![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.404166666666667in"
height="1.6159722222222221in"}jjjjjjjjj

Before the

Department of Transportation

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Minimum Training Requirements

For Entry-Level Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators

Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748, RIN 2126-AB06

Comments of

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.

And

National Federation of Independent Business

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC), and National Federation
of Independent Business (NFIB) (hereafter "Associations") submit the
following comments in response to the above-referenced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the *Federal Register* of
December 26, 2007, 72 Fed. Reg. 73226.

Pursuant to the NPRM, FMCSA is proposing to revise the mandatory
training requirements for entry-level drivers of commercial motor
vehicles (CMVs) operated in interstate commerce. The proposed revisions
would, among other things, specify minimum classroom and
behind-the-wheel training that entry-level drivers would have to
complete. 72 Fed. Reg. at 73226.

Each of the Associations has members who operate vehicles in a private
carrier capacity and hire drivers that would be subject to the rule.
Each of the Associations also supports highway safety and supports
employee safety training in general. However, for the reasons discussed
below, the Associations individually and collectively submit that the
NPRM fails to demonstrate the need for this rule or that the rule would
be beneficial if adopted. The Associations therefore believe that
FMCSA's adoption of *any mandatory* driver training requirement at the
present time and/or in the future would be *premature, as well as
arbitrary,* without further and extensive substantive research and
economic and regulatory analyses. Accordingly, the Associations do not
support the proposed rule and urge that it be withdrawn by FMCSA.

**COMMENTS**

A. **[About the Affected Industry Associations]{.underline}: Associated
Builders and Contractors, Inc.** (ABC) is a national construction
industry trade association representing nearly 25,000 individual
employers in the commercial and industrial construction industry. ABC
represents both general contractors and subcontractors throughout the
United States. The majority of ABC's member companies are "merit shop"
companies and our diverse membership is bound by a shared commitment to
the construction industry's merit-shop philosophy. The merit-shop
philosophy is grounded on the principal of full and open competition
where construction contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder through open and competitive bidding and without regard to labor
affiliation. The merit-shop philosophy helps ensure that taxpayers and
consumers alike receive the most for their tax and construction dollar.

Conservatively, ABC's members employ more than 5.4 million skilled
construction workers, whose training, and skills and experience span all
of the twenty-plus skilled trades that comprise the construction
industry. The workforces of merit-shop companies comprise more than 80
percent of the private construction industry as a whole. ABC also has 78
chapters throughout the United States. Many ABC members regularly work
on federal contracts and others would like to do so. ABC therefore
represents a significant and representative cross-section of the
commercial and industrial construction industry contractors who will be
impacted by the proposed rule.

**National Federation of Independent Businesses** (NFIB) is the nation's
leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and
all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization, NFIB's mission is to promote and protect the right of its
members to own, operate and grow their businesses. The NFIB Small
Business Legal Center is the legal arm of NFIB. NFIB's membership
includes for-hire trucking firms, but also runs the gamut of other
industries, including many non-trucking businesses that may employ
drivers who would be affected by this rule. Examples of such businesses
include, but are not limited to, florists, tent and party rental
companies, lumber yards, auto dealerships, household furnishing stores,
manufacturers, wholesalers and grocery stores. 

B. **[There is no science to support the adoption of the proposed
rule]{.underline}**. The preamble to this NPRM asserts that the proposed
rule "is *based primarily* on 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1), requiring
regulations to ensure that CMVs are 'operated safely,' and secondarily
on section 31136(a)(2), to the extent that untrained entry-level drivers
might be given responsibilities that exceed their ability to operate
CMV's safely." 72 Fed. Reg. at 73227 (emphasis added). As explained
below, the Associations do not agree that section 31136 is the basis for
the proposed rule. However, even allowing that section 31136 may, in
fact, give FMCSA the *general authority* to promulgate an entry-level
driver training rule, FMCSA's singular reliance upon section 31136 for
this NPRM fails to provide FMCSA with the requisite legal basis upon
which the instant proposed rule's adoption (or any other training rule
at the present time) can pass legal scrutiny. Beyond the need for FMCSA
to have the *statutory authority* to adopt entry-level driver training
requirements, FMCSA must also have the *requisite scientific basis* for
the specific requirements it adopts; not merely an assertion of an
unsubstantiated belief that the proposed rule will be of benefit.[^1]
However, as the NPRM has expressly acknowledged, "the agency has noted
the lack of research findings indicating a relationship between
standardized driver training and increased safety." 72 Fed. Reg. at
73231.

