How stricter enforcement of entry-level driver training impacts trucking schools and carriers

It is the dead of winter here, and although Washington, D.C., would not qualify as a snow destination, school kids everywhere are still dreaming of snow days. “School’s out” does not refer solely to winter; it also refers to summer vacation.

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has been focused on closing schools—not over weather but over competency—based on regulations issued not too long ago.

We applaud the agency for cracking down on schools listed on the training provider registry, removing their right to instruct drivers for failing to meet the four-year-old standards. In a sense, FMCSA is canceling schools and institutions that have failed to comply with standards established through a negotiated rulemaking process designed to produce well-trained, safe commercial truck drivers.

To be clear, the entry-level driver training regulations were designed as minimum standards for training providers to meet, highlighting the essential, non-negotiable knowledge, skills, and abilities required to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely. And while the term “training provider” seems ambiguous, that is because it can be somewhat of a catch-all, if you will. Defined as schools, motor carriers, governments, and individuals, the world of training potential drivers is massive, and it is one in which regulation must encompass the entire industry, thus ensuring that one’s Uncle Joe is training someone to the same standard as a truck driver training school.

Scrutiny has increased now that the Secretary of Transportation is questioning exactly who is training these drivers. A self-certifying regulation, such as the Entry-Level Driver Training rule, has left proficiency requirements open to interpretation, and kudos to the Secretary for pointing that out.

Much like a motor carrier experiences during a compliance review, training providers should undergo a similar process to weed out the bad apples—and there are always bad apples. These providers have circumvented regulations, opening the door to federal scrutiny, a welcome change that should bring about consistent enforcement of substandard schools.

Now, we have all heard the punchline, “I’m with the federal government. We’re here to help.” That adage is likely no longer the butt of a joke. Long-overdue enforcement of training providers is essential to creating a safe and compliant atmosphere while adhering to a standard that was designed to improve roadway safety.

Unfortunately, the Entry-Level Driver Training regulation was designed to standardize training requirements, not to provide a stepping stone for CDL mills that continue to operate in an unchecked environment. The agency’s recent task of removing 3,000 training providers from its registry was a great opening act, one the industry celebrated; however, it has openly stated that its work is not done. Another 4,500 training providers have been put on notice for potential noncompliance.

What does that notice look like? This is a request for an in-person visit to review records, training materials, and other requested files. In other words, they mean business, and compliance remains the only option to stay in business.

Self-certification of these entry-level driver training rules generally doesn’t cut it for those looking to circumvent the system. Our industry has tremendous institutions, motor carriers, driving schools, and driver trainers who have done an amazing job of creating the safest, most well-trained drivers operating on our roads today. This is exactly what these rules were designed to achieve. However, the rule certainly didn’t prevent some from taking advantage of loopholes.

Thus, the agency has canceled school in a positive manner, not by making it snow or calling for summer vacation, but rather by enforcing a rule that was left unenforced and supporting a great industry that is committed to complying with regulations for the intent of creating safer drivers.