[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30668-30682]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13871]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 380

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0371]
RIN 2126-AC05

ELDT; Commercial Driver's License Upgrade From Class B to Class A

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend the entry-level driver training (ELDT)
regulations published on December 8, 2016, titled ``Minimum Training
Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators'' by
adopting a new Class A theory instruction upgrade curriculum to reduce
the training time and costs incurred by Class B commercial driver's
license (CDL) holders upgrading to a Class A CDL. This NPRM does not
propose any changes to behind-the-wheel (BTW) training requirements set
forth in the ELDT final rule. This proposal would be a deregulatory
action as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 13771, ``Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' The Agency believes that
this modest change in the Class A theory training requirements for
Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL would maintain the same
level of safety established by the ELDT final rule.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received on or before August 28,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2017-0371 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and
Carrier Operations (MC-PSD) Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
[email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material
to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is
organized as follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
II. Executive Summary
III. Abbreviations
IV. Legal Basis
V. Background
VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
VII. Section-by-Section
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review),
and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
    B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Assistance for Small Entities
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    K. Privacy
    L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
    M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic
Growth)
    O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
    Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0371), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each section applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov, put the
docket number, FMCSA-2017-0371, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial

information that is customarily not made available to the general
public by the submitter. Under the Freedom of Information Act, CBI is
eligible for protection from public disclosure. If you have CBI that is
relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as CBI. Accordingly, please mark each
page of your submission as ``confidential'' or ``CBI.'' Submissions
designated as CBI and meeting the definition noted above will not be
placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI
should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis
Division, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Any
commentary that FMCSA receives that is not designated specifically as
CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2017-0371, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
(Pub. L. 114-94), FMCSA is required to publish an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a negotiated rulemaking ``if a
proposed rule is likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule''
(49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). As this proposed rule is not likely to result
in the promulgation of a major rule, the Agency is not required to
issue an ANPRM or to proceed with a negotiated rulemaking.

II. Executive Summary

    MAP-21 required the issuance of final regulations establishing
minimum entry-level driver training requirements addressing the
knowledge and skills necessary for the safe operation of a CMV that
must be acquired before obtaining a CDL for the first time or upgrading
from one class of CDL to another (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)). On December
8, 2016 (81 FR 88732), FMCSA published a final rule establishing
minimum ELDT requirements meeting the MAP-21 mandate. Today, as part of
the Agency's ongoing effort to review existing regulations to evaluate
their continued necessity and effectiveness, FMCSA proposes a new
theory instruction upgrade curriculum for Class B CDL holders upgrading
to a Class A CDL.
    The ELDT final rule required the same level of theory training for
individuals obtaining a CDL for the first time as for those who already
hold a Class B CDL and are upgrading to a Class A CDL. FMCSA now
concludes that, because Class B CDL holders have prior training or
experience in the CMV industry, they should not require the same level
of theory training as individuals who have never held a CDL.
Accordingly, the Agency proposes to add an optional theory instruction
upgrade curriculum for Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL,
which removes eight instructional units involving ``Non-Driving
Activities.'' Such units would, however, remain required elements of
the theory instruction standard curriculum for any individual obtaining
a Class A CDL who does not already hold a Class B CDL.
    The proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum for Class B CDL
holders would not have a required minimum number of instruction hours,
but the training provider would be required to cover all topics in the
curriculum and driver-trainees would be required to receive an overall
minimum score of 80 percent on the written theory assessment. This
approach is consistent with the theory curricula requirements in the
ELDT final rule. This NPRM does not propose any changes to BTW (range
and public road) training requirements set forth in the ELDT final
rule. All driver-trainees, including those who hold a Class B CDL, must
demonstrate proficiency in all elements of the BTW curriculum in a
Class A vehicle.
Costs and Benefits
    The Agency estimates that an annual average of approximately 11,340
driver-trainees would be affected by the proposed rule, with each
experiencing a reduction of 27 hours in time spent completing their
theory instruction. This results in a substantial cost savings to these
driver-trainees, as well as a cost savings to the motor carriers that
employ these drivers. The proposed rule would not result in any
increase in costs. As presented in Table 1, the Agency estimates that
the proposed rule would result in a 10-year cost savings of $182
million on an undiscounted basis, $155 million discounted at 3%, $127
million discounted at 7%, and $18 million on an annualized basis at a
7% or a 3% discount rate, representing a decrease in cost or a cost
savings. Most of this annualized cost savings ($17.10 million) is
realized by driver-trainees, with the remainder of the annualized cost
savings ($1.04 million) realized by motor carriers.

                             Table 1--Summary of the Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
                                             [In millions of 2014$]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Undiscounted                             Discounted
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Year                    Driver-      Motor carrier    Total costs    Discounted at   Discounted at
                                   trainee costs       costs            (a)             3%              7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020............................     (b) ($16.7)          ($1.0)         ($17.8)         ($17.2)         ($16.6)
2021............................          (16.8)           (1.0)          (17.8)          (16.8)          (15.6)
2022............................          (16.9)           (1.0)          (17.9)          (16.4)          (14.6)
2023............................          (17.0)           (1.0)          (18.0)          (16.0)          (13.8)
2024............................          (17.1)           (1.0)          (18.1)          (15.6)          (12.9)
2025............................          (17.2)           (1.0)          (18.2)          (15.3)          (12.2)

2026............................          (17.3)           (1.0)          (18.3)          (14.9)          (11.4)
2027............................          (17.4)           (1.1)          (18.4)          (14.5)          (10.7)
2028............................          (17.5)           (1.1)          (18.5)          (14.2)          (10.1)
2029............................          (17.6)           (1.1)          (18.6)          (13.9)           (9.5)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................           (171)            (10)           (182)           (155)           (127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized......................  ..............  ..............            (18)            (18)            (18)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(a) Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding. (The totals shown in this column
  are the rounded sum of unrounded components.)
(b) Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a
  cost savings.

    In the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule, FMCSA
estimated that not only would driver-trainees and motor carriers incur
costs, but that training providers, SDLAs, and the Federal government
would also incur costs as a result of the ELDT final rule. For this
proposed rule, FMCSA does not anticipate any change in costs relative
to the ELDT final rule for training providers, SDLAs, or the Federal
government because the regulatory obligations of these entities, as set
forth in the ELDT final rule, are not affected.
    The Agency anticipates that there would be no change in the
benefits of the ELDT final rule as a result of the proposed rule. In
the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the Agency estimated
quantified benefits for three categories of non-safety benefits,
including savings from reductions in fuel consumption, reductions in
CO2 emissions related to those reductions in fuel
consumption, and reductions in vehicle maintenance and repair costs.
These estimated non-safety benefits were derived from the Speed
Management and Space Management instructional units in the Class A
theory instruction curriculum in the ELDT final rule. Because these two
instructional units remain in the proposed theory instruction upgrade
curriculum, the Agency does not anticipate any change in these non-
safety benefits from today's proposed rule.
    The regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule addressed the
potential safety benefits of ELDT. In considering the potential safety
impacts from today's proposed rule, the Agency notes that Class B CDL
holders have prior training or experience in the CMV industry, which
serves as an adequate substitute for the eight non-driving
instructional units that would be removed from the theory instruction
upgrade curriculum. Therefore, the Agency does not anticipate any
change in potential safety benefits associated with the proposed rule.

