[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNDER PRESSURE: THE STATE OF TRUCKING IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
(116-21)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
39-370 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DON YOUNG, Alaska
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Arkansas
Georgia BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JARED HUFFMAN, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JULIA BROWNLEY, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JOHN KATKO, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
GREG STANTON, Arizona BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa, Vice Chair MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota ROSS SPANO, Florida
HARLEY ROUDA, California PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey GREG PENCE, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DINA TITUS, Nevada
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 129
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 129
Hon. Carol D. Miller, a Representative in Congress from the State
of West Virginia, prepared statement........................... 130
WITNESSES
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety:
Oral statement............................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Trucking Associations:
Oral statement............................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Todd Spencer, President and Chief Executive Officer, Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association:
Oral statement............................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters:
Oral statement............................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Jason Craig, Director of Government Affairs, C.H. Robinson:
Oral statement............................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Rodney Noble, Senior Director of Transportation Global
Procurement, PepsiCo:
Oral statement............................................... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol, on behalf of the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance:
Oral statement............................................... 66
Prepared statement........................................... 68
Andy Young, Truck Safety Advocate:
Oral statement............................................... 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton:
Report entitled ``Irregular Cross-border Employment Practices
of U.S.-domiciled Trucking Companies,'' by Empower, LLC,
March 2019................................................. 43
Report entitled ``Is the U.S. Labor Market for Truck Drivers
Broken?,'' by Stephen V. Burks and Kristen Monaco, Monthly
Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 2019.. 98
Statement of Lane Kidd, Managing Director, Alliance for
Driver Safety & Security (The Trucking Alliance)........... 131
Letter from Cian Cashin, Director of Government Affairs,
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators....... 134
Letter of June 17, 2019, from Cal Dooley, President and CEO,
American Chemistry Council................................. 137
Statement of the Associated General Contractors of America... 138
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and
CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America......... 141
Statement of Phil Hunt, Executive Vice President, Uline...... 143
Submissions for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri:
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Heidi K. McAuliffe, Esq., Vice
President, Government Affairs, American Coatings
Association................................................ 146
Letter of June 27, 2019, from Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations.... 147
Letter of June 10, 2019, from Randy Mullett, Executive
Director, The Americans for Modern Transportation Coalition 147
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow,
Competitive Enterprise Institute........................... 149
Appendix to Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations........ 149
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety............... 163
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.......................... 164
Questions from Hon. Rob Woodall for Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.......................... 164
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Chris Spear, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations.... 166
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Chris Spear,
President and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking
Associations................................................... 167
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations........ 168
Questions from Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri for Chris Spear,
President and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking
Associations................................................... 171
Questions from Hon. Troy Balderson for Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations........ 173
Questions from Hon. Carol D. Miller for Chris Spear, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations.... 175
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Todd Spencer, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association.................................................... 178
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Lamont Byrd, Director of
Safety and Health, International Brotherhood of Teamsters...... 179
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Lamont Byrd, Director of
Safety and Health, International Brotherhood of Teamsters...... 180
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Rodney Noble, Senior
Director of Transportation Global Procurement, PepsiCo......... 181
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Rodney Noble, Senior Director
of Transportation Global Procurement, PepsiCo.................. 182
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Deputy Chief Mark
Savage, Colorado State Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance........................................ 183
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen for Deputy Chief Mark Savage,
Colorado State Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance................................................ 184
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Andy Young, Truck Safety
Advocate....................................................... 190
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Andy Young, Truck Safety
Advocate....................................................... 190
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 7, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Under Pressure: The
State of Trucking in America''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, June 12, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony related to ``Under
Pressure: The State of Trucking in America.'' The purpose of
this hearing is to learn from stakeholders about current
challenges faced by motor carriers, truck drivers, shippers,
and brokers; and how these challenges impact safety,
operations, jobs, and goods movement on our Nation's roads. The
Subcommittee will hear from representatives of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, C.H. Robinson, PepsiCo, the Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Alliance, the American Trucking Associations,
the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and a truck
safety advocate.
BACKGROUND
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit has broad
jurisdiction over trucking, including: Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) grant programs to States; safety
oversight of trucking companies; commercial driver
qualifications and operating regulations; commercial vehicle
size and weight limits and safety requirements; and cross
border transportation.
The FMCSA was created by Congress in 1999 as an independent
agency within the United States Department of Transportation.
The agency's primary mission is to reduce commercial motor
vehicle-related fatalities and injuries and is directed by
Congress to consider ``safety as the highest priority'' in
carrying out its duties. FMCSA sets safety standards for
commercial drivers and motor carriers and partners with State
law enforcement agencies to administer Federal motor carrier
safety regulations throughout the country.
Large truck crashes claimed 4,761 lives in 2017 according
to data by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
\1\. Since 2009, the number of fatalities in crashes involving
large trucks and buses has risen, both in absolute terms and
when adjusted for vehicle miles traveled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812663.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2015, Congress enacted H.R. 22, Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), which reauthorized
FMCSA programs through Fiscal Year 2020. This legislation and
its predecessor, MAP-21 (P.L. 112-141), included a number of
provisions to improve motor carrier safety and address
challenges in the trucking industry. Background on a range of
issues that may be raised in witness testimony is provided
below.
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS
There are approximately 6 million drivers with active
Commercial Drivers Licenses (CDLs) regulated by FMCSA \2\.
Drivers are required to hold a CDL if they operate in
interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce and drive a vehicle
that meets the definition of a commercial motor vehicle. A
driver must be 21 years of age to operate in interstate
commerce, while States may set lower age thresholds for drivers
operating solely intrastate. Congress first established a
requirement that commercial drivers must hold a single CDL in
the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570).
The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-159)
strengthened the CDL program by, among other provisions,
requiring that States verify whether an individual is medically
fit to drive in order to obtain a CDL. Congress has made
further modifications and improvements to the program in
subsequent acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOURS OF SERVICE AND ELECTRONIC LOGS
Federal motor carrier safety regulations govern commercial
driver hours of service (HOS), or limits on the maximum time
that a driver may operate a commercial motor vehicle. FMCSA is
expected to release a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking this month,
revising HOS rules. This revision is the latest attempt to
alter the HOS rules, which over the last 20 years have been
modified through rulemakings, legal challenges, and
legislation.
The authority to regulate commercial driver hours of
service originated under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (P.L.
74-255). The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) first
established qualifications and maximum hours of service for
drivers through a rulemaking on December 29, 1937. The
regulations provided that, in a 24-hour period, a driver could
drive a maximum of 10 hours and must have 8 hours of
consecutive rest. The regulations also set a weekly on-duty
limit of 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8
consecutive days. When Congress enacted the Fair Labor
Standards Act in 1938, the Act exempted commercial drivers from
overtime pay rules, since their hours were set by the ICC. The
exemption continues to apply.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 213(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1962, the ICC amended the regulations to eliminate the
limitation on driving 10 hours within a 24-hour period. This
change allowed, for example, a driver who came on-duty and
started driving at midnight through 10 am, followed by 8 hours
off-duty, to continue driving from 6 pm until midnight.
These rules remain unchanged until Congress directed DOT to
conduct a rulemaking ``dealing with a variety of fatigue-
related issues pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety''
in the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-88). FMCSA
published comprehensive revisions of the hours of service
regulations in a final rule on April 28, 2003, eight years
after the mandate. The final rule extended driving time from 10
to 11 hours and extended the daily rest period from 8 to 10
hours. These new rules re-established a fixed 24-hour period
for drivers by requiring that once going on duty, a driver had
a consecutive 14 hour on-duty window. Prior to the changes,
drivers were able to switch to off-duty time while waiting,
such as while being delayed or refueling, and subtract that
time from their on-duty time, thereby extending the length of
their workday. The rule also included a ``restart'' provision
that allowed drivers to restart their weekly hour calculation
after they took an off-duty break of at least 34 consecutive
hours. A driver who maximized the use of the restart provision
could work over 80 hours a week.
The applicability of this rule was in flux over the next
decade as it underwent multiple legal challenges. The rule was
vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) on June 16, 2004, on the grounds
that it did not consider its impacts on the health of drivers
\4\. Congress directed that the 2003 rule would remain in
effect until FMCSA issued a new final rule addressing the
issues raised by the Court in the Surface Transportation
Extension Act of 2004, Part V (P.L. 108-310). On August 25,
2005, FMCSA reissued the rule, with its core provisions intact,
and some revisions to provisions governing sleeper-berths \5\.
