30668 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

at the Department of Defense level and 

is responsible for acknowledging receipt 

or rejecting SSRs submitted under an 

individual subcontracting plan in eSRS 

for the Department of Defense. 

(b) Subcontracts awarded to qualified 

nonprofit agencies designated by the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (41 

U.S.C. 8502–8504), may be counted 

toward the Contractor’s small business 

subcontracting goal. 

* * * * * 

(f)(1) For DoD, the Contractor shall 

submit reports in eSRS as follows: 

(i) The Standard Form 294, 

Subcontracting Report for Individual 

Contracts, shall be submitted in 

accordance with the instructions on that 

form. 

(ii) Submit the consolidated SSR to 

the ‘‘Department of Defense.’’ 

(2) For DoD, the authority to 

acknowledge receipt of or reject SSRs 

submitted under an individual 

subcontracting plan in eSRS resides 

with the SSR Coordinator. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–14069 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 380 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0371] 

RIN 2126–AC05 

ELDT; Commercial Driver’s License 

Upgrade From Class B to Class A 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend 

the entry-level driver training (ELDT) 

regulations published on December 8, 

2016, titled ‘‘Minimum Training 

Requirements for Entry-Level 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Operators’’ 

by adopting a new Class A theory 

instruction upgrade curriculum to 

reduce the training time and costs 

incurred by Class B commercial driver’s 

license (CDL) holders upgrading to a 

Class A CDL. This NPRM does not 

propose any changes to behind-thewheel (BTW) training requirements set 

forth in the ELDT final rule. This 

proposal would be a deregulatory action 

as defined by Executive Order (E.O.) 

13771, ‘‘Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs.’’ The 

Agency believes that this modest change 

in the Class A theory training 

requirements for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL would 

maintain the same level of safety 

established by the ELDT final rule. 

DATES: Comments on this notice must be 

received on or before August 28, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Docket Number FMCSA– 

2017–0371 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

To avoid duplication, please use only 

one of these four methods. See the 

‘‘Public Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

instructions on submitting comments, 

including collection of information 

comments for the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier 

Operations (MC–PSD) Division, 

FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001, by 

telephone at 202–366–4325, or by email 

at MCPSD@dot.gov. If you have 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, contact Docket 

Services, telephone (202) 366–9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

is organized as follows: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

C. Privacy Act 

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

II. Executive Summary 

III. Abbreviations 

IV. Legal Basis 

V. Background 

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking 

VII. Section-by-Section 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) 

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) 

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property) 

K. Privacy 

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review) 

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth) 

O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments) 

P. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Technical Standards) 

Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 12898 

Environmental Justice) 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

A. Submitting Comments 

If you submit a comment, please 

include the docket number for this 

NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA–2017– 

0371), indicate the specific section of 

this document to which each section 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. You 

may submit your comments and 

material online or by fax, mail, or hand 

delivery, but please use only one of 

these means. FMCSA recommends that 

you include your name and a mailing 

address, an email address, or a phone 

number in the body of your document 

so that FMCSA can contact you if there 

are questions regarding your 

submission. 

To submit your comment online, go to 

www.regulations.gov, put the docket 

number, FMCSA–2017–0371, in the 

keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ When 

the new screen appears, click on the 

‘‘Comment Now!’’ button and type your 

comment into the text box on the 

following screen. Choose whether you 

are submitting your comment as an 

individual or on behalf of a third party 

and then submit. 

If you submit your comments by mail 

or hand delivery, submit them in an 

unbound format, no larger than 81⁄2 by 

11 inches, suitable for copying and 

electronic filing. If you submit 

comments by mail and would like to 

know that they reached the facility, 

please enclose a stamped, self-addressed 

postcard or envelope. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period and may change this 

proposed rule based on your comments. 

FMCSA may issue a final rule at any 

time after the close of the comment 

period. 

Confidential Business Information 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) is commercial or financial 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30669 

information that is customarily not 

made available to the general public by 

the submitter. Under the Freedom of 

Information Act, CBI is eligible for 

protection from public disclosure. If you 

have CBI that is relevant or responsive 

to this NPRM, it is important that you 

clearly designate the submitted 

comments as CBI. Accordingly, please 

mark each page of your submission as 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘CBI.’’ Submissions 

designated as CBI and meeting the 

definition noted above will not be 

placed in the public docket of this 

NPRM. Submissions containing CBI 

should be sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, 

Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, DC 20590. Any 

commentary that FMCSA receives that 

is not designated specifically as CBI will 

be placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. 

FMCSA will consider all comments 

and material received during the 

comment period. 

B. Viewing Comments and Documents 

To view comments, as well as any 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the 

docket number, FMCSA–2017–0371, in 

the keyword box, and click ‘‘Search.’’ 

Next, click the ‘‘Open Docket Folder’’ 

button and choose the document to 

review. If you do not have access to the 

internet, you may view the docket 

online by visiting the Docket 

Management Facility in Room W12–140 

on the ground floor of the DOT West 

Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

C. Privacy Act 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), 

DOT solicits comments from the public 

to better inform its rulemaking process. 

DOT posts these comments, without 

edit, including any personal information 

the commenter provides, to 

www.regulations.gov, as described in 

the system of records notice (DOT/ALL– 

14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at 

www.dot.gov/privacy. 

D. Waiver of Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

Under the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 

114–94), FMCSA is required to publish 

an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking (ANPRM) or conduct a 

negotiated rulemaking ‘‘if a proposed 

rule is likely to lead to the promulgation 

of a major rule’’ (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)). 

As this proposed rule is not likely to 

result in the promulgation of a major 

rule, the Agency is not required to issue 

an ANPRM or to proceed with a 

negotiated rulemaking. 

II. Executive Summary 

MAP–21 required the issuance of final 

regulations establishing minimum 

entry-level driver training requirements 

addressing the knowledge and skills 

necessary for the safe operation of a 

CMV that must be acquired before 

obtaining a CDL for the first time or 

upgrading from one class of CDL to 

another (49 U.S.C. 31305(c)(1)). On 

December 8, 2016 (81 FR 88732), 

FMCSA published a final rule 

establishing minimum ELDT 

requirements meeting the MAP–21 

mandate. Today, as part of the Agency’s 

ongoing effort to review existing 

regulations to evaluate their continued 

necessity and effectiveness, FMCSA 

proposes a new theory instruction 

upgrade curriculum for Class B CDL 

holders upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

The ELDT final rule required the same 

level of theory training for individuals 

obtaining a CDL for the first time as for 

those who already hold a Class B CDL 

and are upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

FMCSA now concludes that, because 

Class B CDL holders have prior training 

or experience in the CMV industry, they 

should not require the same level of 

theory training as individuals who have 

never held a CDL. Accordingly, the 

Agency proposes to add an optional 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum 

for Class B CDL holders upgrading to a 

Class A CDL, which removes eight 

instructional units involving ‘‘NonDriving Activities.’’ Such units would, 

however, remain required elements of 

the theory instruction standard 

curriculum for any individual obtaining 

a Class A CDL who does not already 

hold a Class B CDL. 

The proposed theory instruction 

upgrade curriculum for Class B CDL 

holders would not have a required 

minimum number of instruction hours, 

but the training provider would be 

required to cover all topics in the 

curriculum and driver-trainees would 

be required to receive an overall 

minimum score of 80 percent on the 

written theory assessment. This 

approach is consistent with the theory 

curricula requirements in the ELDT 

final rule. This NPRM does not propose 

any changes to BTW (range and public 

road) training requirements set forth in 

the ELDT final rule. All driver-trainees, 

including those who hold a Class B 

CDL, must demonstrate proficiency in 

all elements of the BTW curriculum in 

a Class A vehicle. 

Costs and Benefits 

The Agency estimates that an annual 

average of approximately 11,340 drivertrainees would be affected by the 

proposed rule, with each experiencing a 

reduction of 27 hours in time spent 

completing their theory instruction. 

This results in a substantial cost savings 

to these driver-trainees, as well as a cost 

savings to the motor carriers that 

employ these drivers. The proposed rule 

would not result in any increase in 

costs. As presented in Table 1, the 

Agency estimates that the proposed rule 

would result in a 10-year cost savings of 

$182 million on an undiscounted basis, 

$155 million discounted at 3%, $127 

million discounted at 7%, and $18 

million on an annualized basis at a 7% 

or a 3% discount rate, representing a 

decrease in cost or a cost savings. Most 

of this annualized cost savings ($17.10 

million) is realized by driver-trainees, 

with the remainder of the annualized 

cost savings ($1.04 million) realized by 

motor carriers. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE

[In millions of 2014$] 

Year 

Undiscounted Discounted 

Drivertrainee costs Motor 

carrier costs 

Total 

costs (a)

Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

2020 ..................................................................................... (b) ($16.7) ($1.0) ($17.8) ($17.2) ($16.6) 

2021 ..................................................................................... (16.8) (1.0) (17.8) (16.8) (15.6) 

2022 ..................................................................................... (16.9) (1.0) (17.9) (16.4) (14.6) 

2023 ..................................................................................... (17.0) (1.0) (18.0) (16.0) (13.8) 

2024 ..................................................................................... (17.1) (1.0) (18.1) (15.6) (12.9) 

2025 ..................................................................................... (17.2) (1.0) (18.2) (15.3) (12.2) 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30670 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE—Continued 

[In millions of 2014$] 

Year 

Undiscounted Discounted 

Drivertrainee costs Motor 

carrier costs 

Total 

costs (a)

Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

2026 ..................................................................................... (17.3) (1.0) (18.3) (14.9) (11.4) 

2027 ..................................................................................... (17.4) (1.1) (18.4) (14.5) (10.7) 

2028 ..................................................................................... (17.5) (1.1) (18.5) (14.2) (10.1) 

2029 ..................................................................................... (17.6) (1.1) (18.6) (13.9) (9.5) 

Total .............................................................................. (171) (10) (182) (155) (127) 

Annualized ........................................................................... ........................ ........................ (18) (18) (18) 

Notes: 

(a)Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding. (The totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of 

unrounded components.) 

(b)Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero) and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings. 

In the regulatory evaluation for the 

ELDT final rule, FMCSA estimated that 

not only would driver-trainees and 

motor carriers incur costs, but that 

training providers, SDLAs, and the 

Federal government would also incur 

costs as a result of the ELDT final rule. 

For this proposed rule, FMCSA does not 

anticipate any change in costs relative to 

the ELDT final rule for training 

providers, SDLAs, or the Federal 

government because the regulatory 

obligations of these entities, as set forth 

in the ELDT final rule, are not affected. 