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
ATA American Trucking Associations
BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
BTW Behind the Wheel
CDL Commercial Driver's License
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLP Commercial Learner's Permit
CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle
CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
ELDT Entry-Level Driver Training
E.O. Executive Order
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FR Federal Register
HM Hazardous Materials
IT Information Technology
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OOS Out-of-Service
PIA Privacy Impact Assessment
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PTDI Professional Truck Driver Institute
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RIN Regulation Identifier Number
SBA Small Business Administration
SDLA State Driver Licensing Agency
Sec.  Section symbol
TPR Training Provider Registry
U.S.C. United States Code

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    As noted above, FMCSA's publication of the final rule, ``Minimum
Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Vehicle Operators''
(81 FR 88732 (Dec. 8, 2016)), satisfied the MAP-21 requirement that the
Agency issue ELDT regulations. Today's proposal to amend regulations
established by that final rule is based on the authority of the Motor
Carrier Act of 1935 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act),
both as amended, and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986
(CMVSA).
    The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b),
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.'' This NPRM addresses the
qualifications of certain motor carrier employees, consistent with the
safe operation of CMVs.
    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers,
motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 211(b) of the 1984 Act
(Pub. L. 98-554, 98 Stat. 9851 (Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 49 U.S.C.
31133(a)(10)), grants the Secretary of Transportation broad power in
carrying out motor carrier safety statutes and regulations. The 1984
Act grants the Secretary broad authority to issue regulations ``on
commercial motor vehicle safety,'' including to ensure that
``commercial motor vehicles are . . . operated safely.'' 49 U.S.C.
31136(a)(1). The remaining statutory factors and requirements in
section 31136(a), to the extent they are relevant, are also satisfied
here. In accordance with section 31136(a)(2), the elimination of
duplicative theory training would not impose any ``responsibilities . .
. on

operators of commercial motor vehicles [that would] impair their
ability to operate the vehicles safely.'' This rule does not directly
address medical standards for drivers (section 31136(a)(3)) or possible
physical effects caused by driving CMVs (section 31136(a)(4)). However,
to the extent that the various curricula in the 2016 final rule on ELDT
address FMCSA's medical requirements for CMV drivers, section
31136(a)(3) was considered and addressed in that rulemaking. FMCSA does
not anticipate that drivers will be coerced (section 31136(a)(5)) as a
result of this rulemaking. However, we note that the theory training
curricula for Class B CDLs, which drivers upgrading to Class A CDLs
would continue to receive under today's proposed rule, includes a unit
addressing the right of an employee to question the safety practices of
an employer without incurring the risk of losing a job or being subject
to reprisal simply for stating a safety concern. Driver-trainees would
also be instructed in procedures for reporting to FMCSA incidents of
coercion from motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation
intermediaries.
    The CMVSA provides, among other things, that the Secretary shall
prescribe regulations on minimum standards for testing and ensuring the
fitness of an individual operating a CMV (49 U.S.C. 31305(a)). This
proposed amendment to the ELDT theory training curriculum for the Class
A CDL addresses the fitness of specified individuals operating a CMV.
    Finally, the Administrator of FMCSA is delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary of
Transportation by 49 U.S.C. Chapters 311, 313, and 315 as they relate
to commercial motor vehicle operators, programs and safety.

V. Background

    On December 8, 2016, FMCSA published a final rule establishing
minimum training standards for certain individuals applying for their
CDL for the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL
holder upgrading to a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials (H),
passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. The
final rule, which set forth ELDT requirements for BTW and theory
(knowledge) instruction, fulfilled the Congressional mandate in Sec.
32304 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
and was based in part on consensus recommendations from the Agency's
Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC). The ELDT final
rule, effective on June 5, 2017 \1\ (with a compliance date of February
7, 2020), is the culmination of previous efforts by FMCSA and its
predecessor agency, the Federal Highway Administration, to address the
issue of CMV driver training standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ELDT rule was initially effective on February 6, 2017.
In accordance with the Presidential directive as expressed in the
memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the Assistant to the President
and Chief of Staff, entitled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,''
the effective date was temporarily delayed three times by final
rules published on February 1, 2017 (82 FR 8903), March 21, 2017 (82
FR 14476), and May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23516).
    \2\ For a more extensive review of the legal and regulatory
history of these efforts, see 81 FR 88732, 88739-40 (December 8,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department has longstanding processes, which provide that
regulations and other agency actions are periodically reviewed and, if
appropriate, are revised to ensure that they continue to meet the needs
for which they were originally designed, and that they remain cost-
effective and cost-justified.\3\ Consistent with these processes, the
Agency proposes to revise the theory training requirements applicable
to CMV drivers already holding a Class B CDL who wish to upgrade to a
Class A CDL. The requirements pertaining to BTW (range and public road)
instruction, as set forth in the ELDT final rule, would remain
unchanged for all driver-trainees, including Class B CDL holders
upgrading to a Class A CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exec. Order No. 13777, Sec.  1, 82 FR 12285 (March 1,
2017) (``It is the policy of the United States to alleviate
unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people'');
Exec. Order No. 13610, 77 FR 28469 (May 14, 2012) (requiring
agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of existing rules to
determine whether they remain justified); Exec. Order No. 13563,
Sec.  6(b), 76 FR 2831, (Jan. 21, 2011) (requiring agencies to
submit a plan ``under which the agency will periodically review its
existing significant regulations to determine whether any such
regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed
so as to make the agency's regulatory program more effective or less
burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives''); Exec. Order
No. 12866, Sec.  5, (Sept. 30, 1993) (requiring each agency to
``review its existing significant regulations to determine whether
any such regulations should be modified or eliminated so as to make
the agency's regulatory program more effective in achieving the
regulatory objectives, less burdensome, or in greater alignment with
the President's priorities and the principles set forth in this
Executive order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The ELDT final rule required the same level of theory training for
individuals obtaining a CDL for the first time as those who already
hold a Class B CDL and are upgrading to a Class A CDL. FMCSA concludes
that this approach imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden because,
due to prior training or experience in the CMV industry, Class B CDL
holders do not require the same level of theory training as individuals
who have never held a CDL. Accordingly, the Agency proposes the
following change: Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL would
not be required to complete eight instructional units currently
included in Section A.1.5, ``Non-Driving Activities,'' of the Theory
Instruction portion of the Class A CDL Training Curriculum as set forth
in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 380. The theory instructional units that,
under this proposal, would no longer be required for Class B CDL
holders upgrading to a Class A CDL are: Handling and Documenting Cargo,
Environmental Compliance Issues, Post-Crash Procedures, External
Communications, Whistleblower/Coercion, Trip Planning, Drugs/Alcohol,
and Medical Requirements. These units would, however, remain required
elements of the theory instruction standard curriculum for any
individual obtaining a Class A CDL who does not already hold a Class B
CDL. These units, which provide instruction in activities that do not
involve actually operating a CMV, are identical, but for minor
editorial differences in some of the topic descriptions, to the above-
specified instructional units included in Section B.1.5, ``Non-Driving
Activities,'' of the Theory Instruction portion of the Class B CDL
Curriculum as set forth in Appendix B to 49 CFR part 380.
    Driver-trainees affected by this proposal fall into one of two
categories: Those who obtain a Class B CDL in accordance with the
training requirements set forth in the ELDT final rule (i.e., after the
compliance date of February 7, 2020) and those who obtain a Class B CDL
before the compliance date of the final rule and thus are not subject
to the Class B CDL ELDT requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As discussed subsequently the latter category would also
include drivers who obtain a Class B CLP before the compliance date
of the ELDT final rule and obtain the Class B CDL after the
compliance date, but before the CLP or renewed CLP expires. See 49
CFR 380.603(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first category, drivers who obtain a Class B CDL by completing
ELDT training after February 7, 2020, will have already demonstrated
proficiency in the eight non-driving theory topics, identified above,
included in the Section B.1.5 of the Class B training curriculum, the
content of which is virtually identical to the content of section
A.1.5. Consequently, the Agency believes that requiring Class B CDL
holders who are upgrading to Class A to be re-trained in those topics,
which they have already mastered by successfully completing the Class B
Theory Instruction, imposes an unnecessary