The Associations contend that the *real predicate and impetus* for this
rulemaking is not 49 U.S.C. 31136, but rather section 4007 of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ISTEA[^2] and
the study's findings, "Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial Motor
Vehicle Driver Training," (Adequacy Report) conducted pursuant to
section 4007 that FMCSA published in 1995. In fact, this conclusion is
effectively confirmed at 72 Fed. Reg. 73240 of the NPRM, wherein FMCSA
cites solely to section 4007 and the Adequacy Study under its discussion
of the "Objective and Legal Basis for this Action."

Regardless of the basis for this rulemaking, however, what is relevant
here is that the NPRM concedes "the Adequacy Report, which included a
literature review, found no statistically valid relationship between
specific types and amounts of training and crash rates." 72 Fed. Reg.
73231. In fact, the Adequacy Report would hardly qualify as a scientific
study. To the contrary, according to the NPRM: "The Adequacy Report took
the *intuitive position* that entry-level driver training is beneficial.
However, it found "no evidence of a relationship between adequacy of the
training the driver reported receiving and his/her frequency of crashes
\[citation omitted\]." 72 Fed. Reg. at 73229. The NPRM went on further
to point out that the Adequacy Report "failed to identify studies or
data indicating a positive correlation between driver training and crash
reduction." *Id.*

However, the NPRM's concession as to the FMCSA's lack of science to
support this rulemaking does not end with the foregoing discussion of
the Adequacy Report's obvious inadequacy. There are number other
acknowledgments made throughout the preamble that similarly recognize
the lack of science to support this proposed rule. Page 73231 of the
*Federal Register* states, for example: "Currently, there are no data
available to permit comparison of CMV driver training to the subsequent
safety performance of the driver." Likewise, in discussing the TRB's
2007 published report on driver training, *"Synthesis on Effectiveness
Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Training Curicula and Delivery*" (TRB
Report), the NPRM admits: "Although the literature review produced
instances of driving improvement linked to specific training
interventions (e.g., simulators) there are no general data linking
decreased crash rates to formal training programs." 72 Fed. Reg. at
73230. It is noteworthy that the TRB Report post-dates the Adequacy
Report by more than ten years, yet insofar as relevant research goes,
nothing changed during the intervening years to fill in or otherwise
shore up the data and research that were lacking in the Adequacy Report.
Further, the NPRM also concedes that "\[i\]t would take years of
research, systems design, standards development and cost-benefit
analysis involving many stakeholders to fully address the shortcomings
identified in the TRB Synthesis 5 and 13 reports." *Id.*

Finally, it is clear that the impetus for the NPRM, whether in whole or
in part, is section 4007(a) of ISTEA and the findings of the Adequacy
Report that section 4007(a) triggered. However, the Adequacy Report's
findings and conclusions were based on the facts and factors that
existed in 1991. However, much has changed since then that the current
rulemaking has failed to recognize and take into account. For example,
at the time of the Adequacy Report, the implementation of the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1990 was just getting started and its impact
on the knowledge and driving skills of drivers entering the industry was
yet to be known. Likewise, the NPRM fails to take into account the
significant advancements that have been made in vehicle safety
technology since the Adequacy Report, such anti-lock braking systems.
**The NPRM also does not take into consideration that, according to
FMCSA's most recent data, the numbers of CMVs and miles driven, as well
as the total number of vehicles operating on the highways, have
significantly increased while the number of fatal crashes, and injuries
involving CMVs and also the fatality rate per million miles traveled
have decreased.** Therefore the NPRM's failure to consider whether the
Adequacy Report's findings and conclusions remain valid today in light
of these additional relevant facts and factors raises serious questions
about whether there truly is a need for the training being proposed and,
therefore, the efficacy of the proposed rule.

