; i.e., only drivers in the
heavy truck, motorcoach, and school bus industries. Second, the NPRM
focused on drivers who operate in interstate commerce subject to the
Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984. Third, the Agency limited the NPRM to
those training topics that extend beyond the scope of the CDL tests.
    The NPRM proposed training in the following areas: (1) Driver
medical qualification and drug and alcohol testing, (2) driver hours of
service rules, (3) driver wellness, and (4) whistleblower protection.
The Agency believed that training in these four areas would serve to
establish a baseline of safety for entry-level CMV drivers at a
reasonable cost for drivers or employers. The NPRM did not specify a
required number of hours for the training or indicate who would provide
the training. However, the Agency's cost-effectiveness estimate was
premised on 10.5 hours of training for heavy truck and motorcoach
drivers and 4.5 hours of training for school bus drivers. The FMCSA
proposed only two training topics for school bus drivers: Driver
wellness and whistleblower protection.
    The NPRM proposed that the employer would have to maintain a
training certificate in the driver's personnel file showing that the
driver had received the training.
    Final Rule. After review and analysis of the 38 comments on the
NPRM, the Agency published a final rule in the Federal Register on May
21, 2004 (69 FR 29384). The final rule codified the entry-level driver
training requirements at 49 CFR part 380, subpart E, in much the same
way that they were proposed, with a few minor adjustments.
    All of the relevant documents from previous rulemakings on topics
related to this NPRM are in the docket for this rulemaking as
identified at the beginning of this notice.
DC Circuit Decision
    The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) challenged
the rule in the DC Circuit. The Advocates argued that the final rule
ignored earlier Agency recommendations because the Adequacy Report had
concluded that effective entry-level driver training needed to include
behind-the-wheel instruction on how to operate a heavy vehicle.
Instead, FMCSA required training that focused on areas unrelated to the
hands-on training of a CMV operator. In its December 2005 decision, the
court agreed with the petitioner and remanded the rule to the Agency
for further consideration consistent with the decision.\4\ The court
did not vacate the 2004 final rule, which remains in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, 429 F.3d 1136, at 1145 (DC Cir.
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Training Research and Studies
    Since completing the Adequacy Report, the Agency has continued to
study the problems related to training commercial motor vehicle
operators.
    Transportation Research Board (TRB) Reviews. In 2004, FMCSA
sponsored the TRB report ``Training of Commercial Motor Vehicle
Drivers'' (Synthesis 5).\5\ A copy of that report is in the docket for
this rulemaking. For Synthesis 5, TRB researchers conducted an
extensive literature review and surveyed experts in the CMV driver
training field to identify training tools and techniques that hold the
greatest potential to improve CMV safety. The following ``recommended
practices for improving training effectiveness for entry-level CMV
drivers are supported by this synthesis'' (Synthesis 5, p. 2): (1)
Acceptance and adherence to standards put forward by the Professional
Truck Driver Institute (PTDI), (2) ``finishing training'' for solo
drivers, (3) use of multimedia instructional materials, (3) appropriate
uses of affordable simulation options, (4) expansion of use of skid
pads, and (5) employment of

videos for health, wellness, and lifestyle issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Staplin, L., Lococo, K., Decina, L., and Bergoffen, G.
(2004), Training of Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers. Commercial
Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, FMCSA contracted with TRB for a synthesis report on
commercial motor vehicle driver training curricula and delivery methods
and their effectiveness (Synthesis 13).\6\ A copy of this report is in
the docket. The purpose of Synthesis 13 is to provide information to
assist the commercial vehicle safety community in assessing CMV
training practices and their effectiveness.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Brock, J., McFann, J., Inderbitzen, R., and Bergoffen, G.
(2007). Synthesis on Effectiveness of Commercial Motor Vehicle
Driver Training Curricula and Delivery Methods. Commercial Truck and
Bus Safety Synthesis Program, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its conclusions, Synthesis 13 describes six aspects of CMV
driver training in which shortcomings may exist: Content, instructional
methods, trainers, training and curriculum design, measurement
standards, and operator abilities. Each is described briefly as
follows:
    1. Content: There are no national curricular standards, but when
various curricula are examined, little content difference can be found.
There is general agreement across the industry that the 1985 FHWA Model
Curriculum forms the core content of commercial driving training. That
standard has not been updated since 1985. The industry should use a
systematically developed modern commercial driver training curriculum.
    2. Instructional Methods: By far, the favorite method for training
commercial drivers is a combination of classroom lectures and
supervised driving. Most of the research findings on adult learning and
instructional technology from the last 30 years have not been adopted
by a significant number of commercial driving enterprises. In those
cases where advanced technologies are being applied, early data
indicate that well designed computer based instruction, including
simulation, can improve student performance and also realize
efficiencies in the instructional process. Distance learning shows
great promise for post-licensing training.
    3. Train the Trainers: It is natural that older, experienced
drivers are selected to be instructors, no matter if the training is
administered by a school, carrier, bus company, or transit agency. But
there is no evidence that a person who is a job expert is necessarily a
good teacher. There are two clusters of skills a good driver training
instructor must possess beyond driving competence. Classroom skills
(presentation fundamentals, using classroom equipment, listening to
students) are well recognized as part of good train-the-trainer
programs. The second cluster of skills, required of a behind-the-wheel
instructor, consists of observational fundamentals, explaining
activities in understandable and behavioral terms, remaining calm, and
possessing the ability to anticipate risky situations. Since there are
no standards for CMV driver training instructors, this role in the
training process is extremely variable.
    4. Lack of Systematic Training Design: As discussed above, the
motor carrier and training school industries have reached an informal
consensus on the subject matter of commercial driver training. However,
it has been over 20 years since a formal curriculum design for
commercial drivers was systematically developed. In that time, the CDL
program has become law, new technologies and regulations for truck and
bus operations have had a major impact on the drivers, and the
collective knowledge about what affects commercial driver's performance
(e.g., fatigue, distraction, age) has grown significantly.
    5. Lack of Standards for Measuring the Effectiveness of Driver
Training Programs: Currently, the only generally acceptable standard
for measuring the effectiveness of commercial driver training is the
number of graduates who can pass their CDL tests. In both the survey
and in interviews, schools reported that they also track the number of
graduates that are hired by carriers. Motor carriers, motorcoach
operations, and transit agencies report that they are sure that
training reduces crashes; however, there is little or no data that
support that view. Standards purporting to measure training
effectiveness tend to measure processes (classroom hours, time spent
behind the wheel) rather than specific performance outcomes.
    6. CMV Operator Abilities: There has been recent research on the
capabilities and limitations of adolescent drivers. However, a similar
scientific approach to commercial drivers is lacking. If CMV trainers
understood more about the learning styles, cognitive strategies, and
past educational experiences, training could be tailored to the
relevant needs of the individual student. A set of diagnostic tests
that could funnel students into the optimum learning context would
improve commercial driver training.
    The authors of Synthesis 13 stated, ``Although the literature
review produced instances of driving improvement linked to specific
training interventions (e.g., simulators) there are no general data
linking decreased crash rates to formal training programs. The two
primary reasons for this are: (1) Training, as a concept, is not well
nor operationally defined and (2) there are no generally agreed upon
standards by which various training programs can be compared. A third
problem is the likelihood that most training effects are felt in the
first six months of a driver being on the road'' (Synthesis 13, p. 22).
Responding to TRB Review Conclusions
    It would require years of research, systems design, standards
development, and cost-benefit analysis involving many stakeholders to
fully address the shortcomings identified in the TRB Syntheses 5 and 13
reports. This NPRM proposes core training for CDL applicants. The
proposal includes minimum curricular requirements that were developed
by FHWA in cooperation with the driver training industry, and that have
elicited ``general agreement across the industry'' (Id., p. 2). Minimum
qualification standards for instructors are established, flexibility in
use of various instructional methods is provided, and testing standards
are specified.
    The FMCSA believes that the mandatory training proposed in this
NPRM need not be delayed until further research is conducted, standards
developed, etc. The CMV driver-training industry will continue to
address these issues, and the Agency and other interested parties will
continue their research and development efforts. FMCSA will also
monitor CMV driver training. In the meantime, FMCSA believes that the
proposals in this NPRM would help entry-level CDL drivers learn to
operate more safely.
    The following remarks relate to the six aspects of CMV training in
which shortcomings were identified in Synthesis 13. The FMCSA invites
comments to the docket regarding each of these topics.
    1. Content: Although the Model Curriculum has not been re-issued by
a government agency since its original publication by FHWA in 1985, it
has been formally updated on a regular basis by PTDI, and it remains
the generally accepted basis for most current CMV driver-training
curricula. The curricula in this proposed rule would be consistent with
the standards currently adopted by many professional CMV driver-
training schools and associations. Comments to this NPRM will be
considered when determining the necessity and urgency of initiating a
formal, official update to the original 1985 FHWA Model Curriculum.
    2. Instructional Methods: The FMCSA agrees that recent changes in
instructional technology, such as