regulatory burden on those individuals. In the preamble to the ELDT
final rule, FMCSA acknowledged that there is overlapping content in the
Class A and Class B curricula. However, the Agency, while recognizing
the value of some repetition to enforce key learning concepts, noted
that certain instructional units, while topically the same, would be
taught differently to reflect the different operating characteristics
of the two underlying vehicle groups, combination vehicles (Group A, as
defined in Sec.  383.91(a)(1)) and heavy straight vehicles (Group B, as
defined in Sec.  383.91(a)(2)).\5\ Upon reconsideration, the Agency
concludes that, because instruction in the ``non-driving'' theory
topics identified above would not vary based on the underlying vehicle
group, additional training in those topics is unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 81 FR 88732, 88761 (Dec. 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, FMCSA believes that instruction in two ``non-
driving'' theory topics--Hours of Service (HOS) Requirements and
Fatigue and Wellness Awareness--will vary, to some extent, depending on
the vehicle group. Class B CDL holders driving straight trucks may be
more likely to drive CMVs for shorter distances, thereby spending less
time at the driving controls, than drivers operating combination
vehicles for which a Class A CDL is required. For example, drivers
engaged in short-haul operations, as defined in 49 CFR 395.1(e)(1), are
permitted to record their hours-of-service using timecards in lieu of
electronic logging devices or paper records of duty status, and thus
may not use and retain HOS-related instruction they obtained when
completing the Class B theory curriculum. Therefore, in light of the
safety importance of compliance with HOS requirements, the Agency
believes that Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL will
benefit from additional training in this essential theory topic.
    It is also true that some Class B CDL holders operating straight
trucks for comparatively shorter distances than Class A CDL holders
operating combination vehicles may not be as prone to fatigue and
wellness concerns associated with long-haul driving. For example, the
extensive time away from home experienced by many long-haul drivers may
impact their ability to sleep well, exercise regularly, and eat healthy
meals. In terms of alertness and fatigue management, the uninterrupted
stretches of driving time experienced by some drivers of combination
vehicles will likely present new challenges to some Class B CDL
holders. Accordingly, the Agency believes that Class B CDL holders
upgrading to Class A CDL would benefit from fatigue and wellness
training focused specifically on the operation of Group A vehicles.
    FMCSA also believes that instruction will vary, depending on the
underlying vehicle group, for the theory topics identified in Sections
A.1.1 and B.1.1 (Basic Operation), A.1.2 and B.1.2 (Safe Operating
Procedures), A.1.3 and B.1.3 (Advanced Operating Practices) and A.1.4
and B.1.4 (Vehicle Systems and Reporting Malfunctions)--all of which
address, to varying degrees, operational characteristics of the two
vehicle groups. FMCSA therefore proposes to retain those theory topics
in the Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum.
    The second category of driver-trainees affected by this proposal
are drivers who obtained their Class B CDL prior to the February 7,
2020, compliance date of the final rule (or who obtained a Class B CLP
prior to the compliance date and obtained the Class B CDL after the
compliance date, but before the CLP or renewed CLP expired in
accordance with Sec.  380.603(c)(1)). FMCSA presumes that these Class B
holders seeking to upgrade to a Class A CDL would already have varying
levels of CMV driving experience and pre-CDL training, and thus
knowledge of the commercial motor carrier industry.6 7
Accordingly, FMCSA does not consider Class B CDL holders in this
category to be novice CMV drivers. Additionally, many of these drivers
would have received some degree of post-CDL ``finishing'' training
provided by their employers. The Agency thus believes it is appropriate
to permit Class B CDL holders who already possess some CMV training or
experience to more efficiently obtain theory training by focusing
specifically on the safe operation of combination vehicles requiring a
Class A CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ``Regulatory Evaluation of
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators. Final Rule. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Unfunded Mandates Analysis.'' (ELDT
Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation). November 2016. Docket ID FMCSA-
2007-27748. Page 8, Table 18 page 59. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2007-27748-1291 (accessed
October 27, 2017).
    \7\ In the ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation, FMCSA
estimated that 85% of CMV drivers receive pre-CDL training that, at
a minimum, would meet the requirements of the ELDT final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, drivers who obtain a Class B CDL prior to the compliance
date of the ELDT final rule, but after July 20, 2003, will have
received employer-provided training in driver qualification
requirements, hours of service, driver wellness, and whistleblower
protection in accordance with Sec.  380.503.\8\ In addition, drivers
who obtain a Class B CDL before the compliance date of the ELDT final
rule will have received detailed information from employers concerning
the drug and alcohol testing regulations in 49 CFR parts 40 and part
382, as required by Sec.  382.601. As explained above, FMCSA believes
it is appropriate for Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL to
obtain additional theory training in HOS requirements and driver
wellness. However, because the remaining three topics (i.e., driver
qualifications, whistleblower protection, and drug and alcohol testing)
in which Class B holders already received employer-provided training,
are included in the ``non-driving'' portion of the Class A theory
curricula, it is unnecessary to require those Class B CDL holders to be
retrained in those topics when upgrading to a Class A CDL. The theory
instruction upgrade curriculum proposed in today's rule would therefore
be available for all Class B CDL holders seeking to upgrade to a Class
A CDL (i.e., drivers who obtained the Class B CDL before or after the
compliance date of the ELDT final rule). Under the proposed curriculum,
these Class B CDL holders would be required to demonstrate proficiency,
in accordance with Sec.  380.715(a), in the Class A theory instruction
units included in Sections A.1.1, A.1.2, A.1.3, A.1.4 and units A.1.5.3
and A.1.5.4 as set forth in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 380. The Agency
notes that the proposed upgrade curriculum is optional in the sense
that Class B holders who wish to receive instruction in the ``full''
Class A Theory Instruction curriculum would be free to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The current training requirements identified subpart E of
part 380 will be removed and replaced by new subparts F and G on the
compliance date of the ELDT final rule. See 81 FR 88732, 88783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA reiterates that the Class A BTW range and public road
curriculum remains unchanged for all driver-trainees, including those
who hold a Class B CDL. In the preamble to the final rule, FMCSA
thoroughly explained the basis for the Agency's adoption of a
performance-based standard for BTW range and public road training
curricula for Class A and Class B CDLs, in lieu of a required minimum
number of BTW hours, as proposed. FMCSA noted its intent to evaluate
data that will be submitted to the Training Provider Registry, which
will assist FMCSA in assessing, over time, whether minimum BTW hours
for entry-drivers correlate to safer driving outcomes. Shortly after
publication of the final rule, several

stakeholders submitted a petition for reconsideration of the
performance-based approach to BTW training, urging the Agency to
instead adopt the required minimum BTW hours approach as set forth in
the NPRM. FMCSA denied the petition for reasons explained in our
responses.\9\ In the Agency's judgment, it is premature to revisit the
issue of BTW training requirements until the post-rule quantitative
data can be evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=N%2BFR%2BPR%2BO&D=FMCSA-2007-27748.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency believes that this modest change in the Class A theory
training requirements for Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A
CDL would maintain the same level of safety established in the ELDT
final rule. FMCSA invites comments on this issue and welcomes the
submission of qualitative or quantitative data addressing the safety
impacts of this NPRM. The Agency also requests comment on whether
additional Class A theory instructional units should be removed from
the proposed upgrade theory curriculum applicable to Class B CDL
holders.
    The purpose of this proposal is to address the narrow issue of
theory training requirements for Class B CDL holders wishing to upgrade
to a Class A CDL. Accordingly, FMCSA will not respond to comments on
broader aspects of the ELDT final rule. This proposed change, if
adopted, would have no impact on driver-trainees other than Class B CDL
holders upgrading to a Class A CDL; it imposes virtually no new
requirements on State Driver Licensing Agencies (SDLAs), the Federal
government, or training providers eligible for listing on the Training
Provider Registry (TPR).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In accordance with Sec.  380.707(a), training providers
listed on the TPR would be required to verify that a driver-trainee
wishing to take the theory instruction upgrade curriculum holds a
valid Class B CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Agency notes that this proposal sets forth minimum
theory training requirements applicable to Class B CDL holders
upgrading to a Class A CDL. Should any training provider listed on the
TPR wish to impose more extensive theory training requirements for
Class B CDL holders to whom they provide Class A theory training,
nothing in this NPRM would preclude them from doing so. Additionally,
States remain free to impose theory training requirements more
stringent than those proposed in this NPRM, just as they remain free to
impose ELDT requirements more stringent than those set forth in the
ELDT final rule.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

    In Sec.  380.707(a), FMCSA proposes to add ``or Class A theory
instruction upgrade curriculum applicants'' to the last sentence in the
paragraph to account for the fact that training providers must verify
that Class A CDL theory instruction upgrade curriculum training
applicants possess a valid Class B CDL.
    In Appendix A to part 380, Class A CDL Training Curriculum, FMCSA
proposes to add a sentence to the introductory text that states,
``Class A CDL applicants who possess a valid Class B CDL may complete
the Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum in lieu of the Theory
Instruction Standard Curriculum.'' Additionally, the Agency proposes to
rename the Class A ``Theory Instruction'' as ``Theory Instruction
Standard Curriculum.'' Finally, the Agency proposes to add a new
section, ``Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum.''

