[Federal Register: June 9, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 34467-34470]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09jn03-105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8410]
Younger Commercial Driver Pilot Training Program
AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of denial of petition to initiate a pilot program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FMCSA denies the petition of the Truckload Carriers
Association (TCA) asking the agency to conduct a pilot program that
would enable certain drivers between the ages of 18 and 21 (younger
drivers) to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce. The pilot program proposed by TCA would screen
[[Page 34468]]
candidate drivers, train them extensively at approved truck-driving
schools, and provide an apprenticeship with an approved motor carrier
until age 21. The FMCSA is denying the petition because the agency does
not have sufficient information at this time to make a determination
that the safety measures in the pilot program are designed to achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety
provided by complying with the minimum 21-year age requirement to
operate a CMV.
DATES: The denial of this petition is effective June 9, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert F. Schultz, Jr., Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations, MC-PSD, (202) 366-4001, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Internet users may access all notices and comments submitted to the
Docket Clerk concerning this subject by using the universal resource
locator (URL): http://dms.dot.gov. The FMCSA docket number is FMCSA-
2000-8410. It is available 24 hours a day, year round. Please follow
the instructions online for more information and help.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the Government Printing
Office's Electronic Bulletin Board Service at (202) 512-1661. Internet
users can reach the Office of the Federal Register's home page at
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register and the Government Printing
Office's Web site at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara.
Background
A pilot program is a study in which a person or class of persons
subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) may
receive temporary relief from one or more of the regulations. A person,
or class of persons, that intend to engage in a regulated activity may
also receive temporary relief during the activity. The FMCSA's
regulations governing pilot programs are set forth in title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 381, subpart D. During the program,
participants are given an exemption from one or more of the following
parts of title 49: 382, 383, 391, 392, 393, 395, 396 (except Sec.
396.25, Qualifications of Brake Inspectors), and 399.
Pilot programs can be initiated by the agency in several ways. The
FMCSA may initiate a pilot program when it determines that there may be
an effective alternative to one or more of the FMCSRs, but is lacking
sufficient research data or information to support a change in its
rules. Or, an individual or class of persons may submit a written
petition asking the agency to initiate the pilot program. (49 CFR
381.405)
A pilot program must include a program plan outlining oversight
procedures designed to protect the health and safety of study
participants and the general public. The plan must explain how the
agency will ensure that participants comply with the terms and
conditions of the pilot. In addition, the number of the participants in
the pilot program must be large enough to ensure statistically valid
findings. When the FMCSA has determined that the program plan is sound,
there is one additional requirement that must be satisfied before the
agency can grant an exemption from the FMCSRs and initiate a pilot
program. The agency must ensure that the safety measures in the pilot
program are ``designed to achieve a level of safety that is equivalent
to, or greater than, the level of safety that would be achieved by
compliance with the regulations.'' 49 CFR 381.505(a).
TCA Petition
On October 2, 2000, the TCA petitioned the FMCSA to allow the
association to conduct a pilot program that would permit drivers
between the ages of 18 and 21 to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
FMCSA regulations require drivers of CMVs to be at least 21 years of
age (49 CFR 391.11(b)(1)). The petitioner asked the FMCSA to grant an
exemption from the minimum 21-year age requirement for drivers admitted
to the three-year pilot program. No driver under the age of 18 would be
eligible to participate in the pilot. A copy of the TCA petition is
located in the FMCSA docket (Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8410; see
``Electronic Access'' above).
The goal of the TCA pilot program is to explore a performance-based
alternative to the blanket prohibition against the operation of CMVs in
interstate commerce by drivers under the age of 21. The TCA petition
states, ``the right student with the right training, and working for
the right employer [could] * * * be a safe driver'' (TCA Petition, page
9). In addition, the petitioner feels that lowering of the 21-year
minimum age of drivers would address the shortage of drivers in the
trucking industry, and allow the industry to appeal more readily to
individuals as they leave high school and select a career.