The Agency anticipates that there 

would be no change in the benefits of 

the ELDT final rule as a result of the 

proposed rule. In the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the 

Agency estimated quantified benefits for 

three categories of non-safety benefits, 

including savings from reductions in 

fuel consumption, reductions in CO2

emissions related to those reductions in 

fuel consumption, and reductions in 

vehicle maintenance and repair costs. 

These estimated non-safety benefits 

were derived from the Speed 

Management and Space Management 

instructional units in the Class A theory 

instruction curriculum in the ELDT 

final rule. Because these two 

instructional units remain in the 

proposed theory instruction upgrade 

curriculum, the Agency does not 

anticipate any change in these nonsafety benefits from today’s proposed 

rule. 

The regulatory evaluation for the 

ELDT final rule addressed the potential 

safety benefits of ELDT. In considering 

the potential safety impacts from today’s 

proposed rule, the Agency notes that 

Class B CDL holders have prior training 

or experience in the CMV industry, 

which serves as an adequate substitute 

for the eight non-driving instructional 

units that would be removed from the 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum. 

Therefore, the Agency does not 

anticipate any change in potential safety 

benefits associated with the proposed 

rule. 

III. Abbreviations and Acronyms 

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

ATA American Trucking Associations 

BEA Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

BTW Behind the Wheel 

CDL Commercial Driver’s License 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CLP Commercial Learner’s Permit 

CMV Commercial Motor Vehicle 

CMVSA Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

ELDT Entry-Level Driver Training 

E.O. Executive Order 

FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Regulations 

FR Federal Register 

HM Hazardous Materials 

IT Information Technology 

MAP–21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OOS Out-of-Service 

PIA Privacy Impact Assessment 

PII Personally Identifiable Information 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

PTDI Professional Truck Driver Institute 

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis 

RIN Regulation Identifier Number 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SDLA State Driver Licensing Agency 

§ Section symbol 

TPR Training Provider Registry 

U.S.C. United States Code 

IV. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking 

As noted above, FMCSA’s publication 

of the final rule, ‘‘Minimum Training 

Requirements for Entry-Level 

Commercial Vehicle Operators’’ (81 FR 

88732 (Dec. 8, 2016)), satisfied the 

MAP–21 requirement that the Agency 

issue ELDT regulations. Today’s 

proposal to amend regulations 

established by that final rule is based on 

the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 

1935 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1984 

(the 1984 Act), both as amended, and 

the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 

Act of 1986 (CMVSA). 

The Motor Carrier Act of 1935, 

codified at 49 U.S.C. 31502(b), provides 

that ‘‘The Secretary of Transportation 

may prescribe requirements for—(1) 

qualifications and maximum hours of 

service of employees of, and safety of 

operation and equipment of, a motor 

carrier; and (2) qualifications and 

maximum hours of service of employees 

of, and standards of equipment of, a 

motor private carrier, when needed to 

promote safety of operation.’’ This 

NPRM addresses the qualifications of 

certain motor carrier employees, 

consistent with the safe operation of 

CMVs. 

The 1984 Act provides concurrent 

authority to regulate drivers, motor 

carriers, and vehicle equipment. Section 

211(b) of the 1984 Act (Pub. L. 98–554, 

98 Stat. 9851 (Oct. 30, 1984), codified at 

49 U.S.C. 31133(a)(10)), grants the 

Secretary of Transportation broad power 

in carrying out motor carrier safety 

statutes and regulations. The 1984 Act 

grants the Secretary broad authority to 

issue regulations ‘‘on commercial motor 

vehicle safety,’’ including to ensure that 

‘‘commercial motor vehicles are . . . 

operated safely.’’ 49 U.S.C. 31136(a)(1). 

The remaining statutory factors and 

requirements in section 31136(a), to the 

extent they are relevant, are also 

satisfied here. In accordance with 

section 31136(a)(2), the elimination of 

duplicative theory training would not 

impose any ‘‘responsibilities . . . on 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30671 

1The ELDT rule was initially effective on 

February 6, 2017. In accordance with the 

Presidential directive as expressed in the 

memorandum of January 20, 2017, from the 

Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,’’ the 

effective date was temporarily delayed three times 

by final rules published on February 1, 2017 (82 FR 

8903), March 21, 2017 (82 FR 14476), and May 23, 

2017 (82 FR 23516). 

2For a more extensive review of the legal and 

regulatory history of these efforts, see 81 FR 88732, 

88739–40 (December 8, 2016). 

3See Exec. Order No. 13777, § 1, 82 FR 12285 

(March 1, 2017) (‘‘It is the policy of the United 

States to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens 

placed on the American people’’); Exec. Order No. 

13610, 77 FR 28469 (May 14, 2012) (requiring 

agencies to conduct retrospective analyses of 

existing rules to determine whether they remain 

justified); Exec. Order No. 13563, § 6(b), 76 FR 

2831, (Jan. 21, 2011) (requiring agencies to submit 

a plan ‘‘under which the agency will periodically 

review its existing significant regulations to 

determine whether any such regulations should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as 

to make the agency’s regulatory program more 

effective or less burdensome in achieving the 

regulatory objectives’’); Exec. Order No. 12866, § 5, 

(Sept. 30, 1993) (requiring each agency to ‘‘review 

its existing significant regulations to determine 

whether any such regulations should be modified 

or eliminated so as to make the agency’s regulatory 

program more effective in achieving the regulatory 

objectives, less burdensome, or in greater alignment 

with the President’s priorities and the principles set 

forth in this Executive order’’). 

4As discussed subsequently the latter category 

would also include drivers who obtain a Class B 

CLP before the compliance date of the ELDT final 

rule and obtain the Class B CDL after the 

compliance date, but before the CLP or renewed 

CLP expires. See 49 CFR 380.603(c)(1). 

operators of commercial motor vehicles 

[that would] impair their ability to 

operate the vehicles safely.’’ This rule 

does not directly address medical 

standards for drivers (section 

31136(a)(3)) or possible physical effects 

caused by driving CMVs (section 

31136(a)(4)). However, to the extent that 

the various curricula in the 2016 final 

rule on ELDT address FMCSA’s medical 

requirements for CMV drivers, section 

31136(a)(3) was considered and 

addressed in that rulemaking. FMCSA 

does not anticipate that drivers will be 

coerced (section 31136(a)(5)) as a result 

of this rulemaking. However, we note 

that the theory training curricula for 

Class B CDLs, which drivers upgrading 

to Class A CDLs would continue to 

receive under today’s proposed rule, 

includes a unit addressing the right of 

an employee to question the safety 

practices of an employer without 

incurring the risk of losing a job or being 

subject to reprisal simply for stating a 

safety concern. Driver-trainees would 

also be instructed in procedures for 

reporting to FMCSA incidents of 

coercion from motor carriers, shippers, 

receivers, or transportation 

intermediaries. 

The CMVSA provides, among other 

things, that the Secretary shall prescribe 

regulations on minimum standards for 

testing and ensuring the fitness of an 

individual operating a CMV (49 U.S.C. 

31305(a)). This proposed amendment to 

the ELDT theory training curriculum for 

the Class A CDL addresses the fitness of 

specified individuals operating a CMV. 

Finally, the Administrator of FMCSA 

is delegated authority under 49 CFR 

1.87 to carry out the functions vested in 

the Secretary of Transportation by 49 

U.S.C. Chapters 311, 313, and 315 as 

they relate to commercial motor vehicle 

operators, programs and safety. 

V. Background 

On December 8, 2016, FMCSA 

published a final rule establishing 

minimum training standards for certain 

individuals applying for their CDL for 

the first time; an upgrade of their CDL 

(e.g., a Class B CDL holder upgrading to 

a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials 

(H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) 

endorsement for the first time. The final 

rule, which set forth ELDT requirements 

for BTW and theory (knowledge) 

instruction, fulfilled the Congressional 

mandate in § 32304 of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

Act (MAP–21) and was based in part on 

consensus recommendations from the 

Agency’s Entry-Level Driver Training 

Advisory Committee (ELDTAC). The 

ELDT final rule, effective on June 5, 

2017 1 (with a compliance date of 

February 7, 2020), is the culmination of 

previous efforts by FMCSA and its 

predecessor agency, the Federal 

Highway Administration, to address the 

issue of CMV driver training standards.2

The Department has longstanding 

processes, which provide that 

regulations and other agency actions are 

periodically reviewed and, if 

appropriate, are revised to ensure that 

they continue to meet the needs for 

which they were originally designed, 

and that they remain cost-effective and 

cost-justified.3 Consistent with these 

processes, the Agency proposes to revise 

the theory training requirements 

applicable to CMV drivers already 

holding a Class B CDL who wish to 

upgrade to a Class A CDL. The 

requirements pertaining to BTW (range 

and public road) instruction, as set forth 

in the ELDT final rule, would remain 

unchanged for all driver-trainees, 

including Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

VI. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The ELDT final rule required the same 

level of theory training for individuals 

obtaining a CDL for the first time as 

those who already hold a Class B CDL 

and are upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

FMCSA concludes that this approach 

imposes an unnecessary regulatory 

burden because, due to prior training or 

experience in the CMV industry, Class 

B CDL holders do not require the same 

level of theory training as individuals 

who have never held a CDL. 

Accordingly, the Agency proposes the 

following change: Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL would not 

be required to complete eight 

instructional units currently included in 

Section A.1.5, ‘‘Non-Driving Activities,’’ 

of the Theory Instruction portion of the 

Class A CDL Training Curriculum as set 

forth in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 380. 

The theory instructional units that, 

under this proposal, would no longer be 

required for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL are: 

Handling and Documenting Cargo, 

Environmental Compliance Issues, PostCrash Procedures, External 

Communications, Whistleblower/ 

Coercion, Trip Planning, Drugs/Alcohol, 

and Medical Requirements. These units 

would, however, remain required 

elements of the theory instruction 

standard curriculum for any individual 

obtaining a Class A CDL who does not 

already hold a Class B CDL. These units, 

which provide instruction in activities 

that do not involve actually operating a 

CMV, are identical, but for minor 

editorial differences in some of the topic 

descriptions, to the above-specified 

instructional units included in Section 

B.1.5, ‘‘Non-Driving Activities,’’ of the 

Theory Instruction portion of the Class 

B CDL Curriculum as set forth in 

Appendix B to 49 CFR part 380. 

