Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18355

stating that the Commission should not

consider COMSAT’s supplemental

comments unless all parties are given

time to analyze and respond to them.

On April 1, 1996, UTC filed an

opposition to COMSAT’s supplemental

comments, asking that the Commission

treat them as an ex parte

communication. On April 5, 1996, the

American Petroleum Institute filed a

response to COMSAT’s supplemental

comments.

COMSAT’s supplemental comments,

and the responses thereto, were filed

partly as a result of new information

provided by the 1995 World Radio

Conference on the issues in this

proceeding. The responses of other

interested parties demonstrates that

there is considerable interest in these

issues. At the same time, we do not

wish to delay this proceeding unduly.

Therefore, we will allow interested

parties to file responses to COMSAT’s

supplemental comments within 30 days

of the date of this Public Notice.

Responses should be sent to Office of

the Secretary, Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.

COMSAT’s supplemental comments

and the responses thereto will be

available for public inspection during

regular business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239) of the

Federal Communications Commission,

1919 M. Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20554.

For further information concerning

this proceeding contact Sean White at

(202) 418–2453 or e-mail

swhite@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering

and Technology, Federal

Communications Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20554.

Federal Communications Commission.

Michael J. Marcus,

Acting Chief, Office of Engineering and

Technology.

[FR Doc. 96–9748 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[FHWA Docket No. MC–93–12]

RIN 2125–AD05

Training of Entry-Level Drivers of

Commercial Motor Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability and

request for comments.

SUMMARY: Section 4007 of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), (Pub.L.

102–240, 105 Stat. 2151–2152) directed

the Secretary of Transportation to report

to Congress on the effectiveness of the

efforts of the private sector to ensure

adequate training of entry-level drivers

of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs).

With this notice, the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) is advising

members of the general public that

copies of the study entitled ‘‘Assessing

the Adequacy of Commercial Motor

Vehicle Driver Training: Final Report’’

and a cost-benefit analysis of requiring

entry-level training for CMV drivers are

now available from the National

Technical Information Service (NTIS).

Two copies have also been placed in the

FHWA Docket number MC–93–12. The

Agency is also requesting comments

from the general public regarding the

content and conclusions of the final

report and cost-benefit analysis.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before October 22, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written, signed

comments to FHWA Docket No. MC–

93–12, Room 4232, HCC–10, Office of

Chief Counsel, Federal Highway

Administration, 400 Seventh Street,

SW., Washington, D.C. 20590. All

comments received will be available for

examination at the above address from

8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., e.t., Monday

through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Those desiring notification of receipt of

comments must include a selfaddressed, stamped postcard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ronald Finn, Office of Motor Carrier

Research and Standards, (202) 366–

0647, or Mr. Charles Medalen, Office of

Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1354, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20590.

Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15

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

except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

In response to the requirement in

§ 4007 of the ISTEA that the Secretary

commence a rulemaking proceeding on

the need to require training of all entrylevel drivers of CMVs, the FHWA

published an advance notice of

proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on

entry-level training on June 21, 1993 (58

FR 33874). There were 104 comments to

the ANPRM, but no consensus was

reached on the issue of mandated entrylevel driver training. The heavy truck

and bus industries were against

mandated entry-level driver training.

The main objection of these industries

to the proposed training requirement

was that the existence of uniform

licensing standards rendered training

unnecessary. The International

Brotherhood of Teamsters and the

trucking schools were in favor of the

training requirement. The trucking

schools argued that if training was not

mandated, the motor carriers and

schools generally would not offer or

require training.

Adequacy Study

In order to formulate a basis for the

report to Congress on entry-level driver

training required by the ISTEA, the

FHWA hired a contractor to assess the

adequacy of entry-level training for

CMV drivers. In analyzing the adequacy

of entry-level training, the contractor

examined the training provided to

entry-level drivers of heavy trucks,

motorcoaches, and school buses. This

examination disclosed that the

percentages of employers who hire

entry-level drivers and provide them

with adequate training were as follows:

school bus operator employers (24

percent), motorcoach driver employers

(19 percent), and heavy truck driver

employers (8 percent).

Consequently, the contractor

concluded that neither the heavy truck,

motorcoach, nor school bus segments of

the CMV industry provided adequate

entry-level driver training.

Cost-Benefit Study

The FHWA also had the contractor

carry out a cost-benefit study of

requiring entry-level driver training.

This study showed that the cost of

mandating entry-level training for

360,000 drivers a year in the heavy

truck industry would be $4.5 billion

over a 10-year period. The societal

benefits of fewer accidents, reduced

health care costs, and reduced delays

caused by accident-related traffic

congestion over the same 10-year period

were estimated to range from $5.8 to

$15.3 billion.

Report to Congress

The Secretary of Transportation

submitted the ‘‘Assessing the Adequacy

of Commercial Motor Vehicle Driver

Training: Final Report’’ and the costbenefit analysis to the U.S. Congress on

February 5, 1996.

The FHWA is requesting comments

from the general public on the entrylevel training final report and costbenefit analysis prior to taking any

additional action. The FHWA is

considering holding a public meeting at

the close of the comment period on the

issue of mandating entry-level training.
18356 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

If the FHWA decides to hold such a

meeting, a separate notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

Availability of the Report

Copies of the study entitled

‘‘Assessing the Adequacy of Commercial

Motor Vehicle Driver Training: Final

Report’’ and the cost-benefit analysis of

requiring entry-level training for CMV

drivers are available from the NTIS, U.S.

Department of Commerce, 5285 Port

Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

The telephone number for placing an

order from NTIS is 703–487–4650. The

report number is PB 96–141536. The

domestic price per copy is $61.00 while

the foreign price is $122.00 per copy.

Checks or money orders should be made

payable to ‘‘NTIS.’’ American Express,

VISA, MasterCard, or NTIS deposit

account are also accepted. The final

report, consisting of an Executive

Summary; Technical Overview; and

Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendations totals over 550 pages.

The Executive Summary of ‘‘Assessing

the Adequacy of Commercial Motor

Vehicle Driver Training: Final Report’’

is reproduced as Appendix A to this

notice. Two copies of ‘‘Assessing the

Adequacy of Commercial Motor Vehicle

Driver Training: Final Report’’ and the

cost-benefit analysis of requiring entrylevel training for CMV drivers have been

placed in FHWA Docket MC–93–12 and

are available for public inspection as

noted in the ‘‘Addresses’’ section above.

Members of the motor carrier industry

and other interested parties may access

a Word Perfect 5.1 version of the report

and the cost-benefit study, through the

FHWA’s Electronic Bulletin Board

System (FEBBS) using a personal

computer and a modem. The FEBBS

allows read-only access to information.

Access numbers for FEBBS are (202)

366–3764 for the Washington, D.C. area,

or toll-free at (800) 337–3492. The

system supports a variety of modem

speeds up to 14,400 baud line speeds,

and a variety of terminal types and

protocols. Modems should be set to 8

data bits, full duplex, and no parity for

optimal performance. Once a

connection has been established, new

users will have to go through a

registration process. Instructions are

given on the screen. FEBBS is mostly

menu-driven and hot keys are indicated

by <> enclosing the hot key. After

logging on to FEBBS and arriving at the

MAIN MENU, select <C> for

Conference: then <M> for Motor Carrier;

then either <M> for McRegis or <I> for

Information (more detailed help).

For technical assistance to gain access

to FEBBS, contact: FHWA Computer

Help Desk, HMS–40, room 4401, 400

Seventh Street, SW., Washington, D.C.

20590. The telephone number is (202)

366–1120.

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 315; 49 CFR 1.48; Sec.

4007 of Pub. L. 102–240, 105 Stat, 1914,

2151.

Issued on: April 18, 1996.

Rodney E. Slater,

Federal Highway Administration.

Executive Summary

This document is Volume I of a three

volume, final report of a project titled,

‘‘Assessing the Adequacy of Entry-Level

Commercial Motor Vehicle Training in

the Private Sector.’’ In this volume, we

summarize the background,

methodology, findings, conclusions and

recommendations of the study. Volume

II provides a more extensive technical

overview of each of these topics.