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures

    FMCSA performed an analysis of the impacts of the proposed rule and
determined it is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and
Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011),
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Accordingly, the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under that Order. It is
also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and
procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26,
1979)).
    As discussed earlier, because Class B CDL holders have previous
training or experience in the CMV industry, the proposed rule would
establish a new theory instruction upgrade curriculum that removes
eight instructional units involving ``Non-Driving Activities'' for
Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL. The proposed rule does
not change the BTW training requirements set forth in the ELDT final
rule. Consistent with the ELDT final rule, the proposed theory
instruction curriculum for Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A
CDL would not have a required minimum number of instruction hours, but
the training provider must cover all topics in the curriculum, and
driver-trainees must receive an overall minimum score of 80 percent on
the written theory assessment. FMCSA estimates that this new curriculum
would result in cost savings by taking less time to complete, without
impacting the benefits of the ELDT final rule.
    The Agency estimates that an annual average of approximately 11,340
driver-trainees would be affected by the proposed rule, with each
experiencing a reduction of 27 hours to complete the theory
instruction. This results in a substantial cost savings to these
driver-trainees, as well as a cost savings to the motor carriers that
ultimately employ these drivers. The proposed rule does not result in
any increase in costs. As presented in Table 3, the Agency estimates
that the proposed rule would result in a 10-year cost savings of $182
million on an undiscounted basis, $155 million discounted at 3%, $127
million discounted at 7%, and $18 million on an annualized basis at a
7% or a 3% discount rate. Most of this annualized cost savings ($17.10
million) is realized by driver-trainees, with the remainder of the
annualized cost savings ($1.04 million) realized by motor carriers.
Scope and Key Inputs to the Analysis
    The proposed rule revises regulations established in the ELDT final
rule and, therefore, the ELDT final rule serves as the baseline against
which the effects of the proposed rule are evaluated. The compliance
date of the regulations established by the ELDT final rule remains
February 7, 2020; therefore, the same analysis period of 2020 to 2029,
used in evaluating the effects of the ELDT final rule, is used in
evaluating the effects of this proposed rule. Furthermore, to ensure
that meaningful relative comparisons can be made between the results of
the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule and the baseline
represented by the ELDT final rule, all monetary values are expressed
in 2014 dollars, the same base year used to express monetary values in
the evaluation of the ELDT final rule.
    Many of the key inputs to this analysis are based on the same data
sources as those developed and used in the evaluation of the ELDT final
rule. Therefore, a copy of the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final
rule is available in the docket for the proposed rule,\11\ and, where
applicable, the

Agency cites that document in the analysis below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ``Regulatory Evaluation of
Minimum Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor
Vehicle Operators. Final Rule. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. Unfunded Mandates Analysis.''
November 2016. Docket ID FMCSA-YEAR-2007-27748. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2007-27748-1291
(accessed December 22, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Driver-Trainees Affected by the Proposed Rule
    The Agency estimates that an annual average of 11,340 driver-
trainees would be affected by the proposed rule, totaling approximately
113,000 driver-trainees affected over the 10-year analysis period.
Annual estimates of the number of driver-trainees affected by the
proposed rule are presented below in Table 2.

  Table 2--Estimated Number of Driver-Trainees Affected by the Proposed
                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Driver-
                                                             trainees
                          Year                              affected by
                                                           the proposed
                                                               rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020....................................................          11,069
2021....................................................          11,129
2022....................................................          11,188
2023....................................................          11,248
2024....................................................          11,309
2025....................................................          11,369
2026....................................................          11,430
2027....................................................          11,491
2028....................................................          11,553
2029....................................................          11,615
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................         113,403
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated number of driver-trainees affected by the proposed
rule is a key input in determining the potential cost savings to
driver-trainees and to the motor carriers that ultimately employ these
drivers.
    To derive the estimates presented above in Table 2, FMCSA first
estimated the total annual number of Class B CDL holders upgrading to a
Class A CDL. These estimates are based on a June 2015 information
collection, performed as part of the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT
final rule, requesting data from the 51 SDLAs, including information
regarding the number of upgrades of Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs issued
in 2014.\12\ Seventeen SDLAs responded to this data collection, 13 of
which provided data regarding the number of upgrades. For these 13
SDLAs, a total of 13,937 upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs
were issued in 2014. Accounting for the difference in the number of
licensed drivers across states, FMCSA extrapolated this value to a
national total that is representative of all 51 SDLAs. This adjustment
results in a national estimate of 67,000 upgrades from Class B CDLs to
Class A CDLs issued in 2014. Further details regarding the June 2015
information collection and the methods used to develop the national
estimate of 67,000 upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs issued in
2014 can be found in the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final
rule.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). ``Report by State Driver
Licensing Agencies (SDLAs) on the Annual Number of Entry-Level
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Applicants and Related Data.'' OMB
Control No: 2126-0059.
    \13\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
19-20, 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This 2014 baseline value of 67,000 upgrades from Class B CDLs to
Class A CDLs was then used to develop projections of the number of
Class B CDL to Class A CDL upgrades issued annually for the 2020 to
2029 analysis period. These future projections were developed by
increasing the current baseline 2014 value consistent with occupation-
specific employment growth projections for several commercial vehicle
related occupations obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Employment Projections program.\14\ FMCSA projected that the annual
number of Class B CDL to Class A CDL upgrades for the 2020 to 2029
analysis period would range between 69,000 and 73,000. These
projections and further details regarding their development can be
found in the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). Employment Projections Program. ``Table 1.2: Employment by
detailed occupation, 2014 and projected 2024.'' Available at: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ind-occ-matrix/occupation.xlsx (accessed July 29,
2016).
    \15\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation.''
Annual projections for 2020 to 2029 for ``Upgrade of Class B CDL to
Class A CDL'' are presented in Table 11 on page 18, and discussed on
pp. 27-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the resulting annual projections of the overall number of
upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs are then adjusted to account
for the portion of these drivers that are not affected by the ELDT
final rule because these drivers are already receiving training in the
absence of that rule. These drivers would not be affected by the
proposed rule. In the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule,
FMCSA estimated that 84% of driver-trainees obtaining a Class A CDL
already receive training in the absence of that rule and therefore are
not affected by the ELDT final rule.\16\ The remaining portion (16%) of
driver-trainees are those affected by the ELDT final rule, and
therefore, by the proposed rule. The annual projections of the overall
number of upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs developed earlier
are adjusted accordingly, using this 16% value to estimate the number
of Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL who are affected by
the proposed rule. This results in the estimated number of driver-
trainees affected annually by the proposed rule, as presented earlier
in Table 2. FMCSA invites comments on these estimates, and welcomes the
submission of qualitative or quantitative data addressing the number of
driver-trainees affected annually by the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
52-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Estimated Hours To Complete the Proposed Theory Instruction Upgrade
Curriculum
    The estimated number of hours necessary to complete the proposed
theory instruction upgrade curriculum, and the resulting time savings
compared to the estimated time necessary to complete the Class A theory
instruction curriculum that was set forth in the ELDT final rule,
provide key inputs in determining the potential cost savings to driver-
trainees and to the motor carriers that ultimately employ these
drivers. Under both the ELDT final rule and this proposed rule, there
is no minimum number of hours that driver-trainees are required to
spend on the theory portions of any of the training curricula. The
training provider must, however, cover all topics in the theory
instruction curriculum, and driver-trainees must receive an overall
minimum score of at least 80 percent on the written theory assessment.
The Agency estimated that, on average, driver-trainees would need 60
hours to complete the Class A theory instruction curriculum set forth
in the ELDT final rule,\17\ which, in this proposed rule, is renamed
the ``Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum.'' For this proposed rule,
the Agency estimates that Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A
CDL would on average need 33 hours to complete the proposed theory
instruction upgrade curriculum. Accordingly, the Agency estimates the
proposed rule would result in a time savings of 27 hours for each Class
B CDL holder upgrading to a Class A CDL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
70-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Class A theory instruction curriculum set forth in the ELDT
final rule included 30 instructional units,