This rule was again challenged, and the DC Circuit vacated the
11-hour driving time and the 34-hour restart provisions on the
basis that FMCSA did not comply with the Administrative
Procedures Act \6\. On November 19, 2008, FMCSA published a
Final Rule that continued the provisions of the 2005 rule
without change \7\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Public Citizen v. FMCSA, 374 F.3d 1209 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
\5\ 70 Fed. Reg. 49978 (August 25, 2005).
\6\ OOIDA v. FMCSA et al., 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 24, 2007).
\7\ 73 Fed. Reg. 69567 (November 19, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 18, 2008, safety groups petitioned FMCSA to
reconsider the research and crash data justifying the 11-hour
driving rule and the 34-hour restart provision. FMCSA denied
the petition. On March 9, 2009, these same groups filed a
petition for review of the 2008 rule in the DC Circuit \8\. In
October 2009, FMCSA and the petitioners reached a settlement
agreement that FMCSA would issue a revised rule \9\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Public Citizen, et al. v. FMCSA, et al. (D.C. Cir. No. 09-
1094).
\9\ Settlement Agreement Between the Hours of Service Petitioners
and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the U.S.
Department of Transportation (D.C. Cir. Oct. 26, 2009) (No. 09-1094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMCSA issued a final rule on December 27, 2011, which:
retained the 11-hour daily driving limit and the 60- and 70-
hour weekly driving limits; retained the 14 consecutive hour
on-duty period; modified the restart provision to require at
least two periods of rest between 1 am-5 am, and only allowed
the restart to be used once during a seven-day period; and
required drivers to take a break of at least 30 minutes during
their first 8 hours on duty, in order to be able to drive past
8 hours.
Safety groups challenged the additional hour of driving
allowed in the rule. Separately, the trucking industry
petitioned the DC Circuit to review the 30 minute rest break
and consecutive nighttime rest provisions of the final rule
\10\. In August 2013, a U.S. district court upheld the majority
of the 2011 final rule but struck down the 30-minute rest break
requirement only as it applied to short-haul drivers \11\.
Subsequently, Congress suspended, then overturned, the
nighttime rest requirements under the 34-hour restart
provisions contained from the 2011 rule in the Consolidated and
Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 (P.L. 113-235),
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113), and
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 115-31). The 30
minute rest break requirement for drivers was retained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Petition of American Trucking Associations, Inc., (D.C. Cir.
2012) (No. 12-1092).
\11\ American Trucking Associations, Inc, et al. v. FMCSA, et al.,
No. 12-1092 Consolidated with 12-1113 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 2, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of exemptions from HOS limits have been provided
to certain industries and in certain circumstances by Congress,
including utility workers, certain rail construction workers,
and agriculture haulers. FMCSA also has authority to grant
exemptions administratively, for a period of five years and
subsequent renewal pursuant to a process outlined in statute.
Representatives of the motor carrier law enforcement community
have raised concerns over both administrative and statutory
exemptions to motor carrier safety regulations broadly, arguing
that exemptions compromise safety as well as create confusion
and inconsistency in enforcement \12\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://cvsa.org/wp-content/uploads/Exemptions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, FMCSA issued administrative guidance that expands
the exemption for transporters of agricultural commodities,
including livestock and insects. The statute provides an
exemption from HOS rules for the transportation of agricultural
commodities during planting and harvest season, within a 150
air-mile radius. FMCSA's guidance reinterpreted this provision
to mean that a driver can work or drive unlimited hours without
maintaining logs within a 150-mile area, and then start toward
their limits of 11 hours of driving only apply once the drivers
crosses the 150 miles. Time spent working within the 150 air-
mile radius does not count toward the driver's daily and weekly
limits, thereby allowing a significant and undefined expansion
of allowable on duty time for these drivers \13\. In 2018,
FMCSA also finalized guidance that allows a driver to move a
vehicle, even if laden with cargo, once the driver reaches his
or her HOS driving limit, under an exemption known as
``personal conveyance''. The guidance is open-ended, and does
not place any limit on how long or how far a driver can drive
claiming personal use \14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/hours-service/elds/eld-hours-
service-hos-and-agriculture-exemptions.
\14\ 83 Fed. Reg. 26377 (June 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial driver hours of service have historically been
tracked through paper logbooks. In MAP-21, Congress required
long-haul truck drivers to use electronic logging devices
(ELDs) to record their hours to ensure compliance with HOS
regulations and address fatigued driving. ELDs help prevent
falsified or inaccurate paper log books by electronically
recording the hours that commercial drivers operate. As of
December 2017, all long-haul truck drivers (unless they are
covered under an exemption) must now use ELDs. The requirement
for ELDs in the industry has led to an increased focus by the
regulated community on the HOS rules, and an increase in
requests to Congress to consider further exemptions and changes
to the rules.
DRIVER TRAINING
Congress first directed DOT to develop training standards
for commercial motor vehicle drivers in 1991. A 2004 rule
published by DOT was invalidated by the D.C. Circuit Court \15\
after safety groups sued the agency because the rule did not
include any requirements related to behind-the-wheel training
for drivers. A second attempt to publish the rule in 2007 \16\
was withdrawn by the Department. MAP-21 required FMCSA to
establish minimum training requirements for individuals seeking
a CDL, including behind-the-wheel training. In response, FMCSA
convened an Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee to
complete a negotiated rulemaking with members representing
FMCSA, the trucking industry, labor, law enforcement, training
institutions, and safety advocates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety v. FMCSA (D.C. Cir. Dec.
2, 2005) (No. 04-1233).
\16\ 72 Fed. Reg. 73226 (December 26, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Advisory Committee reached unanimous consensus on a
package of recommendations in 2015. FMCSA's proposed rule
published in March 2016 \17\ was based on those
recommendations. The approved package of recommendations
included a mandate for a minimum number of hours of behind-the-
wheel training that a new driver must obtain before being
granted a CDL (30 hours or 15 hours, depending on the class of
CDL). When FMCSA published its final rule in December 2016
\18\, it did not include the requirement that drivers engage in
a minimum number of hours of behind-the-wheel training prior to
receiving a CDL. The rule instead includes a performance-based
standard, which leaves the amount of training required to the
discretion of individual trainers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 81 Fed. Reg. 11943 (March 7, 2016).
\18\ 81 Fed. Reg. 88732 (December 8, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRUG TESTING
The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991
(P.L. 102-143) required drug and alcohol testing of safety-
sensitive employees. In August 2001, FMCSA published motor-
carrier specific rules that apply to safety-sensitive employees
who operate commercial motor vehicles requiring a CDL. These
rules require drug and alcohol testing under several
conditions: preemployment, reasonable suspicion, post-accident,
random, return-to-duty, and follow-up. Section 32402 of MAP-21
required DOT to establish a clearinghouse of drug and alcohol
test results to assist in identifying violations of Federal
testing rules. FMCSA published a final rule in December 2016 to
establish the clearinghouse. The FAST Act required the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue standards
within a year of enactment for testing hair samples for the
presence of drugs and alcohol. The Secretary of Health and
Human Services has yet to issue the standards. Once such
standards are issued, the FMCSA will be authorized to allow
motor carriers to test hair samples of commercial motor vehicle
drivers for drug use in lieu of urinalysis.
ATTRACTING AND RETAINING COMMERCIAL DRIVERS
Certain segments of the trucking industry have pointed to
Federal rules that do not allow a driver to operate in
interstate commerce until 21 years old in the context of
ensuring an available pool of qualified drivers in the
industry. Under Section 5404 of the FAST Act, Congress
authorized a pilot program for individuals between the ages of
18 and 21 to drive such vehicles across state borders but only
for those with commercial motor vehicle training in the Armed
Services. Congress directed FMCSA to establish the pilot
program in consultation with a working group established by the
Secretary consisting of representatives of the armed forces,
industry, drivers, safety groups, and State licensing
officials; and to report to Congress on its findings upon
completion of the program. FMCSA issued notices on a proposed
pilot program on August 22, 2016 and July 6, 2018,\19\ but the
program only began accepting driver applications this week, on
June 3, 2019. While not yet completing the Congressional
mandate to conduct a limited pilot and report on the findings,
on May 15, 2019, FMCSA initiated a separate effort and
published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on a
broader pilot program for drivers ages 18-21 to operate in
interstate commerce, without a role for Congress.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 83 Fed. Reg. 31633.