simulators, computer-based instruction, and ``distance learning'' can
be effective in improving the quality and reducing the length of CMV
driving instruction. The FMCSA is currently engaged in a multi-year
research project, titled ``Truck Simulator Validation (SimVal),'' to
determine the effectiveness of driving simulators in CMV training. The
SimVal project will examine the subsequent driving performance records
of four groups of new CDL drivers. Group 1 will receive 8 weeks of
PTDI-certified training including behind-the-wheel training in a
conventional tractor-trailer. Group 2 will receive the same training,
but substitute a driving simulator for two-thirds of the behind-the-
wheel training. Group 3 will receive a compressed (1 to 3 week)
training program focusing primarily on passing a CDL examination. Group
4 will receive no formal training, which will allow evaluation of
training in general compared to no formal training.
    As data from the SimVal project and others become available to
measure the effectiveness of these technologies and adopt standards for
their use in a CMV driver-training environment, FMCSA will consider the
need for further regulatory revisions.
    3. Train the Trainers: In proposed Sec.  380.609, this NPRM would
adopt basic standards for both classroom and skills instructors. In
addition, by requiring that all training be conducted at an accredited
educational institution or program, the proposed rule would result in
additional professional standards for instructors as determined by the
accreditation criteria.
    4. Lack of Systematic Training Design: Comments to this NPRM will
be considered when determining the necessity, urgency, and best method
of initiating a systematic design for CMV driver training. This would
be part of the ``content'' review discussed in item 1, above.
    5. Lack of Standards for Measuring the Effectiveness of Driver
Training Programs: Currently, there are no data available to permit
comparison of CMV driver training to the subsequent safety performance
of the driver. In particular, no accessible records of training exist.
By requiring standardized training as of a specified date, and by
requiring certain information about that training to be entered into
the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS), this proposed
rule would provide the baseline data needed to begin to study the
effectiveness of the training when compared to the actual crash
experience of the drivers. In addition, the Agency intends to continue
working closely with professionals in the field of CMV driver training
to identify additional methods of measuring the effectiveness of CMV
driver training.
    6. CMV Operator Abilities: Synthesis 13 mentioned the tailoring of
training to the relevant needs of each student, and suggested the
potential use of diagnostic tests to ``* * * funnel students into the
optimum learning contest. * * *'' The tests, tools, and standards for
customizing driver training to an individual student's needs do not yet
exist on the scale necessary for development of regulatory provisions.
However, these are currently being developed, implemented, and studied
in training programs operated by large motor carriers and by CMV
driver-training institutions. The FMCSA will continue to monitor and
study the appropriateness of incorporating these concepts into
regulatory provisions.
    Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS). In September 2006, FMCSA
conducted further analysis on the recently released FMCSA/National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration Large Truck Crash Causation Study
(LTCCS) for data regarding the training and experience of commercial
drivers involved in crashes. The LTCCS provides information on nearly
one thousand selected truck crashes from around the country.
    The LTCCS data specify many characteristics of each crash,
including the training of the drivers involved and whether or not the
driver was at fault. However, analysis using the LTCCS was inconclusive
and did not identify any statistically significant difference between
trained and untrained drivers with regard to crash frequency. Analysts
reported that the relatively small sample size and difficulty in
differentiating the effects of training, experience, and age precluded
useful conclusions.

C. Request for Comment on the Need for the Regulation

    Although FMCSA believes that this proposal will improve the ability
of entry-level drivers to operate more safely and reduce the likelihood
that they will be involved in crashes, the agency has noted the lack of
research findings indicating a relationship between standardized driver
training and increased safety. Specifically,
     In the Adequacy Report, which included a literature
review, the FHWA found no statistically valid relationship between
specific types and amounts of training and crash rates.
     The TRB's Synthesis 13 found no research data that linked
a reduction in crash rates to formal training programs.
     An analysis of the data produced in the LTCCS failed to
identify a statistically significant difference in crash frequency
between trained and untrained drivers.
    Given the lack of data that would indicate that the training
requirements in this proposed rule would result in a reduction in crash
rates, FMCSA solicits comments on the analytic basis and justification
for this proposed rule. Comments are specifically invited that would
address any of the research gaps that make it impossible to demonstrate
a relationship between increased systematic training and improved
safety.

III. General Discussion of the Proposal

A. Scope and Applicability

    Successful completion of training required by this proposed rule
would ensure that an applicant for a commercial driver's license (CDL)
had successfully acquired essential knowledge and skills, based on
classroom and behind-the-wheel training, to safely operate a CMV. The
CDL knowledge and skills testing programs administered by State driver
licensing agencies (SDLAs) would confirm that the applicant possesses
and can demonstrate the minimum knowledge and skills. After obtaining
the CDL and beginning to work for a motor carrier, the CDL holder would
usually undergo further ``finishing training'' and supervision from the
employer to ensure the driver has safe driving abilities. This NPRM
addresses the first part of the CMV driver's training--that obtained
prior to being issued a CDL.
    The new training requirements proposed in this NPRM would apply to
all persons applying for a CDL for the first time who intend to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce, and to persons upgrading from one class of
CDL to another. The requirements would become operational 3 years after
the effective date of the final rule. The requirements would apply to
all persons required under Sec.  383.3 to have a CDL, except for: (1)
Those who intend to operate exclusively in intrastate commerce; (2)
those who are excepted from obtaining a CDL under paragraphs (c) and
(d) of Sec.  383.3 \7\; and (3) those who obtain a restricted license
under paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of Sec.  383.3 \8\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Certain military personnel, farmers, firefighters, emergency
response vehicle drivers, and drivers removing snow and ice.
    \8\ Certain drivers in farm-related service industries and in
the pyrotechnic industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A person who holds or obtains a CDL within 3 years after the
effective date of the final rule would not be required to

meet these training requirements. However, 3 years after the effective
date of this rule, a person whose CDL has been revoked or had expired
more than 4 years earlier would be required to meet these training
requirements. These training requirements would apply to all classes
\9\ of CDLs, although the curriculum requirements specified in appendix
B would be different for Class A and for Class B/C license applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Throughout this preamble, the commonly-used ``class'' is
used to refer to the CDL ``groups'' as described in Part 383.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, FMCSA personnel visited various training facilities to
gain the benefit of their expertise. The training facilities chosen
were Delaware Technical and Community College, a public school;
Schneider National, Inc., a motor carrier; National Tractor Trailer
School, Inc., a private school; and The SAGE Corp., a nationwide
organization of 30 professional truck driver schools. All of these
training entities agreed that current knowledge and skills testing for
the CDL does not negate the need for training. They also agreed that
training should be a prerequisite for the CDL. While FMCSA acknowledges
these training facilities have a vested interest in increasing training
requirements, the Agency believes that entry-level driver training
should be a prerequisite for the CDL.
    Under the proposed requirements, a person applying for a CDL would
have to provide a Driver Training Certificate containing the required
information and certifications to the State driver's license agency
(SDLA). The State would have to include a record of the certificate in
the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) and retain a
copy or image of the certificate.
    This NPRM also includes proposed requirements for the training
program, including specific curriculum requirements and driver-
instructor requirements, described below.