including 10 instructional units related to non-driving activities. The
proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum removes eight of these
instructional units related to non-driving activities. In the
regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the Agency did not
develop separate estimates of the time necessary to complete each of
the 30 instructional units comprising the Class A theory instruction
curriculum. Accordingly, FMCSA cannot make a direct estimate of the
time savings resulting from the proposed elimination of eight
instructional units related to non-driving activities. Although the
number of instructional units is reduced by 27% (with eight out of 30
instructional units removed), the varying subject matter and content of
each of the 30 instructional units means that the number of hours
required to complete the training would not necessarily be reduced by a
proportional 27% (i.e., a 16-hour reduction from the 60-hour estimate
for the theory instruction standard curriculum discussed above).
    Therefore, in order to develop an estimate of the number of hours
necessary to complete the proposed theory instruction upgrade
curriculum and the resulting time savings compared to the estimated
time necessary to complete the Class A theory instruction curriculum in
the ELDT final rule, the Agency examined the theory instructional units
of the curricula standards for driver-trainees as established by the
Professional Truck Driver Institute (PTDI).\18\ These PTDI curricula
standards were reviewed previously during the development of the ELDT
final rule. The theory instructional units of the PTDI curricula
standards align closely with the 30 instructional units of the Class A
theory instruction curriculum in the ELDT final rule. Furthermore, the
PTDI curricula standards specify a minimum number of hours for six
major categories into which each of the individual instructional units
is assigned. These PTDI estimates help to provide a relative measure of
the amount of time necessary to complete each of the individual
instructional units in the proposed rule. Based on the minimum number
of hours of training required under the PTDI standards for each of the
individual theory instructional units, the elimination of the eight
instructional units related to non-driving activities reduces the total
hours of Class A theory instruction by approximately 44.2%. Applying
this 44.2% reduction to the estimated 60 hours needed to complete the
Class A theory instruction curriculum in the ELDT final rule results in
a 27-hour reduction in the time needed for Class B CDL holders
upgrading to a Class A CDL to complete theory training by taking the
proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum. Accordingly, the Agency
estimates that Class B CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL would, on
average, now only require 33 hours to complete the proposed theory
instruction upgrade curriculum. Accordingly, the Agency estimates the
proposed rule would result in a time savings of 27 hours for each Class
B CDL holder upgrading to a Class A CDL. FMCSA invites comments on
these estimates, and welcomes the submission of qualitative or
quantitative data addressing the estimated number of hours necessary to
complete the proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Professional Truck Driver Institute, Inc. (PTDI).
``Curricula Standards and Guidelines for Entry-Level Commercial
Motor Vehicle Driver Courses.'' February 15, 2017. Page 16.
Available at: http://www.ptdi.org/resources/Documents/Standards/CURRICULUM%20STANDARDS%20ENTRY%20LEVEL%20021517.pdf (accessed
October 2, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Inputs to the Analysis
    The reduction of 27 hours in theory training for each of the
driver-trainees affected by the proposed rule results in a change in
the costs incurred by these driver-trainees, relative to the baseline
of the ELDT final rule. This change in cost is comprised of two
components, a reduction in tuition costs incurred by these driver-
trainees, and a reduction in the opportunity cost of time for these
driver-trainees.
    FMCSA evaluated tuition costs using an average hourly cost of
training of $26 per hour, based on a review of nearly nine hundred CDL
driver training programs as discussed in the regulatory evaluation for
the ELDT final rule.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency evaluated changes in the opportunity cost of time for
driver-trainees using the driver wage rate to represent the value of
driver-trainee time that, in the absence of the proposed rule, would
have been spent in training but now would be available to driver-
trainees for other uses, such as productive employment. FMCSA uses a
driver wage rate of $30 per hour, representing the median hourly base
wage rate for truck drivers plus fringe benefits, as discussed in the
regulatory evaluation of the ELDT final rule.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,''
pp.11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the reduction of 27 hours in theory training for each of
the driver-trainees affected by the proposed rule would also reduce the
opportunity costs incurred by motor carriers that ultimately employ
these driver-trainees. The opportunity cost to motor carriers from a
regulatory action represents the value of the best alternative to the
firm that must be forgone by, or is now made available to, the firm as
a result of that regulatory action.\21\ Under the proposed rule, an
input of production (driver labor) that was previously unavailable to
carriers in the absence of the proposed rule would now be available to
carriers, for a time equivalent to the 27-hour reduction in theory
training for each of the affected driver-trainees. The value of this
time to the motor carrier is measured by estimating the change in
profit to the firm, and is a function of the estimated 27-hour
reduction in theory training for each of the affected driver-trainees,
the marginal cost of operating a CMV, and an estimate of a typical
average motor carrier profit margin. As discussed in the regulatory
evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the Agency estimates that the
marginal cost of operating a CMV is $68 per hour, and that the average
profit margin for motor carriers is 5%.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
76-79.
    \22\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
76-79.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    The proposed rule would not result in any increase in costs. In the
regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the Agency estimated
that not only would driver-trainees and motor carriers incur costs, but
that training providers, SDLAs, and the Federal government would also
incur costs as a result of the ELDT final rule. For this proposed rule,
the Agency does not anticipate any change in costs relative to the ELDT
final rule for training providers, SDLAs, or the Federal government
because it does not affect the regulatory obligations of these entities
as set forth in the ELDT final rule.
    Costs to training providers resulting from the ELDT final rule
included costs for submitting a Training Provider Registration Form
(TPRF) for each training location to the Training Provider Registry
(TPR), costs for electronically submitting training certification
information to the TPR for driver-trainees who have completed training,
and costs for preparing for and being subject to compliance audits.\23\
Under the proposed rule, training providers would still need to
register with the TPR, and for those driver-trainees affected by the
proposed rule,

training providers would still need to transmit training completion
information electronically to the TPR. Accordingly, FMCSA does not
anticipate any change in costs to training providers resulting from the
proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
79-81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs to SDLAs resulting from the ELDT final rule included costs
for updates to SDLA information technology (IT) systems to be able to
receive driver training completion information from CDLIS and store
this information in the driver history record. Under the proposed rule,
SDLAs would continue to receive and store the same information.
Therefore, FMCSA does not anticipate any change in costs to SDLAs
resulting from the proposed rule.
    Finally, costs to the Federal government resulting from the ELDT
final rule included costs for FMCSA to create and manage the TPR and to
enforce the regulations established by the final rule. Under the
proposed rule, the TPR must be developed and maintained in the same
manner as under the ELDT final rule. In addition, training program
enforcement activities, such as compliance audits performed on training
providers, would remain unchanged under the proposed rule as compared
to the ELDT final rule, and FMCSA's review of training provider
registration forms would also remain unchanged. Accordingly, FMCSA does
not anticipate any change in costs to the Federal government resulting
from the proposed rule.
    As discussed above, FMCSA estimates a reduction in costs incurred
by driver-trainees and motor carriers affected by the proposed rule.
Because there is an estimated reduction of 27 hours of training for
each driver-trainee affected by the proposed rule, the Agency estimates
that both driver-trainees and motor carriers would experience negative
costs, that is, a decrease in costs or a cost savings. The proposed
rule would not result in any increase in costs for driver-trainees or
motor carriers. The proposed rule reduces tuition costs, as well as the
opportunity cost of time for these driver-trainees, relative to the
baseline of the ELDT final rule.
    For each year of the 10-year analysis period, FMCSA multiplied the
estimated number of driver-trainees annually that would be affected by
the proposed rule, as presented in Table 2, by the estimated reduction
of 27 hours in theory training for each of these driver-trainees. FMCSA
then multiplied the resulting total aggregate reduction in theory
training hours by $26 per hour (the estimated average hourly cost of
training),\24\ yielding an estimate of the overall change in tuition
costs experienced by driver-trainees for each year of the analysis
period. Additionally, the Agency multiplied the total aggregate
reduction in theory training hours by the estimated driver wage rate of
$30 per hour, yielding an estimate of the change in the opportunity
cost of time experienced by driver-trainees for each year of the
analysis period. As presented in Table 3, the Agency estimates that the
proposed rule would result in a 10-year tuition cost savings to driver-
trainees of $80 million on an undiscounted basis. The Agency estimates
that the proposed rule would also result in a 10-year opportunity cost
of time savings to driver-trainees of $92 million on an undiscounted
basis. In total, the Agency estimates that the proposed rule would
result in a 10-year cost savings to driver-trainees of $171 million on
an undiscounted basis, and $17.10 million on an annualized basis at a
7% discount rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The tuition costs noted above are derived from observed
tuition charged for the CDL training programs identified by FMCSA,
and are proxies for tuition costs that might be charged for a
curriculum that meets the requirements of the rule. More details can
be found in section 3.2.1 of the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT
Final Rule. DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,''
pp. 68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The development of the key inputs necessary to estimate the change
in cost to motor-carriers, described earlier, includes the marginal
cost of operating a CMV, an estimate of a typical average motor carrier
profit margin, and the estimated 27-hour reduction in theory training
for each of the driver-trainees affected by the proposed rule. For each
year of the 10-year analysis period, the estimated number of driver-
trainees who would be affected by the proposed rule as presented
earlier in Table 2 is multiplied by the estimated reduction of 27 hours
in theory training for each of these driver-trainees. The resulting
total reduction in theory training hours is then multiplied by the
estimated marginal cost of operating a CMV of $68 per hour, and the
estimated profit margin of 5% for motor carriers. As presented in Table
3, the Agency estimates that the proposed rule would result in a 10-
year opportunity cost savings to motor carriers of $10 million on an
undiscounted basis, and $1.04 million on an annualized basis at a 7%
discount rate, representing a decrease in opportunity cost, or an
opportunity cost savings to motor carriers.
    As presented in Table 3, the Agency estimates that the proposed
rule would result in a 10-year cost savings of $182 million on an
undiscounted basis, $155 million discounted at 3%, $127 million
discounted at 7%, and $18 million on an annualized basis at a 7%
discount rate, representing a decrease in cost or a cost savings. Most
of this annualized cost savings ($17.10 million) is realized by driver-
trainees, with the remainder of the annualized cost savings ($1.04
million) realized by motor carriers.

