WASHINGTON The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is weighing whether federal training standards for new commercial drivers are inadequate.

The court could decide any day on arguments by a coalition of safety and driver interest groups -- that includes the United Motorcoach Association --that the rule is fatally flawed because it does not require on-the-road training.

The rule, which was adopted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in May 2004, sets minimum training requirements for entry-level commercial vehicle drivers, including motorcoach operators.

Almost from the day the rule was unveiled, UMA, the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety have been trying to have it reconsidered, rescinded or relegated to the trash heap.

Attorneys for the three groups appeared before the D.C. appeals court last month, telling a panel of judges that the rule should be overturned because it is arbitrary and capricious in addressing driver training needs, ignores the realities of the motorcoach industry, and does not require behind-the-wheel training.

"The record showed that current levels of training are not adequate to ensure that drivers actually know how to operate a truck," said Adina Rosenbaum, an attorney with the Public Citizen litigation group, which represents the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety in its challenge. "We think adequate training has to include training in the actual operation of a truck."

As the rule currently stands, it requires commercial drivers with less than one year of experience to received classroom training in hours of service, driver medical qualifications, health and wellness issues, and whistle-blower regulations. There is no requirement for behind-the-wheel training.

An attorney for the Owner-Operator Independent Driver Association, an organization of truckers, said the four areas of training required by the rule were not singled out as particular areas that needed attention during the course of the rulemaking and public commenting periods.

In briefs filed by UMA and other members of the coalition, attorneys said that in issuing the rule, FMCSA failed to consider the significant safety and training differences between the motorcoach and trucking industries. It ignored these differences even though FMCSA had acknowledged them in documents issued preliminary to releasing the final rule, the attorneys said.

The FMCSA also failed to take account of the fact that there are no dedicated motorcoach driver training schools in the U.S., as there are in the trucking industry, which has a plethora.

Additionally, UMA criticized the rule because it says the FMCSAs assessment of the rules cost impact on motorcoach operators is grossly understated.

Finally, UMA said the FMCSA had failed to articulate a definable training standard and, as a result, has arbitrarily exposed motorcoach operators to potential liability.

The FMCSA has declined to comment on the litigation but a spokesman contends the rules do enhance commercial vehicle safety.

"The entry-level training rules help ensure that (commercial) drivers are better prepared to safely operate large trucks and motorcoaches on our nations highways and add value to the (commercial driver license) program," said spokesman James Lewis.