Driver-trainees affected by this 

proposal fall into one of two categories: 

Those who obtain a Class B CDL in 

accordance with the training 

requirements set forth in the ELDT final 

rule (i.e., after the compliance date of 

February 7, 2020) and those who obtain 

a Class B CDL before the compliance 

date of the final rule and thus are not 

subject to the Class B CDL ELDT 

requirements.4

The first category, drivers who obtain 

a Class B CDL by completing ELDT 

training after February 7, 2020, will 

have already demonstrated proficiency 

in the eight non-driving theory topics, 

identified above, included in the 

Section B.1.5 of the Class B training 

curriculum, the content of which is 

virtually identical to the content of 

section A.1.5. Consequently, the Agency 

believes that requiring Class B CDL 

holders who are upgrading to Class A to 

be re-trained in those topics, which they 

have already mastered by successfully 

completing the Class B Theory 

Instruction, imposes an unnecessary 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30672 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

5 81 FR 88732, 88761 (Dec. 8, 2016). 

6U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA). ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation of Minimum 

Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Operators. Final Rule. Regulatory 

Impact Analysis. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. Unfunded Mandates Analysis.’’ (ELDT 

Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation). November 2016. 

Docket ID FMCSA–2007–27748. Page 8, Table 18 

page 59. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FMCSA-2007-27748-1291 (accessed 

October 27, 2017). 

7 In the ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation, 

FMCSA estimated that 85% of CMV drivers receive 

pre-CDL training that, at a minimum, would meet 

the requirements of the ELDT final rule. 

8The current training requirements identified 

subpart E of part 380 will be removed and replaced 

by new subparts F and G on the compliance date 

of the ELDT final rule. See 81 FR 88732, 88783. 

regulatory burden on those individuals. 

In the preamble to the ELDT final rule, 

FMCSA acknowledged that there is 

overlapping content in the Class A and 

Class B curricula. However, the Agency, 

while recognizing the value of some 

repetition to enforce key learning 

concepts, noted that certain 

instructional units, while topically the 

same, would be taught differently to 

reflect the different operating 

characteristics of the two underlying 

vehicle groups, combination vehicles 

(Group A, as defined in § 383.91(a)(1)) 

and heavy straight vehicles (Group B, as 

defined in § 383.91(a)(2)).5 Upon 

reconsideration, the Agency concludes 

that, because instruction in the ‘‘nondriving’’ theory topics identified above 

would not vary based on the underlying 

vehicle group, additional training in 

those topics is unnecessary. 

On the other hand, FMCSA believes 

that instruction in two ‘‘non-driving’’ 

theory topics—Hours of Service (HOS) 

Requirements and Fatigue and Wellness 

Awareness—will vary, to some extent, 

depending on the vehicle group. Class B 

CDL holders driving straight trucks may 

be more likely to drive CMVs for shorter 

distances, thereby spending less time at 

the driving controls, than drivers 

operating combination vehicles for 

which a Class A CDL is required. For 

example, drivers engaged in short-haul 

operations, as defined in 49 CFR 

395.1(e)(1), are permitted to record their 

hours-of-service using timecards in lieu 

of electronic logging devices or paper 

records of duty status, and thus may not 

use and retain HOS-related instruction 

they obtained when completing the 

Class B theory curriculum. Therefore, in 

light of the safety importance of 

compliance with HOS requirements, the 

Agency believes that Class B CDL 

holders upgrading to a Class A CDL will 

benefit from additional training in this 

essential theory topic. 

It is also true that some Class B CDL 

holders operating straight trucks for 

comparatively shorter distances than 

Class A CDL holders operating 

combination vehicles may not be as 

prone to fatigue and wellness concerns 

associated with long-haul driving. For 

example, the extensive time away from 

home experienced by many long-haul 

drivers may impact their ability to sleep 

well, exercise regularly, and eat healthy 

meals. In terms of alertness and fatigue 

management, the uninterrupted 

stretches of driving time experienced by 

some drivers of combination vehicles 

will likely present new challenges to 

some Class B CDL holders. Accordingly, 

the Agency believes that Class B CDL 

holders upgrading to Class A CDL 

would benefit from fatigue and wellness 

training focused specifically on the 

operation of Group A vehicles. 

FMCSA also believes that instruction 

will vary, depending on the underlying 

vehicle group, for the theory topics 

identified in Sections A.1.1 and B.1.1 

(Basic Operation), A.1.2 and B.1.2 (Safe 

Operating Procedures), A.1.3 and B.1.3 

(Advanced Operating Practices) and 

A.1.4 and B.1.4 (Vehicle Systems and 

Reporting Malfunctions)—all of which 

address, to varying degrees, operational 

characteristics of the two vehicle 

groups. FMCSA therefore proposes to 

retain those theory topics in the Theory 

Instruction Upgrade Curriculum. 

The second category of driver-trainees 

affected by this proposal are drivers 

who obtained their Class B CDL prior to 

the February 7, 2020, compliance date 

of the final rule (or who obtained a Class 

B CLP prior to the compliance date and 

obtained the Class B CDL after the 

compliance date, but before the CLP or 

renewed CLP expired in accordance 

with § 380.603(c)(1)). FMCSA presumes 

that these Class B holders seeking to 

upgrade to a Class A CDL would already 

have varying levels of CMV driving 

experience and pre-CDL training, and 

thus knowledge of the commercial 

motor carrier industry.6 7 Accordingly, 

FMCSA does not consider Class B CDL 

holders in this category to be novice 

CMV drivers. Additionally, many of 

these drivers would have received some 

degree of post-CDL ‘‘finishing’’ training 

provided by their employers. The 

Agency thus believes it is appropriate to 

permit Class B CDL holders who already 

possess some CMV training or 

experience to more efficiently obtain 

theory training by focusing specifically 

on the safe operation of combination 

vehicles requiring a Class A CDL. 

Further, drivers who obtain a Class B 

CDL prior to the compliance date of the 

ELDT final rule, but after July 20, 2003, 

will have received employer-provided 

training in driver qualification 

requirements, hours of service, driver 

wellness, and whistleblower protection 

in accordance with § 380.503.8 In 

addition, drivers who obtain a Class B 

CDL before the compliance date of the 

ELDT final rule will have received 

detailed information from employers 

concerning the drug and alcohol testing 

regulations in 49 CFR parts 40 and part 

382, as required by § 382.601. As 

explained above, FMCSA believes it is 

appropriate for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL to obtain 

additional theory training in HOS 

requirements and driver wellness. 

However, because the remaining three 

topics (i.e., driver qualifications, 

whistleblower protection, and drug and 

alcohol testing) in which Class B 

holders already received employerprovided training, are included in the 

‘‘non-driving’’ portion of the Class A 

theory curricula, it is unnecessary to 

require those Class B CDL holders to be 

retrained in those topics when 

upgrading to a Class A CDL. The theory 

instruction upgrade curriculum 

proposed in today’s rule would 

therefore be available for all Class B 

CDL holders seeking to upgrade to a 

Class A CDL (i.e., drivers who obtained 

the Class B CDL before or after the 

compliance date of the ELDT final rule). 

Under the proposed curriculum, these 

Class B CDL holders would be required 

to demonstrate proficiency, in 

accordance with § 380.715(a), in the 

Class A theory instruction units 

included in Sections A.1.1, A.1.2, A.1.3, 

A.1.4 and units A.1.5.3 and A.1.5.4 as 

set forth in Appendix A to 49 CFR part 

380. The Agency notes that the 

proposed upgrade curriculum is 

optional in the sense that Class B 

holders who wish to receive instruction 

in the ‘‘full’’ Class A Theory Instruction 

curriculum would be free to do so. 

FMCSA reiterates that the Class A 

BTW range and public road curriculum 

remains unchanged for all drivertrainees, including those who hold a 

Class B CDL. In the preamble to the final 

rule, FMCSA thoroughly explained the 

basis for the Agency’s adoption of a 

performance-based standard for BTW 

range and public road training curricula 

for Class A and Class B CDLs, in lieu of 

a required minimum number of BTW 

hours, as proposed. FMCSA noted its 

intent to evaluate data that will be 

submitted to the Training Provider 

Registry, which will assist FMCSA in 

assessing, over time, whether minimum 

BTW hours for entry-drivers correlate to 

safer driving outcomes. Shortly after 

publication of the final rule, several 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30673 

9https://www.regulations.gov/docket

Browser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=

0&dct=N%2BFR%2BPR%2BO&D=FMCSA-2007- 

27748. 

10 In accordance with § 380.707(a), training 

providers listed on the TPR would be required to 

verify that a driver-trainee wishing to take the 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum holds a valid 

Class B CDL. 

11U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA). ‘‘Regulatory Evaluation of Minimum 

Training Requirements for Entry-Level Commercial 

Motor Vehicle Operators. Final Rule. Regulatory 

Impact Analysis. Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Continued 

stakeholders submitted a petition for 

reconsideration of the performancebased approach to BTW training, urging 

the Agency to instead adopt the 

required minimum BTW hours 

approach as set forth in the NPRM. 

FMCSA denied the petition for reasons 

explained in our responses.9 In the 

Agency’s judgment, it is premature to 

revisit the issue of BTW training 

requirements until the post-rule 

quantitative data can be evaluated. 

The Agency believes that this modest 

change in the Class A theory training 

requirements for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL would 

maintain the same level of safety 

established in the ELDT final rule. 

FMCSA invites comments on this issue 

and welcomes the submission of 

qualitative or quantitative data 

addressing the safety impacts of this 

NPRM. The Agency also requests 

comment on whether additional Class A 

theory instructional units should be 

removed from the proposed upgrade 

theory curriculum applicable to Class B 

CDL holders. 

The purpose of this proposal is to 

address the narrow issue of theory 

training requirements for Class B CDL 

holders wishing to upgrade to a Class A 

CDL. Accordingly, FMCSA will not 

respond to comments on broader 

aspects of the ELDT final rule. This 

proposed change, if adopted, would 

have no impact on driver-trainees other 

than Class B CDL holders upgrading to 

a Class A CDL; it imposes virtually no 

new requirements on State Driver 

Licensing Agencies (SDLAs), the 

Federal government, or training 

providers eligible for listing on the 

Training Provider Registry (TPR).10

Finally, the Agency notes that this 

proposal sets forth minimum theory 

training requirements applicable to 

Class B CDL holders upgrading to a 

Class A CDL. Should any training 

provider listed on the TPR wish to 

impose more extensive theory training 

requirements for Class B CDL holders to 

whom they provide Class A theory 

training, nothing in this NPRM would 

preclude them from doing so. 

Additionally, States remain free to 

impose theory training requirements 

more stringent than those proposed in 

this NPRM, just as they remain free to 

impose ELDT requirements more 

stringent than those set forth in the 

ELDT final rule. 

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis 

In § 380.707(a), FMCSA proposes to 

add ‘‘or Class A theory instruction 

upgrade curriculum applicants’’ to the 

last sentence in the paragraph to 

account for the fact that training 

providers must verify that Class A CDL 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum 

training applicants possess a valid Class 

B CDL. 