It is against the backdrop of these numerous FMCSA acknowledgements as
to the lack of scientific data and research that the NPRM finally
opines: "Given the lack of data that would indicate that the training
requirements in this proposed rule would result in a reduction of crash
rates, FMCSA solicits comments on the analytical basis and justification
for this proposed rule." 72 Fed. Reg. at 73231. The response to FMCSA's
inquiry should be obvious. Simply put, there is no analytical basis or
scientific justification for the proposed rule and the minimum amount of
classroom and behind-the-wheel training that it is proposing to mandate.
That is certainly the case at the current time, based on FMCSA's
admissions in the preamble, as well as for the foreseeable future. To
paraphrase FMCSA: "It will take years of research, systems design
standards development and cost-benefit analysis involving many
stakeholders" before FMCSA will be able to justify what it has proposed
in this NPRM. It is for these reasons that the Associations are opposed
to the proposed rule and it is for these reasons that FMCSA should
refrain from adopting the proposed rule or any other training rule that
is not supported by an appropriate level of research and data.[^3]

C. **[FMCSA's cost-benefit analysis is flawed and the projected cost of
the rulemaking grossly understated]{.underline}**.

1\. **[The NPRM's analysis of the proposed rule's benefits is irrepably
flawed]{.underline}**. If, as the NPRM expressly admits, FMCSA has no
data or research that can demonstrate "the training requirements in this
proposed rule would result in a reduction of crash rates," 72 Fed. Reg.
at 723, then any attempt to assert in the NPRM's cost-benefit analysis
that the proposed training requirements will, in fact, yield a tangible,
quantifiable benefit would be entirely specious on FMCSA's part. In
other words, if data does not exist to prove that a proposed action will
produce the intended outcome, then the data necessary to substantiate
and quantify the intended benefit of the proposed action would also not
exist. In fulfilling its duty to conduct a substantive cost-benefit
analysis for the proposed rule, the only calculation that FMCSA can
possibly make under such circumstances would be the calculation of the
proposed rule's *actual cost,* or at the very least, a realistic
*estimated cost.* Any quantified assertions as to the proposed rule's
benefit -- *i.e.,* that the proposed rule, if adopted, would save "x"
number of lives, or reduce crashes by "x" percent -- would be pure
speculation. Based on the published record, the only conclusion that can
reasonably be drawn from the NPRM regarding the proposed rule's costs
and benefits is that the proposed rule will impose quantifiably
significant costs, but will yield no quantifiable benefit from the
training the rule would require.

It appears that FMCSA understood this, and to its credit refrained from
asserting such a specious claim. However, the NPRM's benefits analysis
nonetheless applies an equally specious alternative method to quantify
the proposed rule's benefits, by asserting that the rule's costs will be
offset *if* there are at least 19.1 fewer fatal crashes and 507.2 fewer
non-fatal crashes. 72 Fed. Reg. at 73239. Under this calculation
methodology, the need for supporting data would never be necessary, as
the cost of virtually any proposed rule could easily be offset rendering
the cost-benefit analysis essentially meaningless. The Associations
submit that calculating benefits on this basis is wholly without merit
and logic, and falls far short of the scope and substance of analysis
that FMCSA is required to make. This is especially so given the fact
that FMCSA concedes it currently has no (and has not proposed any)
statistically valid way upon which it could demonstrate that such
reductions in fatal and non-fatal crashes could be correlated to the
training required by this proposed rule. To underscore this last point,
the NPRM notes that FMCSA's most recent and comprehensive analysis of
truck crashes, the *Large Truck Causation Study*, "was inconclusive \[on
the causal connection between training and crashes\] and did not
identify any statistically significant difference between trained and
untrained drivers with regard to crash frequency." 72 Fed. Reg. at
73231. In sum, the NPRM makes clear that the foregoing defects in
FMCSA's benefits analysis are irreparable.[^4]