Volume III contains detailed discussion

of these topics, plus appendices

containing a summary of the literature

review and an explanation of training

adequacy scoring.

Background

The Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA), Public Law 102–240 mandates

that the FHWA report to Congress on

the effectiveness of private sector efforts

to ensure adequate training of entrylevel drivers of commercial motor

vehicles (CMVs). The act directed the

FHWA to initiate a rulemaking on the

need to require training of all entry-level

drivers of CMVs. If, as the result of the

rulemaking proceedings, the FHWA

determines that it is not in the public

interest to require training of all entrylevel CMV drivers, the FHWA must

submit a report to Congress explaining

the reasons for this decision, including

a cost-benefit analysis.

To satisfy this mandate from

Congress, FHWA needed to collect

information that would permit them to

determine the adequacy of private sector

training efforts. This project was

initiated to support FHWA in collecting,

compiling and analyzing this

information.

Objectives

The principal objective of the project

was to satisfy the congressional

mandate. In the words of the ISTEA,

this meant that the principal objective

was to determine ‘‘the effectiveness of

private sector efforts to ensure adequate

training of entry-level drivers of

commercial motor vehicles.’’

‘‘Commercial Motor Vehicles’’ for the

purposes of this study included heavy

trucks, motorcoaches and school buses.

Each of these CMV types represented a

separate private sector. In addition to

determining the adequacy of training,

FHWA must go further and determine

whether or not it is in the public interest

to require training of all entry-level

CMV drivers. So, an important

secondary objective of the study was to

support FHWA in its decision-making

process.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section presents the conclusions

and recommendations of the study. The

first subsection below addresses the

conclusions related to the training

adequacy issue. The next subsection

presents conclusions related to the

various factors that could affect FHWA’s

decision making process. Finally,

recommendations are presented for

future actions. Data and discussion to

support the conclusions and

recommendations occur in later

sections.

Are the Private Sectors Effective at

Ensuring Adequate Training?

Are the three private sectors—heavy

trucks, motorcoaches and school

buses—effective at ensuring adequate

training for their entry-level drivers?

The conclusion of this study is that

none of the three private sectors are

effectively providing adequate training.

What evidence exists that the training is

inadequate? The data comes from both

the motor carriers and the drivers

surveyed in this study.

Table 1 presents data for the motor

carriers. The first row of the table shows

the percent of motor carriers hiring

entry-level drivers that provide formal

training for them. The percentages are

calculated from data in Volume III,

Tables 3.3, 4,3 and 5.2. For example,

Table 3.3 shows that 24 of the 111 heavy

truck carriers who hire entry-level

drivers provide formal training. This

calculates to 21.6 percent, as shown in

Table 1. The second row in Table 1

shows the percent of motor carriers

whose formal training was judged as

‘‘Adequate.’’ For motorcoaches and

school buses, the percentages comes

directly from Volume III, Tables 4.5 and

5.4. For heavy trucks, the percentage is

derived from Table 3.5 by combining

the Number Adequate values for Forhire and Private Fleets (i.e., nine of the

24 company programs were adequate).

The third row in Table 1 provides an

estimate of the percent of motor carriers

hiring entry-level drivers that provide

adequate training for them. This figure

is obtained by combining the data in the

first two rows. For example, if 21.6

percent of the heavy truck carriers hire

entry-level drivers and provide formal

training for them, but only 37.5 percent

of the carriers had adequate formal
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18357

training, then multiplying 21.6 by .375

gives 8.1 as the estimate of the percent

of heavy truck carriers that provide

adequate formal training.

‘‘Effectiveness’’ was defined as the

prevalence or frequency with which the

motor carriers in each domain provided

formal training for their entry-level

drivers. Some sort of formal training (as

defined later in this document) was

deemed necessary in order to provide

the opportunity for development of the

essential knowledge, as well as the

minimum skills, needed to operate the

CMV. That is, just because a motor

carrier offers formal training does not

mean that the training is adequate, but

it would be very difficult for a carrier’s

training to be judged adequate, unless it

was formal.

See the End of the Report for Table 1

As can be seen from the table,

relatively few (22 percent) of the heavy

truck motor carriers surveyed that hire

entry-level drivers provided formal

training for them. However, well over

half of the motorcoach and school bus

carriers that hire entry-level drivers did

so.

‘‘Adequacy’’ was defined in terms of

how the formal training provided by a

sub-sample of the carriers in each

domain compared to the recommended

minimum requirements for entry-level

driver training established by industry

experts. To be judged ‘‘Adequate,’’ a

program had to be, on average across

various sub-scores, in conformance with

the criteria set by these experts. (The

scoring system is described later in this

document and in Volume III, Appendix

B.)

The table shows that only about onethird of the carriers with formal training

that were sampled had training that was

adequate. The heavy truck private sector

had the largest percentage of adequate

training programs and the motorcoach

private sector, the smallest. The third

line of the table combines the

prevalence information (the first line)

and the adequacy information (line two)

to provide an estimate of what

percentage of the motor carriers in each

domain, that hire entry-level drivers,

provide adequate training for them. The

motor carrier findings can be

summarized as follows:

—The heavy truck private sector has the

smallest percentage of carriers

offering adequate training (about 9

percent). This means that, of those

heavy truck carriers that hire entrylevel drivers, only about one in ten

would be expected to provide

adequate training.

—The school bus private sector had the

largest percentage of carriers

providing adequate training (about 24

percent). Even with this, the highest

percentage, only about one carrier in

four carriers would be expected to

provide adequate training.

None of the private sectors can be

considered effective in ensuring

adequate entry-level training, given

these figures.

While Table 1 provides an estimate of

the number of motor carriers in each

domain that provide adequate training,

a more basic question is, ‘‘What percent

of the drivers are being adequately

trained?’’ Also, it is known that publicly

funded and proprietary schools are

other sources of formally trained drivers

for the heavy trucking industry, so a

second question is, ‘‘To what extent do

the schools add to the percent of

adequately trained truck drivers?’’

Data to answer these questions come

from Tables 3.15, 3.18, 4.9, 4.11, 5.8,

and 5.10 in Volume III, which present

findings from the Driver surveys.

Several of the industry experts

supporting the project indicated that

training within the heavy truck industry

has improved substantially within the

last five years. So, it was considered

desirable to examine the data for ‘‘New’’

drivers only, i.e., drivers with five or

fewer years experience. The data for

New drivers are compiled and

summarized in Table 2 below.

It can be seen that about 62 percent

of the 141 heavy truck drivers in the

sample report receiving formal entrylevel training. There were four sources

of this formal training. By far, the most

frequently reported source was

proprietary schools (48 percent)

followed by publicly funded schools

(about eight percent). Military schools

and company-operated schools

combined accounted for only about six

percent.

The second column of the table

indicates what percentage of the drivers

receiving each type of formal training

reported receiving training that was

judged as ‘‘Adequate.’’ The criteria used

to evaluate the training reported by the

drivers were the same as those used to

evaluate the company training

programs, as reported in Table 1 above.

The estimate of the percent of drivers

adequately trained (the third column)

was derived from the first two. For

example, 44.8 percent of the 47.5

percent of drivers reporting proprietary

school training received adequate

training. So, 47.5 times 0.448 equals

21.3 percent as the estimate of the

percent of New drivers who receive

adequate training from this source.

Publicly funded schools contribute

another 4.2 percent and the combination

of military and company schools

account for 5.6 percent.

See End of the Report for Table 2

To summarize, 62 percent of the New

heavy truck drivers reported receiving

formal training, about 50 percent of

which scored as adequate. This resulted

in the estimate that 31 percent of New

heavy truck drivers are receiving

adequate training. It is interesting to

compare these numbers with the

numbers (not shown in the table) of the

‘‘Experienced’’ driver group. These are

drivers who have been driving between

six and 10 years. About 32 percent of

the 229 Experienced drivers reported

receiving formal training, about 51

percent of which scored as adequate,

resulting in the estimate that about 16

percent of the Experienced drivers

received adequate training. So, while

the percentage of New drivers who

report receiving formal training is

almost twice that of Experienced

drivers, the percent receiving adequate

training is the same. The percentage of

New drivers that receive adequate

training is higher than for Experienced

drivers because more New drivers

receive formal training, not because a

greater proportion of that formal

training is adequate.

