49 U.S.C. § 31307 — Minimum training requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles
submitted 32 years ago by Pub. L. 103-272 to r/title-49-TRANSPORTATION · 88 words · no verdicts yet
This section defines “longer combination vehicle” and requires minimum training rules for its operators. The training must include proficiency certification by a qualified instructor.
(a) Definition: In this section, “longer combination vehicle” means a vehicle consisting of a truck tractor and more than one trailer or semitrailer that operates on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a gross vehicle weight of more than 80,000 pounds. (b) Requirements: The Secretary of Transportation must maintain regulations establishing minimum training requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles. The training must include certification of an operator’s proficiency by an instructor who has met the requirements established by the Secretary.
In this section, “longer combination vehicle” means a vehicle consisting of a truck tractor and more than one trailer or semitrailer that operates on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways with a gross vehicle weight of more than 80,000 pounds.
The Secretary of Transportation shall maintain regulations establishing minimum training requirements for operators of longer combination vehicles. The training shall include certification of an operator’s proficiency by an instructor who has met the requirements established by the Secretary.
Source credit: (Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1020; Pub. L. 112–141, div. C, title II, § 32931(c), July 6, 2012, 126 Stat. 829; Pub. L. 114–94, div. A, title V, § 5508(b)(5), Dec. 4, 2015, 129 Stat. 1554.)
- 1994Enacted · Pub. L. 103-272 · 108 Stat. 1020
- 2012Amended · Pub. L. 112-141 · 126 Stat. 829
- 2015Amended · Pub. L. 114-94 · 129 Stat. 1554
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 103-272 on 1994-07-05.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case