\20\ 84 Fed. Reg. 21895.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is growing recognition \21\ in the industry that
driver wages and working conditions are a significant factor in
the industry's challenge in attracting and retaining qualified
drivers. Most truck drivers in the industry today are paid by
the mile or by the load, not by the time it takes to make a
delivery. Yet drivers are also subject to HOS limits outlined
above, putting a limitation on the time they have to operate.
Drivers also have little control over delays, for example, at
shipper facilities or due to growing congestion on roads.
Section 5501 of the FAST Act directed FMCSA to study and
collect data on delays experienced by drivers before loading
and unloading their vehicles and at other points in the pick-up
and delivery process. FMCSA has yet to issue the rule to begin
the data collection process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ https://www.joc.com/trucking-logistics/us-trucking-firms-
rethink-pay-recruit-drivers_20180220.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAST Act, under Section 5401, also included several
provisions to expand opportunities for veterans in the trucking
industry by facilitating the transition to a civilian CDL after
military service. Section 5506 of the FAST Act also requested
the Government Accountability Office to review the
administration of CDL skills tests by State licensing agencies
and steps that FMCSA is taking to address skills testing
delays, to ensure qualified drivers are not delayed in
receiving their credentials.
CARRIERS
SAFETY OVERSIGHT
There are over 543,000 companies registered with FMCSA to
operate commercial trucks and buses interstate in the United
States \22\. The FMCSA carries out several programs to enforce
motor carrier safety regulations intended to improve the safe
operations of carriers. The Compliance, Safety, Accountability
(CSA) program, initiated in December 2010, is FMCSA's primary
tool for evaluating the safety performance of commercial truck
and bus companies. CSA relies on a safety measurement system
that analyzes safety violations from inspections and crash data
to assign each carrier a score, in order to identify high-risk
carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
safety/data-and-statistics/413361/fmcsa-pocket-guide-2018-final-508-
compliant.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAST Act mandated a review of the CSA program by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(National Academies). The FAST Act required that CSA scores of
trucking companies be removed from public view until the
National Academies completes its review, FMCSA implements a
corrective action plan, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Inspector General (IG) certifies that any
deficiencies have been addressed. The National Academies
released its report in April 2018 and recommended that FMCSA
make several improvements to its scoring model. FMCSA submitted
a corrective action plan to Congress in July 2018, which is
currently under evaluation by the IG. The FY 2020
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (THUD)
appropriations bill includes a provision directing FMCSA to
make an analysis of violations under CSA publicly available
within 6 months of enactment, as was the case prior to the FAST
Act.
The CSA scoring system was developed as an internal tool
for FMCSA to prioritize oversight and interventions for motor
carriers exhibiting patterns of safety problems. In order to
make its internal analysis useful to the public and others to
gauge the safety of a carrier, FMCSA has relied on the
assignment of a safety fitness rating. FMCSA currently
continues to rely on a system of compliance reviews in which
carriers are assigned a satisfactory, conditional, or
unsatisfactory safety rating. These ratings are based on
detailed investigations and on-site reviews and, because they
are resource intensive, FMCSA is only able to review and rate
approximately one percent of registered carriers each year.\23\
As a result, existing carrier ratings are often outdated.
Moreover, the vast majority of carriers (86 percent) do not
have a safety rating according to the latest available FMSCA
data.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For a snapshot of data from 2015-2019 see: https://
ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SafetyProgram/spRptReview.aspx?rpt=RVFR.
\24\ See figure 3-4, https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/
files/docs/safety/data-and-statistics/413361/fmcsapocket-guide-2018-
final-508-compliant-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the initiation of the CSA program, FMCSA has been
working to update the methodology it uses to make Safety
Fitness Determination (SFD) ratings, but to date, roadside and
other data in CSA has not been incorporated into the process of
making these determinations. In January 2016, FMCSA issued a
proposed SFD rule that, by the agency's projections, would
increase the number of motor carriers rated to 75,000 every
month \25\. In March 2017, the Trump Administration withdrew
the proposed rule, citing the need to review the National
Academies study before deciding how to proceed on company
safety ratings \26\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 81 Fed. Reg. 3562 (January 21, 2016); https://
csa.fmcsa.dot.gov/WhatsNew/Article?articleId=82776.
\26\ 82 Fed. Reg. 14848 (March 23, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lack of a definitive method to interpret violation data
under CSA and signal that a carrier is considered safe by
regulators has been cited as a source of confusion and concern
among stakeholders in the industry. In the past, carriers have
expressed concerns about how raw violation data was displayed,
and the agency's calculation of ``relative'' scores, rating
carriers in relation to other carriers. Brokers and other third
party logistics providers (3PLs) have called for a statutory
Federal hiring or selection standard, as 3PLs have been exposed
to liability when using carriers with safety violations to move
goods. Without FMCSA rules in place for determining safety
fitness, however, setting a selection standard (and
legislatively mandating what data to rely on) is difficult in
order to ensure the selection of a safe carrier as well as
ensuring fairness among carriers seeking to bid for loads,
given that 86 percent of the industry is currently unrated by
the agency.
ADDITIONAL REGULATION
Prior to 1980, the motor carrier industry was heavily
regulated, including rate regulations for what a motor carrier
could charge to deliver goods over a particular route. Most
federal economic regulation of the trucking industry ended when
Congress enacted the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. On January 1,
1996, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), which had
primary jurisdiction over the remaining economic regulation of
the motor carrier industry, was terminated by Congress in the
ICC Termination Act (P.L. 104-88). Any remaining requirements,
such as registration requirements, are now under FMCSA.
Companies that operate commercial vehicles transporting
passengers or hauling cargo in interstate commerce must be
registered with FMCSA, obtain operating authority, and have a
U.S. DOT Number. Brokers or freight forwarders of property are
also required to obtain operating authority from the FMCSA.
Operating authority dictates the type of motor carrier
operations a company may conduct, the cargo it may carry, and
the geographical area in which it may legally operate. Carriers
not required to have operating authority include private
carriers and carriers that exclusively haul commodities exempt
from federal regulations. To obtain operating authority, a
carrier must exhibit that the company is fit, willing, and able
to provide transportation services and comply with federal
regulations.
In addition, carriers must provide proof that they hold a
minimum level of liability insurance in order to obtain and
maintain operating authority. Congress first directed the
establishment of Federal regulations for interstate motor
carrier operations to govern ``security for the protection of
the public'' in the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 (Section 215 of
P.L. 74-255). In implementing this legislation, the ICC set a
minimum level of financial responsibility to be held by motor
carriers and brokers. Section 30 of the Motor Carrier Act of
1980 set requirements for property carrying companies at
$750,000 for the transportation of property, and $1 million to
$5 million for transportation of different classes of hazardous
material. These levels have not changed since that time.
Section 32104 of MAP-21 directed the Secretary to issue a
report on the adequacy of current minimum financial
responsibility requirements and current bond and insurance
requirements for freight forwarders and brokers. FMCSA issued
this report in April 2014.\27\ MAP-21 directed the agency to
reevaluate the requirements every four years and to issue
similar reports to Congress, but a subsequent report has not
been produced. In its April 2014 report, FMCSA concluded that
the current financial responsibility minimums warranted a re-
evaluation. On November 28, 2014, FMCSA published an advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking to consider increasing the
minimum levels of financial responsibility a motor carrier must
hold, including liability coverage for bodily injury or
property damage, and implement financial responsibility
requirements for brokers and freight forwarders.\28\ This
rulemaking was formally withdrawn on June 5, 2017.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
Financial-Responsibility-Requirements-Report-Enclosure-FINAL-
April%202014.pdf.
\28\ 79 Fed. Reg. 70839.
\29\ 82 Fed. Reg. 25753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
In the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1994 (P.L.