Comparing the Percent Drivers

Adequately Trained figures from the

table, it can be seen that the figure for

School Buses is highest (about 35

percent) followed closely by Heavy

Trucks (31 percent) then Motorcoaches

(18 percent).

It is possible to answer the two

questions that began this discussion as

follows:

—How many drivers are adequately

trained? For new drivers (driving five

years or less), between 18 and 35

percent are adequately trained,

although these figures may be

optimistic.

—To what extent do the schools

contribute to the percent of

adequately trained truck drivers?

They contribute substantially. The

proprietary and publicly funded

schools produced about seven times

the number of adequately trained

heavy truck drivers as did the

company programs.

Based on the driver data, are the

private sectors effective at ensuring

adequate entry-level training? At best

(school buses), only one-third of the

recently trained entry-level drivers

received adequate training and more

than 40 percent of the reported training

was not adequate. At worst

(motorcoaches), only about two in ten

drivers received adequate training, two-
18358 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

thirds of the formal training was not

adequate, and 50 percent of the drivers

did not even receive formal training.

Given these statistics, none of the

private sectors can be considered as

effective in ensuring adequate training

of their entry-level drivers.

Thus the conclusions are the same,

whether the data upon which they are

based comes from the motor carriers

(i.e., Table 1) or the drivers (Table 2).

There are three corollary issues

related to training adequacy that deserve

mention. The first has to do with

‘‘exemplary’’ training programs/

activities. In order to assure that the

study did not overlook good training

programs or activities that were being

carried out in any of the domains,

survey respondents were asked to

identify programs/activities they

believed were exemplary, i.e., worthy of

imitation. It should be emphasized that

no criteria were imposed on the

respondents—they used their own

criteria to determine what was

exemplary. Information was collected

on these programs and their adequacy

was scored.

The heavy truck respondents had no

trouble identifying programs they

thought were exemplary. Nearly all of

the 27 programs they identified

involved formal pre-service training.

Fourteen (14) of the programs were run

by carriers and, of this group, almost

half included on-the-job training. The

five programs recommended by the

motorcoach respondents were formal

training. Only one of the school bus

respondents was able to recommend an

exemplary formal training program.

In general, the adequacy of the

‘‘exemplary’’ programs was no better

than the adequacy of the programs

selected at random from the various

domains. The programs recommended

by our heavy truck respondents as being

exemplary did not quite achieve the

minimum standards determined by our

trucking industry experts. On average,

the motorcoach exemplary programs

scored at about the recommended

minimum level. The one school bus

exemplary program was above the

minimum standard.

Examination of the ‘‘exemplary’’

programs provided corroboration that

the programs selected at random, at

least from the heavy truck and

motorcoach domains, were

representative of the industries as a

whole.

The second corollary issue relates to

how big a motor carrier must be in order

to provide formal training. Across all

domains, even the smallest carriers

offered formal training. While most of

the exemplary programs were operated

by medium to large carriers, several

adequate or better heavy truck and

motorcoach programs were operated by

small carriers. It is apparent that

adequate entry-level training need not

be limited to the larger carriers.

The third corollary issue relates to

industry plans that could result in

future improvements in training

program adequacy. Across all domains,

few motor carriers, associations or

insurance companies expressed plans

that would increase the prevalence of

formal training of entry level drivers. As

noted earlier, without at least increasing

the prevalence of formal training, it

would be difficult for the overall

adequacy of the training to improve.

Therefore, it appears that the present

level of training adequacy is not likely

to improve due to the actions of the

private sectors themselves.

What Are the Decision Factors and the

Conclusions Related To Them?

Four decision factors (in addition to

the adequacy of training) were

identified that should be considered in

determining FHWA’s response to

Congress. These decision factors are as

follows:

—The accident problem, including both

the magnitude of the accident

problem and recent trends.

—The effectiveness of training as a

solution to the problem, i.e., the

relationship between training and

accident reduction.

—The impact of mandated training,

including factors that will negatively

impact the condition of the industry,

if training is required, such as:

—The impact of other Government

Regulations.

—Driver turnover.

—Driver demand/shortage.

—Existence/effectiveness of other

government programs, including the

potential impact of the Commercial

Drivers License (CDL), as well as the

impact of other Government programs

(if any) intended to reduce the CMV

accident problem.

The conclusions of the study with

regard to each of these factors are

presented below. To provide

perspective, the size of the industries

(private sectors) is summarized prior to

the presentation of the conclusions

themselves.

Size of the Industry. The heavy truck

domain is by far the largest of the three

domains, and the motorcoach domain is

the smallest. The heavy truck domain is

also the most complex of the three. It is

comprised of a number of different

types of carriers, each with its own

unique characteristics, problems and

needs. In particular, the specialized

fleets have different (but over-lapping)

entry-level training needs, when

compared to the needs of the for-hire

and private carriers of cargo.

The accident problem. Discussion of

the accident problem must include both

the magnitude of the problem today and

the problem trend over recent years.

Concerning the magnitude of the

problem, the tabulation below shows

the number of crashes, injuries and

fatalities for each of the domains (to the

extent known), for 1990:

Trucks Motorcoaches School

buses

Number of Crashes ..................................................................................................................................... 318,500 Unknown ............ 28,500

Number of Injuries ....................................................................................................................................... 130,000 Unknown ............ 24,000

Number of Deaths ....................................................................................................................................... 5,254 39 ....................... 128

The table shows that, in absolute

numbers:

—Heavy truck accidents result in far

more fatalities than either

motorcoaches or school buses.

—School buses are involved in far fewer

crashes, injuries and fatalities than

large trucks, but they have about three

times the fatalities of motorcoaches.

Our data source for non-fatal

accidents does not discriminate among

school buses, intercity buses (i.e.,

motorcoaches) and transit buses.

However, it estimates that in 1990,

injuries in bus accidents account for

only about 1.1 percent of the injuries for

all accidents (as compared to about 4

percent for medium and large trucks).

For 1992, the bus injury accidents were

about 0.7 percent of the total.

In addition:

—Heavy trucks have less than half as

many accidents per 100 million miles
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18359

traveled than passenger vehicles, but

they have 56 percent more fatal

accidents.

—In about 25 percent of the fatal

accidents, the truck driver was

reported to have made an error or

otherwise contributed to the accident;

in 72 percent of these accidents the

other driver was reported to have

made an error, but not the truck

driver.

Conclusions concerning the

magnitude of the accident problem are

as follows:

—It is clear that, for fatal accidents,

heavy trucks have the greatest

problem, followed by school buses,

then motorcoaches. The percentage of

all injuries attributed to bus accidents

(motorcoaches, school buses and

other types combined) is only about

one-fourth of the percentage

attributed to trucks.

—Truck drivers are involved in fewer

accidents per 100 million miles

driven than passenger vehicle drivers

and they are less likely to be noted as

having made an error contributing to

the accident. However, when a truck

driver is involved in an accident, it is

more likely to involve at least one

fatality. Comparable data were not

available for motorcoach and school

bus drivers.

With regard to accident trends, there

are three conclusions:

—For heavy trucks, fatal accidents are

less frequent (relative to the number

of miles driven by trucks) than ten

years ago. The vehicle involvement

rate per 100 million miles traveled

reduced from 5.8 in 1980 to 3.9 in

1990.

—The fatal accident involvement rate

per 100 million miles traveled has

decreased over the 11 years period

between 1980 and 1990 by the same

amount (32 percent) for both heavy

trucks and passenger vehicles. Heavy

trucks decreased from 5.8 to 3.9 and

passenger vehicles decreased from 3.7

to 2.5. ‘‘Passenger Vehicles’’ are

defined as vehicles, including

automobiles and light trucks, with

GVWRs of 10,000 pounds or less.