                                                        Table 3--Total Cost of the Proposed Rule
                                                                 [In millions of 2014$]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Undiscounted                                     Discounted
                                              Driver-    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             trainees                         Driver-
                  Year                      affected by       Driver-         trainee      Motor carrier    Total costs    Discounted at   Discounted at
                                           the proposed       trainee       opportunity     opportunity         (a)             3%              7%
                                               rule        tuition costs       costs           costs
                                                     [A]     [B] = [A] x     [C] = [A] x     [D] = [A] x     [E] = [B] +
                                                           [-27 hours] x   [-27 hours] x   [-27 hours] x       [C] + [D]
                                                          [$26 per hour]  [$30 per hour]  [$68 per hour]
                                                                                x
                                                                                [0.05]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020....................................          11,069    \(b)\ ($7.8)          ($9.0)          ($1.0)         ($17.8)         ($17.2)         ($16.6)
2021....................................          11,129           (7.8)           (9.0)           (1.0)          (17.8)          (16.8)          (15.6)
2022....................................          11,188           (7.9)           (9.1)           (1.0)          (17.9)          (16.4)          (14.6)
2023....................................          11,248           (7.9)           (9.1)           (1.0)          (18.0)          (16.0)          (13.8)
2024....................................          11,309           (7.9)           (9.2)           (1.0)          (18.1)          (15.6)          (12.9)
2025....................................          11,369           (8.0)           (9.2)           (1.0)          (18.2)          (15.3)          (12.2)
2026....................................          11,430           (8.0)           (9.3)           (1.0)          (18.3)          (14.9)          (11.4)
2027....................................          11,491           (8.1)           (9.3)           (1.1)          (18.4)          (14.5)          (10.7)
2028....................................          11,553           (8.1)           (9.4)           (1.1)          (18.5)          (14.2)          (10.1)
2029....................................          11,615           (8.2)           (9.4)           (1.1)          (18.6)          (13.9)           (9.5)
                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................         113,403            (80)            (92)            (10)           (182)           (155)           (127)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized..............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............            (18)            (18)            (18)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
(a) Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of unrounded
  components).
(b) Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero), and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings.

Benefits
    The Agency anticipates no change in the benefits of the ELDT final
rule as a result of the proposed rule. In the regulatory evaluation for
the ELDT final rule, the Agency estimated quantified benefits for three
categories of non-safety benefits, including savings from reductions in
fuel consumption, reductions in CO2 emissions related to
these reductions in fuel consumption, and reductions in vehicle
maintenance and repair costs. These estimated non-safety benefits were
derived from the Speed Management and Space Management instructional
units in the Class A theory instruction curriculum set forth in the
ELDT final rule.\25\ Because these two instructional units remain in
the proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum, the Agency does not
anticipate any change in these non-safety benefits from the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DOT FMCSA, ``ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,'' pp.
87-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final rule addressed the
potential safety benefits of entry-level driver training. In
considering the potential impacts on safety from today's proposed rule,
the Agency notes that Class B holders have previous training or
experience in the CMV industry, which serves as an adequate substitute
for the eight non-driving instructional units that are not included in
the proposed theory instruction upgrade curriculum. Therefore, the
Agency anticipates that there would be no change in potential safety
benefits associated with the proposed rule.
    FMCSA invites comments and the submission of qualitative or
quantitative data addressing the potential impacts to both non-safety
benefits and safety benefits from the proposed rule.

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    This proposed rule is expected to be an E.O. 13771 deregulatory
action.\26\ The present value of the cost savings of this rule,
measured on an infinite time horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, is
approximately $212 million. Expressed on an annualized basis, the cost
savings are $15 million. These values are expressed in 2016 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Executive Office of the President. Executive Order 13771 of
January 30, 2017. Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs. 82 FR 9339-9341. Feb. 3, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), requires Federal
agencies to consider the impact of their regulatory proposals on small
entities, analyze effective alternatives that minimize small entity
impacts, and make their analyses available for public comment. The term
``small entities'' means small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations under 50,000.\27\ Accordingly, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these
entities. Section 605 of the RFA allows an Agency to certify a rule, in
lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat.
1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule would affect a subset of driver-trainees and motor
carriers. Driver-trainees are not considered small entities because
they do not meet the definition of a small entity in Section 601 of the
RFA. Specifically, driver-trainees are considered neither a small
business under Section 601(3) of the RFA, nor are they considered a
small organization under Section 601(4) of the RFA.

    Motor carriers affected by this rulemaking would most likely be
those that hire Class A CDL drivers. Passenger motor carriers generally
rely on Group B CMVs that do not require a Class A CDL to operate, and
thus would not be affected by this rule. In the regulatory evaluation
for the ELDT final rule, FMCSA estimated that there were approximately
1.1 million inter- and intrastate freight motor carriers, of which a
subset operate Group A vehicles, and thus would be affected by this
rule. FMCSA estimates that this proposed rule would affect between
11,000 and 12,000 CMV driver-trainees per year, resulting in fewer than
12,000 motor carriers affected per year, which is approximately 0.9% of
the total number of inter- and intrastate freight motor carriers. FMCSA
does not know how many of these motor carriers would be considered
``small.''
    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) defines the size
standards used to classify entities as small. SBA establishes separate
standards for each industry, as defined by the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS).\28\ This rule could affect many
different industry sectors; for example, the transportation sector
(e.g., General freight trucking industry group (4841) and the
Specialized freight trucking industry group (4842)), the agricultural
sector, and the construction sector. Industry groups within these
sectors have size standards based on the number of employees (e.g., 500
employees), or on the amount of annual revenue (e.g., $27.5 million in
revenue). FMCSA does not have specific information about the number of
employees or revenue for each of the motor carriers. However, FMCSA is
aware that much of the motor carrier industry largely consists of
smaller firms. Of the 1.1 million freight motor carriers, roughly 1
million have between 1 and 6 power units. If all of the 1 million
freight motor carriers with 6 or fewer power units are considered small
based on the applicable size standard, then a maximum of 1.2% (12,000 /
1 million) of small entities would be affected by this rule. Therefore,
FMCSA estimates that this rule would not impact a substantial number of
small entities. FMCSA invites comment on the number of small entities
that would be affected by this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). ``North American Industry Classification System.''
2017. Available at: https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf (accessed December 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed earlier in the Regulatory Analyses section, FMCSA
estimates the impact to the affected motor carriers as a reduction in
opportunity cost, or a cost savings, relative to the baseline of the
ELDT final rule. This rule would remove some of the training
requirements accounted for in the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT
final rule, allowing those drivers who are upgrading from a Class B CDL
to a Class A CDL to begin working and earning a profit for the motor
carrier earlier than under the current training procedures. Therefore,
this rule would provide affected motor carriers with increased access
to labor hours, and consequently profit, resulting in an opportunity
cost savings to the motor carrier. FMCSA estimated the opportunity cost
to the motor carrier as a function of the number of hours previously
spent in training that are now available for labor, an estimate of the
profit margin, and the marginal hourly operational costs of the CMV. As
discussed earlier in the Regulatory Analyses section, the Agency
estimates that the proposed rule would result in a cost savings to all
motor carriers of $1.04 million on an annualized basis at a 7% discount
rate. On a per driver basis for those drivers affected by the proposed
rule, the cost savings realized by the motor carriers would be
approximately $92 (27 hours x 0.05 profit margin x $68 marginal
operating costs).
    The RFA does not define a threshold for determining whether a
specific regulation would result in a significant impact. However, the
SBA, in guidance to government agencies, provides some objective
measures of significance that the agencies can consider using.\29\ One
measure that could be used to illustrate a significant impact is labor
costs, specifically, if the cost of the proposed regulation exceeds 5%
of the labor costs of the entities in the sector. The American
Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) performed an annual survey of
motor carriers and published its findings in the ``Analysis of the
Operational Costs of Trucking: 2017 Update.'' ATRI found that driver
wages and benefits represent approximately 33% of average marginal
costs to a carrier.\30\ ATRI further estimated that average marginal
hourly driver costs, including wages and benefits, were $27.09 in 2016.
FMCSA hours of service regulations allow drivers 60 hours of on-duty
time in a 7-day period. This equates to approximately $84,500 in driver
labor costs per year ($27.09 x 60 hours per week x 52 weeks). The
impact of this regulation would be approximately 0.11% of labor costs
($92 impact / $84,500 labor costs)--well below the 5% threshold
identified in the SBA guide. Therefore, this rule would not have a
significant impact on the entities affected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy. ``A
Guide for Government Agencies. How to Comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.'' 2017. Available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf (accessed
on May 3, 2018).
    \30\ American Transportation Research Institute. ``An Analysis
of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2017 Update. Available at:
http://atri-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ATRI-Operational-Costs-of-Trucking-2017-10-2017.pdf (Accessed on: May 3, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, I hereby certify that the action does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMCSA requests comments on this certification.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate
its effects and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction, and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of
contact, Mr. Richard Clemente, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this proposed rule.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal
regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and
Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small
Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these
actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small
business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of FMCSA, call
1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The DOT has a policy regarding the
rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an
explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ``The Rights of
Small Entities To Enforcement Fairness and Policy Against
Retaliation.'' Available at: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed December 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act requires
agencies to prepare a comprehensive written statement for any proposed
or final rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $156
million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995,
adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or more in any one year. Because
this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, a written
statement is not required. However, the Agency does discuss the costs
and benefits of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) (PRA)
requires Agencies to provide estimates of the information-collection
(IC) burden of its regulations. This proposed rule does not alter the
Agency's estimates of the paperwork burden outlined on page 88788 of
the final ELDT rule. Since publication of the ELDT final rule, the OMB,
on April 19, 2017, approved the Agency's estimate of 66,250 hours for
the IC collection titled ``Training Certification for Entry-Level
Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers'' (2126-0028). The approval expires on
April 30, 2020. If this notice generates public comment on Agency PRA
estimates, the Agency will respond accordingly.

