**COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 49 CFR 380, 383, & 383; TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ENTRY LEVEL CMV OPERATORS**

**9 MAY 2008**

**The below listed comments are compiled from various Driver Services
sections within the State of Wyoming.**

-   **380.603; Applicability**

\(c\) What is meant by "revoked?" Most States define 'revoked" but some
States do not. Those States that do define revoked may have different
definitions. This rule should define "revoked, as defined by the state
of issuance." States should not have to change their laws or rules &
regulations.

-   **380.605; Definitions**

\(b\) *Behind-the-wheel training:* this definition needs to be further
broken down into **"actual over the road driving"**and"skills training
driving in the back lot" somewhere. Most drivers we are now testing lack
adequate **"over the road driving"** experience. They are spending
nearly all of their time Behind the Wheel (BTW) in driving environments
other than "over the road."

(b)(2) *Training Institution:* This accreditation is okay; however, is
the USDOT going to make sure these schools are properly accredited and
investigate and suspend that accreditation when a State has numerous
complaints about a school and their qualification. The states do not
have either the manpower or the expertise to oversee these schools.

-   **380.609; Entry-level driver-instructor requirements**

(a)(3) & (b)(3) Wyoming does not have any State requirements for a
vocational instructor. Will there be Federal standards for vocational
instructors?

(b)(5) Two years is not enough experience. These instructors need to
have years of experience and not just in a class and type of vehicle;
but many different kinds of vehicles (tractor-trailers, LCV's,
automatics, stick shifts, multi-axle combinations, multi-experience with
different loads; i.e. tankers, hazmat, doubles, and driving conditions).

-   **380.11; Driver testing**

-   **Appendix B to Part 380-Enrty-level Driver Training Curriculum,
    Part I**

We would suggest that the rule differentiate BTW between "actual over
the road driving"and"skills training driving in the back lot." In some
schools, we feel that drivers are not getting enough "over the road"
experience. Many of these school trained drivers routinely fail a road
test because they can not shift, turn, maneuver, or safely operate a CMV
in various traffic conditions, weather, or road configurations.

-   **Appendix B to Part 380-Enrty-level Driver Training Curriculum,
    Part II**

"For Class C applicants ....must be conducted in a straight-truck having
a gross vehicle weight rating of at least 14,000 pounds."

What about those clients needing a class C, with H, N, P, or S
endorsements that never operate a vehicle of this size? We have local
UPS, FED-X and Home oxygen vehicles that are vans or pickups, but are
required to be placarded. A few school districts have small special
education or handicapped school busses that are also van or suburban
type vehicles and only require an S or P endorsement. These individuals
should not be required to "train" in a vehicle they will never drive.

-   **Part 383.153; Information on the document and application**

(a)(10)(i) & (ii) Wyoming and all States already have restriction codes
for these two restrictions. Don't require a code that forces a State to
change statues, rule & regulation or entail additional costs to change
computer systems and programming. We feel that as long as a state
explains their restriction on the document as currently done, there
should be no reason for the FMCSA to require states to revamp their
system. Why are we changing something for all states where apparently
only a few have some perceived problem.

-   **Summary**

This proposed rule is well intentioned. However, many of the public
truck driving schools that are currently operating are in desperate need
of some direction and controls. It is our belief that many have no
standard enforced curriculum. The key word in the preceding sentence is
enforced. Who is going to enforce these standards? State DMVs do not
have the manpower or expertise to oversee these schools. We feel that
many of these schools may simply teach whatever the instructor or school
administration feels is the most cost efficient.

Having been involved with CDL since 1989, I guess I must pose a
question. In our state we do not permit private sanctioned/accredited
schools to test their own students. Often the state administered test is
criticized by some schools for what they consider a high failure rate of
their approved curriculum students. I might note that the state
examiners administer the FMCSA approved skills testing program. If many
of these approved curriculum students are failing the minimum standards
CDL test after completing these approved programs, then is there a
problem with the referenced curriculum processes? By adopting these
proposed rules, are we about to require drivers to attend an approved
course where a graduate is not able to pass the minimum skills test
requirements established by FMCSA. I pose the question knowing that we
are not going to give a license unless they can pass the skills test,
but does this say something about the proposed process listed in these
proposed rules.

The point is that many of these schools need to be provided strict
guidelines for instruction and training that matches the CDL Skills
Testing programs developed and used by the States. They need to be
monitored for compliance and our question is, who is going to monitor
their compliance?

Is the FMCSA going to audit and review these new training programs? When
combining this proposed rule with the upcoming proposed rule requiring
states to accept out of state testing, it would appear that the ability
for a state to conduct audits will be taken out of the state's hands.
One could only assume that the FMCSA must assume this role. States would
have no mechanism or authority to review these out of state test and
training programs.

We are not implying that all truck driving schools are bad, but there
needs to be some type of structured oversight. It has been our
experience that some private driving schools, such as those being
conducted by trucking companies, are well run and produce students that
have little difficulty in passing State administered Skills Testing.
These companies have a vested interest in training good drivers and
insuring they are properly trained. They have structured curriculums and
instructors that are expected to put good drivers on the roads. They
know their jobs depend on it.

In closing, I would like to say that the idea of requiring formal
training is good. However, in reality we see no justification for a
mandatory school requirement. We have seen no data indicating that
drivers attending these schools are less likely to be involved in
accidents than those trained by experienced drivers. Many clients come
to us that are very qualified, and pass required skills testing without
any formal school instruction. They have learned on-the-job, from other
drivers, who are instructing these people in the real world of driving.
There is not a need to impose unrealistic costs on these people just to
meet some requirement of presenting a certificate of school completion.
These people learn how to drive while doing the job and in most cases
have more "over the road" time than someone that attended an accredited
school. I see this and the other proposed rule as as someone's idea as a
one size fits all solution. These proposed rules will be another
unnecessary burden on less populated states that have in the past had
the some of the best and most monitored programs.