—There does not appear to be any trend

in the accidents rates for

motorcoaches and school buses.

There are at least two implications for

decision-making within these

conclusions:

—The magnitude of the accident

problem parallels the size of the

industry, i.e., heavy trucks is the

largest industry and has the highest

fatalities. However, heavy truck

fatalities appear to be overrepresented when size of the industry

(number of drivers) is taken into

consideration. The number of truck

drivers is estimated to be about

5,600,000 while the number of

motorcoach drivers is estimated at

156,000 and the number of school bus

drivers at 742,000. There were 5,254

fatalities involving heavy trucks in

1990, 39 involving motorcoaches and

128 involving school buses. This

calculates to 0.93 fatalities per 1000

truck drivers as compared to 0.25

fatalities per 1000 motorcoach drivers

and 0.17 per 1000 school bus drivers.

This should not be taken to mean that

truck drivers are poor drivers. The

difference in the fatality rates is more

likely due to exposure—the truck

drivers drive more miles on average

than motorcoach and school bus drivers.

So, they are at higher risk of accident

involvement. However, it does imply

that any efforts to improve the safety of

truck drivers (such as requiring

adequate safety training) will likely

have a greater return, in terms of

accidents avoided, than the same efforts

aimed at motorcoach and school bus

drivers. Some ANPRM and survey

respondents indicated that training

should not be mandated because the

industries are already doing a good job

with various activities intended to

reduce accidents. The trend data do

show a reduction in fatality rates for

combination trucks, but a reduction of

the same magnitude occurred for

passenger vehicles. It was beyond the

scope of this study to determine the

reasons for the declines. However, given

the data available to the study, it was

not possible to demonstrate any special

effect of industry training activities,

beyond whatever factors could be

causing a general decline for both trucks

and passenger vehicles.

The effectiveness of training as a

solution to the problem. The findings as

to the effectiveness of training were

contradictory. While some in-house

studies by carriers reported that training

reduced accidents, other studies using

random samples of drivers (including

this study) noted a tendency for trained

drivers to have slightly more accidents.

Some researchers have attributed this

tendency to the high variability in

training quality, indicating that poor

training may give the new driver a false

sense of confidence in his/her abilities.

However, this study found no evidence

of a relationship between adequacy of

the training the driver reported

receiving and his/her frequency of

accidents.

What implications for decisionmaking can be derived from these

contradictory findings? The answer to

this question seems to be that, while

adequate training is a necessary

condition for the reduction of CMV

accidents, it is not a sufficient

condition. Something more has to

happen in order for training to have its

effect. A discussion of these additional

factors is contained in Volume III,

Section 7.

The impact of mandated training.

Survey respondents were asked whether

mandated training would impact the

condition of the industry or the drivers,

the turnover problem or the driver

shortage problem. For a given question,

the individual groups within a domain

sometimes differed greatly in their

response distributions. However, none

of the samples provided a uniformly

extreme response to any of the

questions. There was no consensus in

the samples that requiring entry-level

training would strongly influence any of

these factors, one way or the other.

The following statements capture the

general nature of the opinion within

each domain:

—There are probably more people

presently against mandated training

than are for it, but not by a large

margin. While the responses to the

Advance Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking (the ANPRM, as

discussed in a later section) were

heavily against mandated training, the

responses of the random samples

surveyed in this study were more

equally divided (as discussed above).

In addition, the CVSA Survey

respondents were overwhelmingly in

favor of mandated training. However,

these persons were already drivers

and not likely to be affected by the

mandate.

—The majority of each domain could

support mandated training if a

program were developed that

addressed and resolved the numerous

economic and administrative issues.

This is based on the responses to the

ANPRM as well as comments made by

the respondents to this study.

—There is also a substantial number of

people who would support a

performance-based (i.e., testing)

alternative centered around

strengthening the existing CDL

program. The basis for this statement

comes mainly from the responses to

the ANPRM.

Clearly, any decision made by FHWA

will have supporters and detractors.

However, opposition will be reduced to

the extent that the program (if any)

promulgated by the agency addresses

the economic and administrative issues.
18360 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Existence/effectiveness of other

government programs. The conclusions

related to this decision factor are as

follows:

—Concerning the CDL program, the

large majority of the survey

respondents believed that the CDL

would increase the likelihood of

adequate training. The majority of the

drivers believed that their CDL

training went beyond what they

needed to pass the CDL tests. There

appears to be a general agreement that

the CDL will have a positive impact

on the adequacy of training.

—Concerning other government

programs, it was concluded that:

—The activities of the Research and

Special Programs Administration

(RSPA) also includes the training of

heavy truck drivers who transport

hazardous materials. However,

RSPA’s intent is generally to prevent

incidents involving hazardous cargo,

rather than teaching driving skills to

drivers. So, there is no conflict, and

minimal overlap, with the driver

training promulgated by RSPA.

—There appears to be nothing in any of

the other programs that would

conflict with, or substitute for, an

intervention strategy intended to

reduce CMV accidents.

Recommendations

It was stated earlier that none of the

private sectors—heavy trucks,

motorcoaches or school buses—are

effectively providing adequate training.

Data were presented to support the fact

that none of the private sectors were

totally effective in providing formal

training for their entry-level drivers, i.e,

the prevalence of formal training in all

sectors could be improved. Data were

also presented to show that relatively

few of the formal training programs that

were provided met the study criteria for

adequacy.

However, FHWA should not make a

decision concerning any intervention

strategy, including requiring entry-level

training, based on prevalence and

adequacy information alone. The other

decision factors discussed in this report

must be considered in determining

whether it is in the public interest to

take some action, and for determining

which action to take.

The data on the accident problem lead

to one recommendation: If it is desirable

to target fewer than all three domains,

the heavy truck domain should be

considered first priority, followed by

motorcoaches.

The study data and the ANPRM

responses suggest that there are three

intervention strategies (in addition to

doing nothing at all) that FHWA should

consider:

—Training-based. This strategy involves

requiring the training of entry-level

CMV drivers.

—Performance-based. With this strategy,

entry-level CMV drivers would be

required to pass more comprehensive

knowledge and skill tests than are

presently required to obtain a

Commercial Drivers License (CDL).

—Industry-based. Here, reduction in

CMV accidents would be achieved by

means of a carefully structured set of

cooperative FHWA-industry

initiatives intended to encourage

better training of CMV drivers.

The conclusion was stated earlier that

training, by itself, is not sufficient to

reduce CMV accidents. This suggests

that a combination of the above

strategies would produce the best

results. Either the Training-based

strategy (which regulates the content of

training) or the Performance-based

strategy (which regulates the outcome of

training) should be combined with the

Industry-based strategy.

Which strategy—Training-based or

Performance-based—should be selected?

There are compelling arguments for

both strategies. The Training strategy

permits detailed control of the training

content, even content like attitudes and

accident avoidance skills, that is

difficult to measure on a performance

test. The Performance strategy provides

the industries with greater flexibility in

training their drivers, and the CDL

structure exists as a starting point.

A more extensive analysis is needed

to determine which alternative is

preferable. To select between the two

strategies, the recommended next steps

are as follows. FHWA should:

—Develop draft program specifications.

The objective should be to describe

model Training and Performancebased programs in enough detail that

their respective costs and impacts can

be assessed. The Recommendations

section in Volume II provides a listing

of the elements that should be

included in the program

specifications.

—Obtain feedback on the draft programs

from industry and the states. Revise

the program specifications to address

problems, reduce costs and improve

potential effectiveness.

—Select between the two programs

based on which provides the better

cost/effectiveness.

One possible outcome of the above

process could be a hybrid program, i.e.,

a combination of the Training- and

Performance-based approaches that

embodies the advantages of each.

When a strategy is determined,

detailed training/performance standards

should be developed. To establish the

groundwork for standards development,

it is recommended that FHWA adopt the

three-element definition of entry level

training that was used in this study,

rather than pre-service training alone.

