Feds Scrap Training Rule

By Michele Fuetsch, Staff Reporter

This story appears in the Sept. 23 print edition of Transport Topics.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration last week scrapped the driving training standards rule it first proposed in 2007 and also announced that it would initiate a formal rulemaking process on sleep apnea testing and treatment.

After decades of government work on training standards, FMCSA said in a Sept. 19 Federal Register notice it was withdrawing the rule because the more than 700 comments it received after it posted the proposal “raised substantive issues which have led the agency to conclude that it would be inappropriate to move forward with a final rule based on the proposal.”

That same day, the agency said it would go through the formal rulemaking on sleep apnea testing and treatment — rather than simply issuing guidance — after “collecting and analyzing the necessary data and research.”

The withdrawal of the training proposal was “a bit of a surprise,” said Sean McNally, spokesman for American Trucking Associations.

He said that usually there is only a “supplemental rulemaking notice to make the changes” when there is strong opposition.

FMCSA said most of the comments it received expressed support for the concept of a training rule but contained “divergent views on several of the proposed rule’s key provisions.”

The rule would have required driving schools to design curriculums with 120 hours of training, most of them spent behind the wheel. Training schools — some private, others publicly funded technical and vocational schools — did not agree, however, on how many hours should be required, nor on how many should be in the classroom or on the road.

Some in the trucking industry urged a training approach that does not rely on minimum hours, but on performance and testing of skills. Others in the debate advocated both minimum hours and skills testing.

The proposal also required driver training schools to be accredited by an entity accepted by the U.S. Department of Education. Some schools said certification, rather than full accreditation, was sufficient; many in the trucking industry said accreditation would be costly and would not increase safety.

After reviewing the comments, the agency said it decided that “new rulemaking should be initiated in lieu of completing the 2007 rulemaking.”

MAP-21, the transportation reauthorization law signed by President Obama last year, called for FMCSA to have a driver training rule in place by Sept. 30.

“We have notified Congress that the agency is working to incorporate the MAP-21 requirements . . . into a new proposal,” FMCSA spokeswoman Marissa Padilla said.

Given the amount of disagreement over the proposed training rule, it’s not surprising FMCSA gave up on it, said Robert McClanahan, executive director of the National Association of Publicly Funded Truck Driving Schools.

“It’s just gone on forever, and they cannot come up with a regulation that would fit all the truck driving schools,” McClanahan said.

“There’s never been a really comprehensive study . . . that shows what type of training [or] how long the training should be that would show that a student that’s gone through a program that’s six weeks . . . is any safer than a student who goes through a 10-day program,” McClanahan added.

Boyd Stephenson, director of hazardous materials and licensing policy for ATA, said FMCSA decided to withdraw the rule “because so many of their ideas — accreditation, proposed curriculum— were both unpopular and unable to pass cost-benefit analysis.” The U.S. Office of Management and Budget evaluates the cost-benefit proposition of any new proposed rule before it goes into effect.

Cheryl Hanley, chairwoman of the Commercial Vehicle Training Association, the trade group that represents many private training schools, said the public comments resulted in withdrawal, “a better outcome for all parties.”

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said in a statement: “We are hopeful that the agency will not slow down efforts to implement a rulemaking and will finally pay attention to this issue with a unique approach and new perspective.”

The effort to come up with a federal rule that would govern truck driver training dates to the early 1990s, predating FMCSA’s creation in 2000.

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 contained a provision that the federal government was to write minimum training requirements for entry-level drivers.

FMCSA issued its first rule on driver training in 2003, but a federal court said that the rule lacked on-the-road training for prospective drivers, which is what led to another rule being published in 2007.

Since 2007, the agency has held several listening sessions around the country on its proposed rule, taking comment from carriers, drivers and training school officials.

As with the training rule, the trucking industry was pleased with last week’s sleep apnea development.

Previously, FMCSA said it would issue guidance to medical examiners that commercial drivers with a body mass index of 35 or higher should be tested for sleep apnea and treated if diagnosed.

“ATA believes that testing alone for obstructive sleep apnea of truck drivers could cost the industry nearly $1 billion,” ATA President Bill Graves said after the announcement that the rulemaking would occur.

The same day FMCSA announced the impending apnea rulemaking, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee approved a bill to require the rulemaking.

The bill was introduced Sept. 12 by Reps. Larry Bucshon (R-Ind.) and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.).