In Appendix A to part 380, Class A 

CDL Training Curriculum, FMCSA 

proposes to add a sentence to the 

introductory text that states, ‘‘Class A 

CDL applicants who possess a valid 

Class B CDL may complete the Theory 

Instruction Upgrade Curriculum in lieu 

of the Theory Instruction Standard 

Curriculum.’’ Additionally, the Agency 

proposes to rename the Class A ‘‘Theory 

Instruction’’ as ‘‘Theory Instruction 

Standard Curriculum.’’ Finally, the 

Agency proposes to add a new section, 

‘‘Theory Instruction Upgrade 

Curriculum.’’ 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review), E.O. 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

FMCSA performed an analysis of the 

impacts of the proposed rule and 

determined it is not a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, 

as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 

3821, January 21, 2011), Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review. 

Accordingly, the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it 

under that Order. It is also not 

significant within the meaning of DOT 

regulatory policies and procedures 

(DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 

44 FR 11034 (Feb. 26, 1979)). 

As discussed earlier, because Class B 

CDL holders have previous training or 

experience in the CMV industry, the 

proposed rule would establish a new 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum 

that removes eight instructional units 

involving ‘‘Non-Driving Activities’’ for 

Class B CDL holders upgrading to a 

Class A CDL. The proposed rule does 

not change the BTW training 

requirements set forth in the ELDT final 

rule. Consistent with the ELDT final 

rule, the proposed theory instruction 

curriculum for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL would not 

have a required minimum number of 

instruction hours, but the training 

provider must cover all topics in the 

curriculum, and driver-trainees must 

receive an overall minimum score of 80 

percent on the written theory 

assessment. FMCSA estimates that this 

new curriculum would result in cost 

savings by taking less time to complete, 

without impacting the benefits of the 

ELDT final rule. 

The Agency estimates that an annual 

average of approximately 11,340 drivertrainees would be affected by the 

proposed rule, with each experiencing a 

reduction of 27 hours to complete the 

theory instruction. This results in a 

substantial cost savings to these drivertrainees, as well as a cost savings to the 

motor carriers that ultimately employ 

these drivers. The proposed rule does 

not result in any increase in costs. As 

presented in Table 3, the Agency 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

result in a 10-year cost savings of $182 

million on an undiscounted basis, $155 

million discounted at 3%, $127 million 

discounted at 7%, and $18 million on 

an annualized basis at a 7% or a 3% 

discount rate. Most of this annualized 

cost savings ($17.10 million) is realized 

by driver-trainees, with the remainder of 

the annualized cost savings ($1.04 

million) realized by motor carriers. 

Scope and Key Inputs to the Analysis 

The proposed rule revises regulations 

established in the ELDT final rule and, 

therefore, the ELDT final rule serves as 

the baseline against which the effects of 

the proposed rule are evaluated. The 

compliance date of the regulations 

established by the ELDT final rule 

remains February 7, 2020; therefore, the 

same analysis period of 2020 to 2029, 

used in evaluating the effects of the 

ELDT final rule, is used in evaluating 

the effects of this proposed rule. 

Furthermore, to ensure that meaningful 

relative comparisons can be made 

between the results of the regulatory 

analysis for this proposed rule and the 

baseline represented by the ELDT final 

rule, all monetary values are expressed 

in 2014 dollars, the same base year used 

to express monetary values in the 

evaluation of the ELDT final rule. 

Many of the key inputs to this 

analysis are based on the same data 

sources as those developed and used in 

the evaluation of the ELDT final rule. 

Therefore, a copy of the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule is 

available in the docket for the proposed 

rule,11 and, where applicable, the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30674 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

Analysis. Unfunded Mandates Analysis.’’ 

November 2016. Docket ID FMCSA–YEAR–2007– 

27748. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FMCSA-2007-27748-1291 (accessed 

December 22, 2017). 

12U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 

(FMCSA). ‘‘Report by State Driver Licensing 

Agencies (SDLAs) on the Annual Number of EntryLevel Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) 

Applicants and Related Data.’’ OMB Control No: 

2126–0059. 

13 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 19–20, 26. 

14U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (BLS). Employment Projections 

Program. ‘‘Table 1.2: Employment by detailed 

occupation, 2014 and projected 2024.’’ Available at: 

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ind-occ-matrix/ 

occupation.xlsx (accessed July 29, 2016). 

15 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation.’’ Annual projections for 2020 to 2029 

for ‘‘Upgrade of Class B CDL to Class A CDL’’ are 

presented in Table 11 on page 18, and discussed on 

pp. 27–30. 

16 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 52–62. 

17 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 70–74. 

Agency cites that document in the 

analysis below. 

Number of Driver-Trainees Affected by 

the Proposed Rule 

The Agency estimates that an annual 

average of 11,340 driver-trainees would 

be affected by the proposed rule, 

totaling approximately 113,000 drivertrainees affected over the 10-year 

analysis period. Annual estimates of the 

number of driver-trainees affected by 

the proposed rule are presented below 

in Table 2. 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED NUMBER OF

DRIVER-TRAINEES AFFECTED BY THE

PROPOSED RULE

Year 

Drivertrainees 

affected by 

the proposed 

rule 

2020 ...................................... 11,069 

2021 ...................................... 11,129 

2022 ...................................... 11,188 

2023 ...................................... 11,248 

2024 ...................................... 11,309 

2025 ...................................... 11,369 

2026 ...................................... 11,430 

2027 ...................................... 11,491 

2028 ...................................... 11,553 

2029 ...................................... 11,615 

Total ............................... 113,403 

The estimated number of drivertrainees affected by the proposed rule is 

a key input in determining the potential 

cost savings to driver-trainees and to the 

motor carriers that ultimately employ 

these drivers. 

To derive the estimates presented 

above in Table 2, FMCSA first estimated 

the total annual number of Class B CDL 

holders upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

These estimates are based on a June 

2015 information collection, performed 

as part of the regulatory evaluation for 

the ELDT final rule, requesting data 

from the 51 SDLAs, including 

information regarding the number of 

upgrades of Class B CDLs to Class A 

CDLs issued in 2014.12 Seventeen 

SDLAs responded to this data 

collection, 13 of which provided data 

regarding the number of upgrades. For 

these 13 SDLAs, a total of 13,937 

upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A 

CDLs were issued in 2014. Accounting 

for the difference in the number of 

licensed drivers across states, FMCSA 

extrapolated this value to a national 

total that is representative of all 51 

SDLAs. This adjustment results in a 

national estimate of 67,000 upgrades 

from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs 

issued in 2014. Further details regarding 

the June 2015 information collection 

and the methods used to develop the 

national estimate of 67,000 upgrades 

from Class B CDLs to Class A CDLs 

issued in 2014 can be found in the 

regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final 

rule.13

This 2014 baseline value of 67,000 

upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A 

CDLs was then used to develop 

projections of the number of Class B 

CDL to Class A CDL upgrades issued 

annually for the 2020 to 2029 analysis 

period. These future projections were 

developed by increasing the current 

baseline 2014 value consistent with 

occupation-specific employment growth 

projections for several commercial 

vehicle related occupations obtained 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) Employment Projections 

program.14 FMCSA projected that the 

annual number of Class B CDL to Class 

A CDL upgrades for the 2020 to 2029 

analysis period would range between 

69,000 and 73,000. These projections 

and further details regarding their 

development can be found in the 

regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final 

rule.15

Finally, the resulting annual 

projections of the overall number of 

upgrades from Class B CDLs to Class A 

CDLs are then adjusted to account for 

the portion of these drivers that are not 

affected by the ELDT final rule because 

these drivers are already receiving 

training in the absence of that rule. 

These drivers would not be affected by 

the proposed rule. In the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule, 

FMCSA estimated that 84% of drivertrainees obtaining a Class A CDL already 

receive training in the absence of that 

rule and therefore are not affected by the 

ELDT final rule.16 The remaining 

portion (16%) of driver-trainees are 

those affected by the ELDT final rule, 

and therefore, by the proposed rule. The 

annual projections of the overall 

number of upgrades from Class B CDLs 

to Class A CDLs developed earlier are 

adjusted accordingly, using this 16% 

value to estimate the number of Class B 

CDL holders upgrading to a Class A CDL 

who are affected by the proposed rule. 

This results in the estimated number of 

driver-trainees affected annually by the 

proposed rule, as presented earlier in 

Table 2. FMCSA invites comments on 

these estimates, and welcomes the 

submission of qualitative or quantitative 

data addressing the number of drivertrainees affected annually by the 

proposed rule. 

Estimated Hours To Complete the 

Proposed Theory Instruction Upgrade 

Curriculum 

The estimated number of hours 

necessary to complete the proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum, 

and the resulting time savings compared 

to the estimated time necessary to 

complete the Class A theory instruction 

curriculum that was set forth in the 

ELDT final rule, provide key inputs in 

determining the potential cost savings to 

driver-trainees and to the motor carriers 

that ultimately employ these drivers. 

Under both the ELDT final rule and this 

proposed rule, there is no minimum 

number of hours that driver-trainees are 

required to spend on the theory portions 

of any of the training curricula. The 

training provider must, however, cover 

all topics in the theory instruction 

curriculum, and driver-trainees must 

receive an overall minimum score of at 

least 80 percent on the written theory 

assessment. The Agency estimated that, 

on average, driver-trainees would need 

60 hours to complete the Class A theory 

instruction curriculum set forth in the 

ELDT final rule,17 which, in this 

proposed rule, is renamed the ‘‘Theory 

Instruction Standard Curriculum.’’ For 

this proposed rule, the Agency estimates 

that Class B CDL holders upgrading to 

a Class A CDL would on average need 

33 hours to complete the proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum. 

Accordingly, the Agency estimates the 

proposed rule would result in a time 

savings of 27 hours for each Class B CDL 

holder upgrading to a Class A CDL. 

The Class A theory instruction 

curriculum set forth in the ELDT final 

rule included 30 instructional units, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30675 

18Professional Truck Driver Institute, Inc. (PTDI). 

‘‘Curricula Standards and Guidelines for EntryLevel Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver Courses.’’ 

February 15, 2017. Page 16. Available at: http://

www.ptdi.org/resources/Documents/Standards/ 

CURRICULUM%20STANDARDS%

20ENTRY%20LEVEL%20021517.pdf (accessed 

October 2, 2017). 

19 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 68–69. 

20 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp.11–14. 

