DOT Sued for 21-Year Driver-Training Regulation Delay
Two public interest groups and the Teamsters Union have filed suit against the Department of Transportation, claiming it has dragged its feet in creating entry-level driver training requirements for commercial motor vehicle operators.
The lawsuit, filed by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Teamsters Union and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to order DOT to publish proposed regulations establishing minimum entry-level training requirements within 60 days of a court order and issue a final rule 120 days later.
The lawsuit said that in 1991, Congress ordered DOT to implement the training requirements by 1993. “More than 20 years, two lawsuits, and another statutory mandate, DOT still has not enacted regulations requiring entry-level drivers to receive training in how to drive a commercial motor vehicle,” the suit said.
The lawsuit added, “At some point, the court must lean forward from the bench to let an agency know, in no uncertain terms, that enough is enough.”
“Tougher entry level driver training standards are needed. [American Trucking Associations], truck driver groups, training organizations, and FMCSA all agree on this point. FMCSA is now evaluating a different process to develop a rule that has real safety benefits commensurate with costs likely to be imposed. ATA looks forward to working with affected stakeholders on a meaningful, cost-beneficial rule,” said David Osiecki, ATA’s chief of national advocacy.
Last September, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announced that after decades of government work on training standards, it was withdrawing its 2007 proposed rule. That was because the more than 700 comments received “raised substantive issues which have led the agency to conclude that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule.”
FMCSA said most of the comments expressed support for the concept of a training rule but contained “divergent views on several of the proposed rule’s key provisions.”