103-305), Congress enacted a provision specifying that ``a
State, a political subdivision of a State, or political
authority of two or more States may not enact or enforce a law,
regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of
law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier
. . . with respect to the transportation of property.'' \30\
The law allows States to continue regulating safety, insurance,
vehicle size and weight, hazardous materials routings,
household goods, and certain tow truck operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 49 USC Sec. 14501(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference Report (H. Rept. 103-677) accompanying the
1994 law discusses that Congress was intending to address
direct economic regulation of intrastate trucking by States,
through direct actions such as ``entry controls, tariff filing
and price regulation, and types of commodities carried.'' The
Conference Report notes that, although the industry was
deregulated in 1980, 41 States continued to regulate intrastate
prices, routes, and services of motor carriers and 26 States
strictly regulated trucking prices. The Report further states
that such regulations were usually designed to ensure that
prices ``are kept high enough to cover all costs and are not so
low as to be `predatory'. Price regulation also involves filing
of tariffs and long intervals for approval to change prices.''
Nearly 15 years after deregulation, States were still directly
dictating the rates and prices motor carriers could charge for
movement of goods through the particular State.
The preemption language, as enacted, was added in
Conference. The House bill had no provision, and the Senate
bill had a provision narrowly tailored to apply preemption to
intermodal all-cargo air carriers. The provision was inserted
after a legal decision determined that Federal Express (FedEx)
was not subject to intrastate economic regulations for motor
carriers because FedEx could rely on pre-emption under the
Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as an air carrier.\31\ UPS,
however, remained regulated as a motor carrier, according to
the Conference Report, ``putting it at a competitive
disadvantage in a number of States.'' After the FedEx decision,
California and other States began to enact laws extending the
preemption to other carriers affiliated with direct air
carriers, but some segments of the motor carrier industry, such
as owner-operators, were still subject to regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Fed. Express Corp. v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 936 F.2d
1075 (9th Cir. 1991), cert denied, 112 S.Ct. 2956 (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite this intent, the preemption provision has been
heavily utilized as the basis for litigation over a variety of
State and local laws and regulations that go beyond tariffs and
price regulation. Hundreds of cases cite the preemption statute
in different contexts. Several of these cases have been heard
by the Supreme Court. For example, the New Hampshire Motor
Transport Association sued the State of Maine over a law
attempting to curtail tobacco sales to minors, which required
online tobacco sales to utilize delivery companies that provide
recipient-verification services to confirm the legal age of the
recipient. In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld that the
requirement for signature delivery violates the Federal
preemption statute.\32\ This provision of law was also the
basis for the American Trucking Association's suit against the
City of Los Angeles over the way the Port of Los Angeles and
the Board of Harbor Commissioners attempted to implement a
program to reduce truck emissions around the ports. The Board
proposed to require motor carriers to enter into a concession
agreement in order to service the port. In 2013, the Supreme
Court upheld that the City's plans were preempted by Federal
law.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transp. Assn., 552 U.S. 364
(2008).
\33\ American Trucking Assns, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 569 U.S.
641 (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recently, this provision has been the basis for
litigation over State labor laws, including meal and rest break
rules. On July 9, 2014, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
upheld the State of California's meal and rest break laws for
all workers, including truck drivers.\34\ The Ninth Circuit's
decision found that California's labor laws, particularly
related to intrastate truck drivers in this case, are not
preempted under the 1994 preemption provision:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See Dilts v. Penske Logistics, LLC, 769 F.3d 637 (9th Cir.
2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2049 (2015).
Although we have in the past confronted close cases that have
required us to struggle with the ``related to'' test, and
refine our principles of FAAAA preemption, we do not think that
this is one of them. In light of the FAAAA preemption
principles outlined above, California's meal and rest break
laws plainly are not the sorts of laws `related to' prices,
routes, or services that Congress intended to preempt. They do
not set prices, mandate or prohibit certain routes, or tell
motor carriers what services they may or may not provide,
either directly or indirectly . . . They are normal background
rules for almost all employers doing business in the state of
California. (Dilts, 769 F.3d at 647.)
In May 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition to
hear the case. In the wake of the Supreme Court's denial,
Congress debated, and rejected each time, changes to the
preemption statute to preempt State wage and hour laws in six
legislative vehicles. These include: the FAST Act; H.R. 4441,
the House-introduced ``Aviation Innovation, Reform, and
Reauthorization Act of 2016;'' H.R. 5394, the FY 2017
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations
Act; H.R. 3353, the FY 2018 Transportation, Housing, and Urban
Development Appropriations Act; H.R. 4, the ``FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018;'' and H.R. 6072, the FY 2019
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations
Act.
In September 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court also denied
hearing an appeal in another class action case involving the
applicability of California wage and hours laws beyond meal and
rest break, including piece-rate pay (or pay by the load).\35\
The preemption provision was also the basis for the challenge
by the trucking industry to a California Supreme Court decision
\36\ that established a new test for whether a driver is
considered an employee or an independent contractor. On March
29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California dismissed the legal challenge by the Western States
Trucking Association.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Ortega v. J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc., 694 Fed. Appx. 589 (9th
Circ. 2017), cert. denied, J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Ortega, 138 S.
Ct. 2601 (2018).
\36\ Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. S222732
(Cal. 2018).
\37\ Western States Trucking Association v. Schoorl, 2:18-cv-01989
(E.D. Cal. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, FMCSA denied a request for a determination of
preemption by the American Trucking Associations under a
separate authority to preempt State law, under 49 U.S.C. 31141.
FMCSA concluded that the petition did not meet the threshold
for preemption because the California rules are ``simply one
part of California's comprehensive regulations governing wages,
hours, and working conditions'' and that ``in no sense'' do the
California laws regulate ``commercial vehicle safety.'' \38\
FMCSA further found that ``there is nothing in the statutory
language or legislative history . . . that would justify
reading into the authority to preempt State laws `affecting'
commercial motor vehicle safety''--and that, ``[b]ecause the
California meal and rest break rules are not `regulations on
commercial motor vehicle safety,' the Agency has no authority
to preempt them under 49 U.S.C. 31141. Furthermore, that
statute does not allow the preemption of other State or local
regulations merely because they have some effect on [commercial
motor vehicle] operations.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Petition for Preemption of California Regulations on Meal
Breaks and Rest Breaks for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers, 73
Fed.Reg. 79204, 79206 (2008).
\39\ Id. at 79206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4, 2018, FMCSA published a request for comments
on a petition submitted in 2018 by the American Trucking
Associations, seeking a determination that California's meal
and rest break rules do not apply to drivers covered by the
agency's hours of service rules.\40\ The petition prompted a
significant response from Members of Congress, with over 50
House Members and Senators weighing in via letter with the
agency. Representatives and Senators from the affected State of
California strongly opposed preemption of California law.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 83 Fed. Reg. 50142.
\41\ Congressional letters available at: https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=FMCSA-2018-0304-0726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 28, 2018, the Trump Administration reversed
FMCSA's position from 2008 and granted the petition and
preempted meal and rest break requirements for drivers as
enacted by the State of California. On February 7, 2019, the
California Attorney General filed a petition with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking reversal of
FMCSA's preemption determination.
On April 18, 2019, the Washington State Trucking
Association petitioned FMCSA, seeking a determination that
Washington State meal and rest break rules are preempted. The
FY 2020 House Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development
Appropriations Act includes language prohibiting FMCSA from
reviewing or issuing a decision on petitions to preempt State
meal and rest break laws.
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES
TRUCK SIZE AND WEIGHT
Federal law sets maximum standards for weight on the
Interstate System and minimum standards for length of trucks
traveling on the Interstate System and the National Network, a
system of approximately 209,000 miles of roads. Statutory
changes are required to grant a variance or exemption to allow
heavier or longer vehicles on any portion of these roads.
Beyond the Interstate System and National Network, states have
the ability to set their own size and weight limitations on all
other roads.
Federal weight limits applicable on the Interstate System
are set in section 127 of title 23, United States Code, at
20,000 pounds on a single axle; 34,000 pounds on a tandem axle;
and 80,000 pounds gross vehicle weight. Federal law prohibits a
state from prescribing weight limits that are more or less than
the federal limits unless it has grandfather rights. In
addition to the overall weight standards, a state must meet the
requirements of the Federal Bridge Formula.
Truck size laws are codified in sections 31111 through
31115 of title 49, United States Code. Federal length and width
laws apply on both the Interstate System and the broader
National Network. Federal law requires a width of 102 inches to
operate on the National Network, and prohibits a State from
prescribing standards of more or less than this measurement.