2\. **[The NPRM's cost analysis failed to consider a number of important
factors and grossly understates the costs that this rule would
impose]{.underline}**. The deficiencies in the NPRM's cost-benefit
analysis are not limited solely to the benefits component, but extend
also to the cost side. Many of the fundamental premises upon which FMCSA
relies to calculate the proposed rule's cost are seriously flawed and
have caused the results of the cost calculation to be significantly
understated.

The NPRM asserts that the number of drivers who will be trained under
the rule will average 40,200 per year for the next ten years. 72 Fed.
Reg. at 73236 and 73237. The Associations believe FMCSA's estimate is
low, and that the actual number will be considerably higher. The
Associations believe this will be the case for several reasons.

First, FMCSA's reliance on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) published in
2004, 72 Fed. Reg. at 73237, was in error as the BLS published updated
projections in November 2007 using data from 2006 that project
entry-level driver needs will be greater than what had been projected by
the 2004 data.

Second, even though the Associations would agree with FMCSA's adjustment
of the 2004 BLS data "to reflect what may be an under-representation in
the BLS" data, 72 Fed. Reg. 73237, the 2004 data as adjusted and used in
the NPRM's cost-benefit analysis is still lower then would be the
projection if the 2006 data were instead used. However, even allowing
for the use of the 2006 BLS data, the NPRM's estimate would still be
below the number of entry-level drivers who will be needed in the
future. For many years trucking associations, including American
Trucking Associations (ATA) and Truckload Carriers Associations (TCA),
have reported that the industry's shortfall of new drivers has exceeded
80,000 annually. That number was in fact used by TCA in 2003 submitted
to Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12334 to describe the trucking industry's
ever-continuing driver shortage. However, the number represents the
industry's assessment of new driver needs as of 2003, not as of 2008 and
beyond.

Further, even if it is assumed, *arguendo,* that FMCSA's use of the 2006
BLS data as adjusted by FMCSA is appropriate for the NPRM's analysis,
the Associations contend that FMCSA's calculation of the number of
drivers who would be affected by the rule would still be highly
questionable, as it is not clear from the BLS data whether the BLS
numbers cited for "truck drivers, heavy and tractor trailer" include or
exclude drivers who operate such vehicles incidental to their primary
job duties. In fact, even FMCSA has expressed its uncertainty over how
exactly the BLS numbers are broken down; see 72 Fed. Reg. at 73237 n. 14
in footnote 14.

The Associations contend that the BLS numbers *exclude* such incidental
driving from the specific occupational category (53-3032) that the NPRM
used, as the 53-3052 category appears to encompass solely those
occupations that would transportation exclusively or primarily, but not
incidentally. Consider, for example, an individual who works for an
asphalt paver and spends less than 5 percent of his annual work time
driving a medium-duty truck equipped with a trailer to transport the
equipment used to put down and roll the asphalt and 95 percent of his
time performing the paving work. Clearly that worker's driving is wholly
incidental to his principal job of asphalt paving. While it is clear
that the proposed rule intends that this particular individual in the
example -- an "incidental driver" -- would be subject to the rule if he
were an entry level driver, it is extremely unlikely that BLS would have
even been aware that the paving work performed by this individual would
have included incidental driving. More likely, BLS would have included
this worker under its transportation occupations category. As such, a
significant number of work positions that would be subject to the rule
have been excluded from BLS data upon which the NPRM has relied. While
the Associations acknowledge that FMCSA recognized that the BLS data
"may be an under-representation," 72 Fed. Reg. at 73237, the NPRM fails
to explain how FMCSA arrived at the factor of 1.51 that it used to
adjust the BLS data. The Associations submit that not only did the FMCSA
fail to take into account that incidental driving jobs would be subject
to the rule, but that FMCSA did not include incidental driving into its
calculation of the 1.51 adjustment factor.