21 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 76–79. 22 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 76–79. 23 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 79–81. 

including 10 instructional units related 

to non-driving activities. The proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum 

removes eight of these instructional 

units related to non-driving activities. In 

the regulatory evaluation for the ELDT 

final rule, the Agency did not develop 

separate estimates of the time necessary 

to complete each of the 30 instructional 

units comprising the Class A theory 

instruction curriculum. Accordingly, 

FMCSA cannot make a direct estimate 

of the time savings resulting from the 

proposed elimination of eight 

instructional units related to nondriving activities. Although the number 

of instructional units is reduced by 27% 

(with eight out of 30 instructional units 

removed), the varying subject matter 

and content of each of the 30 

instructional units means that the 

number of hours required to complete 

the training would not necessarily be 

reduced by a proportional 27% (i.e., a 

16-hour reduction from the 60-hour 

estimate for the theory instruction 

standard curriculum discussed above). 

Therefore, in order to develop an 

estimate of the number of hours 

necessary to complete the proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum 

and the resulting time savings compared 

to the estimated time necessary to 

complete the Class A theory instruction 

curriculum in the ELDT final rule, the 

Agency examined the theory 

instructional units of the curricula 

standards for driver-trainees as 

established by the Professional Truck 

Driver Institute (PTDI).18 These PTDI 

curricula standards were reviewed 

previously during the development of 

the ELDT final rule. The theory 

instructional units of the PTDI curricula 

standards align closely with the 30 

instructional units of the Class A theory 

instruction curriculum in the ELDT 

final rule. Furthermore, the PTDI 

curricula standards specify a minimum 

number of hours for six major categories 

into which each of the individual 

instructional units is assigned. These 

PTDI estimates help to provide a 

relative measure of the amount of time 

necessary to complete each of the 

individual instructional units in the 

proposed rule. Based on the minimum 

number of hours of training required 

under the PTDI standards for each of the 

individual theory instructional units, 

the elimination of the eight instructional 

units related to non-driving activities 

reduces the total hours of Class A theory 

instruction by approximately 44.2%. 

Applying this 44.2% reduction to the 

estimated 60 hours needed to complete 

the Class A theory instruction 

curriculum in the ELDT final rule 

results in a 27-hour reduction in the 

time needed for Class B CDL holders 

upgrading to a Class A CDL to complete 

theory training by taking the proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum. 

Accordingly, the Agency estimates that 

Class B CDL holders upgrading to a 

Class A CDL would, on average, now 

only require 33 hours to complete the 

proposed theory instruction upgrade 

curriculum. Accordingly, the Agency 

estimates the proposed rule would 

result in a time savings of 27 hours for 

each Class B CDL holder upgrading to 

a Class A CDL. FMCSA invites 

comments on these estimates, and 

welcomes the submission of qualitative 

or quantitative data addressing the 

estimated number of hours necessary to 

complete the proposed theory 

instruction upgrade curriculum. 

Other Inputs to the Analysis 

The reduction of 27 hours in theory 

training for each of the driver-trainees 

affected by the proposed rule results in 

a change in the costs incurred by these 

driver-trainees, relative to the baseline 

of the ELDT final rule. This change in 

cost is comprised of two components, a 

reduction in tuition costs incurred by 

these driver-trainees, and a reduction in 

the opportunity cost of time for these 

driver-trainees. 

FMCSA evaluated tuition costs using 

an average hourly cost of training of $26 

per hour, based on a review of nearly 

nine hundred CDL driver training 

programs as discussed in the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule.19

The Agency evaluated changes in the 

opportunity cost of time for drivertrainees using the driver wage rate to 

represent the value of driver-trainee 

time that, in the absence of the proposed 

rule, would have been spent in training 

but now would be available to drivertrainees for other uses, such as 

productive employment. FMCSA uses a 

driver wage rate of $30 per hour, 

representing the median hourly base 

wage rate for truck drivers plus fringe 

benefits, as discussed in the regulatory 

evaluation of the ELDT final rule.20

Finally, the reduction of 27 hours in 

theory training for each of the drivertrainees affected by the proposed rule 

would also reduce the opportunity costs 

incurred by motor carriers that 

ultimately employ these driver-trainees. 

The opportunity cost to motor carriers 

from a regulatory action represents the 

value of the best alternative to the firm 

that must be forgone by, or is now made 

available to, the firm as a result of that 

regulatory action.21 Under the proposed 

rule, an input of production (driver 

labor) that was previously unavailable 

to carriers in the absence of the 

proposed rule would now be available 

to carriers, for a time equivalent to the 

27-hour reduction in theory training for 

each of the affected driver-trainees. The 

value of this time to the motor carrier 

is measured by estimating the change in 

profit to the firm, and is a function of 

the estimated 27-hour reduction in 

theory training for each of the affected 

driver-trainees, the marginal cost of 

operating a CMV, and an estimate of a 

typical average motor carrier profit 

margin. As discussed in the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the 

Agency estimates that the marginal cost 

of operating a CMV is $68 per hour, and 

that the average profit margin for motor 

carriers is 5%.22

Costs 

The proposed rule would not result in 

any increase in costs. In the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule, the 

Agency estimated that not only would 

driver-trainees and motor carriers incur 

costs, but that training providers, 

SDLAs, and the Federal government 

would also incur costs as a result of the 

ELDT final rule. For this proposed rule, 

the Agency does not anticipate any 

change in costs relative to the ELDT 

final rule for training providers, SDLAs, 

or the Federal government because it 

does not affect the regulatory obligations 

of these entities as set forth in the ELDT 

final rule. 

Costs to training providers resulting 

from the ELDT final rule included costs 

for submitting a Training Provider 

Registration Form (TPRF) for each 

training location to the Training 

Provider Registry (TPR), costs for 

electronically submitting training 

certification information to the TPR for 

driver-trainees who have completed 

training, and costs for preparing for and 

being subject to compliance audits.23

Under the proposed rule, training 

providers would still need to register 

with the TPR, and for those drivertrainees affected by the proposed rule, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30676 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

24The tuition costs noted above are derived from 

observed tuition charged for the CDL training 

programs identified by FMCSA, and are proxies for 

tuition costs that might be charged for a curriculum 

that meets the requirements of the rule. More 

details can be found in section 3.2.1 of the 

regulatory evaluation for the ELDT Final Rule. DOT 

FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory Evaluation,’’ 

pp. 68–69. 

training providers would still need to 

transmit training completion 

information electronically to the TPR. 

Accordingly, FMCSA does not 

anticipate any change in costs to 

training providers resulting from the 

proposed rule. 

Costs to SDLAs resulting from the 

ELDT final rule included costs for 

updates to SDLA information 

technology (IT) systems to be able to 

receive driver training completion 

information from CDLIS and store this 

information in the driver history record. 

Under the proposed rule, SDLAs would 

continue to receive and store the same 

information. Therefore, FMCSA does 

not anticipate any change in costs to 

SDLAs resulting from the proposed rule. 

Finally, costs to the Federal 

government resulting from the ELDT 

final rule included costs for FMCSA to 

create and manage the TPR and to 

enforce the regulations established by 

the final rule. Under the proposed rule, 

the TPR must be developed and 

maintained in the same manner as 

under the ELDT final rule. In addition, 

training program enforcement activities, 

such as compliance audits performed on 

training providers, would remain 

unchanged under the proposed rule as 

compared to the ELDT final rule, and 

FMCSA’s review of training provider 

registration forms would also remain 

unchanged. Accordingly, FMCSA does 

not anticipate any change in costs to the 

Federal government resulting from the 

proposed rule. 

As discussed above, FMCSA estimates 

a reduction in costs incurred by drivertrainees and motor carriers affected by 

the proposed rule. Because there is an 

estimated reduction of 27 hours of 

training for each driver-trainee affected 

by the proposed rule, the Agency 

estimates that both driver-trainees and 

motor carriers would experience 

negative costs, that is, a decrease in 

costs or a cost savings. The proposed 

rule would not result in any increase in 

costs for driver-trainees or motor 

carriers. The proposed rule reduces 

tuition costs, as well as the opportunity 

cost of time for these driver-trainees, 

relative to the baseline of the ELDT final 

rule. 

For each year of the 10-year analysis 

period, FMCSA multiplied the 

estimated number of driver-trainees 

annually that would be affected by the 

proposed rule, as presented in Table 2, 

by the estimated reduction of 27 hours 

in theory training for each of these 

driver-trainees. FMCSA then multiplied 

the resulting total aggregate reduction in 

theory training hours by $26 per hour 

(the estimated average hourly cost of 

training),24 yielding an estimate of the 

overall change in tuition costs 

experienced by driver-trainees for each 

year of the analysis period. 

Additionally, the Agency multiplied the 

total aggregate reduction in theory 

training hours by the estimated driver 

wage rate of $30 per hour, yielding an 

estimate of the change in the 

opportunity cost of time experienced by 

driver-trainees for each year of the 

analysis period. As presented in Table 

3, the Agency estimates that the 

proposed rule would result in a 10-year 

tuition cost savings to driver-trainees of 

$80 million on an undiscounted basis. 

The Agency estimates that the proposed 

rule would also result in a 10-year 

opportunity cost of time savings to 

driver-trainees of $92 million on an 

undiscounted basis. In total, the Agency 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

result in a 10-year cost savings to drivertrainees of $171 million on an 

undiscounted basis, and $17.10 million 

on an annualized basis at a 7% discount 

rate. 

The development of the key inputs 

necessary to estimate the change in cost 

to motor-carriers, described earlier, 

includes the marginal cost of operating 

a CMV, an estimate of a typical average 

motor carrier profit margin, and the 

estimated 27-hour reduction in theory 

training for each of the driver-trainees 

affected by the proposed rule. For each 

year of the 10-year analysis period, the 

estimated number of driver-trainees 

who would be affected by the proposed 

rule as presented earlier in Table 2 is 

multiplied by the estimated reduction of 

27 hours in theory training for each of 

these driver-trainees. The resulting total 

reduction in theory training hours is 

then multiplied by the estimated 

marginal cost of operating a CMV of $68 

per hour, and the estimated profit 

margin of 5% for motor carriers. As 

presented in Table 3, the Agency 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

result in a 10-year opportunity cost 

savings to motor carriers of $10 million 

on an undiscounted basis, and $1.04 

million on an annualized basis at a 7% 

discount rate, representing a decrease in 

opportunity cost, or an opportunity cost 

savings to motor carriers. 

As presented in Table 3, the Agency 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

result in a 10-year cost savings of $182 

million on an undiscounted basis, $155 

million discounted at 3%, $127 million 

discounted at 7%, and $18 million on 

an annualized basis at a 7% discount 

rate, representing a decrease in cost or 

a cost savings. Most of this annualized 

cost savings ($17.10 million) is realized 

by driver-trainees, with the remainder of 

the annualized cost savings ($1.04 

million) realized by motor carriers. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30677 

25 DOT FMCSA, ‘‘ELDT Final Rule Regulatory 

Evaluation,’’ pp. 87–122. 