The petition calls for careful screening of candidate drivers.
Applicants would be required to be between 18 and 21 years of age, have
at least a year of prior driving experience, and be able to demonstrate
an exemplary driving record. A qualified third party expert would
determine that the applicant-driver possesses the attitude and aptitude
for successfully operating a CMV. Applicants would also have to
convince a motor carrier to ``sponsor'' their participation in the
pilot; a written contract of employment between the applicant and a
sponsoring motor carrier for the full term of the pilot would be
required. The sponsoring motor carrier would also have to obtain
liability insurance on the pilot driver. Once selected, pilot drivers
would be granted an exemption from the current FMCSA rule requiring
drivers to be at least 21 years of age to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. The pilot drivers would be required to undertake 22 weeks of
classroom and hands-on driving instruction at a certified truck-driving
school. An 8-week ``finishing program'' and an additional 18 weeks of
``team driving'' with an experienced licensed driver would follow this.
This would be followed by full-time employment as an interstate CMV
driver, but in a structured environment provided by the sponsoring
motor carrier in accordance with the terms of the pilot. In addition,
the sponsoring motor carrier would provide a current licensed driver to
serve as mentor to the pilot driver and to be responsible for closely
monitoring the safety performance of the pilot driver. Also, the CMV
operated by the pilot driver would be equipped with a governor to limit
the speed of the vehicle. These conditions would apply until the pilot
driver turned 21 years of age.
On February 20, 2001, the FMCSA published a notice advising the
public of the TCA petition and requesting public comment on it (66 FR
10935). This notice was titled, ``Younger Commercial Driver Pilot
Training Program.'' The notice included six ``Questions for Comment''
designed to elicit input from the public to assist the agency in
deciding whether to initiate the proposed pilot program for younger
drivers of CMVs.
Discussion of Comments
The agency received 1,634 comments in response to the proposal.
Over 90 percent of the commenters were opposed to the pilot program.
The following table provides a summary of
[[Page 34469]]
the docket comments categorized by the type of commenter. --
Summary of the Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Comments................................................. 1,634
In Support--................................................. 85
Opposition--................................................. 1,511
No Strong Preference--......................................... 38
Comments from Individual Truck Drivers......................... 314
In Support--................................................. 29
Opposition--................................................. 275
No Strong Preference--....................................... 10
Comments from Individuals Other Than Truck Drivers............. 1233
In Support--................................................. 28
Opposition--................................................. 1,188
No Strong Preference--....................................... 17
Comments from Motor Carriers................................... 21
In Support--................................................. 3
Opposition--................................................. 18
No Srong Preference--........................................ 0
Comments from Motor Carrier Associations....................... 10
In Support--................................................. 6
Opposition--................................................. 2
No Strong Preference--....................................... 2
Comments from Insurance Companies.............................. 3
In Support--................................................. 1
Opposition--................................................. 2
No Strong Preference--....................................... 0
Comments from Insurance Associations........................... 3
In Support--................................................. 0
Opposition--................................................. 3
No Strong Preference--....................................... 0
Comments from State Agencies................................... 19
In Support--................................................. 7
Opposition--................................................. 7
No Strong Preference--....................................... 5
Comments from Driving Schools.................................. 4
In Support--................................................. 3
Opposition--................................................. 1
No Strong Preference--....................................... 0
Comments from Other Organizations.............................. 27
In Support--................................................. 8
Opposition--................................................. 15
No Strong Preference--....................................... 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most common reason given by those opposed to the younger
commercial driver pilot training program was that younger drivers do
not have the level of maturity or the driving experience necessary to
operate a commercial motor vehicle in interstate commerce. Many of the
commenters believed that individuals between the ages of 18 and 21, as
a group, exercise poor judgment too frequently. To a lesser degree,
those opposed to the pilot commented that the modern CMV was too
complex for an individual under the age of 21 to operate. Several
commenters referred to the difficulty employers of pilot drivers could
expect in locating insurance companies willing to underwrite the
liability insurance for these young CMV drivers.
