**FMSCA 2008 Proposed Ruling**

I would like to comment on the need for the proposed regulation. I
believe this proposed rule is excessive and selective toward what the
Advocates believe to be the biggest reason for the unsafe roads: the
entry-level CMV operators. I believe if passed, the regulation would put
the nation's entire transportation industry in such a strangle hold that
DOT/ FMCSA would eventually have to amend and/or rescind the regulation.
However, I do believe that some portions of the proposed regulations do
have merit and should be adopted as Administrator John H. Hill
states,"...to enhance the safety of CMV operations on our Nation's
highways." 

First, I would like to briefly disclose my history, which will give
credence to my forthcoming comments. My driving experience started in
1983 with straight trucks which by today's standards would require a
CDL-B. In 1993, I upgraded to a CDL-A. I then drove local, regional and
OTR until 2001, when I entered into a truck driver training career with
a training school.  I then became a Third Party Examiner for the State
of Michigan . I've tested over 3000 applicants, both public (not
formally trained) and entry-level students (formally trained). I've
earned a position as Director of Training with one the nation's largest
truck driver training schools and exceeded the Master Level of the
Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA) Instructor Certification
Program. This is the start of my 8^th^ year in the truck driver training
industry.

**MANDATORY TRAINING HOURS**   

I am in agreement that formal training is better overall than individual
learning. Far more information and knowledge can be successfully
communicated and retained during a formal training atmosphere.
Educational history has revealed this fact. Making the training hours
mandatory will not make the highways safer. In my experience, students
from all walks of life learn differently, [regardless]{.underline} of
the number of training hours they receive. For example, a rural farm
worker will typically grasp the concept and understand the handling of a
tractor trailer. They typically handle the vehicle very well in a very
short amount of time behind-the-wheel (BTW), but they generally have
difficulty understanding logs, hours of service, pre-trip inspections,
and classroom activities.

Conversely, a laid-off computer programmer will excel in the classroom
and lab situations and then must spend more time behind--the-wheel (on
the road) to achieve the same level of proficiency that his classmate
reached in a fraction of the time. Both students will require a
different number of hours of training in a particular skill to achieve a
performance standard. Under the proposed rule, all training facilities
will disservice their customers with mandated minimum training hours. At
the end of the proposed curriculum, the student will have performance
standards to achieve regardless of the number hours they have completed.
I believe minimum training hours [should not]{.underline} be specific to
any one skill. Training hours should be divided up with regards to the
interest, needs, and abilities of each student.

I also believe that observation time should be contributed to BTW
training time and/or total training hours. I consider the student driver
seat a very hostile learning environment. A road instructor must produce
an atmosphere where learning will occur. With student drivers, this
usually does not happen at the controls of the vehicle. The typical
student is generally overwhelmed the first few times he/she travels on
public roadways. They do not retain or sometimes even hear instructions
and information given to them, however, the observing students have been
listening, watching and retaining information without the stress of
controlling the vehicle. Typically, if I took four average students out
on the road for instruction, the fourth student generally would perform
best overall.  

**CURRICULUM CONTENT**

I believe the entry-level proposed curriculum is a bit excessive. The
proposed required minimum program of instruction seems to generally
mirror the topics in the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) CDL Driver's Manual. The notable difference would
seem to be the "random" minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel
training that an entry-level driver should receive. To mandate
additional knowledge and skills for the entry level drivers will not
make the highways safer. I don't believe any one training facility is
capable of conducting BTW training to cover most of the driving
conditions or situations that an entry level driver will encounter
during interstate travel. This type of training could only be continued
and accomplished on-the-job. This is why I strongly believe that most,
if not all training schools, train with the CDL skills test as a
performance standard. I don't see much variance between the proposed
minimum program of instruction and AAMVAs copyrighted CDL Driver Manual.

Perhaps, after receiving a CDL, a mandated apprenticeship with an
interstate motor carrier might be the answer.   

**PREFORMANCE BASED TESTING** 

The Center on Education and Training for Employment, Ohio State
University , (module 104-D) states... "One of the most useful methods
for determining the level of students' skills is by giving a performance
test". If you want certain criteria to be achieved for entry-level
drivers, these maneuvers must be preformed during your final test (i.e.
CDL skills exam). They must be part of the exam to confirm that
proficient skills have been achieved. The proposed required minimum
program of instruction (for example, emergency maneuvers, skid control
and recovery, extreme driving conditions and night driving etc.) must
all be on the actual final State CDL Skills test. I'm sure most would
agree this is not realistic or safe. Presently, there [are]{.underline}
performance standards for entry-level drivers nationwide. AAMVA does a
wonderful job. If the advocates and petitioners believe that the
entry-level driver should have more knowledge and skills to "... make
the roads safer for all.", then the performance standards must be raised
to a higher level.   