26Executive Office of the President. Executive 

Order 13771 of January 30, 2017. Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. 82 FR 

9339–9341. Feb. 3, 2017. 

27Regulatory Flexibility Act, Public Law 96–354, 

94 Stat. 1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). 

TABLE 3—TOTAL COST OF THE PROPOSED RULE

[In millions of 2014$] 

Year 

Drivertrainees 

affected 

by the 

proposed 

rule 

Undiscounted Discounted 

Drivertrainee 

tuition 

costs 

Drivertrainee 

opportunity 

costs 

Motor 

carrier 

opportunity 

costs 

Total 

costs (a)

Discounted 

at 3% 

Discounted 

at 7% 

[A] [B] = [A] × 

[¥27 hours] × 

[$26 per hour] 

[C] = [A] × 

[¥27 hours] × 

[$30 per hour] 

[D] = [A] × 

[¥27 hours] × 

[$68 per hour] 

× 

[0.05] 

[E] = [B] + 

[C] + [D] 

2020 ............................. 11,069 (b) ($7.8) ($9.0) ($1.0) ($17.8) ($17.2) ($16.6) 

2021 ............................. 11,129 (7.8) (9.0) (1.0) (17.8) (16.8) (15.6) 

2022 ............................. 11,188 (7.9) (9.1) (1.0) (17.9) (16.4) (14.6) 

2023 ............................. 11,248 (7.9) (9.1) (1.0) (18.0) (16.0) (13.8) 

2024 ............................. 11,309 (7.9) (9.2) (1.0) (18.1) (15.6) (12.9) 

2025 ............................. 11,369 (8.0) (9.2) (1.0) (18.2) (15.3) (12.2) 

2026 ............................. 11,430 (8.0) (9.3) (1.0) (18.3) (14.9) (11.4) 

2027 ............................. 11,491 (8.1) (9.3) (1.1) (18.4) (14.5) (10.7) 

2028 ............................. 11,553 (8.1) (9.4) (1.1) (18.5) (14.2) (10.1) 

2029 ............................. 11,615 (8.2) (9.4) (1.1) (18.6) (13.9) (9.5) 

Total ...................... 113,403 (80) (92) (10) (182) (155) (127) 

Annualized ................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ (18) (18) (18) 

Notes: 

(a)Total cost values may not equal the sum of the components due to rounding (the totals shown in this column are the rounded sum of 

unrounded components). 

(b)Values shown in parentheses are negative values (i.e., less than zero), and represent a decrease in cost or a cost savings. 

Benefits 

The Agency anticipates no change in 

the benefits of the ELDT final rule as a 

result of the proposed rule. In the 

regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final 

rule, the Agency estimated quantified 

benefits for three categories of nonsafety benefits, including savings from 

reductions in fuel consumption, 

reductions in CO2 emissions related to 

these reductions in fuel consumption, 

and reductions in vehicle maintenance 

and repair costs. These estimated nonsafety benefits were derived from the 

Speed Management and Space 

Management instructional units in the 

Class A theory instruction curriculum 

set forth in the ELDT final rule.25

Because these two instructional units 

remain in the proposed theory 

instruction upgrade curriculum, the 

Agency does not anticipate any change 

in these non-safety benefits from the 

proposed rule. 

The regulatory evaluation for the 

ELDT final rule addressed the potential 

safety benefits of entry-level driver 

training. In considering the potential 

impacts on safety from today’s proposed 

rule, the Agency notes that Class B 

holders have previous training or 

experience in the CMV industry, which 

serves as an adequate substitute for the 

eight non-driving instructional units 

that are not included in the proposed 

theory instruction upgrade curriculum. 

Therefore, the Agency anticipates that 

there would be no change in potential 

safety benefits associated with the 

proposed rule. 

FMCSA invites comments and the 

submission of qualitative or quantitative 

data addressing the potential impacts to 

both non-safety benefits and safety 

benefits from the proposed rule. 

B. E.O. 13771 (Reducing Regulation and 

Controlling Regulatory Costs) 

This proposed rule is expected to be 

an E.O. 13771 deregulatory action.26

The present value of the cost savings of 

this rule, measured on an infinite time 

horizon at a 7 percent discount rate, is 

approximately $212 million. Expressed 

on an annualized basis, the cost savings 

are $15 million. These values are 

expressed in 2016 dollars. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA) (Pub. L. 104–121, 110 

Stat. 857), requires Federal agencies to 

consider the impact of their regulatory 

proposals on small entities, analyze 

effective alternatives that minimize 

small entity impacts, and make their 

analyses available for public comment. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ means small 

businesses and not-for-profit 

organizations that are independently 

owned and operated and are not 

dominant in their fields, and 

governmental jurisdictions with 

populations under 50,000.27

Accordingly, DOT policy requires an 

analysis of the impact of all regulations 

on small entities, and mandates that 

agencies strive to lessen any adverse 

effects on these entities. Section 605 of 

the RFA allows an Agency to certify a 

rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if 

the rulemaking is not expected to have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule would affect a subset of 

driver-trainees and motor carriers. 

Driver-trainees are not considered small 

entities because they do not meet the 

definition of a small entity in Section 

601 of the RFA. Specifically, drivertrainees are considered neither a small 

business under Section 601(3) of the 

RFA, nor are they considered a small 

organization under Section 601(4) of the 

RFA. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30678 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

28Executive Office of the President, Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). ‘‘North American 

Industry Classification System.’’ 2017. Available at: 

https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ 

2017NAICS/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf (accessed 

December 1, 2017). 

29U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of 

Advocacy. ‘‘A Guide for Government Agencies. 

How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act.’’ 2017. Available at: https://www.sba.gov/sites/ 

default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-theRFA-WEB.pdf (accessed on May 3, 2018). 

30American Transportation Research Institute. 

‘‘An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 

2017 Update. Available at: http://atri-online.org/ 

wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ATRI-OperationalCosts-of-Trucking-2017-10-2017.pdf (Accessed on: 

May 3, 2018). 

31U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). ‘‘The 

Rights of Small Entities To Enforcement Fairness 

and Policy Against Retaliation.’’ Available at: 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/ 

docs/SBREFAnotice2.pdf (accessed December 1, 

2017). 

Motor carriers affected by this 

rulemaking would most likely be those 

that hire Class A CDL drivers. Passenger 

motor carriers generally rely on Group 

B CMVs that do not require a Class A 

CDL to operate, and thus would not be 

affected by this rule. In the regulatory 

evaluation for the ELDT final rule, 

FMCSA estimated that there were 

approximately 1.1 million inter- and 

intrastate freight motor carriers, of 

which a subset operate Group A 

vehicles, and thus would be affected by 

this rule. FMCSA estimates that this 

proposed rule would affect between 

11,000 and 12,000 CMV driver-trainees 

per year, resulting in fewer than 12,000 

motor carriers affected per year, which 

is approximately 0.9% of the total 

number of inter- and intrastate freight 

motor carriers. FMCSA does not know 

how many of these motor carriers would 

be considered ‘‘small.’’ 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) defines the size 

standards used to classify entities as 

small. SBA establishes separate 

standards for each industry, as defined 

by the North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS).28 This 

rule could affect many different 

industry sectors; for example, the 

transportation sector (e.g., General 

freight trucking industry group (4841) 

and the Specialized freight trucking 

industry group (4842)), the agricultural 

sector, and the construction sector. 

Industry groups within these sectors 

have size standards based on the 

number of employees (e.g., 500 

employees), or on the amount of annual 

revenue (e.g., $27.5 million in revenue). 

FMCSA does not have specific 

information about the number of 

employees or revenue for each of the 

motor carriers. However, FMCSA is 

aware that much of the motor carrier 

industry largely consists of smaller 

firms. Of the 1.1 million freight motor 

carriers, roughly 1 million have between 

1 and 6 power units. If all of the 1 

million freight motor carriers with 6 or 

fewer power units are considered small 

based on the applicable size standard, 

then a maximum of 1.2% (12,000 ÷ 1 

million) of small entities would be 

affected by this rule. Therefore, FMCSA 

estimates that this rule would not 

impact a substantial number of small 

entities. FMCSA invites comment on the 

number of small entities that would be 

affected by this rule. 

As discussed earlier in the Regulatory 

Analyses section, FMCSA estimates the 

impact to the affected motor carriers as 

a reduction in opportunity cost, or a 

cost savings, relative to the baseline of 

the ELDT final rule. This rule would 

remove some of the training 

requirements accounted for in the 

regulatory evaluation for the ELDT final 

rule, allowing those drivers who are 

upgrading from a Class B CDL to a Class 

A CDL to begin working and earning a 

profit for the motor carrier earlier than 

under the current training procedures. 

Therefore, this rule would provide 

affected motor carriers with increased 

access to labor hours, and consequently 

profit, resulting in an opportunity cost 

savings to the motor carrier. FMCSA 

estimated the opportunity cost to the 

motor carrier as a function of the 

number of hours previously spent in 

training that are now available for labor, 

an estimate of the profit margin, and the 

marginal hourly operational costs of the 

CMV. As discussed earlier in the 

Regulatory Analyses section, the Agency 

estimates that the proposed rule would 

result in a cost savings to all motor 

carriers of $1.04 million on an 

annualized basis at a 7% discount rate. 

On a per driver basis for those drivers 

affected by the proposed rule, the cost 

savings realized by the motor carriers 

would be approximately $92 (27 hours 

× 0.05 profit margin × $68 marginal 

operating costs). 

The RFA does not define a threshold 

for determining whether a specific 

regulation would result in a significant 

impact. However, the SBA, in guidance 

to government agencies, provides some 

objective measures of significance that 

the agencies can consider using.29 One 

measure that could be used to illustrate 

a significant impact is labor costs, 

specifically, if the cost of the proposed 

regulation exceeds 5% of the labor costs 

of the entities in the sector. The 

American Transportation Research 

Institute (ATRI) performed an annual 

survey of motor carriers and published 

its findings in the ‘‘Analysis of the 

Operational Costs of Trucking: 2017 

Update.’’ ATRI found that driver wages 

and benefits represent approximately 

33% of average marginal costs to a 

carrier.30 ATRI further estimated that 

average marginal hourly driver costs, 

including wages and benefits, were 

$27.09 in 2016. FMCSA hours of service 

regulations allow drivers 60 hours of onduty time in a 7-day period. This 

equates to approximately $84,500 in 

driver labor costs per year ($27.09 × 60 

hours per week × 52 weeks). The impact 

of this regulation would be 

approximately 0.11% of labor costs ($92 

impact ÷ $84,500 labor costs)—well 

below the 5% threshold identified in 

the SBA guide. Therefore, this rule 

would not have a significant impact on 

the entities affected. 