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O.
13132 if it has ``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.'' In assessing the federalism implications of the ELDT
final rule, FMCSA stated that, because the CDL program is voluntary, it
does not have preemptive effect on the States. The Agency therefore
concluded that the ELDT final rule would not have substantial direct
costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion
of States.\32\ This NPRM does not change that conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 81 FR 88732, 88788 (Dec. 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires
agencies issuing ``economically significant'' rules, if the regulation
also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an
evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects
on children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could in any respect present an environmental or
safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it would not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

K. Privacy

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. The assessment considers impacts of
the rule on the privacy of information in an identifiable form and
related matters. The FMCSA Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks and
effects the rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing
personally identifiable information (PII), as well as protections and
alternative information handling processes to mitigate potential
privacy risks. FMCSA determined that, while this rule does require the
collection of individual PII, it does not result in a change in
collection, process, or the data elements previously identified in the
ELDT final rule.
    The privacy analysis of the ELDT final rule, which conforms to the
DOT standard Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), is published on the DOT
website (www.transportation.gov/privacy). It addresses business
processes identified in the ELDT final rule and new or existing
information collection systems to be implemented in support of those
processes. The FMCSA Privacy Office determined that this NPRM does not
alter the privacy impact detailed in the PIA for the ELDT final rule.
    The Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) analyzing
the new rulemaking and the specific process for collection of personal
information to the Department of Transportation's Privacy Office. As
required by the Privacy Act, FMCSA and the Department will be
publishing, with request for comment, a system of records notice (SORN)
addressing the collection of information affected by this NPRM and the
ELDT final rule. This SORN will be published in the Federal Register
not less than 30 days before the Agency is authorized to collect or use
PII retrieved by unique identifier.

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
program.

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth)

    Executive Order 13783 directs executive departments and agencies to
review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or
use of domestically produced energy resources, and to appropriately
suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of
domestic energy resources.\33\ In accordance with E.O. 13783, the DOT
prepared and submitted a report to the Director of OMB providing
specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could
alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency action that burden domestic
energy production. The DOT has not identified this proposed rule as
potentially alleviating unnecessary burdens on domestic energy
production under E.O. 13783.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 2017).

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

O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

P. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not consider the use of voluntary
consensus standards.

Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(z). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in
paragraph (6)(z) covers (1) the minimum qualifications for persons who
drive commercial motor vehicles as, for, or on behalf of motor
carriers; and (2) the minimum duties of motor carriers with respect to
the qualifications of their drivers. The proposed requirements in this
rule are covered by this CE and the proposed action does not have the
potential to significantly affect the quality of the environment. The
CE determination is available for inspection or copying in the
regulations.gov website listed under ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA evaluated the environmental
justice effects of this proposed rule in accordance with the E.O. and
has determined that no environmental justice issue is associated with
this proposed rule, nor is there any collective environmental impact
that would result from its promulgation.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety, Motor
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter 3, part 380 to read as follows:

PART 380--SPECIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 380 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 31307, 31308, and
31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) of Pub. L. 102-240 (105 Stat. 2151-
2152); sec. 32304 of Pub. L.112-141; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. In Sec.  380.707 amend paragraph (a) by adding the words ``or Class
A theory instruction upgrade curriculum applicants'' to the final
sentence.
0
3. Amend Appendix A to part 380 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Revising the undesignated heading ``Theory Instruction'' to read as
``Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum;'' and
0
c. Adding section Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum.
    The revision and addition to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 380--Class A-CDL training curriculum.

    Class A CDL applicants must complete the Class A CDL curriculum
outlined in this Appendix. The curriculum for Class A applicants
pertains to combination vehicles (Group A) as defined in 49 CFR
383.91(a)(1). Class A CDL applicants who possess a valid Class B CDL
may complete the Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum in lieu of
the Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum. There is no required
minimum number of instruction hours for theory training, but the
training instructor must cover all topics set forth in the
curriculum. There is no required minimum number of instruction hours
for BTW (range and public road) training, but the training
instructor must cover all topics set forth in the BTW curriculum.
BTW training must be conducted in a CMV for which a Class A CDL is
required. The instructor must determine and document that each
driver-trainee has demonstrated proficiency in all elements of the
BTW curriculum, unless otherwise noted. Consistent with the
definitions of BTW range training and BTW public road training in
Sec.  380.605, a simulation device cannot be used to conduct such
training or to demonstrate proficiency. Training instructors must
document the total number of clock hours each driver-trainee spends
to complete the BTW curriculum. The Class A curriculum must, at a
minimum, include the following:

Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum

* * * * *

Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum

Section BA1.1 Basic Operation

    This section must cover the interaction between driver-trainees
and the CMV. Driver-trainees will receive instruction in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and will be introduced to
the basic CMV instruments and controls. Training providers will
teach driver-trainees the basic operating characteristics of a CMV.
This section must also teach driver-trainees how to properly perform
vehicle inspections, control the motion of CMVs under various road
and traffic conditions, employ shifting and backing techniques, and
properly couple and uncouple combination vehicles. Driver-trainees
must familiarize themselves with the basic operating characteristics
of a CMV.

Unit BA1.1.1 Orientation

    This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the combination
vehicle driver training curriculum and the components of a
combination vehicle. The training providers must teach the safety
fundamentals, essential regulatory requirements (e.g., overview of
FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials Regulations), and driver-trainees'
responsibilities not directly related to CMV driving, such as proper
cargo securement. This unit must also cover the ramifications,
including driver disqualification provisions and fines, for non-
compliance with parts 380, 382, 383, and 390 through 399 of the
FMCSRs. This unit must also include an overview of the applicability
of State and local laws relating to the safe operation of the CMV,
stopping at weigh stations/scales, hazard awareness of vehicle size
and weight limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV height
restrictions), and bridge formulas.

