NPRM entitled "Minimim Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators."

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 03–20857 Filed 8–14–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–50–C

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 380
[Docket No. FMCSA–97–2199]
RIN 2126–AA09

Minimum Training Requirements for
Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle
Operators
August 4, 2003.
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM); request for comments.
SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) is
proposing standards for mandatory
training requirements for entry-level
operators of commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) who are required to hold or
obtain a commercial driver’s license
(CDL). This action responds to a study
mandated by the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
that found the training of entry-level
drivers in the heavy truck, motorcoach,
and school bus industries was not
adequate. The purpose of this proposal
is to enhance the safety of CMV
operations on our nation’s highways.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
October 14, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
identified by DOT DMS Docket Number
FMCSA–1997–2199 by any of the
following methods:
• Web Site: http://dms.dot.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on the DOT electronic docket
site.
• Fax: 1–202–493–2251.
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
0001.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
Instructions: All submissions must
include the agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Identification
Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Note

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://
dms.dot.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the
Privacy Act heading for further
information.
Docket: For access to the docket to
read background documents or
comments received, go to http://
dms.dot.gov at any time or to Room PL–
401 on the plaza level of the Nassif
Building, 400 Seventh Street SW.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search
the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT’s complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume
65, Number 70; Pages 19477–78) or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.
Comments received after the comment
closing date will be included in the
docket and we will consider late
comments to the extent practicable. The
FMCSA may, however, issue a final rule
at any time after the close of the
comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Ronald Finn, Office of Safety Programs,
(202) 366–0647, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15
p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Training Curricula
In the early 1980’s, the agency
determined that there was a need for
technical guidance in the area of truck
driver training. Research showed that
few driver training institutions offered a
structured curriculum or a standardized
training program for any type of CMV.
In 1984, the agency developed the
‘‘Proposed Minimum Standards for
Training Tractor-Trailer Drivers’’ as a
curriculum standard based upon
research conducted by the agency. The
proposed minimum curriculum
standards were used by the agency to
produce a curriculum for the heavy
truck industry. This Model Curriculum
contains standardized minimum core
curriculum requirements and training
materials as well as guidelines
pertaining to vehicles, facilities,
instructor hiring practices, graduation
requirements, and student placement.

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48863

Curriculum content addresses the
following areas: basic operation, safe
operating practices, vehicle
maintenance, and non-vehicle activities.
In 1995, the agency created a similar
curriculum, the ‘‘Model Curriculum for
Training Motorcoach Drivers,’’ that can
be used to train motorcoach drivers.
In 1986, the motor carrier, truck
driver training school, and insurance
industries created the Professional
Truck Driver Institute (PTDI) to certify
training programs offered by training
institutions. The PTDI used the truck
driver Model Curriculum as the basis for
its training institute certification criteria
and has recently made major revisions
to its curriculum. As of December 2002,
71 training schools were PTDI certified.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 and the CDL Program
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (49 U.S.C. 31301
et seq.) established national minimum
testing and licensing standards for
operators of CMVs. The goal was to
ensure that drivers of large trucks and
buses possess the knowledge and skill
necessary to safely operate on public
highways. The CMVSA established the
CDL program and directed the agency to
establish minimum Federal standards
that States must meet when licensing
CMV drivers. The CMVSA applies to
anyone who operates a CMV in
interstate or intrastate commerce,
including employees of Federal, State,
and local governments. As defined by
the implementing regulation in 49 CFR
383.5, a CMV is a motor vehicle or
combination of motor vehicles used in
commerce to transport passengers or
property if the vehicle:
(a) Has a gross combination weight
rating (GCWR) of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds)
inclusive of a towed unit with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more
than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds);
or
(b) Has a GVWR of 11,794 or more
kilograms (26,001 or more pounds); or
(c) Is designed to transport 16 or more
passengers, including the driver; or
(d) Is of any size and is used in the
transportation of hazardous materials as
defined in this section.
See the FMCSA’s recently published
interim final rule entitled ‘‘Limitations
on the Issuance of Commercial Driver’s
Licenses with a Hazardous Materials
Endorsement’’ (68 FR 23844, 23849;
May 5, 2003) implementing certain
requirements in section 1012 of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act
of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) [Pub. L.

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

48864

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

107–56, October 26, 2001, 115 Stat.
272]. The definition of the term
‘‘hazardous of materials’’ was changed
to include any material listed as a select
agent or toxin by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) in 42 CFR
part 73.
In accordance with the CMVSA, all
drivers of CMVs must possess a valid
CDL in order to be properly qualified to
operate the vehicle(s) they drive. In
addition to passing the CDL knowledge
and skill tests required for the basic
vehicle group, all persons who operate
or anticipate operating the following
vehicles, which have special handling
characteristics, must obtain
endorsements under § 383.93:
(a) Double/triple trailers;
(b) Passenger vehicles;
(c) Tank vehicles; or
(d) Vehicles required to be placarded
for hazardous materials.
The driver is required to pass a
knowledge test for all endorsements.
The driver must also pass a skill test to
obtain a passenger vehicle endorsement.
The CDL requirements address driver
testing and licensing. The CMVSA does
not contain any provisions specifically
addressing driver training. Accordingly,
there are no prerequisite Federal
training requirements to obtain a CDL.
Generally, drivers individually prepare
for the CDL tests by studying such areas
as vehicle inspection procedures, offroad vehicle maneuvers and operating a
CMV in traffic.
The agency here is proposing required
training in the following four additional
areas: driver qualifications, hours of
service of drivers, driver wellness, and
whistle blower protection. The CDL
tests do not cover these subject areas
and the agency believes that a driver’s
knowledge of these areas is vital to large
truck and bus safety.
This proposal is part of an overall
FMCSA effort to improve the CDL
program, which also involves
improvements to the CDL tests, and a
graduated licensing study. Section 4019
of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (Pub.L. 105–178; June 9,
1998) required the agency to determine
if the current system of CDL testing is
an accurate measure of an applicant’s
knowledge and skill needed to operate
a CMV. As a result, the questions used
in the CDL knowledge tests are
currently being revised to insure that
test questions and answers adequately
cover the required knowledge the driver
needs to operate a CMV.
The agency is examining the various
skill test components to determine
whether testing modifications are
necessary. If testing modifications are
needed, the agency may develop a

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

future rulemaking, which modifies the
testing procedures. Section 4019 also
required the agency to identify the costs
and benefits of a graduated licensing
system. The agency published a notice
in the Federal Register on February 25,
2003, asking for public comment on
whether a graduated licensing system
for CMV operators is a workable concept
(68 FR 8798). The agency plans to use
this information to help determine the
costs and benefits of the graduated CDL.
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 4007(a)(2) of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the
agency began a rulemaking proceeding
on the need to require training of all
entry-level CMV drivers. On June 21,
1993, the agency published in the
Federal Register an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) entitled
‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicles: Training
for All Entry Level Drivers’’ (58 FR
33874). The agency asked 13 questions,
which addressed training adequacy
standards, curriculum requirements, the
CDL, the definition of ‘‘entry-level
driver;’’ and training, pass rates and
costs. There was no consensus on the
issue of mandated entry-level driver
training. The heavy truck and bus
industries were against mandated
training; the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters was in favor.
The agency received a total of 104
comments. When the agency published
a notice on April 25, 1996, reopening
the docket (61 FR 18355), it received 48
additional comments on an adequacy
study, and cost-benefit analysis, both of
which are discussed below. On
November 13, 1996, the agency held a
public meeting at the Department of
Transportation headquarters in
Washington, DC, to discuss mandatory
training for entry-level CMV drivers.
There were 26 persons who participated
at the public meeting.
A detailed analysis of the questions
and comments appears later in this
document under the heading,
‘‘Information from the ANPRM and the
Public Meeting.’’
Training Adequacy Study
Concurrent with the development of
the ANPRM, the agency conducted a
study, as required by Section 4007(a)(1)
of the ISTEA, on the effectiveness of
private sector efforts to train entry-level
drivers in the heavy truck, motorcoach,
and school bus industries. The first step
of the study involved development of a
baseline training standard for both the
cargo and passenger-transporting
segments of the CMV industry. The next