There is no federal length limit on the National Network;
instead, federal law requires a minimum 28-foot length for
trailers in a double combination and 48-foot length for a
semitrailer. There is no federal standard for vehicle height.
Congress enacted the first federal truck size and weight
limits as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-
627), and these standards were subsequently amended in the
Federal-Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-643) and
again in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982
(P.L. 97-424). Each of these acts contained provisions to allow
states to continue existing size and weight standards already
in place, known as grandfather rights. In 1991, in Section 1023
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA;
P.L. 102-240), Congress enacted a freeze on the size and weight
of longer combination vehicles, defined in the legislation as
``any combination of a truck tractor and two or more trailers
or semitrailers which operates on the Interstate System at a
gross vehicle weight greater than 80,000 pounds.'' Subsequent
acts of Congress, including SAFETEA-LU in 2005 (P.L. 109-59),
MAP-21, the FAST Act, and various appropriations Acts have
included State-specific and industry-specific statutory
exemptions from the weight standards.
MAP-21 further required DOT to conduct a Comprehensive
Truck Size and Weight Study. The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) released the final study in April 2016.\42\ The study
did not include any recommended changes to current law
governing truck size and weight due to a lack of sufficient
data on the impacts of increased truck size and weight on
infrastructure and safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
establishes Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS)
applicable to commercial vehicles. FMCSA issues Federal motor
carrier safety regulations (FMCSR) that govern the safe
operation of a commercial vehicle.
Speed Limiters
In September 2016, NHTSA and FMCSA published a joint
proposed rule to require heavy trucks and buses manufactured
after August 1, 2020, to be equipped with a speed limiting
device \43\. This rulemaking was undertaken in response to
petitions requesting a rulemaking, filed separately by the
American Trucking Associations and Road Safe America. Under the
proposal, each speed limiting device would be required to be
operational at all times for drivers who operate in interstate
commerce. The proposed rule did not specify a maximum speed to
which a limiter would have to be set; the agencies indicated a
particular speed would be specified in a final rule once
comments were reviewed. This rule is listed on DOT's latest
significant rulemaking report as not active, with no further
milestones or anticipated dates listed. The FY2018
Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Appropriations
bill, as passed by the House, contained language prohibiting
DOT from finalizing the speed limiter rule, but this
prohibition was not retained in final legislation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 81 Fed. Reg. 61942 (September 7, 2016).
Underride Guards
Crashes involving passenger vehicles and large trucks most
often result in death or injury to occupants of the passenger
vehicle. In 2017, ninety-seven percent of occupant fatalities
in large truck-passenger vehicle crashes were those riding in
the passenger vehicle \44\. One reason why these crashes can be
so hazardous is that an underride may occur during the
collision. An underride occurs when the passenger vehicle
travels partially or completely under the truck due to the
height differential between the two vehicles. Such underride
collisions can defeat vehicle crumple zones, prevent air bag
deployment, and severely crush the vehicle's passenger
compartment. A 1997 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
(IIHS) study estimated that half of all fatal crashes between
large trucks and passenger vehicles involve an underride \45\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2019). Fatality Facts
2017 Large trucks. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatalitystatistics/
detail/large-trucks.
\45\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2019). Large Trucks.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/large-trucks#truckunderride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first Federal underride standard was instituted in
1953. It required tractor-trailers and single-unit trucks to
have basic rear guards to block underrides. Currently, heavy
trailers are required to be equipped with rear underride guards
that meet standards issued by NHTSA in 1996.\46\ There is no
Federal requirement that trucks or trailers be equipped with
side underride guards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 61 Fed. Reg. 2004 (January 24, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIHS crash tests have demonstrated that rear guards meeting
current standards perform poorly and that stronger rear and
side guards currently available on the market provide better
protection and have the potential to reduce the risk of injury
and death in up to three-fourths of underride cases.\47\ NHTSA
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 12, 2015, in
response to several petitioners to upgrade rear underride
guards to adopt Transport Canada's rear underride
requirements.\48\ NHTSA is determining next steps for this
rulemaking, and the agency's latest rulemaking agenda lists the
status of this rule as ``long term action''. NHTSA has also
conducted research into rear and side underride fatal
crashes.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2019). Large Trucks.
https://www.iihs.org/topics/large-trucks#truckunderride.
\48\ 80 Fed. Reg. 78418.
\49\ Heavy-Vehicle Crash Data Collection and Analysis to
Characterize Rear and Side Underride and Front Override in Fatal Truck
Crashes (DOT HS 811 725), March 2013; Analysis of Rear Underride in
Fatal Truck Crashes (DOT HS 811 652), August 2012.
Autonomous Vehicles
The development and deployment of autonomous vehicle
technologies across different levels of automation is likely to
have tremendous impacts on the nation's surface transportation
system. The Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAE)
has developed six standardized, internationally-adopted
definitions to describe levels of automation, from Level 0 (no
automation) with incremental increases in automation up to
Level 5 (full automation).\50\ Autonomous vehicles use cameras,
radar, GPS, and other sensors to react to other vehicles on the
roadway, and the level depends upon the number of features
included on the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ https://www.sae.org/news/press-room/2018/12/sae-international-
releases-updated-visual-chart-for-its-%E2%80%9Clevels-of-driving-
automation%E2%80%9D-standard-for-self-driving-vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 4, 2018, DOT released updated Federal guidance
for automated vehicles, ``Automated Vehicles 3.0: Preparing for
the Future of Transportation.'' This built upon DOT's previous
voluntary guidance for states. The October 2018 guidance
indicates FMCSA intends to initiate a rulemaking to, ``better
understand areas of responsibility between the State and
Federal governments in the context of [automated driving
system] ADS-equipped commercial motor vehicles and commercial
carriers.'' \51\ While DOT has looked to the future for
automation, the Department has not taken steps to require
driver assist features on newly-manufactured heavy trucks such
as automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, and
collision warning systems, which are considered low levels of
automation and widely commercially available today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See page 12 of https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/docs/policy-initiatives/automatedvehicles/320711/preparing-
future-transportation-automated-vehicle-30.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NHTSA guidance also raises the need to evaluate and
respond to the workforce impacts of autonomous vehicles.
According to NHTSA, ``Entities involved in developing and
deploying automation technologies may want to consider how to
assess potential workforce effects, future needs for new skills
and capabilities, and how the workforce will transition into
new roles over time. Identifying these workforce effects and
training needs now will help lead to an American workforce that
has the appropriate skills to support new technologies.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Ibid, page 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS BORDER
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which took
effect in 1994, required the U.S. to grant Mexico-domiciled
long-haul trucks the ability to carry goods into the U.S., with
reciprocity for U.S. carriers travelling into Mexico. The U.S.
initially delayed granting cross-border operating authority due
to reports of safety violations on the part of Mexican motor
carriers. However, Mexico successfully appealed the delay to a
NAFTA arbitration panel in 2000. This prompted Congress to pass
Section 350 of the FY 2002 Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87), which
implemented 22 preconditions and safety requirements Mexican
carriers had to meet before FMCSA could grant them U.S.
operating authority.
In 2007, DOT instituted a pilot program for Mexican
carriers to begin operating in the U.S., but the initial pilot
program announcement did not apply the same safety standards to
Mexican carriers and drivers as those in the U.S., such as drug
and alcohol testing, new entrant safety audits, hours of
service requirements, and English proficiency requirements. In
2009, Congress blocked the pilot program from proceeding in the
Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-8). In response,
Mexico imposed retaliatory tariffs against the U.S. In 2011,
DOT once again launched a revised pilot program to allow access
to Mexican carriers to operate long-haul in the U.S.
In 2018, U.S. negotiators under the Trump Administration
secured language in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), intended to replace NAFTA, reserving the U.S.'s right
to impose safety and other standards on trucks entering from
Mexico, including limiting the operating authority of long-haul
trucks entering from Mexico based on impacts to U.S. industry.
Congress must pass the implementing legislation for the USMCA
before it goes into effect.
TRUCK PARKING
Carriers and drivers regularly report a significant
shortage of available parking for trucks in parts of the
country, and indicate the lack of available parking is a safety
problem for drivers. In 2005 under SAFETEA-LU, Congress
authorized $25 million over 4 years for a pilot program to
address the shortage of long term parking for commercial motor
vehicles on the National Highway System (NHS). Section 1305 of
SAFETEA-LU created a discretionary Truck Parking Facilities
program, providing $6.25 million per year beginning is fiscal
year 2006. States, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs),
and local governments could use funds awarded under this
competitive program for projects on the National Highway System
(NHS) to: construct safety rest areas that include commercial
vehicle parking; construct commercial vehicle parking
facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel
plazas; construct turnouts for commercial vehicles; open
existing facilities to commercial vehicles; make capital
improvements to public commercial vehicle parking facilities to
allow year-round use; improve the geometric design of
interchanges to improve access to parking facilities; and
promote the availability of publicly or privately provided
commercial vehicle parking on the NHS using Intelligent
Transportation Systems and other means.
In 2015, MAP-21 eliminated the dedicated funding for the
Truck Parking Facilities program, but it established
eligibility for truck parking under the National Highway
Performance Program, the Surface Transportation Program, and
the Highway Safety Improvement Program. Section 1401 of MAP-21,
referred to as ``Jason's Law,'' also required the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) to conduct a survey to evaluate
the capability of States to provide adequate parking and rest
facilities for commercial motor vehicles engaged in interstate
transportation. FHWA worked with States and industry members
and organizations, including truck drivers and representatives
of trucking firms, travel plaza and truck stop owners and
operators, and commercial motor vehicle safety contacts in each
State. The results of the survey provide States and MPOs with
insight into the issues associated with commercial vehicle
parking, including shortages in particular geographic regions,
to identify parking needs and to encourage improvements and
investments. FHWA conducted the survey required by Jason's Law
and published the results in August 2015.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/truck_parking/
jasons_law/truckparkingsurvey/jasons_law.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
Ms. Cathy Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
Mr. Chris Spear, President & CEO, American
Trucking Associations
Mr. Todd Spencer, President, Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association
Mr. Lamont Byrd, Director, Health and Safety
Department, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Mr. Jason Craig, Director of Government Affairs,
C.H. Robinson
Mr. Rodney Noble, Senior Director for
Transportation Global Procurement, PepsiCo
Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado Highway
Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Mr. Andy Young, Truck Safety Advocate
UNDER PRESSURE: THE STATE OF TRUCKING IN AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. Good morning. I ask unanimous consent that
Members not on the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the
subcommittee at today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Davis. I regrettably cannot object because he is not
here yet, but I would like for the record that Garret Graves
did not say please to get put on this.
Ms. Norton. So noted.
I will now make my own opening statement.
I want to welcome you all to today's hearing. There are
some surprising, at least to me, issues to be discussed and
current challenges that this committee needs to take under
advisement.
As Congress looks to enact changes to trucking policy in
the upcoming reauthorization, how to improve safety must be a
guiding question, and I must say new questions, new challenges,
new statistics need to be explained.
For example, truck crash fatalities jumped nearly 10
percent in 1 year between 2016 and 2017. I would have questions
on that. I do not understand it.
And these fatalities have increased 40 percent in the last
10 years, since 2009. We clearly must do more to save lives.
The Federal Government has no--and perhaps this has
something to do with it--has no clear safety measurement
system, and the public does not have access to safety oversight
data.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has worked for over a
decade to improve the system of safety oversight of trucking
companies, but so far it has not translated the safety data it
has collected into a way to measure, some meaningful measure
that can help shippers and brokers and insurers and the
traveling public understand which companies are safe and which
companies are not.
Currently 86 percent of the industry--that is the
overwhelming amount of the industry--has no safety rating, and
many of the ratings in existence are so outdated that they are
obsolete and no one should rely upon them.
Congress needs to take action to get a handle on this
problem and direct the U.S. Department of Transportation to
finalize a safety fitness determination rule.
We will also hear about an issue that I tried to highlight
for years, fixing the glaring omission in licensing rules that
allows a new driver to obtain a commercial driver's license
without a specific amount of behind-the-wheel training time
required.
DOT did issue a training rule in 2016, after 25 years, I
should note, in which it had engaged in rulemaking trying to
get it right. And still DOT failed to require a minimum number
of hours behind the wheel. Why? What is the problem here?
Providing robust training empowers drivers to be safe and
confident on the road and is an important way to attract
quality drivers, and of course, that is a major problem in the
industry.
We will also hear today that the trucking industry is
increasingly losing drivers, and obviously for years now it has
had trouble attracting drivers. This is not an occupation in
which people want to engage, especially young people today, and
we need to understand why and what to do about it.
While some in the industry call for lowering the interstate
driving age from 21 to 18, this certainly does not solve the
underlying factors that thwart the industry from attracting
drivers and keeping good drivers. That is probably wages and
really the appalling working conditions that come with being a
truck driver in our country today.
There is a growing recognition that the way drivers are
compensated--by the load or the mile, not by the hour--is a
problem. Drivers face increased pressure to deliver goods,
although many factors on the routes are beyond their control,
for example, congested roads and delays at shipper facilities.
Segments of the industry are seeking exemption requests
from Congress for additional on-duty time, but these requests
focus on the ability for companies to squeeze more hours into
the day. There is no mention that extra hours do not mean extra
pay for millions of drivers in the industry.
This, too, is something the subcommittee, which is
responsible for oversight of hours-of-service regulation, needs
to focus on for a solution finally.
I am eager to hear about the future of the industry, and I
particularly look forward to the strides that companies, such
as PepsiCo, which is testifying on the panel, have made to
electrify and green their truck fleets. Technology and
innovation continue to hold great potential to realize safety
gains and to improve mobility in goods movement.
But these gains can only be recognized if we find the right
balance to protect consumers and drivers and workers in the
industry while at the same time compensating innovation. The
committee must play a strong role in sustaining--striking,
indeed--this balance.
I also know that full automation is not right around the
corner, exciting as this notion is. In the immediate term,
technology is available to save lives, such as automatic
emergency braking and collision warning systems, although these
remain optional on trucks today.
Finally, I would like to welcome Marianne Karth and Lois
Durso, who have been dedicated safety advocates. In our
audience today is Marianne Karth. I want to thank both of these
women for their efforts to turn the tragic loss of their
children in truck underride crashes, which we will also hear
about today, into a force for good.
I want to thank all of our witnesses. I will look forward
to discussion about creative, collaborative solutions that will
elevate the state of the industry and improve the safety of
trucks in our Nation today.
I now call on the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Davis, for his opening statement.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing on the state of trucking. I look forward
to what I expect will be a lively discussion, on a wide range of
topics, from a diverse panel of witnesses. We will hear about current
challenges facing the industry, as well as a look ahead to the future.
As Congress looks to enact changes to trucking policy in
reauthorization, how to improve safety must be a guiding question.
Truck crash fatalities jumped nearly ten percent between 2016 and 2017,
and increased over 40 percent since 2009. We must do more to save
lives.
safety oversight of companies
We will hear today that there is no clear safety measurement system
in place by the Federal Government, and that the public does not have
access to safety oversight data. The U.S. Department of Transportation
has worked for over a decade to improve its system of safety oversight
of trucking companies, but so far, it has failed to translate the
safety data it collects into a meaningful measure that can help
shippers, brokers, insurers, and the traveling public understand which
companies are safe and which ones are not. Currently, 86 percent of the
industry has no safety rating, and many of the ratings are so outdated
they're obsolete. Congress needs to take action to get a handle on this
problem and direct U.S. DOT to finalize a Safety Fitness Determination
rule.
driver issues
We will also hear about an issue that I have highlighted for
years--we must fix the glaring omission in licensing rules that allows
a new driver to obtain his or her Commercial Driver's License (CDL)
without a specific amount of behind-the-wheel training time required.
DOT issued a training rule in 2016--after 25 years of rulemaking on
this issue, trying to get it right--that failed to require a minimum
number of hours behind the wheel.
Providing robust training empowers drivers to be safe and confident
on the road and is an important way to attract quality drivers. We will
also hear today that the trucking industry is increasingly losing
drivers and is having trouble attracting new drivers. While some in the
industry call for lowering the interstate driving age from 21 years to
18 years, this will do nothing to solve the underlying factors that
thwart industry from attracting and keeping good drivers--namely driver
wages and working conditions.
