FMCSA Proposes Training For LCV Drivers
FMCSA admits that this rule is not likely to make much difference in highway safety.
Oliver B.Patton
Washington Editor
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration wants drivers of some longer combination vehicles to undergo special training.
The agency is proposing a new training program for drivers of LCVs that have a gross vehicle weight over 80,000 pounds.
An experienced driver may be waived from the requirement - or "grandfathered" - provided he has had an LCV endorsement on his license for two years, has no convictions or suspensions for a violation that would disqualify him, has no at-fault accidents, and has been continuously employed driving an LCV. It would be up to the trucking company to ensure that the driver meets these conditions, and to issue a "Certificate of Grandfathering."
The agency believes that most of the 35,000 current drivers of these vehicles would qualify for this waiver.
Drivers who do not meet these standards, and new LCV drivers, would have to pass a training program - one for doubles or one for triples, depending on the equipment they drive. FMCSA expects that about 1,200 drivers a year will take the training.
The rule also would require LCV driver-trainers to undergo training. To be eligible for training, the driver would have to have a doubles or triples endorsement for at least six months, no convictions or suspensions and no at-fault accidents in a truck.
The training programs themselves would be developed by the industry or commercial training companies, based on requirements set forth in the proposal. The curriculum must include background information, such as the role of LCVs in trucking, and regulatory issues, as well as practical skills such as trailer coupling, maneuvering, night driving and maintenance.
The enforcement burden would fall on the trucking companies - they could not let a driver drive an LCV unless he has a training certificate in his file. Federal or state officials would check the certificates during safety compliance reviews. Roadside inspectors would not be called upon to verify compliance.
FMCSA admits that this rule is not likely to make much difference in highway safety. The agency predicts that the extra training will lead to only a "slight decrease" in accidents, and says that "research has not indicated a significant safety problem in LCVs or multiple trailer combination vehicles."
The agency cited a 1996 study by the Federal Highway Administration in which LCVs were found to be much less likely than non-LCVs to be involved in accidents. Among the study participants, the mean accident rate for LCVs was .88 accidents per million miles, compared to 1.79 for non-LCVs.
The agency explained in its proposal: "Congress clearly assumed that increased training reduces accident rates, and many analysts agree with this position. However, quantitative data examining the relationship between training and accident rates is not plentiful, and those studies we have located have not found a strong and consistent relationship."
That may explain why the rule has been stuck in neutral at the agency for the past 10 years. Congress ordered up the rule in the 1991 Motor Carrier Act. Two years later, the safety agency published an advanced notice of the proposal. Comments were submitted but the agency did nothing until now.
Some interest groups - Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Assn. - want extra training. "We're big supporters of training," said OOIDA executive vice president Todd Spencer.
One major trucking group, the Motor Freight Carriers Assn., which represents several of the biggest LCV users, finds the proposal benign.
"It is a livable rule," said MFCA President Tim Lynch. "Quite honestly, by and large we are doing what the rule calls for now."
Other stakeholders have a stiffer reaction.
"It's a solution in search of a problem," said Dave Osiecki, vice president of safety and operations at American Trucking Assns. "It appears that FMCSA acknowledges that they don't have a safety basis for the rule, which may be why they didn't act on it for 12 years."
A major issue in the drafting of the proposal was whether or not it should cover all LCVs, regardless of weight - many LCVs weigh in at less than 80,000 pounds. Proponents of an inclusive rule, including AHAS and the owner-operator group, argued that an LCV's handling characteristics are determined more by the number and size of the trailers, rather than the weight and length.
The agency determined that since the safety problem is minimal, there was no need to include the larger universe of LCVs in the training requirement.
The proposal can be found on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. Search for Docket No. FMCSA-97-2176. Comments are due by Oct. 11.
More News