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

step involved collecting information on
training currently being offered by the
cargo and passenger-transporting
segments of the CMV industry. A
comparison of current training to the
baseline standards was then made to
determine if employer-provided training
was adequate. In the final step of the
study, driver and employer surveys
were performed to determine what
percentage of drivers were adequately
trained by employers. Drivers were also
asked what percentage of drivers were
adequately trained by training schools.
The agency assembled two groups of
experts: one from the trucking sector
and the other from the motorcoach and
school bus sectors. The experts
identified driver training baselines. The
truck experts selected the Model
Curriculum as a baseline. The bus
experts selected a combination of the
Model Curriculum and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) ‘‘School Bus Driver
Instructional Program,’’ developed in
1974 and currently being updated. The
experts reached a consensus on
minimum requirements for the numbers
of class and practice driving hours,
student/teacher ratios, and course
topics. They then developed an
algorithm to quantitatively compare
existing driver training with the
baselines. An overall negative score
demonstrated that the program was
judged to be less effective than the
baseline. An overall positive score
showed that the program was judged to
be more effective. Based on this
analysis, the percentage of employers
that provide entry-level drivers with
adequate training was: heavy truck
employers (8 percent), motorcoach
employers (19 percent), and school bus
operators (24 percent).
One-hundred ninety-two (192) drivers
were surveyed to determine the
adequacy of training provided by
training schools in the opinion of the
drivers. Based on this survey, the
percentage of drivers adequately trained
by heavy truck training schools was 31
percent. The survey found that no heavy
truck training school adequately trained
drivers to operate school buses, and that
the motor coach industry had no
training school for motor coach drivers.
According to the survey, the percentage
of heavy truck training schools
providing adequate training was 50
percent.
The agency also surveyed a total of
641 employers. The percentage of
employers who train drivers, according
to the employer survey, was as follows:
heavy truck 39 percent, motor coach
37.4 percent, and school bus 93.5
percent.

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
The conclusion of both the training
analysis and the driver survey, using
this methodology, was that neither the
heavy truck, motorcoach, nor school bus
segments of the CMV industry were
providing adequate entry-level driver
training. At the same time, the adequacy
study found that the only researchbased evidence on the relationship
between training and accident reduction
indicated that drivers with formal
training are somewhat more likely to
have accidents. However, the
researchers concluded that the lack of
uniform training standards may have
masked the real effects of good training.
The adequacy study found few
studies within the motor carrier
industry that had examined the
relationship between training and
accident reduction. However, Builder’s
Transport, Inc., a motor carrier, did a
study of 2,600 trained drivers in 1994,
that showed a two percent reduction in
accidents per million miles driven in
contrast to drivers who had no training.
Schneider National, Inc., a motor
carrier, also performed a study
involving its training on hazard-driving
conditions, and found a 40 percent
reduction in accidents. In both of these
studies, drivers with training had fewer
accidents.
Adequacy Study Cost-Benefit Analysis
As part of the adequacy study, the
agency performed a cost-benefit analysis
of training in the heavy truck industry.
The analysis was limited to heavy
trucks due to a scarcity of available cost
data among motorcoach and school bus
training programs. However, the agency
believes that the findings are generally
applicable to the other industries,
because motor coaches and most school
buses are over 11,794 kilograms (26,001
pounds), and the drivers of all three
have similar responsibilities. The cost
benefit analysis applied the definition of
CMV contained in the CMVSA, but did
not include placarded hazardous
material vehicles with a GVWR less
than 11,794 kilograms (26,001 pounds).
The results of this earlier analysis
showed a much higher cost than today’s
proposal, because it was based on 65.8
hours of required training. This NPRM,
however, does not specify a minimum
number of hours. The regulatory
evaluation for this proposal is based on
a total of 101⁄2 hours of training for
heavy truck and motorcoach drivers,
and 4.5 hours for school bus drivers, as
discussed later in this proposal.
Report to Congress
The Secretary of Transportation
submitted the adequacy study entitled,
Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

Motor Vehicle Driver Training: Final
Report and the first Cost-Benefit
analysis to the U.S. Congress on
February 5, 1996, as required by the
ISTEA.
Information from the ANPRM and the
Public Meeting
The agency received a total of 154
comments to the ANPRM and the public
meeting. Some commenters responded
more than once, and some commenters
provided more than one answer to a
particular question.
Question 1: How Can the Adequacy of
Training Be Defined? What Mechanisms
Exist to Measure Adequacy?
A total of forty-seven comments were
received regarding Question 1.
Defining Adequacy: Sixteen
commenters, including the PTDI, stated
that adequacy was defined either by the
PTDI tractor-trailer curriculum or the
Model Curriculum referenced above.
Fourteen commenters, including the
National Private Truck Council, stated
that either the CDL in general, or the
CDL tests in particular, define adequate
training. The remaining comments
included statements that training
adequacy is defined by a job skills
analysis, or that it is defined by the
Model Curriculum modified for straight
trucks.
Measuring Adequacy: Seven
commenters, including the ATA, stated
that the PTDI Model Curriculum is a
measurement of training adequacy. Nine
commenters, including the California
Department of Motor Vehicles, stated
that training adequacy is measured by
the CDL tests. The remaining comments
included statements that training
adequacy is determined by comparing
accident rates of trained versus
untrained drivers, or that it is
determined by gaining employment as a
CDL driver.
The agency believes that the Model
Curriculum represents the basis for
training adequacy. It is based on
minimum training standards that were
adopted by the agency after an analysis
of heavy truck driver training being
provided by the industry in the 1980’s.
Likewise, both the PTDI curriculum and
the Model Curriculum for Training
Motorcoach Drivers are adequate
because they are based on the Model
Curriculum. Finally, the agency believes
that the NHTSA School Bus Driver
Instructional Program is adequate. It
was developed by school bus driver
employers in conjunction with NHTSA.
The school bus driver employers and
NHTSA periodically meet to review the
instructional program and make any
necessary revisions. Moreover, all of the

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48865

above curricula were selected as
training program baselines by experts in
the adequacy study. They were also
developed based on the regulations and
technology current at the time of
development. However, the agency
disagrees with commenters indicating
that the knowledge to pass the CDL test
is sufficient to determine training
adequacy.
Finally, the agency believes
employers that wish to train entry-level
drivers should ensure that the
curriculum is suitable for the type of
vehicle the driver intends to operate.
For example, a modified Model
Curriculum could be used to train
drivers who operate straight trucks
exclusively.
Question 2: What Standards Exist to
Ensure That Training Provided by
Schools and Employers Is Adequate for
Entry-Level Truck Driver Training?
A total of forty-three commenters
responded to this question. Thirteen
commenters, including the OwnerOperator Independent Drivers
Association, cited either the PTDI
organization or the PTDI certification
process, as a standard to ensure that
training provided by schools is
adequate. Again, eight commenters,
including the American Bus
Association, cited the CDL tests. The
remaining comments cited the Model
Curriculum as an adequate training
standard, or stated that no standard
exists.
The discussion to Question 1 also
contains relevant information on the
adequacy of driver training. In addition,
the agency agrees with commenters that
although the CDL requirements are a
licensing standard and not a training
standard, the driver must study to pass
the CDL tests.
Question 3: What Should an Adequate
Truck Driver Training Program Include
(e.g. Night Driving, Behind-the-Wheel
Training, and Classroom Instruction)?
What Is the Minimum Amount of Time
or Number of Hours That Should Be
Devoted to Each of These Components?
A total of seventy-one commenters
addressed this question.
Eight commenters, including the
ATA, stated that the training should be
the PTDI curriculum for both course
content and length. Three commenters,
including the American Bakers
Association, cited the Model
Curriculum as the standard for both
course content and length. The
remaining comments recommend
specific topics for classroom, off-road
maneuvers, or on-road driving, which
included down hill speed control for

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

48866

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

automatic transmission-equipped
vehicles, railroad grade crossing safety,
and work zone safety.
The ATA and the American Bakers
Association stated that both the PTDI
curriculum and Model Curriculum have
acceptable course content and length for
heavy truck drivers. The agency agrees
that both curricula are acceptable
because experts use the agency’s Model
Curriculum as a training standard in the
adequacy study.
In addition, all drivers who wish to
obtain a CDL are required to pass
specified knowledge tests. The agency
and the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) have
developed a Commercial Driver’s
Manual to assist drivers in passing these
tests. The manual instructs drivers to
shift to a lower gear before starting
down a steep grade in order to maintain
a safe speed. The manual also has a
section for railroad highway grade
crossing safety, as well as work zones
where the work can create a distraction
for drivers and the workers may not see
the driver.
Question 4: Can Government or Private
Standards That Guide the Training of
Entry-Level Drivers Be Used To
Determine the Adequacy of Entry-level
Driver Training? Why Are These
Standards Appropriate?
A total of forty-five commenters
responded to this question.
Eight commenters, including the
ATA, mentioned either the PTDI
organization or the PTDI certification
process as standards for determining the
adequacy of entry-level driver training.
Two commenters, including the
Michigan Truck Safety Commission,
cited the Model Curriculum, and again,
six commenters, including the
American Bus Association, cited the
CDL test as a standard for determining
the adequacy of entry-level driver
training. One employer, ITC, stated that
a motor carrier approves of a training
institution by hiring its students. The
remaining commenters stated that the
agency should establish minimum
entry-level training standards and that
no standard exists.
As discussed above, the agency agrees
with commenters that the PTDI
curriculum and Model Curriculum are
both voluntary government-industry
developed standards that can be used to
determine the adequacy of entry-level
driver training.