**NO RELATIONSHIP OF TRAINING TO CRASHES**  

FMCSA has noted the lack of research findings indicating a relationship
between standardized driver training and increased safety. Specifically,
The Adequacy Report, The TRB's Synthesis 13, and The LTCCS all fail to
identify a statistically significant difference in crash frequency
between trained and untrained drivers. Additionally, over a 5-year
period, FMCSA attributes 97 of the 4,568 fatal crashes and 2,574 of the
121,473 non-fatal crashes to entry-level interstate drivers. If I
understand this correctly, the advocates and petitioners are focused
only on approximately 2 percent of the total number of drivers. Why only
2% of the drivers? Why not, 25, 50, 75, or even the other 98% of drivers
who additionally were involved in fatal and non-fatal crashes?

Through my years of driving and training experience, I agree with FMCSA
in stating, entry-level drivers are more likely to be involved in
crashes than experienced drivers. I strongly believe that safe driving
is [not]{.underline} a skill. It is a behavior that becomes a habit
behind the wheel of your vehicle. Be it, an automobile or a CMV. The
safe driver will acknowledge their lack of skill and therefore not take
a risk. 

An "experienced and skilled" driver will, drive too fast for conditions,
follow to close, use drugs and still attempt to perform his/her safety
sensitive job function, etc. (according to the LTCCS, these are the top
findings in the majority of fatal and non-fatal crashes.) The
[non]{.underline}-entry level driver feels that he/she has the
experience and skill to be more of a risk taker. It's the attitude and
behavior behind the wheel that causes accidents

**DC CIRCUIT DECISION**

Although FMCSA is not seeking comments on the courts decision, I would
like to comment on what I feel is the true motivator for the proposed
ruling. The advocates and petitioners seem to be focused on the Adequacy
Reports' conclusion that, "...effective entry-level driver training
needs to include behind-the-wheel instruction on how to operate a heavy
vehicle." They place little or no value on the Adequacy Reports'
literature review from the FHWA who found no statistically valid
relationship between specific types and amounts of training and crash
rates. As the old adage goes, people believe what they want to believe
and disregard the rest. Never the less, FMCSA will have to answer to the
court and petitioners. 

As I have mentioned earlier, I believe that many miles of driving
over-the-road (with the behavior and habit of safe driving) will lower
the crash rate. Driving around town, near the training facility, and on
the highways for 20, 40, 80, of even 100+ hours will not lower the crash
rate.

The NPRM states, "behind-the-wheel" training includes both training on
public roads and training on private property (sometimes called "driving
range" training). I then propose an amended entry to 49 CFR 380.503
Entry-level driver training requirements: (f) *Minimum hours BTW
training.* Instruction from a State regulated training institution, in
which an entry-level trainee receives at minimum 10 hours of
Behind-the-Wheel training.   

**CONCLUSION**        

I don't believe the proposed rule will be effective in making our
highways safer, nor give an entry-level driver the added skill to affect
a training to crash ratio. The rule will be a bottleneck to the
entry-level drivers entering the transportation industry, with a grave
economic effect. To recap:   

-   Proposed minimum training hours are excessive and will not achieve
    the desired goal.  

-   The curriculum content is basically in effect with the CDL knowledge
    and skills test. (AAMVA)

-   A performance test is the best way to find that proficient skills
    have been achieved.

-   There is no relationship of crash rate to training. Regardless of
    training, entry-level drivers are more likely to be involved in
    cashes then experienced drivers. 

-   The court decision to mandate entry-level training should be only to
    the limited request of the Court and the petitioners.  

Finally, (Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks) TACT is an excellent
program. All drivers take risks. The TACT program will be much more cost
effective and successful towards making our highways safer. A TACT
program in each state would nationally drop the fatal and non-fatal
crashes far more then the two percent focus on entry-level drivers.
Also, I believe continuing education, training and testing for knowledge
and skills throughout a CMV operators driving career should be mandated.

  David A Kwiatkowski