In this study, entry-level training was

defined as all training received during

the first three years of the driver’s

experience. Entry-level training

included the following three elements:

—Pre-service Training. This is training

received prior to starting work as a

CMV driver. Pre-service training is the

most reliable way to provide the basic

skills and knowledge needed before

the new driver goes on-the-job.

—On-the-job Training (OJT). OJT is

provided when the new driver first

begins actually hauling cargo or

passengers. It provides a cost-effective

way for the new driver to develop his/

her skills.

—In-service Training. In-service training

includes those activities provided by

the motor carrier that are specifically

intended to improve the safetyrelated skills and knowledge of its

drivers, including (but not necessarily

limited to) entry-level drivers. Inservice training provides a means of

refreshing skills, such as accident

avoidance, that can degrade over time.

To develop the standards:

—The model tractor-trailer curriculum

should be revised and expanded to

include OJT and In-service training.

This revised curriculum would be an

essential component of either the

Training-based or the Performancebasedstrategy.

—If the intervention is to include

motorcoaches and/or school buses,

FHWA should develop three- element

model curriculum specifications for

operators of these CMVs. These

curricula should be developed in

close cooperation with motorcoach

and school bus industries.

FHWA should consider revising the

model tractor-trailer curriculum, and

developing the model motorcoach and

school bus curricula, even if FHWA

decides not to proceed with required

training or some other intervention

strategy. The existence of these up-todate standard curricula will make it

easier for concerned elements within

the private sectors to voluntarily

implement adequate formal training.

With regard to the Industry-based

strategy, the recommended first step is

to investigate and select initiatives for

inclusion in the program. Possible

initiatives are discussed in Volume III,

Section 6. Once additional data are
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18361

collected, FHWA should develop a

program specification for this strategy. It

is recommended that FHWA advocate

and act to initiate some form of

Industry-based program whether or not

a Training- or Performance-based

program is carried out.

Supporting Detail

The remainder of this document

contains summaries of study findings

from which the foregoing conclusions

and recommendations were derived.

The section begins with a description of

the scope of the effort and the definition

of key concepts. Then the study

methodology is briefly described. After

this, the supporting detail leading to the

conclusions and recommendations is

summarized in the same order that the

conclusions were presented in the

previous section.

Scope of the Effort

Several definitions and decisions

were made early in the project that

limited the scope of the study. They are

described below.

Commercial Motor Vehicles Included

in the Study. ‘‘Commercial motor

vehicle’’ was defined in accordance

with the Commercial Motor Vehicle

Safety Act of 1986. The study included

all heavy duty trucks (i.e., over 26,000

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating), but

passenger carrying CMVs were limited

to Long Haul Regular Route (LHRR),

Charter/Tour (C/T) and School Buses.

Private Motor Carriers of Passengers

(PMCP) and Metro/Transit Buses were

excluded because they were not

generally subject to the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) at

the commencement of the study.

However, PMCPs are presently subject

to the FMCSRs.

Thus, the study focused on three CMV

‘‘domains’’: Heavy duty trucks (hereafter

referred to as ‘‘Heavy Trucks’’),

Motorcoaches (including long haul and

charter/tour buses) and School Buses.

Scope as Related to Hazmat Vehicles.

With regard to vehicles used in the

transportation of hazardous materials

requiring placarding (‘‘Hazmat’’

vehicles), the study was limited to

determining the prevalence and

adequacy of the entry-level driving

training received by drivers of these

vehicles.

What is the ‘‘Private Sector?’’ In this

study, the terms ‘‘industry’’ and

‘‘private sector’’ are used

interchangeably. There is a different

‘‘private sector’’ or ‘‘industry’’ for each

of the three CMV domains - heavy

trucks, motorcoaches, and school buses.

A private sector includes companies,

organizations, and individuals that have

a direct interest in the transportationrelated activities surrounding that

particular domain and that are in a

position to impact, directly or

indirectly, the training of entry-level

drivers. These groups and individuals

fall into the following categories and

subcategories (although not all private

sectors have them all): driving schools

(proprietary, publicly funded and

company-operated), certification/

accreditation groups, motor carriers,

associations (including unions),

insurance companies and drivers.

Definition of ‘‘Adequate Training.’’

Two focus groups were assembled, one

from the trucking private sector and the

other from the motorcoach and school

bus private sectors. They were asked to

define the minimum acceptable

curricula for entry-level heavy truck,

motorcoach, and school bus training.

They reached consensus on minimum

criteria on eight factors including

classroom hours, practice (off- street and

on-street) hours, student/teacher ratios,

behind- the-wheel time and course

content topics.

An adequacy scoring algorithm was

derived that consisted of eight adequacy

sub-scores and an Overall Adequacy

Score (OAS). An adequacy sub-score

reflects the extent to which a training

program (or the training reported by a

driver) deviates from a training criteria.

For example, a school program that has

a score of zero (0) on the Class/Lab

Hours Sub-score would be exactly in

conformance with the number of class/

lab hours recommended by the experts.

The OAS is the average of the eight subscores. So, a school with an Overall

Adequacy Score of ¥11 has adequacy

sub-scores that are, on average, 11

percent below the criteria values

established by the experts.

Details concerning the criteria and the

adequacy scoring procedures are

contained in Volume III, Appendix B.

Support for Rulemaking

In addition to carrying out data

collection activities for the decision

factors listed above, another aspect of

the project involved providing support

for the rule making process.

The ISTEA required FHWA to issue a

rulemaking on the need to require

training of all entry-level drivers of

CMVs. As a first step in rulemaking

process, the Federal Highway

Administration published an Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANPRM) titled, Training for All Entry

Level Drivers of Commercial Motor

Vehicles (CMVs) in the 21 June 1993

issue of the Federal Register. The

responses to the ANPRM were analyzed,

organized and abstracted for this report.

Methods

The collection of data for the study

involved six data collection activities:

—Industry Surveys. Representatives of

the private sector (as defined above)

of each domain were interviewed.

—Schools Surveys. A random sample of

the schools that presently provide

training for entry-level drivers in each

domain were surveyed. The term

‘‘school’’ was defined broadly to

include motor carriers who provide

formal training for their own entrylevel drivers, as well as proprietary

and publicly funded schools.

—Driver Surveys. The drivers

themselves were interviewed.

—Accident Data Collection. Truck,

motorcoach and school bus accident

and accident trend data were obtained

from National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration and National Safety

Council Publications.

—Federal Agencies Data Collection.

Federal government agencies were

contacted to determine the existence

of policies, regulations or practices

that could impact the effectiveness of

the private sector’s efforts to ensure

adequate training of entry-level CMV

drivers.

—CVSA Data Collection. The

Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance

(CVSA) agreed to include eight

questions about driver training in

their Roadcheck ’93 survey. This

survey was performed in June 1993.

In addition to the data collection

activities listed above, there was a

seventh data collection activity referred

to as the Exemplary Programs Data

Collection. This activity was considered

apart from the others because it did not

directly impact any of the decision

factors.

The goal of the Exemplary Programs

data collection was to identify the best

of the training programs that presently

exist within each domain, i.e., to define

what is possible for the industry to

accomplish. Exemplary Programs were

identified by the Industry Survey

samples and contact was made with

these organizations to obtain

information about the programs/

activities.

The adequacy of the entry level

formal training programs recommended

as being exemplary was determined, as

was the adequacy of the formal training

programs identified from our random

samples of schools and motor carriers.

We also examined the adequacy of the

entry-level training described by our

driver samples.

Table 3 shows the number of industry

organizations of each type that were

included in the Industry Survey for each
18362 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

domain. It also shows the number of

schools, exemplary programs and

drivers surveyed.

In addition, a total of 5869 CVSA

questionnaire forms were received and

analyzed. As expected, very few buses

(only 17) were included in the sample.

The large majority of the drivers (88.6

percent) were operating tractor/single

trailer combinations, but a small

number (146) of twin, double and triple

drivers were included. Straight trucks

comprised 8.5 percent of the sample.