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

Question 5: To Obtain a CDL, a CMV
Driver Must Demonstrate Knowledge
and Skill Needed To Operate a CMV.
Are These Tests Sufficiently
Comprehensive To Accurately Measure
a Driver’s Performance? Please Explain
Why or Why Not. Provide Information
of Specific Deficiencies.
A total of eighty-one commenters
responded to this question. Forty-two
commenters, including the ATA, stated
that the CDL accurately measures a
driver’s performance. Thirty-nine
commenters, including the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, stated that
the CDL does not accurately measure a
driver’s performance. The Teamsters
stated further that mere possession of a
CDL does not guarantee that the driver
has the necessary experience and skill.
The agency believes that the CDL
gives the novice driver the basic
knowledge and skill necessary to
operate a CMV. However, the employer
may have to provide additional safety
training, or allow the driver to gain
CMV-operating experience before
permitting the driver to drive, for
example, in hazardous weather
conditions. Because of the differences in
operating practices among various CMV
industries, the employer should be
responsible for ensuring that the driver
receives the appropriate training.
Question 6: Should Training
Requirements for Entry-Level CMV
Drivers be Federally Mandated?
A total of one hundred and fifty-one
commenters responded to this question.
Fifty-one commenters, including the
Fox Valley Technical College, stated
that training should be mandated. The
Fox Valley Technical College stated that
if training were not federally mandated,
many companies would not comply.
Sysco Food Services stated that training
should only be mandated for companies
with 50 or more new drivers. Ninetytwo commenters, including the National
Private Truck Council, stated that
training should not be federally
mandated. The National Private Truck
Council stated that because the CDL is
a performance based standard, training
should not be mandated. Citizens Gas
and Coke Utility stated that training
should only be required for combination
vehicles.
The agency believes that mandating
training only for groups of 50 or more
new drivers is not consistent with the
need to train all entry-level drivers. A
large majority of motor carriers have six
or fewer power units, and would
therefore be excluded from a 50 or more
driver mandate. Moreover, larger
employers could limit the number of

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

drivers hired at one time to less than 50
to avoid being subject to mandatory
entry-level training requirements. The
adequacy study found that neither the
heavy truck, motorcoach, nor the school
bus industries provided adequate entrylevel driver training. As the study
surveyed drivers and employers that use
both single and combination vehicles,
its findings lead the agency to conclude
that training should be mandatory for all
entry-level drivers, irrespective of the
kind of vehicle they drive or the size of
the employing carrier.
Question 7: What Is an Entry-Level
Driver?
A total of forty-four commenters
responded to this question. Eighteen
commenters, including the PTDI, stated
that an entry-level driver is one who has
never driven a CMV. The adequacy
study found that entry-level training is
training received in the first three years
of driving. However, the Truckload
Carriers Association and ATA indicated
three years was too long. A
representative of the Truckload Carriers
Association stated during the public
meeting that the term ‘‘entry level’’ is
limited to the driver’s first six months
of driving. A representative of the ATA
indicated during the public meeting that
an ‘‘entry-level driver’’ is a person who
has ‘‘a couple of years of experience.’’
In written comments, the ATA stated
that the definition of an entry-level
driver should include a driver who
moves to a higher class of CMV.
The agency agrees with the ATA and
the Truckload Carriers Association that
the three-year experience requirement
cited in the adequacy study is too long,
because operating experience helps
CMV drivers reduce accidents caused by
driver error. This rule proposes to
define entry-level driver as a driver with
less than two years experience operating
a CMV with a CDL.
Question 8: What Industry-Wide
Initiatives or Policies, If Any, Assure
That the Majority of All Entry-Level
Drivers Are Trained?
A total of thirty-five commenters
responded to this question.
Twelve commenters, including the
Distribution LTL Association, cited the
PTDI curriculum, the Model Curriculum
or both. Fifteen commenters, including
Schneider National, cited the CDL
license. Three commenters, including
the Washington Department of
Licensing, stated that no such initiatives
or policies exist. Five commenters,
including the ATA, cited insurance
companies, which promote training
programs for entry-level drivers.

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
Question 9: How Many Truck Driver
Training Schools and Motor Carrier
Programs Train Entry-Level Drivers?
What Percentage of Those Enrolled,
Successfully Complete Such Training?
A total of thirty commenters
responded to this question.
The Association of Publicly Funded
Truck Driving Schools stated that there
are approximately 85 such schools in
the country, and that 88 to 92 percent
of students successfully complete
training. The ATA stated that there are
150 to 300 training schools nationwide,
and that 60 to 70 percent of students
successfully complete training. Mike
Byrnes and Associates stated that there
are approximately 375 training schools
and motor carrier training programs in
the United States. A representative of
Robert Forman Associates stated at the
public meeting that there were no
motorcoach training schools in the
country.
Question 10: Is the Successful
Completion of an Entry-Level CMV
Driver Training Program (Either Before
or After Hiring) a Requirement for the
Drivers Employed by Your Company?
A total of thirty commenters
responded to this question.
The ATA stated that company
policies generally require that new
drivers receive additional training
relating to the motor carrier’s specific
equipment and type of operation.
Federal Express requires its entry-level
drivers to complete a 3-week training
program. Eleven commenters cited the
PTDI standard. Eight commenters stated
that motor carriers trained drivers to
motor carrier’s own standards. One
commenter stated that its insurance
company set training standards.
Question 11: Describe the Training
Opportunities Available for Drivers of
Smaller Trucking Companies/OwnerOperators. What Percentage of Those
Enrolled Successfully Completes Such
Training?
A total of twenty commenters
responded to this question.
The National Solid Waste
Management Association stated that
small companies rely primarily on
supervised on-the-job training to qualify
new drivers. Mike Byrnes and
Associates stated that some trucking
schools offer weekend training for
drivers of small trucking companies.
The ATA believes that the percentage of
truck drivers employed by small
employers, who complete training, is 60
to 70 percent; the same percentage as for
large employers.

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

Question 12: Describe the Expected
Benefits and Estimated Dollar Costs for
the Following Types of Training:
Residential Training at Public and
Private Truck Driver Training School
(e.g. Trade, Vocational, and Community
College Program); a Combination of a
Home Study Course and Behind-theWheel Training; Formal School
Training; and Externships (i.e.
Combination Truck Driver Training
School and Motor Carrier Operation)?
A total of twenty-eight persons
responded to this question.
The Michigan Truck Safety
Commission stated that it did not
endorse home study training. The
International Trucking School stated
that an externship, involving both a
truck driver school and a motor carrier,
is the best form of training available to
the student. The Association of Publicly
Funded Truck Driving Schools agreed
with this comment. The PTDI stated that
the cost of both private schools and
motor carrier training ranges from
$1,500 to $6,000. The ATA stated that
the costs of motor carrier-run training
programs range from $3,000 to $5,000;
externships cost between $3,000 and
$6,000. The other cost comments were
similar. At the public meeting,
Northeast Career Schools stated that
longer entry-level training courses
involve better equipment and more
qualified instructors.
Question 13: Although the Primary
Purpose of This ANPRM Is to Gather
Information on Entry-Level Truck Driver
Training, the Agency Would Like To
Collect Some Information on the
Training Experienced Drivers Receive.
Please Describe the Type and Frequency
of Training, If Any, That You Offer or
Financially Support for the More
Experienced CMV Drivers of Your
Company: Is This Training Required at
Certain Specific Intervals or Provided
Only on an ‘‘as Needed’’ Basis?
A total of 18 comments responded to
this question.
The Association of Publicly Funded
Truck Driving Schools stated that their
members teach defensive driving
courses, advanced driving techniques,
and specialized training. Schneider
National offers training in preparing
logs, backing, defensive driving, injury
prevention, trip planning, and efficient
driving. CRST, Inc. requires all
experienced drivers to be trained in a 2day program. The ATA stated that the
training for experienced drivers varies
significantly from fleet to fleet. Fox
Valley Technical College stated that the
industry generally provides no formal
training for its experienced truck