B. Curriculum Content

    This NPRM contains minimum, mandated training requirements designed
to enhance CMV safety. The mandated entry-level training concentrates
on driver skills directly related to CMV safety. It is based on the
FHWA Model Curriculum that addresses basic operation, safe operating
practices, vehicle maintenance, and non-vehicle activities. As noted
earlier, the training standards embodied in the Model Curriculum are
not based on any research data indicating that drivers are more or less
likely to be involved in crashes, depending on the type and duration of
their training. Accordingly, the agency invites commenters to provide
information or research data that could demonstrate the relative
effectiveness of the Model Curriculum compared to other training
standards.
    The Adequacy Report tried to determine what form ``adequate''
entry-level training should take. The report stated that, ``With regard
to heavy trucks, there is general agreement in the industry that the
model tractor-trailer driver curriculum developed by the FHWA in the
mid-1980s represents an adequate content and approach for training
truck drivers.'' Although the Model Curriculum has not been formally
updated since its original publication in 1985, it has been updated by
private organizations such as PTDI, and it remains the generally-
accepted basis for many current CMV driver-training curricula.
    The Agency is proposing entry-level training that would be
applicable to the operators of all types of CMVs, but would vary
according to the class of CDL, as outlined in proposed appendix B to
part 380. In developing these curricula, FMCSA compared the
requirements of the FHWA Model Curriculum, the PTDI core curriculum,
and the curricula and experiences of driver-training facilities
surveyed by FMCSA personnel to define the core safety-training
elements. The Agency chose curriculum topics that would provide
training directly related to CMV safety. The FMCSA eliminated any
peripheral training topics which, although worthwhile to the industry,
are not related to safety.
    The training programs proposed in part 380 appendix B are described
in general terms and rely on testing and performance-based concepts,
but the Agency believes it is necessary to specify both a minimum
number of hours of training and the percentage of a student's time
dedicated to behind-the-wheel training. These requirements would help
to ensure the adequacy and uniformity of training. FMCSA seeks comments
regarding methods of ensuring the adequacy and quality of training if
minimum hours were not specified, including behind-the-wheel training.
To what extent could performance standards be substituted for mandatory
training time?
    Difficulties arise in matching specific curriculum requirements to
the classes of CDLs for which the training would qualify an applicant.
The curriculum for applicants for Class A CDLs is well-established in
the Model Curriculum; Class A covers all large, articulated vehicles,
usually tractor-trailers. However, Class B vehicles include both large
straight trucks and buses. A separate curriculum that included
passenger-safety issues would potentially include material not needed
by a trainee who does not intend to obtain a passenger endorsement.
And, since Class C CDLs are not based on vehicle configuration, but
rather on passenger or hazardous materials use, the issue of curriculum
development becomes even more complex. At the time an applicant applies
for a Class C CDL, many States require that a passenger or hazardous
materials endorsement also be obtained, even though not specifically
required at that time by provisions of 49 CFR parts 383 or 384.
    Further complications develop when considering upgrades in license
classes or the addition of endorsements. Would a separate ``add on''
training component be needed specifically for those changing from one
class to another or adding a specific endorsement? In this NPRM, the
Agency has proposed only two curricula, contained in Parts I and II of
Appendix B. Part I is for Class A CDL applicants, and Part II is for
Class B and C applicants. The FMCSA invites comments and proposals
regarding alternative methods of matching specific curricula components
to licensing actions involving the State driver licensing agency
(SDLA). For example, if a driver wants to upgrade from a Class B to a
Class A CDL, what training should be required, and what type of
training certificate should be presented to the SDLA? Should the driver
be required to complete the entire Class A classroom and behind-the-
wheel (BTW) training, or should a more limited supplemental training
curriculum be required? Should a supplemental curriculum include
modifications to both the classroom and BTW components?
    The Adequacy Report determined that effective training for CMV
drivers required behind-the-wheel instruction on how to operate a heavy
vehicle. The proposed entry-level training curriculum contains 44 hours
of practical behind-the-wheel experience for Class A applicants and 32
hours for Class B and C applicants. Vehicles requiring a Class A CDL
are typically tractor-trailer combinations or large straight trucks
towing trailers. The training standards for operating Class A vehicles
are outlined in Part I of appendix B.
    FMCSA believes that the skills to operate Class B and C vehicles
are similar enough to be covered by the same training program, as
outlined in Part II of Appendix B. Class B vehicles, while also over
26,000 pounds GVWR,

are more represented by operators of straight trucks and buses, which
do not have the same operating characteristics as tractor-trailers.
    Class C vehicles include those that do not meet the larger size/
weight requirements for Class A, but which carry placardable quantities
of hazardous materials or certain numbers of passengers. In some cases,
Class C could include a standard automobile. For these reasons, the
Agency believes that fewer behind-the-wheel training hours are needed
for Class B/C applicants. The proposed classroom training for Class B/C
applicants is similar to that for Class A, except for provisions
associated with articulated vehicles and certain other topics
applicable to tractor-trailers. This results in fewer classroom
training hours for Class B/C applicants than for Class A.
    For Class A applicants, the mandatory minimum hours of behind-the-
wheel training must be conducted in a traditional tractor-trailer
combination for which a Class A CDL would be required. For Class B
applicants, the mandatory minimum hours of behind-the-wheel training
must be conducted in a vehicle representative of that class. For Class
C applicants, the mandatory minimum hours of behind-the-wheel training
must be conducted in a straight-truck having a gross vehicle weight
rating of at least 14,000 pounds. Where appropriate in Class C
training, the use of a trailer in addition to the required straight-
truck is recommended.
    The Class B/C training curriculum is intended to include those
elements common to the safe operation of any CMV. Drivers of vehicles
requiring a Class B CDL primarily operate either large straight trucks
or buses. Drivers of vehicles requiring a Class C CDL generally operate
``small'' passenger-carrying vehicles or vehicles requiring placarding
for hazardous materials (both 26,000 or less GVWR; otherwise, a Class A
or B CDL would be required). Mandatory training requirements for
drivers transporting hazardous materials already exist in 49 CFR
172.704. These Class C drivers must also obtain a CDL hazardous
materials endorsement that requires a separate knowledge test (49 CFR
383.93). Drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles must obtain a CDL
passenger endorsement that requires separate knowledge and skills tests
(49 CFR 383.93).
    The FMCSA seeks comments on the content and extent of proposed
training for Class A and Class B/C applicants and whether a separation
of Class B and C requirements into individual curricula would have
merit. If so, comments are sought regarding the content of these
separate courses. Comments are also sought regarding the minimum
specifications for the type of vehicle that should be required for
Class B and C behind-the-wheel training, recognizing that when applying
for a CDL, the driver may not yet know the specific type of vehicle he
or she will be operating.
    The Agency also seeks comments and data on the correlation between
hours and content of training and the driving records of persons
completing such training; i.e., data indicating the effectiveness of
entry-level driver training.
    The proposed hours of training requirements are shown in the table
below:

   Table 1.--Minimum Hours of Training Required by Part 380 Appendix B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minimum Hours
             Section              --------------------------------------
                                    Classroom      * BTW        Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Part I: CLASS A APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) BASIC OPERATION..............           20           24           44
(2) SAFE OPERATING PRACTICES.....            8           17           25
(3) ADVANCED OPERATING PROCEDURES           15            3           18
(4) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE..........            7            0            7
(5) NON-DRIVING ACTIVITIES.......           26            0           26
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................           76           44          120
    Percentage...................          63%          37%         100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Part II: CLASS B/C APPLICANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) BASIC OPERATION..............           15           18           33
(2) SAFE OPERATING PRACTICES.....            8           12           20
(3) ADVANCED OPERATING PROCEDURES           11            2           13
(4) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE..........            5            0            5
(5) NON-DRIVING ACTIVITIES.......           19            0           19
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................           58           32           90
    Percentage...................          64%          36%        100%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Behind-the-wheel (BTW).

    Modern technology provides opportunities, not otherwise available
to entry-level drivers, to learn safe driving techniques using
computers and simulators. However, current research has not fully
substantiated the equivalency of simulator training and behind-the-
wheel training.\10\ Therefore, although FMCSA encourages the use of
simulators and computer-based instruction, and authorizes them when
appropriate for classroom training, this NPRM does not propose to
authorize substitution of simulator training for the minimum hours of
behind-the-wheel training. The FMCSA requests references to any studies
showing the effectiveness of simulator training and comments on the
potential for substituting such training for actual driving time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The FMCSA is currently conducting a 4-year ``Truck
Simulator Validation Study'' to help determine whether simulators
add value to truck driver training and longer-term safety
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed curriculum lists the minimum number of hours an entry-

level driver must spend learning any core training element. To provide
flexibility for instructors and drivers, however, the content of each
unit of training is described in general terms. At the conclusion of
the training, the driver-student must pass knowledge and skills tests
to determine if he/she has mastered the required information. Tests
must be based on the training provided to the driver-student and cover
the entire range of information. The skills test must include all the
maneuvers and operations practiced during the behind-the-wheel
instruction.
    Training institutions would be required to administer these tests
to their entry-level driver students. Only qualified instructors, as
defined in the proposed rule, may administer and score tests.

C. Training Providers

    Entry-level drivers would have to successfully complete a training
program that meets the requirements of subpart F and appendix B of part
380. The FMCSA proposes that the training provider or program would
have to be accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of
Education (ED) or by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
(CHEA). A motor carrier could develop its own training program for
entry-level drivers, but it would have to be accredited on the same
basis as an independent training institution. On the other hand, motor
carrier training programs or courses designed for drivers who already
have CDLs would not be subject to this rule and would not require
accreditation.
    FMCSA recognizes that the accreditation process could impose a
burden both on professional driving schools and on carrier-run
programs. It can take 1-2 years for a school or program to obtain
accreditation by an agency recognized by ED or CHEA. Accrediting
agencies often require that a school be in business for 2 years before
applying for accreditation. However, accreditation is important because
it demonstrates a commitment to meeting research-based standards,
engaging in continuous improvement, and providing for quality assurance
through self-evaluation and peer review. In addition, if a school is
not accredited by an agency recognized by ED, the student may not be
eligible for Federal educational assistance loan programs. This may be
an important consideration for students who are paying for their own
entry-level driver training.
    Extensive information about the accreditation process is available
on the ED and CHEA Web sites at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/index.html and http://www.chea.org. It is important to

understand that ED and CHEA do not accredit institutions or programs
directly. They officially recognize agencies that are authorized to
accredit the institutions and programs. Although they do not accredit
individual schools or programs, ED and CHEA maintain searchable
databases of schools and programs that have been accredited by agencies
recognized by them. Access to these databases is available though links
on the ED and CHEA Web sites previously identified. The ED and CHEA
point out that the information in these databases may not be completely
current and accurate.
    On its Web site, CHEA maintains a list of all accrediting agencies
recognized by ED, CHEA, or both. As of February 2006 (last update), the
list contained 81 individual agencies. These agencies accredit schools,
programs, or both. Some, but not all, of these agencies accredit
schools or programs involving truck-driver training. Based on a
``keyword'' search of databases at ED (http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp
) and the National Center for Education Statistics' College