See end of the Report for Table 3

Prevalence/Adequacy of Private Sector

Programs

The study focused on three types of

private sector programs:

—Training Programs, i.e., formal,

structured courses.

—Training Activities, i.e., isolated, short

duration, events such as watching

videos, reading manuals and

attending safety meetings.

—Training Support Activities, i.e.,

anything that encouraged/supported

the actual training of entry- level

drivers.

In the following paragraphs, the

findings for the ‘‘exemplary’’ programs

recommended by our survey

respondents will be summarized first,

then the findings obtained from our

random samples of industry

associations, motor carriers and schools.

Exemplary Training Programs/

Activities. The exemplary training

programs and training activities are first

described and then their adequacy is

discussed.

What is an Exemplary Training

Program/Activity? The heavy truck,

motorcoach and school bus Industry

survey respondents were asked to

recommend training programs or

training activities that they believed

were exemplary, i.e., worthy of

imitation by the rest of the industry. The

respondents were free to define

exemplary programs/activities using any

criteria they chose.

Program/Activity Descriptions. The

heavy truck industry survey

respondents recommended 27

exemplary training programs/activities.

Fourteen (14) were company-operated

training programs. The companies

themselves were generally large to very

large. Nearly all reported that they

require their entry-level drivers to have

graduated from a truck driving school

and they provided on-the-job training

(OJT) ranging from four weeks to six

months. Six reported that they operate

their own company schools.

Thirteen (13) were school programs.

All reported offering classroom

instruction and both range and on-street

practice. The average duration for the

proprietary schools was 235 hours; for

the publicly funded schools it was 334

hours.

Five motorcoach exemplary training

programs were identified, all carried out

by Long Haul Regular Route motor

carriers. These companies were medium

in size to very large and the schools

ranged in duration from 152 hours

(including 50 hours on-the-job) to 250

hours.

Four school bus exemplary programs/

activities were identified, but only one

was a formal training program. The

program had a total duration of 40 hours

with 10 hours of actual behind-thewheel time per student.

Proportionally more exemplary

training programs/activities were

identified by the heavy truck group.

Possibly one reason is that the training

of drivers has higher visibility in the

trucking industry due to the public

attention that has been focused on truck

safety in the last few years.

Adequacy. We determined adequacy

scores for the exemplary formal training

programs. The Overall Adequacy Scores

(OASs) were as follows:

—For heavy trucks, the mean OAS

across the 17 programs was ¥11 (i.e.,

the sub-scores were, on average 11

percent below the criterion values).

Seven of the programs (41 percent)

were adequate, i.e., had zero or higher

Overall Adequacy Scores.

—For motorcoaches, mean OAS for the

five programs was ¥1.6. Two of the

five programs had an OAS of zero or

higher.

—The OAS for the one exemplary

school bus program was +16.1.

Sampled Training Programs/

Activities. Within the Industry Survey

groups, with one exception, only the

motor carriers and schools actually

trained drivers, i.e., had formal training

programs or training activities. The one

exception was the teamsters union,

which does provide formal training.

Prevalence. Table 4 compares the

three domains in terms of the

proportions of each that hire entry level

drivers, and that provide either formal

training or training activities for them.

While over half of the heavy truck and

motorcoach motor carriers hire only

experienced drivers, over 95 percent of

the school bus fleets hire entry level

drivers. Also, not only are the heavy

truck motor carriers least likely to hire

entry-level drivers, they are also the

least likely to provide formal training

for them, once they are hired.

Concerning the sizes of the fleets

reporting formal training:

—Heavy truck carriers of all sizes report

that they provide formal training, but

58 percent of the fleets in our sample

larger than 200 drivers provide formal

training, while only six percent of the

smaller companies do.

—Motorcoach carriers of all sizes

reported that they provide training.

LHRR fleets as small as 15 drivers,

and C/T fleets as small as nine

drivers, reported having formal

training.

—School bus fleets of all sizes offer

formal training.

See End of Report for Table 4

Effectiveness. Table 5 summarizes the

adequacy score data for the random

samples of formal training programs

across the three domains.

The tabulation shows that, for heavy

trucks, the mean Overall Adequacy

Score (OAS) for the schools was

substantially lower than the mean OAS

for the company operated programs.

Comparing company programs across

the three domains, it is clear that the

heavy truck company programs group

has the highest mean OAS. On average,

they were about 20 percent above the

criterion values, as compared to only

about 2 percent for the school bus

programs and a minus 17 percent for the

motorcoach programs. Also, more of the

heavy truck company programs scored

zero of better.

Plans for the Future. The following

summarizes the plans for future training

programs and activities reported by our

Industry Survey groups:

—Within the heavy truck domain, only

10 percent of the for-hire fleets and 18

percent of the private fleets had plans.

Generally, these plans were vague and

uncertain, beyond obtaining and

showing videos and hiring

instructors.

—Only about 14 percent of the

motorcoach motor carriers had any

plans, and these were for training

activities. The activities mentioned

included a defensive driving course,

videos, safety meetings and a driver

recertification program.

See End of Report for Table 5

—Only about one-third of the school

bus motor carriers have plans for

future training activities. Three of the

operators are uncertain what they are

going to do and two expect to

implement formal training courses.

Size of the Industries

The following tabulation provides

estimates of the number of motor

carriers and drivers in each of the three

domains.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18363

Heavy

trucks Motorcoaches Schoolbuses

Number of fleets ............................................................................................................................................ 230,000 5,000 14,700

Number of drivers .......................................................................................................................................... 5,600,000 156,000 742,000

Each of the domains may be further

characterized as follows:

—Heavy truck fleets and drivers are

approximately equally divided

between for-hire and private motor

carriers (including specialized fleets,

e.g., fleets operated by utility

companies, construction companies

and refuse haulers). There are about

100,000 owner-operators.

—Of the 5,000 motorcoach fleets

presently in operation in the United

States, about 114 are Long Haul

Regular Route carriers who employ

about 9,400 drivers.

—The 14,700 public school districts that

bus students are divided into 3,280

private fleets (contractor operated)

and 11,420 public fleets (school

system operated). As to the number of

drivers, for private fleets this estimate

is 262,400 drivers and for public

fleets, 479,700 drivers.

Relationship Between Training and

Accident Reduction

The Industry Survey representatives,

the motor carriers and the schools were

asked for any data they had

demonstrating the relationship between

training and accidents. Three heavy

truck motor carriers reported in-house

studies indicating that training reduced

accidents. None of the motorcoach or

school bus respondents were able to

identify relevant studies.

Early in this project, a literature

search was carried out to determine, in

part, the extent to which driver training

impacts accidents. Two studies were

found that reported accident reduction

following school bus driver training:

One reported a 23 percent decrease in

accidents and the other a 22 percent

reduction in driver at fault accidents,

during a period in which the number of

miles driven doubled. There were no

studies providing information on the

link between training and accident

reduction for motorcoach drivers.

However, four other studies found

that formally trained drivers reported

having the same or slightly more

accidents than drivers trained

informally. The earliest study was

published in 1979. It reported, based on

a survey of U.S. truck drivers, that

trained drivers indicated having more

accidents than drivers who were not

trained. The Regular Common Carrier

Conference (RCCC) asked truck drivers

about the training they received and

their accident experience as part of the

motor carrier safety surveys they

conducted in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

Analysis of the 1988 survey responses

(878 combination truck drivers) showed

that 41 percent of the trained drivers

had a truck accident in the previous five

years, compared to only 32 percent of

the drivers without formal training. This

was a statistically significant result (.05

level). A similar result was obtained in

the previous year’s survey (1,762

interviews), although no detail was

provided. The 1989 survey showed

about the same level of accidents for

trained (27 percent) and non-trained (29

percent) drivers.

A GAO report describes the wide

variation in truck driver training and the

RCCC citations make the point that this

variability may mask the effect of good

training. They indicate that their finding

‘‘* * * points to the need for

establishing and maintaining high

standards so that drivers are taught

accident-reducing skills, rather than

given a false sense of security.’’