Most of the commenters (whether in favor or in opposition to the
proposal) did not offer data in support of their position. Frequently,
commenters' positions or arguments were based on media coverage (radio,
television, or magazine) of the younger commercial driver pilot
training program proposal, and did not discuss any specific terms of
the pilot outlined in the agency's notice of February 20, 2001.
Comments, such as, ``I saw this program described on the news last
night,'' or ``I read about this pilot program in a `` [trade]
magazine,'' were common. Many commenters did not discuss specific
aspects of the TCA proposal designed to minimize the risks of the pilot
program, such as, the screening of applicant-drivers, the extensive
training, and the oversight and mentoring of pilot drivers by
sponsoring motor carriers. Very few commenters answered any of the six
questions that the agency posed in the notice. Many commenters simply
stated their belief that it was unsafe to permit any individual under
the age of 21 to operate a CMV under any conditions.
The comments that were supported by data came from a variety of
sources, including insurance associations, safety organizations,
trucking associations, trucking companies, truck driving schools, and
State agencies concerned with highway safety. Most of the insurance
industry organizations that responded to the notice were opposed to the
pilot. Opposition in this group centered upon studies indicating that
drivers under age 25 have a markedly higher crash risk than older
drivers, and upon the contention that ``driver training'' has been
shown to have little effect in reducing the crash risk. The Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety stated, ``[t]here is much research and it
unequivocally shows that young truck drivers have markedly higher crash
risks than older truck drivers.''
Three safety advocacy organizations commented, and all believed
that the pilot program was not designed to ensure that the requisite
level of safety would be maintained if younger drivers were permitted
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. The Advocates for Highway and
Automobile Safety commented:
[The proposed program] defies prevailing research findings of
long standing. No studies assessing the value of young [CMV] driver
training programs has demonstrated a sustained beneficial effect in
the area of crash or accident rates among young drivers. In fact,
the opposite can be demonstrated--higher crash and accident rates
among trained youth, who may become overconfident and more likely to
take risks.
Most of the national trade or trucking associations that commented
were in favor of conducting a pilot program. They believed that the
level of safety required by statute for the pilot program could be
maintained, and that the pilot would help with the shortage of truck
drivers in the industry. The American Trucking Associations (ATA) noted
that the pilot program provided preparation and training that far
exceeded that which beginning CMV drivers receive today. The ATA
believes that the pilot ``should enhance the * * * end product, a
qualified driver.'' The joint statement of the American Automobile
Association, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators,
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and the National Association of
Governor's Highway Safety Representatives advised caution, but stated
that ``the high crash rates of younger [CMV] drivers can be overcome by
effective training, real-world driving experience, and mentoring.''
Most of the State trucking associations that commented were also in
favor of conducting a pilot program. These commenters emphasized the
fact that 48 States currently allow drivers under the age of 21 to
operate CMVs in intrastate commerce, and many of these allow
individuals as young as 18 years of age to operate commercial motor
vehicles. Several of the State trucking associations indicated that the
State accident history of CMV operators under age 21 was no worse than
that of older operators of CMVs.
Motor carriers who commented favorably concerning the younger
driver pilot program had a favorable experience in hiring younger
drivers for intrastate operations, and they were confident that the
pilot safeguards were adequate to ensure highway safety. Most of the
motor carriers opposed to the pilot believed that it is too risky to
permit individuals under the age of 21 to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce because they lack the maturity necessary to safely operate
CMVs.
Among the comments received from educational institutions engaged
in training truck drivers, three commenters supported the concept of a
pilot program as proposed by TCA, and one opposed the program. The
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, a trade group whose membership
includes 34 training schools for commercial motor vehicle drivers,
favored adoption of the pilot, indicating that it thought that ``the
standards for selection, training, and driver finishing were much more
stringent than those currently in place in the industry.''