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48867

drivers. The Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety stated training should be
given every five years. The ATA and J.B.
Hunt stated that training should be
given either after accident involvement
or to correct hours of service problems.
Other Issues Raised By Commenters
The Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety stated that the adequacy study
should not have excluded transit buses.
Transportation performed by the
Federal government, a State, or any
political subdivision of a State, or an
agency established under a compact
between States that has been approved
by the Congress of the United States, is
exempt from parts 350 through 399 of
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. Transit bus operators are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) and are
generally local government employees.
Transit systems utilize training
materials developed by the FTA. These
materials cover basic vehicle controls
and vehicle maneuvers in traffic. Transit
systems report total bus mileage to FTA
as a condition for receiving Federal
grants. These grantees operated CMVs
approximately 1.8 billion miles in
calendar year 2000 according to the
FTA’s Transit Safety & Security
Statistics & Analysis 2000 Annual
Report. The report also states that there
were 90 total fatalities for transit buses
in calendar year 2000. Therefore, the
fatal accident frequency per million
miles for calendar year 2000 is
approximately .048, which is very low.
The agency believes that the FTA can
effectively monitor transit bus system
training. For these reasons, the agency is
not including transit bus drivers in the
proposed rule.
The ATA also provided comments on
the adequacy study-cost benefit analysis
referenced above. ATA stated that the
cost of providing adequate entry-level
training exceeded the 450 million dollar
per year estimate cited in that analysis.
Summary of NPRM Provisions
This proposal is in response to a
Congressional mandate in ISTEA, which
directed the Secretary of Transportation
to promulgate safety regulations for
entry-level training of heavy truck,
motorcoach, and school bus drivers.
Congress was specifically concerned
about the number of heavy truck crashes
caused by inadequate driver training,
and believed that better training would
reduce these types of crashes. In
addition, an agency study found that
training for entry-level drivers in these
industries was inadequate.
Both the Model Curriculum and the
Model Curriculum for Training

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

48868

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

Motorcoach Drivers instruct drivers on
the basic operational skills, such as
vehicle inspection, vehicle backing,
hazard perception, proper
communications procedures, and speed
and space management, which are
necessary to operate CMVs on the
public road, plus the specialized
knowledge and skill a driver needs to
obtain the passenger, double/triple, tank
vehicle, and hazardous materials
endorsements. These curricula also
contain instruction in vehicle
inspection procedures, off-road skill test
maneuvers, and operating CMVs in
vehicular traffic. The CDL tests examine
CMV drivers on the knowledge and skill
the drivers learn in these curricula.
The agency is not requiring entrylevel drivers to receive training in areas
that are covered in the CDL test. Such
training would be redundant. Instead,
the required training would address: (1)
driver qualifications—medical, and drug
and alcohol testing, (2) driver hours of
service limitations, (3) driver wellness,
and (4) whistle blower protection. These
are training areas that are not covered in
the current CDL test. The agency is only
requiring drivers to be trained in the
areas appropriate to their driving
occupation as entry-level drivers. Each
of these areas focuses on the commercial
motor vehicle driver, who the agency
believes is key to promoting motor
carrier safety on our nation’s highways.
The agency believes that training in
these four areas would serve to set a
minimum floor of safety for entry-level
CMV drivers, and at the same time not
be overly burdensome for drivers or
motor carriers to implement. Although
the proposal does not specify a required
number of hours for the training, the
agency estimates that it would require
approximately 10.5 hours for heavy
truck and motorcoach drivers, and 4.5
hours for school bus drivers. The Texas
Department of Public Safety stated in
comments to the ANPRM that the State
of Texas currently requires a school bus
driver to receive twenty hours of initial
training and 8 hours of refresher
training every three years. The Michigan
Department of Education requires a
school bus driver to pass an initial
training course and a road test. The
State also requires the school bus driver
to receive 6 hours of refresher training
every two years. The NHTSA has
developed the ‘‘School Bus Driver
Instructional Program’’ as a voluntary
training standard. However, the NHTSA
training standard does not cover either
driver wellness or whistle blower
protection. In addition, the agency’s
review of school bus driver training data
indicates that school districts do not

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

include instruction in driver wellness
and whistle blower protection. The
agency estimates that driver wellness
and whistle blower training would
mean an additional 4.5 hours of training
for school bus drivers.
The agency requests comments on
whether entry-level training in other
areas, such as fire extinguisher training,
should be required.
Driver Qualification
Examples of topics that could be
covered are minimum vision and
hearing standards, the recommended
hypertension standard, the
recommended monitoring practices for
mild hypertension, and standards for
other health-related problems. Emphasis
could be placed on medical
disqualification caused by illegal drug
use, alcoholism, or epilepsy.
Hours of Service
There is evidence that many crashes
occur as a result of CMV driver error,
and that driver error is often the result
of inattention. Inattention can often be
the result of fatigue, which may be
related to sleep deprivation. Sleep
deprivation can often be related to
working conditions.
Examples of possible topics for hours
of service would include awareness of
the causes of fatigue, its effect on
driving safety, sleep disorders, fatigueprevention strategies (including good
sleep hygiene), the procedures used to
complete a driver’s daily log including
the use of quarter-hour increments to
indicate time, the different types of duty
statuses, the hours of service rules, and
the importance of keeping up-to-date
and accurate logs.
Driver Wellness
According to Roberts and York,
‘‘Design, Development and Evaluation
of Truck and Bus Driver Wellness
Programs,’’ FMCSA, No. DOT–MC–00–
200, June 2000, obesity, high blood
pressure, alcohol and drug abuse, and
stress are major health issues, among
truck and bus drivers. The Roberts and
York report cited a study by Stoohs,
Guilleminault, and Dement, ‘‘Sleep
Apnea and Hypertension in Commercial
Truck Drivers,’’ Sleep, Vol. 16 No. 8
(1993) that 71 percent of the 125 drivers
in the Stoohs, Guilleminault, and
Dement study were obese because they
had a body mass/fat index greater than
28. In addition, the Roberts and York
report cited data from ‘‘Heart and Stroke
Facts, 1996 Statistical Supplement,’’
American Heart Association, that
nationally 26.3 percent of men and 25.0
percent of woman have blood pressures
greater than 140 over 90 millimeters of

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

mercury (mm Hg). Hypertension is
defined as blood pressure greater than
or equal to 140 over 90 mm Hg.
Additionally, the Roberts and York
report cited data from ‘‘Accident Facts:’’
1996 edition that indicates that alcohol
is a factor in 41 percent of all traffic
fatalities. Finally, the Roberts and York
report cited data from Orris, et. al.,
‘‘Stress Among Package Truck Drivers,’’
American Journal of Industrial
Medicine, Vol. 31, (1997), that indicates
that the drivers in that study had higher
stress levels than 91 percent of the U.S.
population.
In light of these data, examples of
topics that could be covered in driver
wellness training include information
on how to maintain healthy blood
cholesterol, blood pressure, and weight,
as well as the importance of periodic
health monitoring and testing, diet, and
exercise.
Whistleblower
Topics that the agency anticipates
would be covered include: the right of
a driver to refuse to drive if there is an
unsafe vehicle condition, the
requirement for an employer to provide
the driver a safe place to work, the
prohibition against the motor carrier to
pressure the driver to violate the hoursof-service requirements, and the
complaint process of the U.S.
Department of Labor if a driver feels that
he or she has been discriminated against
for filing a safety-related complaint.
Under the proposal, employers would
have to ensure that new entry-level
drivers receive the required training
before driving. The agency solicits
comments on whether a 90-day period
or some other time period would be
more appropriate for new entry-level
drivers. Commenters are requested to
provide supporting rationale.
Drivers with up to one year of driving
experience would have 90 days to
complete the training. Drivers having
between one to two years of experience
who do not qualify for grandfathering
would also have 90 days to complete the
required training. The agency solicits
comments on whether the 90-day time
period is appropriate for these two
groups of drivers, and specifically
whether a lesser period of time should
be required. Commenters are requested
to provide supporting rationale.
The motor carrier, a training school,
or a class conducted by a consortium or
association of motor carriers could
provide the training. Examples include
a classroom setting and a professional
instructor, a one-on-one office meeting
between the entry-level driver and a
representative of his or her employer
working from a prepared outline, or