There is growing recognition that the way drivers are compensated--
by the load or mile, not by the hour--is a problem. Drivers face
increased pressure to deliver loads while many factors on their routes
are beyond their control such as congested roads and delays at shipper
facilities. Segments of industry are seeking exemption requests from
Congress for additional on-duty time, but these requests focus on the
ability for companies to squeeze more hours into a day. There is never
a mention that extra hours do not mean extra pay for millions of
drivers in the industry. This is something this Subcommittee, which is
responsible for oversight of hours of service regulations, needs to
wrestle with.
future of trucking
I am eager to hear about the future of the industry. I look forward
to hearing the strides companies, such as PepsiCo that is represented
on the panel, have made to electrify and green their truck fleets.
Technology and innovation continues to hold great potential to realize
safety gains and to improve mobility in goods movement. But these gains
can only be realized if we find the right balance to protect consumers,
drivers, and workers in the industry while supporting innovation. This
Committee must play a strong role in sustaining that balance. I also
note that full automation is not right around the corner. In the
immediate term, technology is available now to save lives--such as
automatic emergency braking and collision warning systems--but these
remain optional on trucks today.
Finally, I would like commend the work of Marianne Karth and Lois
Durso, two dedicated safety advocates. Marianne is in the audience
today. Thank you for your efforts to turn the tragic loss of your
children in truck underride crashes, which we will also hear about
today, into a force for public good.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today and
offering your unique perspective. I hope that today's discussion will
yield creative, collaborative solutions that will elevate the state of
the industry and improve the safety of trucks on our Nation's roadways.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing.
The subcommittee is continuing to ramp up its efforts to
reauthorize the Federal surface transportation programs and
policies. So far we have held two hearings to gather
stakeholder feedback on possible changes to those programs and
those policies.
Today we are turning our attention to the policies and the
programs that impact trucking. The trucking industry's
contribution to the Nation's economy is very significant.
Trucks moved approximately 10.8 billion tons of freight in
2017, and the industry employs over 6 million drivers.
The subcommittee has broad jurisdiction in this area. We
are not only responsible for improving the surface
transportation system that facilities freight movement to
domestic and international markets, but we are also responsible
for the safety of the users of that system and the regulatory
environment that the trucking industry operates in.
Each of these responsibilities must be considered in a
comprehensive manner. As we proceed with our discussion today,
there are a few thoughts that I think we should keep in mind.
Safety has and must continue to be a focus of the surface
transportation reauthorization bill. Congress, along with the
Department of Transportation, our non-Federal partners and the
private sector, has made strides to improve the safety of our
surface transportation system, but there is always more that we
can do together.
We need to focus Federal resources where they can make the
most impact and continue to provide State law enforcement
agencies with the tools and the resources they need to
effectively enforce Federal regulations.
We must also be careful to not impose burdensome
regulations that impeded our ability to move goods or that do
not help us achieve our safety objective.
Finally, we must ensure that we make the necessary
improvements to our surface transportation system to continue
to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of freight.
Our panel of witnesses represents a diverse set of
perspectives on this topic and all the topics mentioned before.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses once again for
being with us this morning. I look forward to hearing their
testimony.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
[Mr. Davis's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
The subcommittee is continuing to ramp up its efforts to
reauthorize Federal surface transportation programs and policies. So
far, we've held two hearings to gather stakeholder feedback on possible
changes to those programs and policies.
Today, we're turning our attention to the policies and programs
that impact trucking. The trucking industry's contribution to the
Nation's economy is significant. Trucks moved approximately 10.8
billion tons of freight in 2017, and the industry employs over 6
million drivers.
The subcommittee has broad jurisdiction in this area. We are not
only responsible for improving the surface transportation system that
facilitates freight movement to domestic and international markets, but
we are also responsible for the safety of the users of that system and
the regulatory environment that the trucking industry operates in. Each
of these responsibilities must be considered in a comprehensive manner.
As we proceed with our discussion today, there are a few thoughts
that I think we should keep in mind.
Safety has and must continue to be a focus of the surface
transportation reauthorization bill. Congress, along with the
Department of Transportation, our non-Federal partners, and the private
sector, has made strides to improve the safety of our surface
transportation system. But there is always more that we can do
together.
We need to focus Federal resources where they can make the most
impact, and continue to provide state law enforcement agencies with the
tools and resources they need to effectively enforce Federal
regulations.
We must also be careful to not impose burdensome regulations that
impede our ability to move goods or that do not help us achieve our
safety objective.
Finally, we must ensure that we make the necessary improvements to
our surface transportation system to continue to facilitate the safe
and efficient movement of freight.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I would like to hear now from the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for calling
this diverse group of witnesses. I expect we may have some
lively interaction on the panel, which I always encourage.
We are at a time where the trucking industry is, I think,
reaching a tipping point. The pressures on carriers and drivers
are extraordinary these days, and the policies that we enact
here in the next surface bill will have a major impact on
public safety, carrier operations, truck driver wages, and
working conditions.
Carriers have set the expectation they can and will deliver
more goods faster at the lowest possible cost, but
unfortunately, in many cases drivers absorb the uncertainties
of the goods movement and the pressures that are resulting--
everything from congestion, wait time at ports, shipper
facilities, and fluctuating fuel prices.
Some drivers are compensated only by the mile, not by the
hour; they are often faced with the false choice of getting a
day's wages or getting adequate rest and following hours-of-
service rules.
Even as their days get longer, many truck drivers have not
seen their wages increase, and you know, sometimes when States
move forward with progressive laws to provide truck drivers
with paid sick leave and paid rest breaks, there is a
tremendous attempt by the industry to preempt those rules or
laws.
Given these pressures, there is no surprise that rigid,
complex legislation, such as hours of service, feel unworkable,
but we cannot paper this over. We have got to write rules or
mandate rules that make sense. We cannot stretch drivers even
thinner or force them to drive unreasonable hours and,
therefore, tired and unsafely.
We are going to debate about why there is a driver
shortage. It is simple in my mind. If you want to attract and
retain quality drivers, you need policies that ensure trucking
remains a good job with adequate compensation.
It is also not surprising that safety indicators are moving
in the wrong direction, as mentioned by the chair. Large truck
fatalities have disturbingly climbed every year since 2009 in
real terms and as a percentage of miles traveled, and saving
lives is a very, very strong objective of this committee, and
having better safety on the highways.
More of the debates recently have all been about
productivity, flexibility, and other disagreements, but we need
to take positive steps and encourage DOT to take positive steps
in this area.
I think it is time for a new approach. I hear a lot from
stakeholders, my colleagues, about the unintended consequences
of Federal rules. Rather than rendering existing rules
worthless through exemptions, let's be intentional.
Let's take a fresh look at a host of things that are not
working in our system, goods movements and how they interact.
Let's figure out how Congress and the administration can
maintain the highest levels of safety with clear and forceful
regulations, but in a way that acknowledges the diversity of
operations and rapidly changing nature of the industry.
I also want to highlight cross-border trucking. I opposed
NAFTA 25 years ago, in good part because it granted broad
authority for Mexican carriers to drive on U.S. roads despite
the very significant discrepancies in safety standards between
the two countries.
And I am pleased that Ambassador Lighthizer and the
administration have been listening, and the USMCA includes
language that will reinforce the rights of the U.S. to limit
grants of operating authority for Mexican carriers if it will
harm U.S. companies or drivers.
Now, Mr. Byrd, in your testimony, you lay out troubling
ways in which U.S. companies undermine these efforts to protect
the domestic labor market and U.S. truck drivers by employing
drivers from Mexico through B-1, and I think Congress needs to
take a hard look at that.
And, Mr. Spear, you talk about the industry's opposition to
tolling, and I share many of your concerns there.
Unfortunately, the only concrete proposal we have had out of
this administration would be to shift all of the burden to the
States to maintain the national system of infrastructure and
goods movement, with a proliferation of tolling in the States.
Now, the President himself has rejected that, but
unfortunately, that is the only proposal we have seen. So I
think this committee is going to have to look very hard at
tolling and congestion pricing because States are moving ahead,
and we need to look at what the implications are for the
Federal system and the future of the movement of goods and
people in this country.
I welcome the witnesses and look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this aptly titled hearing.