The need for the inclusion of incidental driving in the NPRM's costing
analysis should be obvious, as it is critical to the analysis'
completeness and accuracy. Incidental driving is quite prevalent among
non-transportation businesses, including construction. Based on the
NRPM, the Associations believe that FMCSA did not include incidental
driving in its cost calculation and submit that the failure to do would
be arbitrary.

Further, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that FMCSA did include
incidental driving in it cost analysis -- at least for the purpose of
calculating the number of drivers who would be potentially affected by
the rule, *see* 72 Fed. Reg. at 73237 -- the Associations nonetheless
contend that appropriate consideration of the rule's cost for training
incidental drivers has not been given.

The need to include incidental driving in the cost analysis is
especially important in the rule's calculation of the hourly cost of
training, and the Associations contend that this was not done in the
NPRM. Indeed, the analysis of the hourly cost of the training is
extremely narrow. As discussed in the NPRM, 72 Fed. Reg. at 73238-73239,
FMCSA only took into account the actual cost to enroll in and take the
training (*i.e.,* the tuition), plus the drivers' lost opportunity cost,
consisting of wages and benefits compensation. Regardless of whether
this costing formulation may be the appropriate measure for calculating
the hourly cost of the training for the drivers who will go to work for
the for-hire trucking companies, *i.e.,* the ones included in the BLS
53-3052 category, it is not the appropriate measure in the case of
calculating the cost of training for incidental drivers. The NPRM has
expressly recognized that the effectiveness of the proposed training
will last for a finite amount of time, and provides two cost
calculations based on effectiveness last 2 and 3 years, respectively. 72
Fed. Reg. 73236-73237. Given this recognition of the finite limitation
of the proposed training's effectiveness, the Associations submit that
in calculating the cost of the training for incidental drivers, the
amount of time an incidental driver will drive during the period of
effectiveness must also be taken into consideration. The BLS 53-3052
category drivers are professional drivers and driving is either the sole
function they perform or it comprises the majority of their work time
and functions they perform for their employer (*e.g.,* 95 %, with
loading and unloading and other incidental functions comprising the
remaining 5%). In the case of incidental drivers, however, the ratio of
driving to their principal job functions is the opposite, as was
discussed in the example of the asphalt paver. Thus, from an opportunity
cost standpoint, the hourly cost of training an incidental driver would
be considerably higher than the hourly cost for the professional BLS
53-3052 category drivers.

An additional costing issue involving incidental driver that the NPRM
has clearly not considered is that, because incidental drivers are not
professional drivers, the BLS wage and fringe benefits rate data the
NPRM relies upon is not applicable. The wage and benefit rates that
incidental drivers are paid will be based upon their primary job
functions*, e.g.,* paver, carpenter, electrician, etc. Moreover, in the
case of construction projects covered either by the Davis-Bacon Act or
by a comparable state law, contractors must pay the "prevailing wage"
for that area. The NPRM fails to consider any of this and, as such, its
hourly cost of training calculations is flawed and unreliable.

A further defect of the NPRM is its failure to include intrastate
drivers in the cost calculations. While FMCSA may state that it is its
intent the proposed rule's "training requirements should focus on
entry-level drivers applying for a CDL who intend to operate in
interstate commerce," 72 Fed. Reg. at 73227, it is nonetheless
substantial error for such drivers to be excluded entirely from the
rule's cost analysis. FMCSA is well aware that its regulations are
customary adopted and applied to intrastate operations by the states as
a matter of regulatory intent and routine per force of the federal Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAPP). The Associations contend,
therefore, that the NPRM's exclusion of intrastate operations entirely
from the rule's analysis of costs is arbitrary and unjustifiable.