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
exposure of the entry-level driver to a
professionally prepared video covering
the required topics. In all cases, the
motor carrier would have to maintain
some evidence of the content of the
instruction for a Safety Investigator
seeking to verify that the requirements
of the training have been met. Informal,
unverifiable, or undocumented
communication between the entry-level
driver and his or her employer would
not be acceptable. Evidence that a driver
has received the training would be
maintained in the driver’s personnel
file. An entry-level driver would be one
with less than two years of experience
operating a CMV with a CDL. However,
drivers with one year of experience
operating a CMV with a CDL, who have
a good driving record, would be
grandfathered and therefore would not
have to take the proposed training.
The FMCSA believes that for many
entry-level drivers, the combination of a
good driving record and at least one
year of experience operating a CMV
with a CDL is an appropriate indication
that the individual has the minimum
knowledge and driving skills to operate
such a vehicle. Accordingly, the FMCSA
would allow certain drivers to substitute
a good driving record and experience for
the completion of the proposed drivertraining requirements. The FMCSA
believes grandfathering such drivers
would not diminish public safety or
overall safe operation of CMVs.
The FMCSA is proposing that a motor
carrier issue a Certificate of
Grandfathering to those drivers whose
experience and driving record qualify
them to be grandfathered under this
proposal. A copy of the certificate
would be filed in the driver’s personnel
file. Grandfathered drivers would not be
subject to the training requirements of
this new subpart. This action is
consistent with that taken when the
agency grandfathered certain drivers
from the CDL skills tests contained in
part 383. Qualified drivers, who want to
obtain a Certificate of Grandfathering,
must do so within one year of the
effective date of the final rule. After the
one-year period, only those drivers who
present an employer with a Certificate
of Grandfathering would be exempted
from entry-level driver training
requirements.
The agency recognizes that, in order
to develop the training curriculum
required by this proposal, a phase-in
period would be necessary. The agency
believes that a 2-month phase-in period
is adequate and would provide
sufficient time for motor carriers and
training schools to develop the required
training material. The effective date of

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

the rule would be 2 months after its
publication in the Federal Register.
The FMCSA solicits comments on all
aspects of this proposal.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FMCSA has determined that this
action is a significant regulatory action
within the meaning of E.O. 12866, and
is significant within the meaning of the
Department of Transportation’s
regulatory policies and procedures
(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980;
44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979)
because of significant public interest in
the issues relating to CMV safety and
training of certain CMV drivers. This
proposed rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under
E.O 12866.
Summary of Benefit-Cost Analysis for
this Proposal
Background
This proposed rule is required by the
Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991. The FMCSA is
proposing that entry-level commercial
drivers receive mandatory training in
the following content areas: driver
qualifications, hours of service of
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle
blower rights. This NPRM would
require an applicant to complete entrylevel driver training that includes these
four content areas and furnish a copy of
the training certificate to the employer
in cases where someone other than the
employer provides the training. An
employer could not allow a new entrylevel driver to operate a CMV on the
public road unless the driver has
received the required training and
documentation of training is in the
employer’s possession.
The agency seeks to ensure high
standards of safety among more
experienced drivers without imposing
an undue burden on these drivers by
imposing an immediate training
requirement. Such a requirement could
mean an interruption of the driver’s
work schedule and a substantial loss in
wages. In order to eliminate an overly
burdensome approach to training, the
NPRM proposes that drivers with up to
one year of driving experience would
have 90 days to complete the training.
Drivers having between one to two years
of experience who do not qualify for
grandfathering would also have 90 days
to complete the required training. The
agency solicits comments on the
economic impact of requiring training
within the 90-day time period for these

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48869

two groups of experienced drivers as
well as the costs associated with a lesser
period of time. Commenters are
requested to provide supporting
rationale.
The FMCSA has conducted a
regulatory evaluation of this proposed
rule in accordance with Executive Order
12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review.’’ This rule is estimated to cost
$25.1 million in the first year of
implementation and $22.7 million
annually thereafter (undiscounted). The
higher costs in the first year are the
result of this rule’s effect on some
existing drivers (i.e., those with less
than two years of experience), where a
certain percentage would be required to
undertake the required training within
the first 90 days of the rule’s
implementation. Total discounted costs
of this rule are $173.3 million over the
10-year period.
Our analysis of this proposed rule
indicates that it would have to prevent
315 truck-related crashes (i.e., combined
fatal, injury-related, and propertydamage-only crashes) in the first year to
be cost-beneficial (i.e., to offset the $25.1
million in first-year costs). The rule
would have to prevent 285 crashes in
each year thereafter to be costbeneficial. The 285–315 truck-related
crashes to be avoided represent less
than seven one-hundredths of one
percent (or 0.07 percent) of the average
total number of truck-related crashes
reported annually (estimated at 445,000
in 1999 and 2000). This 0.07-percent
reduction in truck-related crashes is
obviously much less than the size of
crash reductions experienced in studies
cited earlier in this NPRM, where case
studies revealed crash reductions of 2
and 40 percent from implementation of
new driver training programs and is also
well below the 15-percent reduction in
crashes used in the regulatory
evaluation prepared in 1995 for the
ANPRM (which involved a more
comprehensive training program than
proposed here). A summary of costs is
provided in the next section. For a
complete discussion of the assumptions
made, data used, and analysis
performed in this regulatory evaluation,
the reader is referred to the docket,
where a copy of the full regulatory
evaluation is contained.
Costs
The largest cost component of this
rule is the cost of providing training to
entry-level operators of heavy trucks,
school buses, and motor coaches.
Training costs include both the direct
cost to train drivers and the
(opportunity) cost of drivers’ time. The
two key factors in estimating the

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

48870

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

training costs are the number of drivers
who will need training and the hours of
training they will have to undertake.
The FMCSA estimates that the
proposed rule would require 10.5 hours
of training of the entry-level drivers of
heavy trucks in the proposed four
subject areas. The two content areas of
driver qualifications and hours of
service together would require about 6
hours of training. The driver wellness
training would also require about 4
hours, while training on whistle blower
protection is estimated at 30 minutes.
However, the FMCSA believes that the
entry-level drivers of school buses
would only require 4.5 hours of
training, comprised of 4 hours of driver
wellness instruction and 30 minutes of
whistle blower protection training
(given that the Federal driver
qualifications and hours-of-service
content would not apply). The FMCSA
also estimates that the proposed rule
would require 10.5 hours of training of
the entry-level drivers of motorcoaches.
The training hours estimate for heavy
truck drivers was based on information
provided in the instructor’s guide for
the Professional Truck Drivers
Institute’s (PTDI) accredited training
courses and discussions held with
FMCSA CDL Program staff. The training
hours estimate for motor coach drivers
was estimated using the instructor’s
guide for the Model Curriculum for
motor coach drivers and discussions
with FMCSA CDL Program staff.
Using data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the total number of entrylevel truck drivers is estimated at 58,600
per year for the next 10 years, while the
entry-level drivers required for growth
and replacement for the school bus and
motorcoach industry are estimated at
17,800 and 2,100 per year, respectively,
also over the next 10 years.
In this analysis, we assumed that 30
percent of the entry-level heavy truck
drivers, or 17,580, would not need any
additional training, as they are assumed
to attend a PTDI or similar accredited
training program (i.e., PTDI accredited
courses already include these content
areas in their curriculum). This
assumption is based on information
obtained regarding the number of
accredited programs as a percent of total
driver training programs. For the
remaining 70 percent (or 41,020, entrylevel drivers), we assumed that they
either receive training from a nonaccredited training program or they
receive informal training from their
employer. Therefore, this 70 percent of
entry-level drivers would require 10.5
hours of training per driver on the four
subject areas mentioned above.
Therefore, the total hours of training