In this study, data on drivers’ accident

history was also collected. Here also, the

formally trained drivers reported having

somewhat more accidents, across all

three domains. It was expected that

drivers whose training scored as

adequate (i.e., an OAS of zero or higher)

would have fewer accidents than those

whose training scored lower. However,

there was no suggestion of a consistent

relationship between training adequacy

and accidents in the data. In fact, there

were individual drivers reporting one or

more accidents who had relatively high

adequacy scores.

The Impact of Mandated Training on

the Industries

Table 6 summarizes the responses of

the Industry Survey respondents in each

of the three domains to the eight

questions related to the condition of the

industries and the impact of mandated

training.

Existence of Other Government

Programs

This research area addresses the

potential impact of the CDL and the

identification of other Federal

government programs that might

interact, conflict or be redundant with

mandated training (or some other

intervention strategy).

Potential Impact of the CDL. Data

relating to the impact of the CDL came

from our survey respondents from the

Industry, Schools and Driver Surveys,

and the ANPRM commenters.

Industry and Schools Surveys

Findings. We asked our Industry and

School Surveys respondents, ‘‘What

effect, if any, do you think CDL testing

will have on the likelihood that entrylevel [name of domain] drivers will be

adequately trained?’’ Almost 65 percent

of the heavy truck sample, 74 percent of

the motorcoach sample and 64 percent

of the school bus sample said it would

increase the likelihood.

Driver Survey Findings. We asked our

drivers who began driving on or after

the time when the CDL went into effect,

‘‘How well did your training prepare

you for the CDL [Knowledge or Skill]

test?’’ The responses were as follows:

—For the knowledge test question, the

most frequent response (across all

domains) was, ‘‘Gave me somewhat

more knowledge than I needed.’’

—For the heavy truck and school bus

samples, the most frequent response

to the skill test question was ‘‘* * *

somewhat more practice than I

needed.’’ For the motorcoach sample

it was, ‘‘Gave me just enough

practice.’’

See End of Report for Table 6

Other Government Programs

Potentially Impacting an Intervention.

Two listings of government programs/

initiatives were identified, in addition

to the CDL, that will or could interface

with any FHWA program/initiative to

reduce CMV accidents. The first listing

identifies those government agencies

that regulate the activities of fleet

operators/drivers and/or make

requirements concerning training,

recordkeeping and reporting. Any

mandated entry level heavy truck driver

training curriculum or standard, and the

program structure to administer the

requirement should be consistent with

(i.e., not conflict with) these existing

Federal requirements. This listing is as

follows:

—Interstate Commerce Commission.

Regulations, as well as recordkeeping

and reporting requirements

—Research and Special Programs

Administration. HAZMAT training,

inspection and enforcement

—Environmental Protection Agency.

Worker Protection Standard, SARA
18364 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

Title III requirements, and the Clean

Air Act Emergency Response Plan

—Occupational Health and Safety

Administration.

Hazard Communication Standard

—Federal Highway Administration.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Regulations, as well as recordkeeping

and reporting requirements

The second listing presents potential

sources of funding to drivers, employers

and/or schools. Any program to

administer a mandated training

requirement should be developed with

such funding sources in mind, in order

to mitigate the economic impact of

mandated training and facilitate

acceptance of the requirement. We

identified two potential sources of

funding:

—Department of Education. The

Literature Review Report describes

the changes in the Title IV funding

and its negative impact on both

schools and persons wishing to enter

training as a heavy truck driver.

ANPRM respondents suggested that

there is a need for further changes to

the Title IV if it is to support a

mandated training requirement.

—Department of Labor. The Job

Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

provides block funding to states and

local jurisdictions. The states, in

particular, could be encouraged to

make use of their JTPA funds in

support of the mandated training,

should FHWA implement the

requirement.

Responses to the ANPRM and

Conclusions

A total of 96 letters, signed by 104

persons, were received in response to

the ANPRM. Of these 104 respondents,

65 were associated with the trucking

industry (including 34 motor carriers),

16 were from the school bus industry,

one represented a motorcoach

association, 16 were associated with

state government, and 8 were other.

The ANPRM solicited responses to

thirteen (13) questions. In addition to or

instead of responding to the questions,

many of the persons responding chose

to address other topics related to the

subject area. Analysis of these responses

indicated that they related to four

general issues.

In the summary that follows, only the

questions with high response rates are

included. Several questions relating to

how adequacy should be defined and

what standards exist for determining

adequacy have been combined, since

similar answers were provided to these

questions. The questions have been

abbreviated to save space. The section

ends with a summary of the four general

issues. Refer to Responses to the

ANPRM in Volume II for the complete

text of each question and an individual

summary of each question/issue.

Defining Standards for Adequacy of

Training (Questions 1, 2, 4 and 8)

A total of 9 standards were identified.

By far, the two most frequently

mentioned standards were the FHWA

Model Curriculum as embodied in the

Professional Truck Driver Institute of

America, Inc. (PTDIA) Standards, and

the CDL Licensing Standards. The

PTDIA standard includes classroom

instruction, range practice and on-street

practice totaling 147.5 per-student

hours. This is equivalent to the 320

class hours required by the FHWA

Model Curriculum. The CDL tests

consist of a general knowledge test,

specialized knowledge tests, a vehicle

component inspection and a road test.

What an Adequate Training Program

Should Include (Question 3)

The most frequent response from the

truck group respondents (made by 22 of

the 38 respondents) was that the

program should conform to the FHWA

Model Curriculum/PTDIA Standard (for

both content and hours). Several of

these persons indicated additional

topics, or thought the curriculum

should be updated.

The motorcoach respondent offered

topics, indicating that they apply to

both trucks and buses. The only school

bus group response came from an

association, which provided the outline

for a school bus driver training program

they are supporting.

The most frequent suggestion for

program methods was to emphasize

behind-the-wheel instruction.

Adequacy of the CDL in Measuring

Driver Performance (Question 5)

One-third of the 64 commenters

responding to this question think the

CDL tests accurately measure a driver’s

performance. Roughly one-third of the

commenters answered ‘‘Yes,’’ if the CDL

were modified in a specific way. The

remaining one-third did not think the

CDL tests accurately measure a driver’s

performance.

By far, the most common reason given

for supporting the CDL was the

respondent’s belief that the tests are

sufficiently comprehensive to accurately

measure a driver’s performance. Those

who qualified their support most

frequently indicated the need for

additional training and/or the need to

test additional knowledge and skills.

Should Training be Federally

Mandated? (Question 6)

Over 93 percent of the 104

respondents addressed Question 6.

Overall, they were against mandating

training by a margin of two-to-one.

However, there were important

differences among the groups:

—The Truck groups were mixed:

—The Schools/School Association

group (11 respondents) was two-toone in favor of the mandate.

—The three union respondents were

also in favor of the mandate.

—All of the other truck groups (48

respondents) were against.

—The Bus groups were unanimously

against.

—The State Government and Other

groups were equally divided.

The most frequently mentioned

reasons in favor were that, if training

was not required, the carriers and

schools generally would not comply;

regulations need to be set; and the

FHWA/PTDIA Standard exists as a

starting point.

The most frequent reasons against

were that the CDL exists and is

sufficient; mandated training will

increase costs for carriers; and the

schools and carriers have or will

provide quality training on their own

because it is in their best interest. The

school bus operators indicated that they

do not favor mandated training because

the state- required training is sufficient.

General Issues

The four general issues identified

from the comments of the ANPRM

respondents were as follows.

Program Administration. About half

of the 16 state government respondents

see the need for the states to develop

costly programs for certifying and

monitoring training courses. Three

commenters indicate that maintaining

records also will be expensive. Some

question who will fund the program and

whether the enormous cost would

outweigh the benefits.

Program Quality/Cost and Who Will

Pay. A frequent comment was that the

cuts in the Federal Student Loan

program have reduced student access to

CMV driver training and reduced the

duration and quality of the courses.

Four commenters indicate that the

government should do more to help

students acquire the funds they need to

attend school.