Accordingly, I hereby certify that the 

action does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. FMCSA 

requests comments on this certification. 

D. Assistance for Small Entities 

In accordance with section 213(a) of 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

FMCSA wants to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule so that 

they can better evaluate its effects and 

participate in the rulemaking initiative. 

If the proposed rule would affect your 

small business, organization, or 

governmental jurisdiction, and you have 

questions concerning its provisions or 

options for compliance, please consult 

the FMCSA point of contact, Mr. 

Richard Clemente, listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of 

this proposed rule. 

Small businesses may send comments 

on the actions of Federal employees 

who enforce or otherwise determine 

compliance with Federal regulations to 

the Small Business Administration’s 

Small Business and Agriculture 

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman 

and the Regional Small Business 

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The 

Ombudsman evaluates these actions 

annually and rates each agency’s 

responsiveness to small business. If you 

wish to comment on actions by 

employees of FMCSA, call 1–888–REG– 

FAIR (1–888–734–3247). The DOT has a 

policy regarding the rights of small 

entities to regulatory enforcement 

fairness and an explicit policy against 

retaliation for exercising these rights.31

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30679 

32See 81 FR 88732, 88788 (Dec. 8, 2016). 

33Exec. Order No. 13783, 82 FR 16093 (March 31, 

2017). 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act requires agencies to 

prepare a comprehensive written 

statement for any proposed or final rule 

that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and tribal governments, in 

the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$156 million (which is the value 

equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, 

adjusted for inflation to 2015 levels) or 

more in any one year. Because this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, a written statement is 

not required. However, the Agency does 

discuss the costs and benefits of this 

proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520) (PRA) requires 

Agencies to provide estimates of the 

information-collection (IC) burden of its 

regulations. This proposed rule does not 

alter the Agency’s estimates of the 

paperwork burden outlined on page 

88788 of the final ELDT rule. Since 

publication of the ELDT final rule, the 

OMB, on April 19, 2017, approved the 

Agency’s estimate of 66,250 hours for 

the IC collection titled ‘‘Training 

Certification for Entry-Level 

Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers’’ 

(2126–0028). The approval expires on 

April 30, 2020. If this notice generates 

public comment on Agency PRA 

estimates, the Agency will respond 

accordingly. 

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism) 

A rule has implications for 

Federalism under Section 1(a) of E.O. 

13132 if it has ‘‘substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ In 

assessing the federalism implications of 

the ELDT final rule, FMCSA stated that, 

because the CDL program is voluntary, 

it does not have preemptive effect on 

the States. The Agency therefore 

concluded that the ELDT final rule 

would not have substantial direct costs 

on or for States, nor would it limit the 

policymaking discretion of States.32

This NPRM does not change that 

conclusion. 

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 

minimize litigation, eliminate 

ambiguity, and reduce burden. 

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children) 

Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997), requires agencies 

issuing ‘‘economically significant’’ 

rules, if the regulation also concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

an agency has reason to believe may 

disproportionately affect children, to 

include an evaluation of the regulation’s 

environmental health and safety effects 

on children. The Agency determined 

this proposed rule is not economically 

significant. Therefore, no analysis of the 

impacts on children is required. In any 

event, the Agency does not anticipate 

that this regulatory action could in any 

respect present an environmental or 

safety risk that could disproportionately 

affect children. 

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private 

Property) 

FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule 

in accordance with E.O. 12630, 

Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights, and has determined it would not 

effect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications. 

K. Privacy 

Section 522 of title I of division H of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 

108–447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 

552a note), requires the Agency to 

conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA) of a regulation that will affect the 

privacy of individuals. The assessment 

considers impacts of the rule on the 

privacy of information in an identifiable 

form and related matters. The FMCSA 

Privacy Officer has evaluated the risks 

and effects the rulemaking might have 

on collecting, storing, and sharing 

personally identifiable information (PII), 

as well as protections and alternative 

information handling processes to 

mitigate potential privacy risks. FMCSA 

determined that, while this rule does 

require the collection of individual PII, 

it does not result in a change in 

collection, process, or the data elements 

previously identified in the ELDT final 

rule. 

The privacy analysis of the ELDT final 

rule, which conforms to the DOT 

standard Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA), is published on the DOT website 

(www.transportation.gov/privacy). It 

addresses business processes identified 

in the ELDT final rule and new or 

existing information collection systems 

to be implemented in support of those 

processes. The FMCSA Privacy Office 

determined that this NPRM does not 

alter the privacy impact detailed in the 

PIA for the ELDT final rule. 

The Agency submitted a Privacy 

Threshold Assessment (PTA) analyzing 

the new rulemaking and the specific 

process for collection of personal 

information to the Department of 

Transportation’s Privacy Office. As 

required by the Privacy Act, FMCSA 

and the Department will be publishing, 

with request for comment, a system of 

records notice (SORN) addressing the 

collection of information affected by 

this NPRM and the ELDT final rule. 

This SORN will be published in the 

Federal Register not less than 30 days 

before the Agency is authorized to 

collect or use PII retrieved by unique 

identifier. 

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental 

Review) 

The regulations implementing E.O. 

12372 regarding intergovernmental 

consultation on Federal programs and 

activities do not apply to this program. 

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

FMCSA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under E.O. 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. The Agency has 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Therefore, it does not require a 

Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 

13211. 

N. E.O. 13783 (Promoting Energy 

Independence and Economic Growth) 

Executive Order 13783 directs 

executive departments and agencies to 

review existing regulations that 

potentially burden the development or 

use of domestically produced energy 

resources, and to appropriately suspend, 

revise, or rescind those that unduly 

burden the development of domestic 

energy resources.33 In accordance with 

E.O. 13783, the DOT prepared and 

submitted a report to the Director of 

OMB providing specific 

recommendations that, to the extent 

permitted by law, could alleviate or 

eliminate aspects of agency action that 

burden domestic energy production. 

The DOT has not identified this 

proposed rule as potentially alleviating 

unnecessary burdens on domestic 

energy production under E.O. 13783. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30680 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

O. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal 

Governments) 

This rule does not have tribal 

implications under E.O. 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments, because it 

does not have a substantial direct effect 

on one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

P. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (Technical 

Standards) 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through OMB, with 

an explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., 

specifications of materials, performance, 

design, or operation; test methods; 

sampling procedures; and related 

management systems practices) are 

standards developed or adopted by 

voluntary consensus standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, FMCSA did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Q. Environment (NEPA, CAA, E.O. 

12898 Environmental Justice) 

FMCSA analyzed this NPRM for the 

purpose of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) and determined this action is 

categorically excluded from further 

analysis and documentation in an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement under 

FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680, 

March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph 

(6)(z). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in 

paragraph (6)(z) covers (1) the minimum 

qualifications for persons who drive 

commercial motor vehicles as, for, or on 

behalf of motor carriers; and (2) the 

minimum duties of motor carriers with 

respect to the qualifications of their 

drivers. The proposed requirements in 

this rule are covered by this CE and the 

proposed action does not have the 

potential to significantly affect the 

quality of the environment. The CE 

determination is available for inspection 

or copying in the regulations.gov 

website listed under ADDRESSES. 

FMCSA also analyzed this rule under 

the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), 

section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.), 

and implementing regulations 

promulgated by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. Approval of this 

action is exempt from the CAA’s general 

conformity requirement since it does 

not affect direct or indirect emissions of 

criteria pollutants. 

Under E.O. 12898, each Federal 

agency must identify and address, as 

appropriate, ‘‘disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations’’ in the United States, its 

possessions, and territories. FMCSA 

evaluated the environmental justice 

effects of this proposed rule in 

accordance with the E.O. and has 

determined that no environmental 

justice issue is associated with this 

proposed rule, nor is there any 

collective environmental impact that 

would result from its promulgation. 

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 380 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Highway safety, Motor 

carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR 

chapter 3, part 380 to read as follows: 

PART 380—SPECIAL TRAINING 

REQUIREMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 380 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31133, 31136, 31305, 

31307, 31308, and 31502; sec. 4007(a) and (b) 

of Pub. L. 102–240 (105 Stat. 2151–2152); 

sec. 32304 of Pub. L.112–141; and 49 CFR 

1.87. 

■ 2. In § 380.707 amend paragraph (a) 

by adding the words ‘‘or Class A theory 

instruction upgrade curriculum 

applicants’’ to the final sentence. 

■ 3. Amend Appendix A to part 380 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text; 

■ b. Revising the undesignated heading 

‘‘Theory Instruction’’ to read as ‘‘Theory 

Instruction Standard Curriculum;’’ and 

■ c. Adding section Theory Instruction 

Upgrade Curriculum. 

The revision and addition to read as 

follows: 

Appendix A to Part 380—Class A–CDL 

training curriculum. 

Class A CDL applicants must complete the 

Class A CDL curriculum outlined in this 

Appendix. The curriculum for Class A 

applicants pertains to combination vehicles 

(Group A) as defined in 49 CFR 383.91(a)(1). 

Class A CDL applicants who possess a valid 

Class B CDL may complete the Theory 

Instruction Upgrade Curriculum in lieu of the 

Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum. 

There is no required minimum number of 

instruction hours for theory training, but the 

training instructor must cover all topics set 

forth in the curriculum. There is no required 

minimum number of instruction hours for 

BTW (range and public road) training, but the 

training instructor must cover all topics set 

forth in the BTW curriculum. BTW training 

must be conducted in a CMV for which a 

Class A CDL is required. The instructor must 

determine and document that each drivertrainee has demonstrated proficiency in all 

elements of the BTW curriculum, unless 

otherwise noted. Consistent with the 

definitions of BTW range training and BTW 

public road training in § 380.605, a 

simulation device cannot be used to conduct 

such training or to demonstrate proficiency. 

Training instructors must document the total 

number of clock hours each driver-trainee 

spends to complete the BTW curriculum. The 

Class A curriculum must, at a minimum, 

include the following: 

Theory Instruction Standard Curriculum 

* * * * * 

Theory Instruction Upgrade Curriculum 

Section BA1.1 Basic Operation 

This section must cover the interaction 

between driver-trainees and the CMV. Drivertrainees will receive instruction in the 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 

(FMCSRs) and will be introduced to the basic 

CMV instruments and controls. Training 

providers will teach driver-trainees the basic 

operating characteristics of a CMV. This 

section must also teach driver-trainees how 

to properly perform vehicle inspections, 

control the motion of CMVs under various 

road and traffic conditions, employ shifting 

and backing techniques, and properly couple 

and uncouple combination vehicles. Drivertrainees must familiarize themselves with the 

basic operating characteristics of a CMV. 