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

required by the proposed rule for the
entry-level heavy truck drivers is
estimated at 430,710 hours per year. For
those drivers who already receive some
type of formal (yet non-accredited)
employer-or third-party training, it is
quite possible that employers (or thirdparty training providers) might reduce
the amount of training time spent on
other, non-required subject matter, so
that the net increase in training per
truck driver would be less than 10.5
hours. However, in the absence of
specific information on the types of
subject matter than might be omitted
from these driver training programs to
offset the new training costs, we
assumed a net increase of 10.5 hours for
estimating the costs of this rule.
Regarding school bus driver training,
neither the Federal driver qualifications
nor the Federal Hours of Service rules
are applicable to these drivers.
Therefore, this entry-level training
rulemaking will result in only 4.5 hours
of additional training for each entrylevel driver, since these training
programs would include primarily
driver wellness (4 hours) as well as
whistle blower protection (0.5 hours).
States have long required school bus
drivers to take written exams designated
to test an entry-level driver’s knowledge
of state laws and regulations affecting
school transportation. Additionally,
behind-the-wheel road tests are used to
evaluate an applicant’s driving skills.
For example, as a comment to the
ANPRM, the Texas Department of
Public Safety stated that Texas requires
classroom and behind-the-wheel
training totaling 20 hours. In our review
of the school bus driver training
information, we concluded that no
districts were providing instruction in
driver wellness and whistle blower
protection, since the NHTSA voluntary
training standard, known as the School
Bus Driver Training Program, did not
include such content. Therefore,
FMCSA estimates that all 17,800 entrylevel school bus drivers would need an
additional 4.5 hours of training for a
total of 80,100 hours of training per
year.
FMCSA assumes that the additional
hours of training for an entry-level
motorcoach driver would be 10.5 hours.
The instructor’s guide to the model
curriculum for training motor coach
drivers includes 5 hours of logbook
training but only about an hour on
safety and wellness issues (including
topics such as the correct lifting of
heavy objects and identifying prohibited
cargo). The FMCSA does not have
information on the proportion of entrylevel motorcoach drivers following
training as per the model curriculum.

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

Therefore, the FMCSA estimates that
2,100 entry-level drivers of
motorcoaches would require 10.5 hours
of training on driver qualifications,
hours of service for drivers, driver
wellness and whistle blower protection
for a total of 22,050 hours of training per
year.
To be conservative, a figure of $25 per
hour of training was used in this
analysis to calculate the direct costs of
training (calculated via an average cost
of $4,000 per training course divided by
4 weeks divided by 40 hours per week).
This translates into $262.50 of direct
training costs for a 10.5-hour course and
$112.50 for 4.5-hour course. The agency
believes that this was a reasonable
estimate of the total hourly cost to train
drivers (whether or not the training is
provided by the employer or a third
party) because it falls well within the
range of training cost estimates provided
in comments to the ANPRM. In reality,
employer-based training could very well
be less than $25/hour in certain cases
(i.e., assuming new physical space is not
leased by the employer to conduct the
training, or the training is self-directed
by the driver), but to be conservative the
agency used the same figure whether the
training was employer-or third partybased so as to ensure not
underestimating employer and/or driver
costs.
To arrive at a truck driver’s wage rate,
we use a figure of $14.75 per hour,
which is an average from three recent
national wage/employment surveys
(including the Current Population
Survey). We added 31 percent to cover
the cost of fringe benefits, an estimate
developed in the Hours of Service
regulatory evaluation. (It is a weighted
average of the fringe benefits for private
and for-hire carriers, based on data from
the ATA and the BLS.) The 31 percent
increase brings total compensation to
$19.32.
Regarding a school bus driver’s wage,
we use a figure of $7.67 per hour
obtained from the BLS 2001 National
Occupational Employment and Wage
survey. This figure represents the 25th
percentile wage estimate for an entrylevel school bus driver and we used it
because entry-level drivers generally
earn at the low range of the industry
wage standards. Again, 31 percent is
added to cover the cost of fringe
benefits, resulting in a total hourly wage
estimate of $10.05 per hour.
Regarding a motorcoach driver’s
wage, we use a figure of $9.98 per hour
obtained from the BLS 2001 National
Occupational Employment and Wage
survey. This figure represents the 25th
percentile wage estimate for an entrylevel motorcoach driver and we used it

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
because entry-level drivers generally
earn at the low range of the industry
wage standards. Again, 31 percent is
added to cover the cost of fringe
benefits, resulting in a total hourly wage
estimate of $13.07 per hour.
To get the total unit cost of training
per hour (i.e., including both direct
training costs and the drivers’ cost of
time), the relevant estimate of the
driver’s wage rate for truck, school bus,
and motor coach drivers was added to
the average hourly cost of training
discussed earlier. For example, for an
entry-level truck driver, the unit cost of
training is $44.32 an hour ($19.32 of
foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual
training costs). For entry-level school
bus drivers, the total training cost is
estimated at $35.05 per hour ($10.05 of
foregone driver wages plus $25 in actual
training costs), and for entry-level motor
coach drivers, it is $38.07 per hour
($13.07 of foregone driver wages plus
$25 in actual training costs.
Taking these hourly training costs for
each type of entry-level driver (based on
median wage rates and an average
hourly cost of training) and applying
them to the hours of required training
for each type of driver (discussed
earlier) and the number of entry-level
drivers in each category, we can develop
an estimate of total annual costs of this
rule.
To do so, we multiplied the hours of
training required for each type of driver
by the total number of drivers in that
driver group per year by the applicable
hourly wage rate to drivers in each
group (including direct wage and costs
of training). The result is a total firstyear cost of $25.1 million and $22.7
million (undiscounted) annually in each
subsequent year of the rule. Using the 7
percent discount rate recommended by
the OMB, the present value of training
costs of the proposed rule is calculated
as $173.3 million over 10 years, or a
discounted average of $17.3 million per
year for next 10 years.
The reason first year costs are higher
than the annual costs in subsequent
years is that within the first year (90
days to be exact), some portion of the
entry level drivers who received
training between 12–24 months prior to
implementation of this rule (i.e., those
effectively with chargeable crashes)
would be required to undertake training
in these four content areas. Our analysis
indicates that almost 6,000 drivers who
received training between 12–24 months
prior to the rule’s implementation
would have to undertake the training
required under this rule. As such, firstyear costs increase because a larger pool
of drivers must initially undertake the
required training. Full details of these

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

costs are provided in the stand-alone
regulatory evaluation contained in the
docket.
Benefits
The total number of accidents
potentially avoided by the proposed
rule is difficult to quantify largely
because of the variability in study
results on the impact of training on the
truck crash reduction. This variability is
most likely due to the wide variation in
quality of driver training programs and
the difficulty associated with estimating
(statistically speaking) the relationship
between a single input (training) and an
output (safety) when working with very
large data sets. However, several case
studies, including two cited earlier in
this NPRM, reveal that driver training
programs reduced crashes by two to 40
percent. Because of the relatively
modest costs (estimated at $22.7 million
to $25.1 million annually
(undiscounted)), this proposed rule
would have to deter between 285 and
315 truck-related crashes (fatal, injuryrelated, and property-damage-only
crashes combined) each year in order to
be cost beneficial (i.e., where the rule’s
benefits exceed its costs).
To develop the above estimate of the
number of truck- and bus-related
crashes that must be avoided each year
for the rule to be cost beneficial, the
researchers used crash cost estimates
from a recent study by Zaloshnja, et al.,
which estimated the average cost of a
crash involving a large truck (i.e., those
> 10,000 lbs GVW) at almost $80,000 (in
2001 dollars). Dividing the annual costs
of the rule ($22.7 million to $25.1
million) by this average cost per truckrelated crash ($80,000) allows us to
arrive at the cost-beneficial threshold of
285–315 annual crashes. This range
(285–315 avoided crashes) represents
less than seven one-hundredths of one
percent (or 0.07 percent) of the total
average number of truck-related crashes
annually (estimated at 445,000 using
1999–2000 data). This 0.07-percent
reduction is obviously much smaller
than the size of crash reductions
experienced in studies cited earlier in
this NPRM, where case studies revealed
crash reductions of 2 and 40 percent
from implementation of new driver
training programs and is also well below
the 15-percent reduction in crashes used
in the regulatory evaluation prepared in
1995 for the ANPRM (which involved a
more comprehensive training program
than proposed here). Therefore, we
believe the rule would be cost-beneficial
upon implementation.
A complete copy of the preliminary
regulatory evaluation is in the public