Opportunities Online Locater (http://www.NCES.ed.gov/ipeds/cool/) for

truck-driver training programs, FMCSA identified approximately 130
accredited schools, some of which have numerous operating locations.
    The following 11 agencies accredit most of these truck-driver
training programs or schools: (1) Accrediting Commission of Career
Schools and Colleges of Technology; (2) Council on Occupational
Education; (3) Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools,
Commission on Higher Education; (4) Middle States Commission on
Secondary Schools; (5) New England Association of Schools and Colleges,
Commission on Institutions of Higher Learning; (6) North Central
Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement; (7)
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, The Higher Learning
Commission; (8) Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities; (9)
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Colleges;
(10) the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting
Commission for Schools, and; (11) the Accrediting Council for
Continuing Education and Training.
    The FMCSA seeks comments regarding the appropriateness of
accreditation as a means of maintaining quality control over the
training provided, the ability of existing entry-level training
facilities to acquire accreditation, and the necessity of acknowledging
CHEA in addition to ED as an entity that may recognize accrediting
agencies for purposes of this entry-level driver training. Comments are
also sought regarding any possible alternatives to accreditation that
would accomplish similar objectives.

D. Compliance and Enforcement

    Upon successful completion of the required training, the entry-
level driver would receive a Driver Training Certificate from the
training institution. The certificate would have to include: (1)
Information about the driver and the training institution; and (2) a
certification signed by an official of the training institution under
penalty of perjury that the driver has successfully completed the
training. The entry-level driver would provide the certificate to his/
her SDLA as part of the CDL application process. The SDLA would have to
review the certificate, include specified data from the certificate in
the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS), and retain a
copy or image of the certificate in its records. An entry-level driver
who failed to present a certificate meeting the requirements of this
rule could not be issued a CDL.

E. Implementation Date

    FMCSA proposes to begin requiring compliance with the requirements
set forth in this NPRM 3 years after the effective date of the final
rule. The Agency believes the 3-year phase-in period would provide the
States with sufficient time to pass any implementing legislation that
may be required. States would also need time to modify their
information systems to begin recording the Driver Training Certificate
information onto the CDLIS driver record. The Agency is seeking
comments about the ability of States to carry out the proposals in this
rulemaking within the required timeframe and on the length of the
implementation period in general.
    The proposed 3-year phase-in period would also allow time for the
commercial driver training industry to develop and begin offering
training that meets the proposed requirements. Some of these
institutions would also need to obtain accreditation during this
period.
    The Agency seeks comments about existing student capacity at
training schools and whether the proposed 3-year implementation period
is appropriate. The Agency also seeks comments on the probable costs of
entry-level training and any anticipated impacts on carrier operations.

F. Changes to the Existing Rule

    The four types of entry-level training currently required by
subpart E of part 380 would be incorporated into the new subpart F.
Compliance with subpart F would be required 3 years after the effective
date of the final rule. At that time, requirements for ensuring
employees have received entry-level training and for maintaining
records that show compliance, currently imposed on motor carriers by
subpart E, would be removed. Training on driver qualification
requirements, hours of service limitations, driver wellness, and
whistleblower protection would be included in proposed appendix B to
part 380, which will contain all of the curriculum requirements for
expanded entry-level training.

IV. Section-by-Section Explanation of Proposed Changes

A. Subparts A-E of Part 380 and Appendix to Part 380

    Several amendments to part 380 would be needed to cover the entry-
level driver training in proposed subpart F. First, the current
undesignated appendix containing the curriculum requirements for Longer
Combination Vehicle (LCV) driver training would be re-designated as
Appendix A, along with all references to that appendix. Second, the
title of subpart D would be revised to read ``LCV Driver-Training
Certification,'' so that there would be no confusion with the
requirements in new subpart F for entry-level drivers. Third, the title
of subpart E, which contains the current entry-level training
requirements, would be revised to read, ``Entry-Level Training
Requirements Before [date 3 years after effective date of final
rule].'' A new Sec.  380.500 would be added to specify that compliance
with current subpart E would not be required once new subpart F becomes
effective. These changes would ensure a smooth transition from the
current entry-level training rule to the more extensive requirements of
subpart F. (See ``III.F. Changes to the Existing Rule,'' above.)
    Finally, throughout subpart E the term ``entry-level driver'' would
be changed to read ``entry-level trainee,'' to differentiate between
the current rule in subpart E and the proposed rule in subpart F. This
is necessary because both subparts would be in the Code of Federal
Regulations during the proposed 3-year implementation period. In the
current rules, an ``entry-level driver'' who has already obtained a CDL
must receive training on 4 training topics listed in Sec.  380.503. In
this proposed rule, an ``entry-level driver'' would be a person who has
not yet received a CDL and who must complete the proposed extensive
training requirements in this NPRM. FMCSA proposes to use ``entry-level
trainee'' for the drivers subject to current subpart E during the
implementation period, to avoid confusion between the drivers subject
to the current rules and those subject to the future training
requirements.

B. Subpart F of Part 380 and Appendix B to Part 380

    Section 380.600, Compliance date for entry-level drivers. The
proposed entry-level driver training requirements that would replace
those in subpart E would be codified in a new subpart entitled
``Subpart F--Entry-Level Driver Training and Driver-Instructor
Requirements On and After [date 3 years after effective date of final
rule].'' The title of subpart E and proposed Sec.  380.600 provide a 3
year compliance period for the new training requirements to become
effective. (See ``III.E. Implementation Date,'' above.)
    Section 380.601, Purpose and scope. Proposed Sec.  380.601
specifies that subpart F establishes training requirements for entry-
level drivers, standards for the institutions that provide the
training, qualification requirements for CMV driver-instructors, and
the curriculum requirements for the training.
    Section 380.603, Applicability. Proposed Sec.  380.603 summarizes
the applicability of the subpart. This is discussed in ``III.A. Scope
and Applicability,'' above.
    Section 380.605, Definitions. Proposed Sec.  380.605 contains
definitions for various terms used in subpart F. The definition for
``behind-the-wheel training'' specifies that the student must have
actual control of the power unit during the training; merely riding
along or observing the operation of a CMV would not be considered
behind-the-wheel training. The definition of ``entry-level driver''
would refer to persons applying for a CDL, whereas under the current
rules in subpart E the term applies to drivers who already have CDLs
and are employed by motor carriers. The terms ``classroom
instruction,'' ``classroom instructor,'' ``qualified driver-
instructor,'' and ``skills instructor'' are all similar to the
definitions of those terms in current subpart A. Finally, we would add
a definition for the term ``training institution'' which would require
that the institution be accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S.
Department of Education or by the Council for Higher Education
Accreditation. Accreditation is discussed under ``III.C. Who Will
Conduct the Training,'' above.
    Section 380.607, Requirement to complete entry-level driver
training. Proposed Sec.  380.607 would cover the requirements for
successfully completing the appropriate training. Paragraph (a)
explains which curriculum requirements in Appendix B would apply to
students, depending on the class of CDL they intend to obtain.
Paragraph (b) contains the specification for the Driver Training
Certificate, which the training institution would have to provide to
students who successfully complete the appropriate training. Paragraph
(c) provides that any applicant for a CDL would have to present the
original copy of the Driver Training Certificate to his/her State
driver's license agency when applying for a CDL.
    Section 380.609, Entry-level driver-instructor requirements.
Proposed Sec.  380.609 would set forth the qualification requirements
for CMV driver-instructors. Paragraph (a) contains the proposed
requirements for classroom instructors and paragraph (b) contains the
proposed requirements for skills instructors, i.e., instructors
qualified to provide behind-the-wheel instruction. Paragraphs (a) and
(b) would require instructors to pass or successfully complete courses
they will instruct. However, current instructors would be
grandfathered; and there would be a transition period allowing for
instructors to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) within
the first 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. The
extended time is necessary because new instructors would be required to
successfully complete the course they are teaching, and some of these
accredited courses will not be available until after the 3-year
implementation period. This period would also allow for the development
of a cadre of qualified instructors who could teach future instructors.
    Section 380.611, Driver testing. Proposed Sec.  380.611 would
codify the requirements for testing students upon completion of their
classroom and behind-the-wheel training. This testing should not be
confused with the knowledge and skills tests required under part 383
for persons applying for a CDL. The tests under part 383 determine
whether the person is qualified for the CDL. The tests under Sec.
380.611 determine whether the person has learned the material taught in
the training program. Paragraph (a) would specify the testing methods
to be used. Paragraph (b) describes the standard for

determining the proficiency of the student, and paragraph (c) describes
the actions that would result in an automatic failure of the test.
    Appendix B, Entry-Level Driver Training Curriculum. Appendix B
would describe the specific curriculum requirements for entry-level
driver training. Parts I and II would contain the minimum program of
instruction for Class A and Class B and C CDL applicants, respectively.
Each part would contain five sections of training topics, including:
basic operation, safe operating practices, advanced operating
procedures, vehicle maintenance, and non-driving activities. For each
section, the minimum number of hours of classroom training and behind-
the-wheel training would be specified. For more discussion, see ``III.
B. Curriculum Content,'' above.