FMCSA's lack of data to support the efficacy of the rule also
contributes to another flaw in the cost analysis. The NPRM fails to take
into account the fact that the number of commercial motor vehicles and
non-commercial vehicles operating on the highways has been steadily
increasing, while the rate of fatal crashes involving trucks has been
declining. The Associations contend that because the *Large Truck
Causation Study*, "was inconclusive \[on the causal connection between
training and crashes\] and did not identify any statistically
significant difference between trained and untrained drivers with regard
to crash frequency," 72 Fed. Reg. at 73231, the cost of the rule in
relation to its benefit would again be significantly higher than the
NPRM purports.

D. **[FMCSA's conclusion that the rulemaking will not affect small
entities is erroneous]{.underline}**. The Associations believe that the
efforts to portray accurate costs associated with this rule fail to meet
the intent of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980[^5] and its
successor, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA).[^6] While the NPRM is partially correct in stating that the
primary impact of the rule would be on drivers, 72 Fed. Reg. 73240, it
would be incorrect for FMCSA to therefore conclude that, for purposes of
conducting the requisite regulatory flexibility analysis, to rule
impacts drivers *exclusively*. Neither is it correct to state that
"\[t\]his rulemaking *would not* directly affect \[*any*\] small
entities." 72 Fed. Reg. at 73240.

The NPRM's conclusion that only drivers and not entities are affected
would appear to be premised on two assumptions: (1) that only those
drivers who will be driving for a for-hire, over-the-road trucking
company, or a motorcoach operator, will be affected; and (2) that the
companies affected drivers will never bear any cost burdens for the
training that the rule would require. Both assumptions are wrong.

The Associations represent industries in which the mast majority of
companies are small businesses. Eighty percent of contractors in the
construction industry are designated "small businesses" by the Small
Business Administration, for example. *None* of the small businesses
represented by the Associations are for-hire trucking companies or
motorcoach operators. However, a significant number of the small
businesses represented by the Associations operate vehicles that qualify
as a commercial motor vehicle and hire entry-level drivers who would be
subject to the rule. Nonetheless, the NPRM's regulatory flexibility
analysis makes no mention of this, and certainly would not give anyone
reason to conclude that FMCSA considered such facts as part of its
analysis.

Furthermore, it would be wrong to say that no employer ever pays for the
training of their entry-level drivers. Not only is it a fact that many
do, but because of the increasing demand for drivers, it has almost
become a necessity. Many of the businesses represented by the
Associations operate on small to razor-thin net margins. According to
the *2007 Construction Industry Annual Financial Survey* published
annually by Construction Financial Management Association, the average
construction company's operating margin was only 2.7 percent. Thus the
cost of the proposed training could be quite significant for many of the
small business entities the Associations represent, especially when,
FMCSA conceded it cannot demonstrate that the training would yield any
safety benefit.

For the NPRM to altogether ignore these facts in its regulatory
flexibility analysis, while at the same time including driver wage
figures in the hourly cost of training, 72 Fed. Reg. 73238-73239, is not
only ironic, but also demonstrates the arbitrariness and inaccuracy of
the regulatory flexibility analysis' conclusion that "the proposed rule
would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities, as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration's Office
of Size Standards." 72 Fed. Reg. at 73240.

> SUMMARY

For foregoing reasons, the Associations believe that FMCSA's adoption of
*any mandatory* driver training requirements at the present time and/or
in the future would be *premature, as well as arbitrary,* without
further and extensive substantive research and economic and regulatory
analyses. The Associations do not support the proposed rule and urge
that it be withdrawn by FMCSA. The Associations further assert that, in
the event *any* research study is inserted into the docket that claims
to support the proposed rule, there should be a supplemental comment
period provided in order to give the public and opportunity to review
and comment upon that study.