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48871

docket described above under
ADDRESSES.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the
agency has evaluated the effects of this
rulemaking on small entities. In
addition, DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations
(or proposals) on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen
any adverse effects on these businesses.
The Interim Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis must cover the following
topics.
(1) A description of the reasons why
the action by the agency is being
considered.
(2) A succinct statement of the
objectives of, and legal basis for, the
proposed rule.
(3) A description, and where feasible,
an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the proposed rule
would apply.
(4) A description of the projected
reporting, record-keeping, and other
compliance requirements of the
proposed rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities that will be
subject to the requirement and the types
of professional skills necessary for
preparation of the report or record.
(5) An identification, to the extent
practicable, of all relevant federal rules
that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule.
Reason the Action Is Being Considered
This action is required by
Congressional direction. Specifically,
section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
directed the Secretary of Transportation
to promulgate regulations requiring
training for entry-level heavy truck,
school bus, and motorcoach drivers.
Objective and Legal Basis for This
Action
The objective for this action is to
reduce the number of crashes caused by
entry-level drivers of heavy trucks,
school buses, and motorcoaches.
Congress was specifically concerned
about the number of heavy truck crashes
caused by inadequate driver training,
and believes that better training will
reduce these types of crashes. As noted
above, the legal basis for this rule is
section 4007 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991.
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Action Would Apply
This action would apply to all small
entities regulated by the FMCSA. The
FMCSA is currently conducting

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

48872

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

research to specify the size of the small
motor carrier population. Presently we
consider motor carriers with 6 or fewer
drivers to be small entities. Using this
number of drivers as a proxy for size,
the majority of carriers can reasonably
be described as small. As of April of
2002, there were 610,000 motor carriers
on the FMCSA’s Motor Carrier
Management Information System
(MCMIS) census file. Among the
500,000 of these motor carriers for
which the agency has driver data,
435,000 (87 percent) have 6 or fewer
drivers. Assuming that 87 percent of the
110,000 motor carriers with no driver
information are also small, the total
number of motor carriers with six or
fewer drivers would exceed half a
million.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the
Proposed Rule
This action would impose a very
modest burden on small entities, since
it largely proscribes the actions of
drivers rather than motor carriers.
Nonetheless, this action does impose
some reporting and recordkeeping
requirements on motor carriers. The
primary motor carrier requirement
would be to verify drivers’ eligibility
before allowing them to operate a CMV.
In addition, motor carriers must
maintain a copy of the required driver’s
training certificate in each personnel
file. Motor carriers are currently
required to maintain a driver
qualification file for each driver, as
outlined in Part 391 of the FMCSRs. No
special skill is required to verify
eligibility to operate a CMV or to place
a driver’s training certificate in a
personnel file.
Duplicative, Overlapping, or Conflicting
Federal Rules
The FMCSA is not aware of any other
rules that duplicate State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or
overlap, or conflict with the proposed
action.
Accordingly, the FMCSA hereby
certifies that the proposed action
discussed in this document will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (the Act) requires each agency
to assess the effects of its regulatory
actions on State, local, tribal
governments, and the private sector.
This proposed rule does not impose an
unfunded Federal mandate resulting in
the expenditure by State, local, or tribal

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector, of $100 million, adjusted
for inflation, or more in any one year.
(2 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.).
Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in
accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order
13132. It has been determined that this
rulemaking does not have a substantial
direct effect on States, nor would it limit
the policy-making discretion of the
States. Nothing in this document
preempts any State law or regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for each collection of
information they conduct, sponsor, or
require through regulations. An analysis
of this proposal was made by the
FMCSA, and it has been determined
that the final rule, when promulgated,
would create a new collection of
information requiring OMB’s approval.
This PRA section addresses the
information collection burden for
activities associated with training
certification forms and grandfathering
eligible drivers.
The FMCSA estimates that operators
of heavy trucks, operators of motor
coaches, and operators of school buses
will require additional training due to
requirements contained in this proposed
rule. The agency further estimates
58,600 new drivers will be needed
annually in the heavy truck industry,
2,100 new drivers in the motor coach
industry, and 17,800 new drivers in the
school bus industry. However, it is
estimated that for the heavy truck
industry 30 percent of the entry level
drivers already receive training through
an accredited program and will not
require additional training. The
remaining 70 percent, or 41,020 drivers,
would require additional training.
There would be an annual burden to
the motor carrier or other training entity
to complete, photocopy, and file the
certification form. FMCSA estimates
this will take 10 minutes, resulting in an
additional annual burden of 10,153
hours [60,920 (41,020 + 2,100 + 17,800)
drivers × 10 minutes per motor carrier/
training entity, divided by 60 minutes =
10,153].
For the first year after the rule
becomes effective, there would also be
burdens associated with the estimated
121,840 drivers currently employed
with less than 2 years experience who
have not already received accredited
training [41,020 (heavy truck) + 2,100

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

(motor coach) + 17,800 (school bus) =
60,920 × 2 years = 121,840 drivers].
Based on eligibility criteria previously
described in this proposed rule, the
FMCSA estimates that 75 percent of
these 121,840 drivers would be eligible
to be grandfathered and 25 percent
would not be eligible.
Using these estimates, there would be
an additional 21,560 drivers in the
heavy truck and motor coach industries
[(41,020 × 2 = 82,040) + (2,100 × 2 =
4,200) = 86,240 × 25 percent = 21,560]
that would need additional training,
because they would be ineligible to be
grandfathered. Using the same
percentage as above (25 percent), the
school bus industry would have 8,900
drivers (17,800 × 2 years × 25 percent)
who would be ineligible for
grandfathering and would thus require
additional training. Each of these 30,460
(21,560 + 8,900) drivers would need to
be issued certificates following their
training. At 10 minutes per certificate,
that burden is estimated to be 5,077
hours (30,460 drivers × 10 minutes,
divided by 60 minutes).
For grandfathering the estimated
91,380 remaining drivers (75 percent of
121,840 drivers eligible for
grandfathering during the first year),
there would be a one-time burden, since
drivers could only be grandfathered
during the first year after the rule
becomes effective. There are two parts
to the burden for these 91,380 drivers:
(1) the burden for the driver to collect
and provide the information to the
motor carrier, and (2) the burden for the
motor carrier to review the documents,
complete, duplicate, and file the
certification form. FMCSA estimates
that it would take approximately 10
minutes for a driver to collect the
necessary information and provide the
document to the motor carrier, and 10
minutes for the motor carrier to review
the information, complete the
certification, and duplicate and file the
document. Therefore, the one time
burden associated with grandfathering
the 91,380 drivers would be 30,460
hours [(91,380 × 10 minutes per driver
/ 60 minutes = 15,230) + (91,380 × 10
minutes per motor carrier / 60 minutes
= 15,230) = 30,460]. This 30,460-hour
estimate represents the first-year only
burden associated with certifying
drivers who are grandfathered.
Accordingly, the burden associated
with the 121,840 current drivers is
35,537 burden hours [5,077 hours (for
current entry level drivers not eligible
for grandfathering) + 30,460 hours (for
certifying drivers who are eligible to be
grandfathered)].
Thus, the total first-year burden is
estimated to be 45,690 hours [10,153

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
(annual burden) + 35,537 (first year
burden of 5,077 + 30,460)].

Burden
Hours

Activity
Annual Certification form for
new entry level drivers ..........
Certification form for drivers not
eligible to be grandfathered
(following training) (first year
only) ......................................
Grandfathering certificate for
those eligible (first year only)
Total ...................................