C. Part 383, Commercial Driver's License Standards; Requirements and
Penalties

    Several amendments to part 383 would be necessary to incorporate
the requirement for a Driver Training Certificate into the procedures
for applying for and issuing a CDL. A new paragraph (a)(10) would be
added to Sec.  383.71 to add the Driver Training Certificate to the
list of items an applicant must provide when initially applying for a
CDL. Section 383.73(a) would be amended to require the States to get
the original Driver Training Certificate from the applicant, document
the training in the driver's history file in CDLIS, and keep a copy of
the training certificate. Paragraph (d) would clarify when a driver
with an intrastate-only CDL would be required to obtain training before
applying for an upgrade to an unrestricted interstate CDL. If the
application for the upgrade is within 3 years of the date the
intrastate-only CDL was first issued, the applicant would need to
complete the training. If application for the upgrade occurs beyond 3
years of the date of issuance of the intrastate-only CDL, the State
could exempt the applicant from training as long as he/she has not had
more than one license, had the license suspended, revoked, or
cancelled, or had certain motor vehicle convictions during the 3 years
before the requested upgrade. An applicant upgrading a CDL from Class B
or C to Class A would be required to complete all of the training
required for the higher class. The penalties for false information in
Sec.  383.73(g) would be amended to add falsification of information on
the Driver Training Certificate. In addition, Sec.  383.95 would be
amended to add a reference to the procedures for removing the
intrastate restriction that is being added to Sec.  383.73(d).

D. Part 384, State Compliance With Commercial Driver's License Program

    A new Sec.  384.230 would be added to part 384 to specify that the
States must follow the procedures prescribed in Sec.  383.73 for
obtaining, recording, and maintaining the Driver Training Certificate.

V. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule is a significant
regulatory action under the terms of Executive Order 12866, and
significant under the Department of Transportation's regulatory
policies and procedures because of substantial public, industry and
Congressional interest. Furthermore, this proposed rule is in response
to the Order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit (Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. FMCSA, 429 F.3d 1136,
DC Cir. 2005) remanding to FMCSA for further consideration the 2004
final rule concerning entry-level training.
    Summarized below is a draft preliminary regulatory analysis of the
costs and benefits of this undertaking. A preliminary analysis of the
regulatory impact of this proposed rule on small entities is in the
docket for this rulemaking.
Summary Cost-Benefit Analysis
    The FMCSA already requires 10 hours of training for entry-level
drivers. This proposed rule would require 110 additional hours of
training for entry-level drivers of heavy trucks seeking a Class A
license. It would require 80 additional hours for those seeking either
a Class B or C license. Therefore, the total amount of training
proposed is 120 hours for Class A and 90 hours for Classes B and C. The
program of instruction includes both classroom and behind-the-wheel
training. The behind-the-wheel driving component would require at least
44 hours for Class A and 32 hours for Classes B and C.
    We estimate the total number of entry-level truck drivers affected
by this rule to average 40,200 per year for the next 10 years. (We will
round numbers to the nearest hundred or thousand where appropriate.) We
estimate the numbers of affected entry-level drivers in the school bus
and motor-coach industry segments at 119 and 2,600 per year,
respectively, over the next 10 years. (As described below in the
Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule section, the number of school bus
drivers in interstate commerce is extremely small.) Therefore, the rule
would affect only about 42,900 entry-level drivers annually. The
estimated cost of mandatory training is $176.4 million annually and
$1.325 billion (discounted at 7 percent) over the 10-year analysis
period. Large trucks ultimately account for the vast majority of the
total costs of this proposed rule--95 percent. Buses--school and inter-
city--account for the other 5 percent.
    The proposed standards for mandatory training for entry-level
drivers of heavy trucks, school buses, and motor-coaches would promote
the safe operation of CMVs nationwide. The total number of crashes
potentially avoided through compliance with the rule is difficult to
quantify, largely because of the absence of reliable information on the
impact of training on the reduction of crashes.
    It requires $167.8 million annually to train the 40,200 entry-level
large-truck drivers. At costs of $3.6 million per fatal-injury crash
(fatal crash) and $195,000 per non-fatal-injury crash (non-fatal
crash),\11\ a crash-reduction of 19.7 percent for the proposed rule's
affected population--that is, entry-level interstate drivers who would
not have obtained training were it not for the rule--would result in
benefits of $167.8 million (so that the benefits of the rule equal the
costs). Our analysis estimates that entry-level interstate drivers who
without the rule would not be trained are responsible for 97 of the
approximately 4,568 fatal crashes and 2,574 of the 121,473 non-fatal
crashes that occur annually.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Zaloshnja, Eduard and Ted Miller, ``Unit Costs of Medium
and Heavy Truck Crashes,'' Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation, December 2006, Tables 2 and 4.
    \12\ Summarized crash statistics from: http://ai.volpe.dot.gov/CrashProfile/NationalCrashProfileMain.asp
.

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

    A 19.7 percent decrease in those crashes amounts to 19.1 and 507.2
fewer fatal and non-fatal crashes, respectively. This reduction in
total crashes represents a less than one-half of one percent (0.42
percent) reduction from the annual totals.
    This 19.7 percent reduction does not have to occur annually for the
rule to be cost effective. The number of crashes, 19.1 fatal and 507.2
non-fatal, is in essence the number that has to be reduced by this
``graduating class'' of 40,200 trainees over the length of the
effectiveness of the training. If we assume that the effect of training
lasts 2 years and that it is half as effective in the second year as
the first, then

trainees would need to reduce crashes by 12.7 fatal and 338.1 non-fatal
(first year) and then 6.4 and 169.1 (second year). In effect, they
would only need to reduce by 13.1 percent the first year and 6.5
percent the second.
    If we assume that the effect of training lasts 3 years and that it
is half as effective in the second year as the first, and half as
effective in the third year as the second,\13\ then trainees would need
to reduce crashes by 10.9 fatal and 290 non-fatal (first year), 5.4 and
145 (second year), and then 2.7 and 72 (third year). In effect, they
would only need to reduce crashes by 11.3 percent the first year, 5.6
percent the second, and 2.8 the third.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Final Regulatory Evaluation, Entry-Level Driver Training,
Federal Highway Administration, May 1995, pages 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For school bus drivers who would be affected by this proposed rule,
the estimated annual cost to train the 119 entry-level drivers is
$346,000, while the costs of fatal and non-fatal bus crashes are (using
the large truck figures above) about $3.6 million and $195,000.
Therefore, either one fewer fatal crash every 10 years or one fewer
non-fatal crash every 2 years would be enough for the benefits of crash
reduction to equal the costs.
    For intercity bus drivers, given the annual training cost for the
2,591 entry-level drivers of $8.2 million and the costs of fatal and
non-fatal crashes of $3.6 million and $195,000, 2.3 fewer fatal crashes
or 42.2 fewer non-fatal crashes (or a combination of both) would
produce benefits from crash reduction that are equal to the costs.
Estimated Costs of the Proposed Rule
    Direct costs associated with this proposed rule include the cost of
providing training to entry-level drivers of heavy trucks, school
buses, and motor-coaches and some relatively minor record keeping
costs. The largest component of direct costs is the training cost.
Additionally, we estimated indirect costs to the driver (or the
employer), which are the driver's opportunity cost of time (i.e., the
driver's hourly wage rate, assuming the driver would be working if he
or she did not have to attend training).
    The two key factors in estimating the cost are the number of
drivers who will need training and the hours of training that will be
required. We estimate the number of entry-level drivers requiring
training based on several factors, including employment trends,
industry demand for transportation, expectations for economic growth,
and an assumed increasing presence of trucking in the transportation
field.