Broadening the Requirement. Twelve

(12) persons provided comments,

indicating that the requirement should

also include hazardous materials

training, and the training of transit bus,

Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV), and
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules 18365

foreign drivers. Two respondents

recommended screening existing drivers

and providing training for those with

problems.

Effect on Specialized Fleets. Five (5)

private fleet respondents indicated that

special fleets have special training

requirements and that a generic

mandatory training standard, centered

around the training needs of over-theroad freight haulers, would not be

suitable. Training to this standard

would be irrelevant to their needs, and

costly.

Tables 1 through 6 follow.

Executive Summary

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF TRAINING ADEQUACY FINDINGS FOR MOTOR CARRIERS

Heavy

trucks Motorcoaches Schoolbuses

Percent of motor carriers hiring entry-level drivers that provide formal training for them .................... 21.6 62.5 71.2

Percent of motor carriers sampled whose formal training was judged as ‘‘Adequate’’ ........................ 37.5 29.6 33.3

Estimate of the percent of motor carriers hiring entry-level drivers that provide adequate training .... 8.1 18.5 23.7

TABLE 2.—SUMMARY OF TRAINING ADEQUACY FINDINGS FOR DRIVERS

Formal training methods, by domain 1 Percent drivers trained 2

Percent programs adequate

Percent

drivers adequately

trained 3

Heavy trucks:

Proprietary ....................................................................................................................................... 47.5 44.8 21.3

Public funded .................................................................................................................................. 7.8 54.5 4.2

Company/military 4 .......................................................................................................................... 6.4 87.5 5.6

Total ............................................................................................................................................. 61.7 50.0 31.1

(Sample Size) .................................................................................................................................. (141)

Motorcoaches:

Company 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 50.0 36.4 18.2

(Sample Size) ..................................................................................................................................... (22)

School buses:

Company ......................................................................................................................................... 58.6 58.8 34.5

Other ............................................................................................................................................... 17.2 0.0 0.0

Total ............................................................................................................................................. 75.9 45.5 34.5

(Sample Size) ..................................................................................................................................... (29)

1This analysis includes only ‘‘New’’ drivers, i.e., drivers with five or fewer years experience.

2Values are percent of the sample size, which includes both formally trained and other trained drivers.

3See text for a description of how these values are calculated.

4These groups were combined because they include only nine cases, four military and five company.

5 Motorcoach drivers sampled reported only company programs as their source of formal training.

TABLE 3.—SAMPLE SIZES FOR EACH DOMAIN

Heavy

trucks Motorcoaches Schoolbuses

Industry survey:

Associations .................................................................................................................................... 12 2 3

Insurance companies ..................................................................................................................... 11 5 5

Motor carriers ................................................................................................................................. 82 22 22

Schools ........................................................................................................................................... 24 ...................... ....................

School survey ........................................................................................................................................ 41 27 30

Exemplary programs .............................................................................................................................. 27 5 4

Driver survey .......................................................................................................................................... 371 43 50

TABLE 4.—INCIDENCE OF ENTRY-LEVEL TRAINING BY DOMAIN

Heavy

trucks Motorcoaches Schoolbuses

Master sample size ................................................................................................................................ 272 155 214

Percent of sample that:

Hire experienced drivers ................................................................................................................ 59.2 53.5 4.2

Hire entry level ............................................................................................................................... 40.8 46.4 95.8

Provide no training .................................................................................................................. 1.8 9.0 2.3

Do provide training .................................................................................................................. 39.0 37.4 93.5

Training activities ............................................................................................................. 30.2 8.4 25.3

Formal training ................................................................................................................. 8.8 29.0 68.2
18366 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 81 / Thursday, April 25, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 5.—SUMMARY OF TRAINING PROGRAM ADEQUACY SCORES BY DOMAIN

Heavy trucks MotorcoachesSchool

buses

School

programs

Company

programs Company

programs

Company

programs

Sample size ...................................................................................................................... 41 24 28 30

Mean overall adequacy score (OAS) ............................................................................... ¥7.2 20.6 ¥16.6 2.3

Percent adequate (i.e., OAS zero or above) ................................................................... 22.0 39.1 29.6 33.3

TABLE 6.—SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY IMPACT QUESTIONS BY DOMAIN

Industry impact questions 1

Response index values 2 by domain

Heavy

trucks Motorcoaches Schoolbuses

Condition of motor carriers:

Present condition, as compared with five years ago [Range: Much worse off (¥2) to much better (2)] ......................................................................................................................................... ¥0.47 0.00 ¥0.08

Effect of mandated training [Range: Hurt (¥1) to Help (1)] .......................................................... ¥0.03 0.15 0.08

Condition of drivers:

Present condition, as compared with five years ago [Range: Much worse off (¥2) to much better (2)] ......................................................................................................................................... ¥0.13 0.19 0.61

Effect of mandated training [Range: Hurt (¥1) to help (1)] .......................................................... ¥0.33 0.65 0.45

Driver turnover as a problem:

Degree of seriousness [Range: No problem (0) to serious problem (¥3)] ................................... ¥1.99 ¥1.73 ¥1.93

Effect of mandated training [Range: greatly increase turnover (¥2) to greatly reduce turnover

(2)] ............................................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.35 ¥0.04

Driver shortage as a problem:

Degree of seriousness [Range: No problem (0) to serious problem (¥3)] ................................... ¥1.59 ¥1.56 ¥1.89

Effect of mandated training [Range: greatly increase shortage (¥2) to greatly reduce shortage

(2)] ............................................................................................................................................... ¥0.14 0.19 ¥0.30

1The actual phrasing of these questions, as they appeared in the Industry Surveys, are presented in Volume III, Sections 3, 4, and 5.

2See the Volume III, Section 7 for a description of how the Response Index values were calculated.

[FR Doc. 96–10206 Filed 4–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 285

[Docket No. 960416112–6112–01; I.D.

030896D]

RIN 0648–AI29

Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Annual

Quotas and Effort Controls

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to amend the

regulations governing the Atlantic tuna

fisheries to: Set Atlantic bluefin tuna

(ABT) fishing category quotas for the

1996 fishing year, revise allocations to

monthly quota periods and establish the

effort control schedule in the ABT

General category, allow the partial

transfer of quotas among Purse Seine

category permit holders and amend

landing requirements, and increase

minimum sizes for Atlantic yellowfin

and bigeye tunas. The proposed

regulatory amendments are necessary to

implement the 1994 recommendation of

the International Commission for the

Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)

regarding fishing quotas for bluefin

tuna, as required by the Atlantic Tunas

Convention Act (ATCA), and to achieve

domestic management objectives. NMFS

will hold public hearings to receive

comments from fishery participants and

other members of the public regarding

these proposed amendments.

DATES: Comments are invited and must

be received on or before May 28, 1996.

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

dates, times, and locations of public

hearings.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed

rule should be sent to, and copies of

supporting documents, including a Draft

Environmental Assessment-Regulatory

Impact Review (EA/RIR), are available

from, William Hogarth, Acting Chief,

Highly Migratory Species Management

Division, Office of Fisheries

Conservation and Management (F/CM),

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver

Spring, MD 20910–3282.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Hogarth, 301–713–2339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Atlantic tuna fisheries are managed

under regulations at 50 CFR part 285

issued under the authority of ATCA.

ATCA authorizes the Secretary of

Commerce (Secretary) to implement

regulations as may be necessary to carry

out the recommendations of ICCAT. The

authority to implement ICCAT

recommendations has been delegated

from the Secretary to the Assistant

Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA

(AA).

Based on a revised stock assessment,

parties at the 1994 meeting of ICCAT

adopted a recommendation to increase

the annual scientific monitoring quota

of ABT in the western Atlantic Ocean

from 1,995 metric tons (mt) to 2,200 mt.

The share allocated to the United States

was set at 1,311 mt, with the provision

that unused quota from 1995 be carried

over or overharvest be subtracted from

the 1996 total. This proposed rule

would implement that quota

recommendation, accounting for

overharvest and underharvest in each