Unit BA1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard

    This unit must introduce driver-trainees to vehicle instruments,
controls, and safety components. The training providers must teach
driver-trainees to read gauges and instruments correctly and the
proper use of vehicle safety components, including safety belts and
mirrors. The training providers

must teach driver-trainees to identify, locate, and explain the
function of each of the primary and secondary controls including
those required for steering, accelerating, shifting, braking systems
(e.g., ABS, hydraulic, air), as applicable, and parking.

Unit BA1.1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections

    This unit must teach the driver-trainees to conduct pre-trip and
post-trip inspections as specified in Sec. Sec.  392.7 and 396.11,
including appropriate inspection locations. Instruction must also be
provided on en route vehicle inspections.

Unit BA1.1.4 Basic Control

    This unit must introduce basic vehicular control and handling as
it applies to combination vehicles. This unit must include
instruction addressing basic combination vehicle controls in areas
such as executing sharp left and right turns, centering the vehicle,
maneuvering in restricted areas, and entering and exiting the
interstate or controlled access highway.

Unit BA1.1.5 Shifting/Operating Transmissions

    This unit must introduce shifting patterns and procedures to
driver-trainees to prepare them to safely and competently perform
basic shifting maneuvers. This unit must include training driver-
trainees to execute up and down shifting techniques on multi-speed
dual range transmissions, if appropriate. The training providers
must teach the importance of increased vehicle control and improved
fuel economy achieved by utilizing proper shifting techniques.

Unit BA1.1.6 Backing and Docking

    This unit must teach driver-trainees to back and dock the
combination vehicle safely. This unit must cover ``Get Out and
Look'' (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading facilities, knowledge
of backing set ups, as well as instruction in how to back with the
use of spotters.

Unit BA1.1.7 Coupling and Uncoupling

    This unit must provide instruction for driver-trainees to
develop the skills necessary to conduct the procedures for safe
coupling and uncoupling of combination vehicle units, as applicable.

Section BA1.2 Safe Operating Procedures

    This section must teach the practices required for safe
operation of the combination vehicle on the highway under various
road, weather, and traffic conditions. The training providers must
teach driver-trainees the Federal rules governing the proper use of
seat belt assemblies (Sec.  392.16).

Unit BA1.2.1 Visual Search

    This unit must teach driver-trainees to visually search the road
for potential hazards and critical objects, including instruction on
recognizing distracted pedestrians or distracted drivers.

Unit BA1.2.2 Communication

    This unit must instruct driver-trainees on how to communicate
their intentions to other road users. Driver-trainees must be
instructed in techniques for different types of communication on the
road, including proper use of headlights, turn signals, four-way
flashers, and horns. This unit must cover instruction in proper
utilization of eye contact techniques with other drivers,
bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Unit BA1.2.3 Distracted Driving

    This unit must instruct driver-trainees in FMCSRs related to
distracted driving and other key driver distraction driving issues,
including improper cell phone use, texting, and use of in-cab
technology (e.g., Sec. Sec.  392.80 and 392.82). This instruction
will include training in the following aspects: Visual attention
(keeping eyes on the road); manual control (keeping hands on the
wheel); and cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the task and safe
operation of the CMV).

Unit BA1.2.4 Speed Management

    This unit must teach driver-trainees how to manage speed
effectively in response to various road, weather, and traffic
conditions. The instruction must include methods for calibrating
safe following distances taking into account CMV braking distances
under an array of conditions including traffic, weather, and CMV
weight and length.

Unit BA1.2.5 Space Management

    This unit must teach driver-trainees about the importance of
managing the space surrounding the vehicle under various traffic and
road conditions.

Unit BA1.2.6 Night Operation

    This unit must instruct driver-trainees in the factors affecting
the safe operation of CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally,
driver-trainees must be instructed in changes in vision,
communications, speed space management, and proper use of lights, as
needed, to deal with the special problems night driving presents.

Unit BA1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions

    This unit must teach driver-trainees about the specific problems
presented by extreme driving conditions. The training provide will
emphasize the factors affecting the operation of CMVs in cold, hot,
and inclement weather and on steep grades and sharp curves. The
training provider must teach proper tire chaining procedures.

Section BA1.3. Advanced Operating Practices

    This section must introduce higher-level skills that can be
acquired only after the more fundamental skills and knowledge taught
in the prior two sections have been mastered. The training providers
must teach driver-trainees about the advanced skills necessary to
recognize potential hazards and must teach the driver-trainees the
procedures needed to handle a CMV when faced with a hazard.

Unit BA1.3.1 Hazard Perception

    The unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize potential
hazards in the driving environment in order to reduce the severity
of the hazard and neutralize possible emergency situations. The
training providers must teach driver-trainees to identify road
conditions and other road users that are a potential threat to the
safety of the combination vehicle and suggest appropriate
adjustments. The instruction must emphasize hazard recognition,
visual search, adequate surveillance, and response to possible
emergency-producing situations encountered by CMV drivers in various
traffic situations. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees to recognize potential dangers and the safety procedures
that must be utilized while driving in construction/work zones.

Unit BA1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery, Jackknifing, and Other
Emergencies

    This unit must teach the causes of skidding and jackknifing and
techniques for avoiding and recovering from them. The training
providers must teach the importance of maintaining directional
control and bringing the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible
distance while operating over a slippery surface. This unit must
provide instruction in appropriate responses when faced with CMV
emergencies. This instruction must include evasive steering,
emergency braking, and off-road recovery, as well as the proper
response to brake failures, tire blowouts, hydroplaning, and
rollovers. The instruction must include a review of unsafe acts and
the role the acts play in producing or worsening hazardous
situations.

Unit BA1.3.3 Railroad-Highway Grade Crossings

    This unit must teach driver-trainees to recognize potential
dangers and the appropriate safety procedures to utilize at railroad
(RR)-highway grade crossings. This instruction must include an
overview of various Federal/State RR grade crossing regulations, RR
grade crossing environments, obstructed view conditions, clearance
around the tracks, and rail signs and signals. The training
providers must instruct driver-trainees that railroads have
personnel available (``Emergency Notification Systems'') to receive
notification of any information relating to an unsafe condition at
the RR-highway grade crossing or a disabled vehicle or other
obstruction blocking a railroad track at the RR-highway grade
crossing.

Section BA1.4 Vehicle Systems and Reporting Malfunctions

    This section must provide entry-level driver-trainees with
sufficient knowledge of the combination vehicle and its systems and
subsystems to ensure that they understand and respect their role in
vehicle inspection, operation, and maintenance and the impact of
those factors upon highway safety and operational efficiency.

Unit BA1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis of Malfunctions

    This unit must teach driver-trainees to identify major
combination vehicle systems. The goal is to explain their function
and how to check all key vehicle systems, (e.g., engine, engine
exhaust auxiliary systems, brakes, drive train, coupling systems,
and suspension) to ensure their safe operation. Driver-trainees must
be provided with a detailed description of each system, its
importance to safe and efficient operation,

and what is needed to keep the system in good operating condition.

Unit BA1.4.2 Roadside Inspections

    This unit must instruct driver-trainees on what to expect during
a standard roadside inspection conducted by authorized personnel.
The training providers must teach driver-trainees on what vehicle
and driver violations are classified as out-of-service (OOS),
including the ramifications and penalties for operating a CMV when
subject to an OOS order as defined in section 390.5.

Unit BA1.4.3 Maintenance

    This unit must introduce driver-trainees to the basic servicing
and checking procedures for various engine and vehicle components
and to help develop their ability to perform preventive maintenance
and simple emergency repairs.

Section BA1.5 Non-Driving Activities

    This section must teach driver-trainees the activities that do
not involve actually operating the CMV.

Unit BA1.5.1 Hours of Service Requirements

    This unit must teach driver-trainees to understand that there
are different hours-of-service (HOS) requirements applicable to
different industries. The training providers must teach driver-
trainees all applicable HOS regulatory requirements. The training
providers must teach driver-trainees to complete a Driver's Daily
Log (electronic and paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as
appropriate. The training providers must teach driver-trainees the
consequences (safety, legal, and personal) of violating the HOS
regulations, including the fines and penalties imposed for these
types of violations.

Unit BA1.5.2 Fatigue and Wellness Awareness

    This unit must teach driver-trainees about the issues and
consequences of chronic and acute driver fatigue and the importance
of staying alert. The training providers must teach driver-trainees
wellness and basic health maintenance information that affect a
driver's ability to safely operate a CMV.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 21,
2018.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2018-13871 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P