WASHINGTON A three-judge federal appeals court has sent the 16-month entry-level driver training rule back to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for overhaul.

The decision early this month by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia means the FMCSA likely will have to gin up a new rulemaking that covers training of new commercial vehicle drivers.

Meanwhile, the current rule remains in place. The court said that while the rule is inadequate, it doesnt do any harm.

From the day the rule was announced in June 2004, it was opposed by the United Motorcoach Association; Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a consumer safety organization, and the Owner-Operated Independent Drivers Association, which represents truckers who own their own rigs.

Generally, UMA and the others contended the rule was arbitrary and capricious and should be revised. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety specifically complained the rule didnt go nearly far enough in requiring training for new truck and bus drivers.

UMAs principal complaint was the training required by the rule must be provided by individual bus and truck operators. UMA maintained the training should be part of the CDL process at the state level.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety and the independent truckers filed suit in July 2004. UMA joined them with its own suit late in the year.

The court consolidated the case under the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety petition. Oral arguments were in September.

In its ruling, the court largely accepted Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety assertions that the rule was inadequate and the FMCSA had disregarded mountains of evidence indicating real-world driver training improves commercial vehicle safety.

On the other hand, the court used a technicality -- flagged by government attorneys -- to reject the arguments included in the UMA suit.

Still, Robert Hirsch, UMAs attorney, said he was pleased with the court decision even though the judges did not agree with UMAs challenge. Hirsch said UMA had been actively involved in framing the arguments and drafting the briefs that persuaded the court to send the rule back to the FMCSA.

"By actively participating, UMA has been able to ensure the arguments against the final rule did not go farther than they needed and could possibly undermine or foreclose the motorcoach industrys ability to help shape a practical, future training rule," said Hirsch. "That would have been most unfortunate, especially after the industrys two national associations (ABA and UMA) and Greyhound Bus Lines had previously been such strong, vocal proponents for an entry-level training requirement that focused on the fundamentals of operating a vehicle when these organizations participated in" a federal study of the issue in 1995.

UMA Vice President of Government and Industry Relations Norman Littler said that when the FMCSA reconsiders the issue, "we will have an opportunity to restate our comments which the court would not hear due to granting DOT's (legal) motion. We will also request that they resurrect the Model Motorcoach Driver Training curriculum that the industry worked so hard on from 1995-1997. This needs to be the national baseline guide for coach driver training.

"As our brief argued, it can be delivered either by a coach company, a driver school, or by a state DMV. We now have another kick at the can. Until then, the current rule will remain, albeit without many teeth and with a greatly reduced liability exposure to operators."

The "entry-level" driver rule applies to individuals who have been driving for less than a year and are subject to CDL requirements for operating motorcoaches, school buses and trucks in interstate commerce. It went into effect July 20, 2004.

Under the rule, a new driver and his or her employer share responsibility for assuring the driver takes classes required by the rule. Roughly 10 hours of training is required.

The rule requires training and certification in four specific areas: Driver qualifications, hours-of-service, driver wellness and whistle-blower protection.