Number of Entry-Level Drivers of Heavy Trucks

    We used data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and FMCSA to
estimate the number of drivers who would require entry-level driver
training under this proposed rule. In their article, ``A Summary of
Occupational Employment Projections to 2014,'' the BLS presented
estimates of the current number of truck drivers as well as the number
needed in 2014. BLS estimates that there are currently 1.74 million
heavy truck drivers and another 1.04 million light or delivery truck
drivers.\14\ The BLS forecasts that 507,000 new drivers of heavy trucks
will be needed by 2014, 224,000 to fill new positions and 283,000 to
replace current drivers, so an average of 50,700 new drivers will be
needed for each of the next 10 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ BLS definitions do not exactly match the regulatory
categories used by the FMCSA. For instance, it is not clear how many
of the 1.04 million drivers of light or delivery trucks are required
to hold a CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The BLS totals for CDL drivers tend to be lower than estimates
established by FMCSA. For 2004, the FMCSA total of 4.20 million drivers
\15\ was 51 percent higher than the BLS estimate of 2.78 million (the
sum of heavy and light truck drivers reported above--1.74 + 1.04). For
that reason, we adjusted the annual new-driver total of 50,700 by a
factor of 1.51--to 76,600--to reflect what may be an under-
representation in the BLS when contrasted with our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FMCSA, Estimates for the number of CDL and non-CDL Drivers
in the National Fleet, Based on May 2005 Motor Carrier Management
Information System Data and 2003 Drug & Alcohol Survey; Unpublished,
June 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the 76,600 driver baseline and assuming that 75 percent of
entry-level drivers would operate in interstate commerce,\16\ the
number of entry-level truck drivers potentially affected each year by
this proposed rule is 57,400 (75 percent of 76,600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Analysis Division, FMCSA, ``Regulatory Evaluation, Minimum
Training Requirements For Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators Final Rule,'' September 2003. p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, if we assume 30 percent of the drivers would have received
training regardless of whether this rule was in place or not,\17\ then
17,200 of the 57,400 drivers would not be affected by this proposed
rule. The cost to train these 17,200 is not a cost of this rule because
these drivers would be trained regardless. That leaves 40,200 (70
percent of 57,400) entry-level interstate drivers who would not receive
training were it not for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.ptdi.org/schools/schools.htm. The PTDI Web site

indicated that there are currently 61 PTDI certified training
programs. These 61 certified programs represent roughly 30 percent
of the 200 programs estimated to be currently operating in the
United States. Assuming a similar distribution for the percentage of
drivers being trained by certified or accredited programs versus
those attending non-certified or accredited and employer-sponsored
training courses, we assumed that 30 percent of entry-level drivers
are already being taught the content specified under this rule. This
estimate is close to the 31 percent that were estimated to be
``adequately'' trained in the driver survey of the 1995 FHWA
Adequacy Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Entry-Level Operators of School Buses

    BLS estimates that the school bus industry employed 463,000 drivers
in 2004 and that about 526,000 drivers will be employed in 2014--for an
overall growth rate of 13.6 percent over the next 10 years. In addition
to the 63,000 new entry-level drivers to meet this growth, there will
be an additional 101,000 entry-level drivers needed to replace the
current pool of drivers. Therefore, about 21.8 percent of the 2004 pool
of drivers will be replaced by 2014. An average of 16,400 new school
bus drivers will be needed for each of the 10 years in the BLS forecast
period. We increased the BLS estimate by a factor of 1.51 to correspond
to our CDL analysis--for an adjusted annual total of 24,800.
    A recent FMCSA final rule (69 FR 29384, at 29398, May 21, 2004),
addressing interstate school bus operations of local educational
agencies, revealed that 32 percent of school bus drivers worked for
non-governmental entities, mainly as contractors to the local
educational agencies. However, not all of these drivers would be
expected to receive training that would allow them to operate school
buses in interstate commerce, since the number of non-home-to-school
interstate trips by local education agencies represents less than 1
percent of all school district trips, according to the same 2004 rule.
FMCSA assumed in that rule that a non-governmental employer would train
1.5 times more drivers than would be immediately required, since this
provides the employer with short-term flexibility in its operations
should the need for interstate school bus trips increase suddenly.
    Based on this, the number of entry-level bus drivers who we
estimate would be potentially affected by this rule each year is a very
small number--119 drivers. This is 1 percent (those who would typically
make interstate-based trips) of the 32 percent (those working for non-
governmental contractors to local educational agencies) of the
projected 24,800 entry-level drivers entering the industry each

year, multiplied by 1.5 to allow the employer greater flexibility in
its operations.

Number of Entry-Level Drivers of Motor-Coaches

    The BLS estimates that there were 190,000 drivers of transit and
intercity buses in 2004. The American Public Transportation Association
(APTA) estimates that 143,000 people are employed in vehicle operations
in the public transit agencies, but does not provide the number of
drivers. The APTA figures may also include operations of private motor-
coach companies in the contract transit-commuter markets. The APTA's
estimates of people employed in vehicle operations and BLS's estimates
on the number of transit and intercity bus drivers provide an estimate
of about 42,000 drivers employed in intercity buses. This is probably
the lower range for drivers in the intercity market because it assumes
about 1.2 drivers per motor-coach.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ According to Greyhound's annual 10K statement to Securities
and Exchange Commission, driver to motor-coach ratio is about 1.65
for their fleet in 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently about 34,800 motor-coaches operated by about
3,600 private motor-coach operators in the United States. There are no
firm numbers on the proportion of motor-coaches used in the regularly
scheduled services, contract commuters, charter, tours, and sightseeing
markets. Assuming 2.5 drivers per motor-coach for about 6,000 motor-
coaches operating in the regular route scheduled services and 1.5
drivers per motor-coach for the rest of the industry, the number of
drivers operating motor-coaches is estimated as 58,200 in 2004.
    Assuming that the intercity bus industry will grow at an average
1.28 percent per year for the next 10 years (and hence achieve the same
overall growth rate of the school bus industry between 2004 and 2014),
there will be 66,000 intercity bus drivers in 2014. In addition to the
7,900 entry-level drivers required to meet the industry's growth,
another 9,200 entry-level drivers will be needed for replacement.\19\
Therefore, we estimate the total number of entry-level drivers needed
due to growth and replacement at 17,150 over the next 10 years or 1,715
per year. Since the motor-coach industry's growth rate has lagged
behind its school bus counterpart, this estimate probably provides an
upper limit of the number of entry level drivers needed in the motor-
coach industry by 2014. Applying the adjustment-factor of 1.51
(described above) increases the total from 1,715 to 2,600 drivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The replacement component for transit and inter-city bus
drivers combined is 42,000. Inter-city bus drivers are 22 percent of
the total of transit and intercity bus drivers combined. So the
calculation of inter-city bus driver replacement component is 22
percent of 42,000, or 9,200.999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hours of Training

    This NPRM proposes that Class A drivers obtain an additional 110
hours of training while Class B and C drivers would need 80 additional
hours. Of the 75 percent of entry-level heavy-truck drivers we estimate
would be affected by this rule (57,400), we assume that 30 percent (or
17,200) are already being taught the content specified under this rule.
    We assume the remaining 70 percent (or 40,200 entry-level drivers)
receive training via a non-accredited training program or from their
employer. They would be required to undertake an additional 110 or 80
hours (depending on class) of training.
    Using data on CDLs issued by the States in 2000, we estimate that
64.5 percent were Class A and 35.5 percent Classes B and C. Applying
these percentages to the 40,200 population, the split is 25,900 Class
A, and 14,300 Class B and C. Given this class partition, 4 million
additional hours of training to entry-level interstate large-truck
drivers would be necessary to comply with the rule.
    This rule would apply to those entry-level school bus drivers
employed by non-governmental entities who are subject to the same
requirements as Class B truck and motor-coach drivers. Since each
school bus driver needs a Class B license, we assume this rule would
result in 80 hours of additional training for each entry-level driver
subject to its requirements. Therefore, we estimate that each year 119
entry-level school bus drivers would need an additional 80 hours of
training for a total of 9,500 hours of training annually.
    The FMCSA does not have information on the proportion of entry-
level motor coach drivers who now receive training, nor is the Agency
aware of any accredited training schools specifically for motor-coach
drivers. Therefore, we estimate that all entry-level drivers of motor-
coaches affected by this proposed rule (2,591) are going to obtain 80
hours of additional training. The total number of training hours
necessary annually for motor coach drivers because of this rule would
be 207,000.
    In total, for large trucks, school buses, and motor-coaches
combined, an additional 4,211,000 hours of training would be necessary
to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. Ninety-five percent of
these additional hours would involve large trucks, while buses account
for the other five percent.

Hourly Cost of Training

    The principal components of costs of entry-level drivers' training
are the cost of providing the training and the opportunity cost of the
drivers' time. The cost of providing training is straightforward: It
consists of the costs of hiring an instructor, producing training
materials, equipment used for instruction, fuel, wear and tear on
vehicles, etc. The concept of opportunity cost is somewhat less
familiar, but is simply the value of the best alternative that must be
foregone when an action is taken. In this case, the opportunity cost of
training is the foregone value of the work that the driver would
otherwise be performing. The standard value of this cost component is
the driver's wage.
    FMCSA interviewed the staff members of a number of training schools
and associations regarding the costs of training. While the price of
training varies considerably, most private training school respondents
replied that a cost of $4,000 for a 4-week course was typical. Many
schools also offer longer courses that are more expensive. To be
conservative, we use a figure of $25 per hour of training in this
analysis (calculated as $4,000 divided by 4 weeks divided by 40 hours
per week). This translates into $1,000 of direct training cost for each
40-hours of training.
    This is a reasonable estimate of the total hourly cost to train
drivers, whether the training is taught by the employer or a third
party. Employer-based training would most likely be less expensive than
$25 per hour, assuming new physical space would not have to be leased
to conduct the training. To be conservative, we use the same figure
whether the training is employer- or third-party-based. Using this
approach ensures that we do not underestimate the costs of employer-
based training programs.
    We base our estimates on the BLS's May 2005, National Occupational
Employment and Wage Survey. Since entry-level drivers generally earn at
the low range of the industry wage standards, we use the BLS estimate
of the 25th percentile wage for all of our entry-level drivers. We add
31 percent to cover the cost of fringe benefits. For truck drivers
(heavy truck and tractor trailer), the hourly wage plus the fringe
benefit is estimated at $17.00. For school bus drivers, the hourly wage
plus the fringe benefit is estimated at $11.40. The wage plus the
fringe benefit for

transit and intercity bus drivers is estimated at $14.75.
    The total cost of training is the opportunity cost of an hour of
the driver's time (hourly compensation) plus the $25 per hour of actual
training costs. The unit cost of training is estimated at $42.00 an
hour for truck drivers ($17.00 of foregone driver wages plus $25 in
actual training costs), $36.40 per hour for school bus drivers ($11.40
of foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual training costs), and $39.75
per hour for the motor-coach industry ($14.75 of foregone driver wages
plus $25 in actual training costs).