Unit BA1.1.1 Orientation 

This unit must introduce driver-trainees to 

the combination vehicle driver training 

curriculum and the components of a 

combination vehicle. The training providers 

must teach the safety fundamentals, essential 

regulatory requirements (e.g., overview of 

FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials 

Regulations), and driver-trainees’ 

responsibilities not directly related to CMV 

driving, such as proper cargo securement. 

This unit must also cover the ramifications, 

including driver disqualification provisions 

and fines, for non-compliance with parts 380, 

382, 383, and 390 through 399 of the 

FMCSRs. This unit must also include an 

overview of the applicability of State and 

local laws relating to the safe operation of the 

CMV, stopping at weigh stations/scales, 

hazard awareness of vehicle size and weight 

limitations, low clearance areas (e.g., CMV 

height restrictions), and bridge formulas. 

Unit BA1.1.2 Control Systems/Dashboard 

This unit must introduce driver-trainees to 

vehicle instruments, controls, and safety 

components. The training providers must 

teach driver-trainees to read gauges and 

instruments correctly and the proper use of 

vehicle safety components, including safety 

belts and mirrors. The training providers 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 30681 

must teach driver-trainees to identify, locate, 

and explain the function of each of the 

primary and secondary controls including 

those required for steering, accelerating, 

shifting, braking systems (e.g., ABS, 

hydraulic, air), as applicable, and parking. 

Unit BA1.1.3 Pre- and Post-Trip Inspections 

This unit must teach the driver-trainees to 

conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections as 

specified in §§ 392.7 and 396.11, including 

appropriate inspection locations. Instruction 

must also be provided on en route vehicle 

inspections. 

Unit BA1.1.4 Basic Control 

This unit must introduce basic vehicular 

control and handling as it applies to 

combination vehicles. This unit must include 

instruction addressing basic combination 

vehicle controls in areas such as executing 

sharp left and right turns, centering the 

vehicle, maneuvering in restricted areas, and 

entering and exiting the interstate or 

controlled access highway. 

Unit BA1.1.5 Shifting/Operating 

Transmissions 

This unit must introduce shifting patterns 

and procedures to driver-trainees to prepare 

them to safely and competently perform basic 

shifting maneuvers. This unit must include 

training driver-trainees to execute up and 

down shifting techniques on multi-speed 

dual range transmissions, if appropriate. The 

training providers must teach the importance 

of increased vehicle control and improved 

fuel economy achieved by utilizing proper 

shifting techniques. 

Unit BA1.1.6 Backing and Docking 

This unit must teach driver-trainees to 

back and dock the combination vehicle 

safely. This unit must cover ‘‘Get Out and 

Look’’ (GOAL), evaluation of backing/loading 

facilities, knowledge of backing set ups, as 

well as instruction in how to back with the 

use of spotters. 

Unit BA1.1.7 Coupling and Uncoupling 

This unit must provide instruction for 

driver-trainees to develop the skills necessary 

to conduct the procedures for safe coupling 

and uncoupling of combination vehicle units, 

as applicable. 

Section BA1.2 Safe Operating Procedures 

This section must teach the practices 

required for safe operation of the 

combination vehicle on the highway under 

various road, weather, and traffic conditions. 

The training providers must teach drivertrainees the Federal rules governing the 

proper use of seat belt assemblies (§ 392.16). 

Unit BA1.2.1 Visual Search 

This unit must teach driver-trainees to 

visually search the road for potential hazards 

and critical objects, including instruction on 

recognizing distracted pedestrians or 

distracted drivers. 

Unit BA1.2.2 Communication 

This unit must instruct driver-trainees on 

how to communicate their intentions to other 

road users. Driver-trainees must be instructed 

in techniques for different types of 

communication on the road, including 

proper use of headlights, turn signals, fourway flashers, and horns. This unit must cover 

instruction in proper utilization of eye 

contact techniques with other drivers, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

Unit BA1.2.3 Distracted Driving 

This unit must instruct driver-trainees in 

FMCSRs related to distracted driving and 

other key driver distraction driving issues, 

including improper cell phone use, texting, 

and use of in-cab technology (e.g., §§ 392.80 

and 392.82). This instruction will include 

training in the following aspects: Visual 

attention (keeping eyes on the road); manual 

control (keeping hands on the wheel); and 

cognitive awareness (keeping mind on the 

task and safe operation of the CMV). 

Unit BA1.2.4 Speed Management 

This unit must teach driver-trainees how to 

manage speed effectively in response to 

various road, weather, and traffic conditions. 

The instruction must include methods for 

calibrating safe following distances taking 

into account CMV braking distances under an 

array of conditions including traffic, weather, 

and CMV weight and length. 

Unit BA1.2.5 Space Management 

This unit must teach driver-trainees about 

the importance of managing the space 

surrounding the vehicle under various traffic 

and road conditions. 

Unit BA1.2.6 Night Operation 

This unit must instruct driver-trainees in 

the factors affecting the safe operation of 

CMVs at night and in darkness. Additionally, 

driver-trainees must be instructed in changes 

in vision, communications, speed space 

management, and proper use of lights, as 

needed, to deal with the special problems 

night driving presents. 

Unit BA1.2.7 Extreme Driving Conditions 

This unit must teach driver-trainees about 

the specific problems presented by extreme 

driving conditions. The training provide will 

emphasize the factors affecting the operation 

of CMVs in cold, hot, and inclement weather 

and on steep grades and sharp curves. The 

training provider must teach proper tire 

chaining procedures. 

Section BA1.3. Advanced Operating 

Practices 

This section must introduce higher-level 

skills that can be acquired only after the more 

fundamental skills and knowledge taught in 

the prior two sections have been mastered. 

The training providers must teach drivertrainees about the advanced skills necessary 

to recognize potential hazards and must 

teach the driver-trainees the procedures 

needed to handle a CMV when faced with a 

hazard. 

Unit BA1.3.1 Hazard Perception 

The unit must teach driver-trainees to 

recognize potential hazards in the driving 

environment in order to reduce the severity 

of the hazard and neutralize possible 

emergency situations. The training providers 

must teach driver-trainees to identify road 

conditions and other road users that are a 

potential threat to the safety of the 

combination vehicle and suggest appropriate 

adjustments. The instruction must emphasize 

hazard recognition, visual search, adequate 

surveillance, and response to possible 

emergency-producing situations encountered 

by CMV drivers in various traffic situations. 

The training providers must teach drivertrainees to recognize potential dangers and 

the safety procedures that must be utilized 

while driving in construction/work zones. 

Unit BA1.3.2 Skid Control/Recovery, 

Jackknifing, and Other Emergencies 

This unit must teach the causes of skidding 

and jackknifing and techniques for avoiding 

and recovering from them. The training 

providers must teach the importance of 

maintaining directional control and bringing 

the CMV to a stop in the shortest possible 

distance while operating over a slippery 

surface. This unit must provide instruction in 

appropriate responses when faced with CMV 

emergencies. This instruction must include 

evasive steering, emergency braking, and offroad recovery, as well as the proper response 

to brake failures, tire blowouts, 

hydroplaning, and rollovers. The instruction 

must include a review of unsafe acts and the 

role the acts play in producing or worsening 

hazardous situations. 

Unit BA1.3.3 Railroad-Highway Grade 

Crossings 

This unit must teach driver-trainees to 

recognize potential dangers and the 

appropriate safety procedures to utilize at 

railroad (RR)-highway grade crossings. This 

instruction must include an overview of 

various Federal/State RR grade crossing 

regulations, RR grade crossing environments, 

obstructed view conditions, clearance around 

the tracks, and rail signs and signals. The 

training providers must instruct drivertrainees that railroads have personnel 

available (‘‘Emergency Notification 

Systems’’) to receive notification of any 

information relating to an unsafe condition at 

the RR-highway grade crossing or a disabled 

vehicle or other obstruction blocking a 

railroad track at the RR-highway grade 

crossing. 

Section BA1.4 Vehicle Systems and 

Reporting Malfunctions 

This section must provide entry-level 

driver-trainees with sufficient knowledge of 

the combination vehicle and its systems and 

subsystems to ensure that they understand 

and respect their role in vehicle inspection, 

operation, and maintenance and the impact 

of those factors upon highway safety and 

operational efficiency. 

Unit BA1.4.1 Identification and Diagnosis 

of Malfunctions 

This unit must teach driver-trainees to 

identify major combination vehicle systems. 

The goal is to explain their function and how 

to check all key vehicle systems, (e.g., engine, 

engine exhaust auxiliary systems, brakes, 

drive train, coupling systems, and 

suspension) to ensure their safe operation. 

Driver-trainees must be provided with a 

detailed description of each system, its 

importance to safe and efficient operation, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
30682 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 126 / Friday, June 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

and what is needed to keep the system in 

good operating condition. 

Unit BA1.4.2 Roadside Inspections 

This unit must instruct driver-trainees on 

what to expect during a standard roadside 

inspection conducted by authorized 

personnel. The training providers must teach 

driver-trainees on what vehicle and driver 

violations are classified as out-of-service 

(OOS), including the ramifications and 

penalties for operating a CMV when subject 

to an OOS order as defined in section 390.5. 

Unit BA1.4.3 Maintenance 

This unit must introduce driver-trainees to 

the basic servicing and checking procedures 

for various engine and vehicle components 

and to help develop their ability to perform 

preventive maintenance and simple 

emergency repairs. 

Section BA1.5 Non-Driving Activities 

This section must teach driver-trainees the 

activities that do not involve actually 

operating the CMV. 

Unit BA1.5.1 Hours of Service 

Requirements 

This unit must teach driver-trainees to 

understand that there are different hours-ofservice (HOS) requirements applicable to 

different industries. The training providers 

must teach driver-trainees all applicable HOS 

regulatory requirements. The training 

providers must teach driver-trainees to 

complete a Driver’s Daily Log (electronic and 

paper), timesheet, and logbook recap, as 

appropriate. The training providers must 

teach driver-trainees the consequences 

(safety, legal, and personal) of violating the 

HOS regulations, including the fines and 

penalties imposed for these types of 

violations. 

Unit BA1.5.2 Fatigue and Wellness 

Awareness 

This unit must teach driver-trainees about 

the issues and consequences of chronic and 

acute driver fatigue and the importance of 

staying alert. The training providers must 

teach driver-trainees wellness and basic 

health maintenance information that affect a 

driver’s ability to safely operate a CMV. 

Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 

1.87 on: June 21, 2018. 

Raymond P. Martinez, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13871 Filed 6–28–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS