WASHINGTON The Daecher Consulting Group, long-time motorcoach industry trainers and consultants, has weighed in on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrations proposed entry-level driver training rules with a strongly worded critique.

"Our review of the proposed rulemaking results in our opinion that the proposed rule is counterproductive to achieving the results it intends, impractical to apply and, in some cases, untenable to implement," Daecher said in a filing with the federal agency.

Carmen Daecher, president of the consulting company bearing his name, provided comments -- on the proposed rule -- in seven safety areas related to the motorcoach industry:

The proposal contains no curriculum for motorcoach operators, although one exists (the Model Motorcoach Driver Training Curriculum developed by the Federal Highway Administration in 1995). In addition, the proposal merely suggests topics to be included in a training program. It does not provide a minimum standard of content for the courses. Future motorcoach operators need a curriculum customized to their needs and the actual curriculum specified must be presented by any school or operator to comply.

The topic of passenger safely is excluded from the rule. "This is a dangerous exclusion," said Daecher. "This implies that the safety of passengers is somewhat secondary to fundamental requirements for driver training." The topic is excluded even though passenger endorsements are necessary for CDL drivers who drive passenger-carrying vehicles. And ADA requirements, which FMCSA oversees, are not part of the requirements for the passenger endorsement and proficiency in the use of lifts and tie-down systems for disabled passengers will not be demonstrated under the current proposal.

The method for qualifying a driver training institution excludes truck and bus companies that have established training programs. The rulemaking requires an institution to be accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. This limits training facilities to established commercial driving schools, junior colleges or other such institutions. Many truck and bus companies have effective and well-established training programs with appropriate facilities and trainers. Denying accreditation to companies that have traditionally provided CDL training will create a serious hardship to them and to the industry. "We strongly believe that by endorsing or even more appropriately requiring the use of approved curricula . . . the intent of the rule will be served and its effectiveness within the industry will be maximized. By approving curricula rather than institutions, it will allow operators to conduct training for future drivers as well as any other institutions that choose to do so."

Qualifying driver instructors should be based on driving experience and driving history. "Instructors at any truck or bus company today may be just as effective as instructors in community colleges or in truck schools. To require that instructors meet state requirements for vocational instructors will significantly limit the number of instructors with no measurable increase in quality of instruction."

The rule contains no method for assessing and revising the program. FMCSA should track all future CDL holders who are affected by this rule and compare their motor vehicle conviction and accident rates to past CDL drivers. Three years after the rule is implemented, this comparison should be reviewed to see if the training is making a difference. If not, the rule should be revisited and modified.

Using an hours-based standard for training is inefficient. A performance- or proficiency-based format could specify minimum passing grades of pre-established exams and the passing requirements for a drivers skills test. This would allow for variable time in the classroom or behind the wheel. "We believe this is a more efficient and effective approach to gaining assurance that the curriculum content and necessary driving skills are understood and acquired by the student."

Exemption of transit and school bus drivers from the requirements will make the administration of this rule at the state level a nightmare. In order for a potential transit or school bus driver to receive a CDL, they would only have to inform their state licensing agency they will not be driving a motorcoach. However, the state will not be able to verify this because a person getting an entry level CDL most likely will not have a job yet. Requiring school bus and transit drivers to take the additional training will not simplify matters, either, because it would mean the development of even more standard curricula due to the differences in school bus and transit operations.

The full text of the Daecher comments can be found at www.regulations.gov, enter Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27748.