Total Costs

    Given the estimates of required training hours and wage rates
discussed above, the total cost to train entry-level drivers subject to
this proposed rule would be $176.4 million per year, with the large
truck component comprising about 95 percent ($167.8 million) of the
total.

                                      Table 2.--Annual Expense Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Heavy truck     School bus    Intercity bus         Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Training Hours.........................         3,994,602        9,514           207,285         4,211,402
Hourly Cost of Training......................            $42.00       $36.40            $39.75  ................
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Costs..............................      $167,788,481     $346,294        $8,239,710      $176,374,486
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using the 7 percent discount rate recommended by the Office of
Management and Budget, the present value of training costs of the
proposed rule is calculated as $1.325 billion over 10 years ($1.261
billion, $2.6 million, and $61.9 million). The table below catalogues
the total costs for each year and category of vehicle:

                           Table 3.--Total Costs of Final Rule Over a Ten-Year Period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Heavy truck       School bus       Intercity bus
                           Year                               $167,788,481        $346,294         $8,239,710
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........................................................      $167,788,481          $346,294        $8,239,710
2.........................................................       156,811,665           323,639         7,700,664
3.........................................................       146,552,958           302,467         7,196,882
4.........................................................       136,965,381           282,679         6,726,058
5.........................................................       128,005,029           264,186         6,286,035
6.........................................................       119,630,868           246,903         5,874,799
7.........................................................       111,804,550           230,750         5,490,467
8.........................................................       104,490,234           215,655         5,131,277
9.........................................................        97,654,424           201,546         4,795,586
10........................................................        91,265,817           188,361         4,481,856
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................................     1,260,969,407         2,602,481        61,923,334
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Benefits of the Proposed Rule
    The estimated cost of a large-truck fatal crash is $3,605,000, and
that of a non-fatal crash, $195,000. The number of fatal crashes
averaged 4,568 annually over the 5-year period from 2001 to 2005. The
average for non-fatal crashes was 121,473.
    We attribute 97 of the 4,568 fatal crashes annually to entry-level
interstate truck drivers who would not be trained were it not for the
rule. At most, 97 fatal crashes could potentially be reduced by
enactment of the rule if training was 100% effective in reducing
crashes. Similarly, 2,574 of the 121,473 non-fatal crashes are
attributed to entry-level interstate drivers who would not be trained
were it not for the rule.
    We derive the figure of 97 in the following way. We estimate entry-
level drivers to be 2.9 percent of the total number of drivers, based
on the BLS estimates of the number of annual openings per year (50,700)
and the total number of drivers (1,738,000). Proportionally, we
attribute 2.9 percent of average annual fatal crashes--or 133 of the
4,568--to entry-level drivers. However, since we are only concerned
with interstate entry-level drivers, we attribute 75 percent of the
133--or 100 fatal crashes even--to drivers affected by the proposed
rule. Further, since 30 percent of entry-level drivers (interstate or
otherwise) would be trained regardless of the rule, only 70 percent of
100--or 70 fatal crashes--are attributed to the group that the proposed
rule can actually affect.
    Seventy drivers are 70 percent (not otherwise trained) of the 75
percent (interstate) of the 2.9 percent (entry-level) of drivers.
Entry-level drivers are more likely to be involved in crashes than more
experienced drivers. Assigning crashes to this group in exact
proportion to their number undercounts the number of crashes
attributable to the group. If we assume entry-level drivers are 1.4
times more likely to crash than other drivers,\20\ then 70 is adjusted
up by a factor of 1.4 to 97. Ninety-seven of the 4,568 fatal crashes
are attributed to entry-level interstate truck drivers who would not be
trained were it not for the rule. Similarly, 2,574 of the 121,473 non-
fatal crashes are attributed to the group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Final Regulatory
Evaluation, Entry-Level Driver Training,'' May 1995. p. D-1. Cites
``This relationship was given in a GAO report * * * (Promising
Approach for Predicting Carriers' Safety, April 1991).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order for the benefits of crash reduction to equal the costs of
the rule, crashes by must be reduced by 19.7 percent. That is, 19.1
fewer fatal crashes and 507.2 fewer non-fatal crashes result in crash-
reduction benefits of $167.8 million. Note that 19.1 fatal crashes and
507.3 non-fatal crashes are less than one-half of one percent of the
total crashes that occur annually.
    This 19.7 percent reduction does not have to occur annually. The
19.1 and 507.2 reductions are in essence the

number of crashes that would have to be reduced by this ``graduating
class'' of (40,200) trainees over the length of the effectiveness of
the training. The trainees could reduce by, for example, 12 and 360 the
first year, and 7.1 and 147.2 in the second year (if, in fact, benefits
to training were sustained for 2 years).
    If we assume that the effect of training lasts 2 years and that it
is half as effective in the second year as the first, then trainees
would need to reduce by 12.7 and 338.1 (first year) and then 6.4 and
169.1 (second year). In essence, they would only need to reduce crashes
by 13.1 percent the first year and 6.5 percent the second.
    If we assume that the effect of training lasts 3 years and that it
is half as effective in the second year as the first, and half as
effective in the third year as the second, then trainees would need to
reduce by 10.9 and 290 (first year), then 5.4 and 145 (second year),
and then 2.7 and 72 (third year). Entry level drivers would only need
to reduce crashes by 11.3 percent the first year, 5.6 percent the
second, and 2.8 the third.
    For school buses, the estimated annual cost to train the 119 entry-
level drivers is $346,000. The cost of a fatal crash is $3,604,000 and
of a non-fatal crash $195,000. Therefore, either one fewer fatal crash
every 10 years or one fewer non-fatal crash every 2 years would be
enough for the benefits of crash reduction to equal the costs.
    Given the annual training cost for the 2,591 entry-level intercity
bus drivers of $8.2 million and the costs of fatal and non-fatal
crashes of $3,604,000 and $195,000, 2.3 fewer fatal crashes or 42.2
fewer non-fatal crashes (or some combination of the two) would produce
benefits from crash reduction that are equal to the costs.
Further Discussion of the Proposed Rule
    This proposed rule touches on several additional issues related to
the analysis of costs and benefits and the entities affected. These
topics include the supply of labor (i.e., drivers), the effectiveness
of training, and the benefits of reduced personnel turnover due to
training. For a discussion of these topics, please refer to the FMCSA
document ``Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, and
Regulatory Accountability and Reform Analysis,'' February, 2007,
contained in the docket identified at the beginning of this notice.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Introduction
    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires Federal agencies to
``* * * endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements
to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions subject to regulation.'' Accordingly, DOT policy requires
an analysis of the impact of all regulations and proposed rules on
small entities. The DOT mandates that agencies shall strive to lessen
any adverse effects on these businesses. This Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis covers the following topics:
    (1) The reason the Agency is considering this action.
    (2) A statement of the objectives of and legal basis for this
proposed rule.
    (3) A description of the small entities to which the proposed rule
will apply, including an estimate of their number.
    (4) A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping, and
other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, including an
estimate of the classes of small entities that will be subject to the
requirement and the types of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
    (5) An identification, to the extent practicable, of all relevant
Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the
proposed rule.
Reason the Action Is Being Considered
    This document analyzes the costs and benefits of this NPRM, as
required under Executive Order 12866 and U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Order 2100.5. The NPRM proposes to revise the
standards for mandatory training for entry-level drivers of interstate
CMVs. Individuals applying for new or upgraded CDLs would be required
to successfully complete driver training that includes both classroom
and behind-the-wheel hours. State driver-licensing agencies would only
issue a CDL to a trained applicant. The proposed actions would reduce
crashes by providing entry-level drivers with safety training and
experience.
Objective and Legal Basis for This Action
    A study required by Section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) found that the training
of entry-level drivers in the heavy truck, motor-coach, and school bus
industries was not adequate. Therefore, the objective of this NPRM is
to enhance the safety of CMV operations on our Nation's highways.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ An ancillary benefit to training may come in the form of
fuel savings. According to an OECD report, ``successful fuel economy
driver training programmes have led directly to improved economy and
increased safety.'' Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development, ``Training Truck Drivers,'' Road Transport Research,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Small Entities to Which the Action Will Apply
    This rulemaking would not directly affect small entities. The rule
would primarily impact only the potential truck and bus drivers who are
required to complete training prior to obtaining a CDL. Motor carriers
are not required to take any action under the proposed rule, and, in
fact, are relieved from burdens such as providing at least 10 hours of
training for each entry-level driver and maintaining records of that
training.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule
    This proposed rule does not place any reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements on small entities; i.e., motor carriers.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules
    The FMCSA is not aware of any other rules which duplicate, overlap,
or conflict with the proposed action.
Summary
    The FMCSA has considered the effects of this proposed regulatory
action on small entities and determined that this proposed rule would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office
of Size Standards. This proposed rule would affect only potential truck
drivers who are required to obtain training. Accordingly, FMCSA has
considered the economic impacts of the requirements on small entities
and determines preliminarily that this proposed rule would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    As defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C.
1532, et seq.), FMCSA has determined that this proposed rule does not
contain an unfunded Federal mandate resulting in the expenditures of
$120.7 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any one year by
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3507(d)), Federal agencies must obtain approval

from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The
FMCSA has determined this proposed rule would require revisions to an
existing information collection requirement subject to approval by OMB.
The currently approved information collection affected by this NPRM is
titled ``Training Certification for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators,'' OMB Control Number 2126-0028, approved at 10,808
burden hours through September 30, 2007. However, this continues in
effect until approval of a pending revision that is currently being
review by OMB.
    The implementation of this rule would take place over a period of 3
years immediately following its effective date. The program for the
training and certification of entry-level drivers would not be
operational before the end of this 3-year phase-in period. Thus, for
the first 3 years, the paperwork burden of this rule would be minor.
The start-up activities of training institutions and States would be
the primary activities. Training institutions would incur a burden as
they revise their training processes, and State driver-licensing
agencies (SDLAs) would incur a burden as they modify their systems to
record information to be collected under this proposed rule.
    The sole document required by this rule would be the Driver
Training Certificate (DTC). Under the proposed rule, an individual
would be required to present the DTC to the SDLA in order to obtain a
CDL. Existing training institutions may need to amend their ``diploma''
so that it contains all the information required for a DTC. The DTC
must contain the information specified by the rule. SDLAs would also
experience a burden as they absorb the mandates of this rule into their
current CDL licensing systems and processes. For example, State systems
would have to add the capacity to retain a copy of the Driver Training
Certificate.
    We anticipate that this rule, following 3 years of implementation,
would impose additional information collection burdens on driver
training institutions and SDLAs. The FMCSA will publish a notice within
3 years after the effective date of this proposed rule. This notice
will contain an estimate of the burden for the following 3 years, and
will seek public comment on it.
    Need for and use of the information to be collected: The
information collected under the requirements of this proposed rule
would enable FMCSA to (1) Improve the safe driving of entry-level CDL
drivers, (2) improve the ability of motor carriers to hire safe
operators of CMVs, and (3) enable future research on the impact of
driver training on CMV crash reduction.
    Respondents: The annual number of drivers providing training
certificates under the current rule, which would remain in effect
during the 3-year implementation period, is 45,611. The number of
training institutions (public and private) that would provide training
under the terms of this proposed rule is uncertain, but FMCSA estimates
it to be between 200 and 500. The number of State licensing agencies is
51. The total for these three groups of potential respondents will vary
from 45,862 to 46,162 during the initial 3-year implementation period.
    Frequency: Information would not be collected with any specific
frequency during the 3-year life of the information collection. The
initial burdens on training institutions and SDLAs will be limited to
startup activities.
    Annual Burden Estimate: This proposal would result in an annual
recordkeeping and reporting burden estimated to be 137,192 hours,
calculated as follows:
    Entry-level CDL drivers under the currently approved information
collection incur a burden of 10,808 hours, and this burden would remain
in effect until OMB approval of a pending revision of the information
collection. During the 3-year phase-in period, the CDL-training
institutions would incur an estimated burden of 125,000 hours to revise
their processes to conform to the requirements of this rule. During the
same period, State driver-licensing agencies would incur a burden of
4,590 hours to modify their systems. The total proposed annual burden
is 137,192 hours (7,602 + 125,000 + 4,590).
    Following the 3-year implementation period, calculation of the PRA
burden would be revised because the rule would be fully operational.
    FMCSA has submitted this NPRM and a supporting statement to OMB,
estimating the paperwork burdens of this proposal. The Agency is
soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility,
    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden,
    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected, and
    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. You may submit comments on the
PRA aspects of this proposed rule directly to OMB. The deadline for
such submissions is February 25, 2008. You must mail or hand deliver
your comments to: Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of
Transportation, Docket Library, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

E. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule for the purpose of the NEPA of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and conducted an assessment under the
procedures in FMCSA Order 5610.1, published March 1, 2004 in the
Federal Register (69 FR 9680). Accordingly, under Appendix 2, paragraph
6(s) of FMCSA Order 5610.1, this action is categorically excluded (CE)
from further environmental documentation. This CE relates to
establishing regulations and actions taken pursuant to these
regulations concerning the requirements for a driver to have a
commercial motor vehicle driver's license. In addition, the Agency
believes that the action includes no extraordinary circumstances that
would have any effect on the quality of the environment. Thus, the
action does not require an environmental assessment or an environmental
impact statement. We have also analyzed the proposal under the Clean
Air Act, as amended (CAA) section 176(c), (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) and
implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
Agency. It would not result in any emissions increase nor would it have
any potential to result in emissions that are above the general
conformity rule's de minimis emission threshold levels. Moreover, it is
reasonably foreseeable that the rule would not increase total CMV
mileage, change the routing of CMVs, how CMVs operate, or the CMV
fleet-mix of motor carriers. This action merely establishes training
requirements for drivers seeking to hold a commercial driver's license.

F. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of the FY 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Act, enacted
December 8, 2004, (Note to 5 U.S.C. 552a) requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. This rulemaking would require new
drivers pursuing a Commercial Drivers License (CDL) to obtain training
that

follows a prescribed curriculum and is provided by an accredited
training provider. The driver would then be responsible for providing a
copy of a certificate that reflects successful completion of the
training to the State Driver Licensing Agency (SDLA), upon application
for a CDL. The SDLA would document receipt of this certificate on the
driver's record in the Commercial Driver License Information System
(CDLIS) and on the Motor Vehicle Record (MVR). The information would be
made available to authorized personnel via CDLIS electronic inquiries
and on the MVR obtained by employers and drivers. The information will
be held to the same level of security as CDLIS.
    Because the training institution would create the training
certificate, and the States would examine and maintain the certificate
and other records associated with the individual's CDL, FMCSA has
determined this proposed rule would not result in a new or revised
Privacy Act System of Records for FMCSA.

G. Federalism

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' and
has determined that it does not have federalism implications.
    The Federalism Order applies to ``policies that have federalism
implications,'' which it defines as regulations and other actions that
have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Sec. 1(a). The key concept here is ``substantial direct effects on the
States.'' Sec. 3(b) of the Federalism Order provides that ``[n]ational
action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States shall be
taken only where there is constitutional and statutory authority for
the action and the national activity is appropriate in light of the
presence of a problem of national significance.''
    This proposed rule would not preempt any State or local law or
regulation. It would establish training standards applicable to entry-
level commercial motor vehicle drivers. As part of the commercial
driver's license (CDL) program, State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs)
would have to require entry-level CDL applicants to present a copy of a
certificate from a training institution accredited by an agency
approved by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation. SDLAs would be required to reject the CDL
application of an entry-level driver who was unable to present evidence
of having received the training required by this NPRM.
    The FMCSA's CDL program does not have preemptive effect. It is a
voluntary program; States may withdraw at any time, although doing so
would result in the loss of certain Federal-aid highway funds pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 31314. FMCSA recognizes that, as a practical matter, this
rule would have an impact on State CDL programs. Accordingly, the
Agency advised the National Governors' Association (NGA) of these
proposed regulatory changes by letter dated January 12, 2007, and
offered NGA officials an opportunity to meet and discuss issues of
concern to the States. State and local governments will also be able to
raise Federalism issues during the comment period for this NPRM.
    The CDL program was authorized by the Commercial Motor Vehicle
Safety Act of 1986 (49 U.S.C. chapter 313). States have been issuing
CDLs in accordance with Federal standards for well over a decade.
Because this rule would make only small, incremental changes to the
requirements already imposed on participating States, FMCSA has
determined that it would not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal and State governments,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.

H. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed action would meet applicable standards in sections
3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. Protection of Children

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order
13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks. We have determined preliminarily that this rulemaking
would not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

J. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rulemaking would not effect a taking of private
property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order
12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed action under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use. We have determined preliminarily that it would not
be a ``significant energy action'' under that Executive Order because
it would not be economically significant and would not be likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy.

List of Subjects

49 CFR Part 380

    Driver training, Instructor requirements.

49 CFR Part 383