Respectfully submitted,

![](media/image2.png){width="2.1256944444444446in"
height="0.7173611111111111in"}

Robert A. Hirsch

Director, Legal and Regulatory Affairs

Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc.

4250 North Fairfax Drive, 9^th^ Floor

Arlington, VA 22203

\(703\) 812-2039 (direct)

\(703\) 812-8202 (fax)

<hirsch@abc.org>

![](media/image3.png){width="2.5541666666666667in"
height="0.4361111111111111in"}

Karen R. Harned, Esq.\
Executive Director\
National Federation of Independent Business\
Small Business Legal Center\
1201 F Street, NW, Suite 200\
Washington, D.C.  20004\
(202) 314-2061 (direct)\
(202) 479-9059 (fax)\
<karen.harned@nfib.org>

[^1]: As the NPRM states at 72 Fed. Reg. 73230: "The FMCSA believes that
    the mandatory training proposed in this NPRM need not be delayed
    until further research is conducted, standards developed, etc. . . .
    In the meantime, FMCSA *believes* that the proposals in this NPRM
    would help entry-level CDL drivers operate more safely" (emphasis
    supplied).

[^2]: Sec. 4007. Training of Drivers; Longer Combination Vehicle
    Regulations, Studies and Testing.

    \(a\) Entry Level -

    \(1\) Study of Private Sector- Not later than 12 months after date
    of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to Congress
    on the effectiveness of the efforts of the private sector to ensure
    adequate training of entry level drivers of commercial motor
    vehicles. In preparing the report, the Secretary shall solicit the
    views of interested persons.

    \(2\) Rulemaking Proceeding- Not later than 12 months after the date
    of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall commence a
    rulemaking proceeding on the need to require training of all entry
    level drivers of commercial motor vehicles. Such rulemaking
    proceeding shall be completed not later than 24 months after the
    date of such enactment.

    \(3\) Follow-up Study- If the Secretary determines under the
    proceeding conducted under paragraph (2) that it is not in the
    public interest to issue a rule that requires training for all entry
    level drivers, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
    Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the

    Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of
    Representatives not later than 25 months after the date of the
    enactment of this Act a report on the reasons for such decision,
    together with the results of a cost benefit analysis which the
    Secretary shall conduct with respect to such proceeding.

[^3]: While it is highly unlikely that new data and research that
    purports to support FMCSA's adoption of the proposed rule exists and
    will be inserted into the NPRM's record -- none had been as of the
    date these comments were submitted to the docket -- the Associations
    submit it would be incumbent upon FMCSA to reopen the comment period
    in order to allow the Associations and others to review and comment
    upon that research, especially because FMCSA's cost-benefit analysis
    is based on the expressed lack of any such research data. The
    Associations therefore make that request for a supplemental comment
    period here in order to preserve their right and opportunity to make
    such a request later should it become necessary.

[^4]: A research study just published by the American Trucking Research
    Institute (ATRI) found no correlation between driver safety and the
    length of training. As such, the ATRI study's conclusion is entirely
    consistent with and gives further support for the NPRM's repeated
    acknowledgment that FMCSA has no data or research that would support
    or justify the training requirements being proposed. However, to the
    extent that some may argue that the ATRI study would justify a
    performance-based training requirement instead of the hours-based
    requirements proposed in the NPRM, the Associations submit that it
    would be injudicious as well as arbitrary on FMCSA's part of rely
    upon any single study that runs contra to the extensive research
    that, as the NPRM states, has failed to support FMCSA's adoption of
    this proposed rule or even a modified rule. As expressed in footnote
    3, there should at least be an opportunity for the public to review
    and comment upon such research under those circumstances.

[^5]: Pub. L. No. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§
    601-612.

[^6]: Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 864-67.