Most of the State agencies that responded indicated that their
States allow individuals under the age of 21 to operate CMVs in
intrastate commerce.
[[Page 34470]]
Six (6) States discussed their safety experience with intrastate CMV
drivers under the age of 21. The data was conflicting: Agencies from
the States of Montana, Illinois, Vermont, and Virginia indicated that
their statistics show that CMV drivers under age 21 pose no greater
crash risk than other age groups; agencies from the States of
California and Iowa stated that their statistics show that CMV drivers
under age 21 have a higher crash rate than that of older truck drivers.
FMCSA Response
The FMCSA believes that the commenters have presented compelling
arguments both in support of, and in opposition to, the TCA petition to
initiate a pilot program. However, for reasons set forth below, the
agency believes there is insufficient information at this time to make
a preliminary determination as to whether the terms and conditions of
the pilot program that TCA requested would achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, that provided by the current
prohibition against drivers under the age of 21.
The agency does not believe that all drivers between the ages of 18
and 21 should be viewed as a safety risk while at the controls of a
CMV, regardless of the requirements that would be imposed upon them.
However, there is little information currently available to support the
contention that young CMV drivers selected through a rigorous screening
process, and groomed through an intensive training and mentoring
program, would have safety performance records comparable to CMV
drivers 21 years of age or older. The comments to the docket provide a
clear indication to the agency that the potential safety impacts of a
pilot program cannot be determined with any degree of certainty at this
time. Therefore, we believe that it would be inappropriate to pursue a
pilot program until there is additional information and data on which
to base a preliminary determination about the potential safety impacts
of allowing younger drivers to operate in interstate commerce.
While commenters offered ample evidence that individuals aged 18 to
21, as a group, are more prone to risk-taking behavior, we do not
believe that this information, in and of itself, suggests that this
universe of drivers are all unfit to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce. Highway safety statistics concerning the over-representation
of younger drivers in accidents of all types of motor vehicles provides
a vivid, but indiscriminate, picture of safety problems with these
drivers. This information represents the cumulative safety performance
record of all young adults operating all types of motor vehicles on the
Nation's highways, most of whom may never have expressed an interest in
becoming a professional CMV driver. We do not believe, however, that
such information should be considered as the determining factor in
deciding whether young adults committed to exploring a career driving
commercial motor vehicles could do so safely.
With regard to the terms and conditions spelled out in TCA's
proposal, the FMCSA believes that a program comprised of screening,
training, and mentoring is likely to bring about a higher level of
safety performance for a given group of drivers than they would
otherwise have experienced. Yet, because of the limited information and
data about young CMV drivers (between the ages of 18 and 21), the
agency is unable to conclude that the baseline safety performance of
these younger drivers is sufficiently close to that of older drivers of
CMVs, such that screening, training, and mentoring would improve their
performance and enable them to achieve safety performance levels
equivalent to or greater than older drivers. Denial of the TCA petition
should not be construed as a rejection of the argument that screening,
training, and mentoring could improve the safety performance of younger
CMV drivers. But, the TCA petition, as submitted, does not demonstrate
that a pilot program for younger CMV drivers is warranted at this time.
FMCSA's Decision
For the reasons given above, the FMCSA is denying the petition of
the Truckload Carriers Association to establish a pilot program for CMV
drivers between the ages of 18 and 21. We believe that proper
screening, training, and mentoring are likely to improve the safety
performance of any given group of drivers. However, based on the
information provided by the petitioner and commenters, the agency is
unable to determine that the safety measures in this proposed pilot
project are designed to achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or
greater than, the level obtained by complying with the safety
regulations.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315; and 49 CFR 1.73.
Issued on: June 4, 2003.
Annette M. Sandberg,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 03-14445 Filed 6-6-03; 8:45 am]