10,153

no disproportionate impact on minority
or low-income populations. This is
based on the finding that low-income
and minority populations are generally
underrepresented in the trucking
occupation.
Executive Order 13045 (Protection of
Children)

Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (April 23, 1997,
5,077
62 FR 19885), requires that agencies
30,460 issuing ‘‘economically significant’’ rules
45,690 that also concern an environmental
health or safety risk, or that an agency
The information collection burden for has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, must
subsequent years would drop to 10,153
include an evaluation of these effects on
hours [45,690 ¥35,537 (first year only
children. Section 5 of Executive Order
burden hours)].
Interested parties are invited to send
13045 directs an agency to submit for a
comments regarding any aspect of these ‘‘covered regulatory action’’ an
information collection requirements,
evaluation of its environmental health
including, but not limited to: (1)
or safety effects on children.
Whether the collection of information is
The agency evaluated the possible
necessary for the performance of the
effects of the proposed action and
functions of the FMCSA, including
determined that they would not create
whether the information has practical
disproportionate environmental health
utility, (2) the accuracy of the estimated risks or safety risks to children.
burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the collected
Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
information, and (4) ways to minimize
Reform)
the collection burden without reducing
This action meets applicable
the quality of the information collected.
standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of
You may submit comments on this
Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice
information collection burden directly
Reform, to minimize litigation,
to OMB. The OMB must receive your
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce
comments by October 14, 2003. You
burden.
must mail or hand deliver your
comments to: Attention: Desk Officer for
Executive Order 12630 (Taking of
the Department of Transportation,
Private Property)
Docket Library, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
This rule will not effect a taking of
Management and Budget, Room 10102,
private property or otherwise have
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
taking implications under E. O. 12630,
20503.
Governmental Actions and Interference
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.
to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income
Executive Order 12372
Populations)
(Intergovernmental Review)
The agency evaluated the
Catalog of Federal Domestic
environmental effects of the proposed
Assistance Program Number of 20.217,
action and alternatives in accordance
Motor Carrier Safety. The regulations
with Executive Order 12898 and
implementing Executive Order 12372
determined that there were no
regarding intergovernmental
environmental justice issues associated
consultation on Federal programs and
with this proposed rule. Environmental
activities do not apply to this program.
justice issues would be raised if there
were a ‘‘disproportionate’’ and ‘‘high
National Environmental Policy Act
and adverse impact’’ on minority or
low-income populations. The agency
The agency has analyzed this
determined that there were no high and rulemaking for the purpose of the
adverse impacts associated with the
National Environmental Policy Act of
proposal. In addition, the agency
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has
analyzed the demographic makeup of
determined that this action would not
the trucking industry, potentially
have an adverse effect on the quality of
affected, and determined that there was
the environment.

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48873

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380
Driver Training, instructor
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the
FMCSA hereby proposes to amend title
49, Code of Federal Regulations, chapter
III, subchapter B, part 380 as set forth
below:
1. The authority citation for this part
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31307, and
31502; and Sec. 4007(b) of Pub. L. 102–240
(105 Stat. 2152); and 49 CFR 1.73.

2. Part 380 is revised by adding a new
subpart E to read as follows.
PART 380—SPECIAL TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS
Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements
Sec.
380.501 Applicability.
380.502 Definitions.
380.503 Entry-level driver training
requirements.
380.505 Substitute for driver training.
380.507 Proof of training.
380.509 Driver responsibilities.
380.511 Employer responsibilities.
380.513 Employer recordkeeping
responsibilities.
380.515 Required information on the
training certificate.

Subpart E—Entry-Level Driver Training
Requirements
§ 380.501

Applicability.

All entry-level drivers who drive in
interstate commerce and are subject to
the CDL requirements of part 383 of this
subchapter must comply with the rules
of this subpart, except drivers who are
subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal
Transit Administration.
§ 380.502

Definitions.

(a) The definitions in part 383 of this
subchapter apply to this part, except
where otherwise specifically noted.
(b) As used in this subpart:
Entry-level driver is a driver with less
than 2 years experience operating a
CMV with a CDL.
Entry-level driver training is training
the CDL driver receives in driver
qualification requirements, hours of
service of drivers, driver wellness, and
whistle blower protection as appropriate
to the entry-level driver’s current
position in addition to passing the CDL
test.
§ 380.503 Entry-level driver training
requirements.

Entry-level driver training must
include instruction addressing the
following four areas:
(1) Driver qualification requirements:
The federal rules on medical

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules

(a) Grandfather clause. The driver
training requirements specified in
subpart E of this part do not apply to an
individual who meets the conditions set
forth in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of
this section. A motor carrier must

ensure that an individual claiming
eligibility to operate a CMV on the basis
of this section meets these conditions
before allowing him/her to operate a
CMV.
(b) An individual must certify that,
during the 1-year period immediately
preceding the date of application for a
Certificate of Grandfathering, he/she
had:
(1) A valid CDL;
(2) No more than one driver’s license;
(3) No suspension, revocation, or
cancellation of his/her CDL;
(4) No convictions for a major offense
while operating a CMV as defined in
§ 383.51(b) of this subchapter;
(5) No convictions for a railroadhighway grade crossing offense while
operating a CMV as stated in § 383.51(d)
of this subchapter;
(6) No convictions for violating an
out-of-service order as defined in
§ 383.51(e) of this subchapter;
(7) No more than one conviction for
a serious traffic violation, as defined in
§ 383.5 of this subchapter, while
operating a CMV;

(8) No convictions for a violation of
State or local law relating to motor
vehicle traffic control arising in
connection with any traffic accident
while operating a CMV; and
(9) No accident in which he/she was
found to be at fault, while operating a
CMV.
(c) An individual must certify and
provide evidence that he/she:
(1) Is regularly employed in a job
requiring the operation of a CMV that
requires a CDL; and
(2) Has operated a CMV for at least 1
year immediately preceding the date of
application for a Certificate of
Grandfathering.
(d) An employer must issue a
Certificate of Grandfathering, which is
substantially in accordance with the
form below, to an individual that meets
the requirements of this section and
maintain a copy of the certificate in his/
her personnel file.
(e) The grandfather provisions of this
section are available to eligible drivers
for a limited period of one year after
[The effective date of the final rule.].

§ 380.507

§ 380.509

required training on or after [Insert the
effective date of the final rule].
(b) Employers must ensure that entrylevel drivers, who do not qualify for
grandfathering, receive the required
training no later than 90 days after [The
effective date of the final rule].
(c) The employer must place evidence
of training completion or a Certificate of
Grandfathering, as appropriate, in the
driver’s qualification file.

certification, medical examination
procedures (49 CFR part 391, subparts B
and E), and drug and alcohol testing (49
CFR part 382).
(2) Hours of service of drivers: The
limitations on driving hours and the
requirement to be off-duty for certain
periods of time (49 CFR part 395).
(3) Driver wellness: Basic health
maintenance including diet and
exercise. The importance of avoiding
alcohol and drug abuse. Fatigue
countermeasures as a means to avoid
accidents.
(4) Whistleblower protection: The
right of an employee to question the
safety practices of an employer without
the employee’s risk of losing a job or
being subject to reprisals simply for
stating a safety concern (29 CFR part
1978).
§ 380.505

Substitute for Driver Training.

Proof of training.

(a) An entry-level driver who receives
the required training must receive an
original training certificate containing
all the information contained in
§ 380.515 from the training provider.
(b) The entry-level driver must also
receive a copy of the training certificate
if the training provider is not the
driver’s employer or potential employer.

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

Driver responsibilities.

The driver must present a training
certificate, containing the information
specified in § 380.515, to the employer
or potential employee that the driver
received training as specified in
§ 380.503, if the employer or potential
employer is not the training provider.
§ 380.511

Employer responsibilities.

(a) Employers must ensure that all
new entry-level drivers receive the

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1

EP15AU03.069

48874

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 158 / Friday, August 15, 2003 / Proposed Rules
§ 380.513 Employer recordkeeping
responsibilities.

The employer must keep the records
specified in § 380.511 for as long as the
driver is employed by the employer and
for three years thereafter.
§ 380.515 Required information on the
training certificate.

(a) The training provider must
provide a training certificate to the
entry-level driver, which contains the
following six items of information.
(1) Name of training institution;
(2) Mailing address of training
institution;
(3) Name of driver;
(4) A statement that the driver has
completed driver qualification

VerDate jul<14>2003

16:00 Aug 14, 2003

Jkt 200001

requirements, hours of service of
drivers, driver wellness, and whistle
blower protection;
(5) The printed name of the person
attesting that the driver has received the
required training.
(6) The signature of the person
attesting that the driver has received the
required training.
(b) The training provider must issue a
Driver Training Certificate that is
substantially in accordance with the
following form.
(1) Driver-Certification
I certify that llllllll has
completed training requirements set
forth in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (49 CFR 380.503) for entrylevel driver training.

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

48875

lllllllllllllllllll
Full name of training entity
lllllllllllllllllll
Business address (Street Address, City,
State and Zip code)
lllllllllllllllllll
Telephone number:
lllllllllllllllllll
Name of training certifying official
lllllllllllllllllll
Signature of training certifying official
Issued on: August 12, 2003.
Warren E. Hoemann,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03–20888 Filed 8–14–03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

E:\FR\FM\15AUP1.SGM

15AUP1