The trucking industry is reaching a tipping point as carriers and
drivers face mounting pressure. The policies Congress chooses to enact
to relieve this pressure will have real impacts on public safety,
carrier operations, and truck driver wages and working conditions.
Carriers have set the expectation that they can and will deliver
more goods, faster, and at the lowest possible cost. In many cases,
drivers absorb the uncertainties of goods movement--everything from
congestion and wait times at ports and shipper facilities to
fluctuating fuel prices.
Drivers who are compensated by the mile, not by the hour, face the
false choice of getting paid or getting adequate rest. They often do
not see their wages rise even as their work days get longer. And when
States enact progressive laws to provide truck drivers with paid sick
leave or paid rest breaks, most of the industry works to quash these
efforts through Federal preemption.
In light of these pressures on drivers, it's no surprise that
rigid, complex regulations--such as hours of service--feel unworkable.
But we cannot paper over this problem by granting exemptions and
stretching drivers even thinner through longer on-duty windows while
ignoring the underlying operational realities.
Today, we will hear debate about whether--and why--there is a
driver shortage. It's simple--if we want to attract and retain quality
drivers, we need to support policies to ensure that trucking remains a
good job.
It's also not surprising that safety indicators are moving in the
wrong direction. Large truck fatalities have climbed each year since
2009 in real terms and as a percentage of miles travelled. Saving lives
requires a strong commitment to safety as a top priority.
Unfortunately, in recent years, debates in Congress have focused more
on productivity and flexibility needs than safety outcomes. And in the
last 2 years, the U.S. Department of Transportation has spent more time
stalling and rolling back rules than advancing new safety initiatives.
It's time for a new approach. I hear a lot from stakeholders and my
colleagues about the ``unintended consequences'' of Federal rules.
Rather than rendering existing rules worthless through endless
exemptions, let's be intentional. Let's take a fresh look at a host of
things that are not working in our system of goods movement and how
they interact. Let's figure out how Congress and the administration can
maintain the highest levels of safety with clear, enforceable
regulations, but in a way that acknowledges the diversity of operations
and the rapidly changing nature of the industry.
I also want to highlight cross border trucking. I opposed NAFTA 25
years ago, in part because it granted broad authority for Mexican
carriers to drive on U.S. roads despite the significant discrepancies
in safety standards between the two countries. I am pleased that the
recently negotiated United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA)
includes language that reinforces the rights of the U.S. to limit
grants of operating authority for Mexican carriers if it will harm U.S.
companies or drivers.
Mr. Byrd, your testimony lays out troubling ways in which U.S.
companies undermine these efforts to protect the domestic labor market
and U.S. truck drivers by employing drivers from Mexico through the B-1
visa system. I believe Congress needs to look into this practice in
detail.
Finally, I'd like to note that in your testimony, Mr. Spear, you
talk about the industry's opposition to tolling. Tolling and congestion
pricing are topics that I believe warrant in-depth discussion as we
look to surface reauthorization, and I expect we will have the
opportunity delve into those at a future hearing.
I welcome each of the witnesses assembled here today. We have quite
a diverse set of views on the panel, and I look forward to what I hope
will be a lively and productive discussion.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio or Chairman DeFazio.
I would like to welcome our witnesses. I am going to
quickly go down their names. They are many, but that is because
of the issues before us today.
Cathy Chase, president, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety.
Chris Spear, president and CEO, American Trucking
Associations.
Todd Spencer, president, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association.
Lamont Byrd, director of safety and health, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Jason Craig, director of government affairs, C.H. Robinson.
Rodney Noble, senior director of transportation global
procurement, PepsiCo.
Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol, on behalf
of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance.
And Andy Young, truck safety advocate.
Thank you all for being here. We look forward to your
testimony.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record. Since your written statement has been
made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Before we hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses, I
recognize Representative Gibbs to introduce Mr. Young.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just wanted to welcome Mr. Andy Young. He is a
constituent. It is not every day you get to welcome a
constituent to a committee as a witness and also welcome him to
Washington, DC.
You can also see in his testimony he is the proud owner of
an old, classic Peterbilt 359. Anybody who knows anything about
trucks, that is the king of all trucks, right?
So welcome, and I am glad you are here.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbs. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
We will now proceed with our witnesses.
President Cathy Chase, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, you may begin.
TESTIMONY OF CATHERINE CHASE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY
AND AUTO SAFETY; CHRIS SPEAR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; TODD SPENCER,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OWNER-OPERATOR
INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; LAMONT BYRD, DIRECTOR OF
SAFETY AND HEALTH, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS;
JASON CRAIG, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, C.H. ROBINSON;
RODNEY NOBLE, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION GLOBAL
PROCUREMENT, PEPSICO; DEPUTY CHIEF MARK SAVAGE, COLORADO STATE
PATROL, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY ALLIANCE;
AND ANDY YOUNG, TRUCK SAFETY ADVOCATE
Ms. Chase. Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, and Chairman DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Cathy Chase, president of Advocates for Highway and
Auto Safety. Founded in 1989, Advocates is a coalition
comprised of public health, safety, and consumer organizations,
and property casualty insurance companies dedicated to reducing
crashes, deaths, injuries, and costs on our Nation's roads.
Thank you for holding today's hearing whose title aptly
captures that the state of trucking in America has reached a
pressure point.
Before today is over, more than a dozen people will be
killed and more than 400 will suffer injuries in truck crashes,
based on averages. Unfortunately, these numbers are getting
worse.
Since 2009, when truck crash fatalities were at the most
recent low point, deaths have gone up more than 40 percent.
While trucking is a vital, cherished, and necessary part of our
country's commerce, we can and must do better.
Last week I had the opportunity to go on a ride-along in a
truck on I-95. Spending the day in a cab not only gave me
firsthand insight into the pressures faced by truck drivers,
but also fortified our position that this subcommittee should
advance legislation to improve conditions for truck drivers
and, in turn, for all motorists.
Seeing how seamlessly advanced technologies work and that
they are available and in trucks was remarkable. The speed
limiter, electronic logging device, lane departure warning, and
automatic emergency braking, which thankfully did not have to
engage during my trip, all provided added safety assurance.
Additionally, these technologies imbued the driver with
tremendous pride in his job. Legislation to require these
technologies as standard equipment would help ensure all truck
drivers have access to these lifesaving systems.
I also witnessed the importance of providing drivers with
an opportunity for a break. When was the last time any of us
worked 8 straight hours without one, let alone day after day?
The ability to stand up, stretch your legs, grab something
to eat or other small tasks we all take for granted are
severely limited when driving a truck.
In addition to threats to needed breaks, there are three
other proposals we urge you to reject. First, attempts to
increase truck size and weights, including State- and industry-
specific exemptions, pilot programs, and a configuration known
as double 33s should be denied.
Bigger and heavier trucks mean bigger problems for safety
and infrastructure.
Second, attempts to further chip away at rules in place to
prevent tired truckers should be opposed. Fatigue is a major
truck safety problem, as identified for many years by the
National Transportation Safety Board.
Since the ELD rule took effect, driver inspections with an
hours-of-service violation have decreased substantially.
And third, efforts to pull teens from carrying books in
high school highways to getting behind the wheel on high-speed
highways are unsafe and unwise. CMV drivers under age 21 are
four to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal truck
crash.
During my ride-along, I was particularly struck by the
massive amount of responsibility a driver has, in addition to
driving.
Conversely, the good news is that commonsense remedies are
available and could be saving lives today. I will briefly
discuss five innovative and proven solutions.
First, speed limiters, which are currently being used in a
majority of trucks could help prevent and mitigate truck
crashes. According to Federal data, over 1,000 lives are lost
annually on average to speeding CMVs.
Second, automatic emergency braking, also known as AEB,
systems alert the driver to an object in front of it, such as a
vehicle, and can apply the brakes if the driver fails to
respond.
Third, underride guards. Standards could save lives in
horrific and violent crashes that occur when cars travel under
a truck or trailer.
Fourth, entry-level driver training rules must be improved
to include a minimum number of behind-the-wheel instruction to
obtain a CDL, as the chairwoman noted earlier.
And, fifth, the FMCSA must have the ability to better
identify and intervene with high-risk carriers. The safety
fitness determination rulemaking should be reinstated and all
safety data that is part of the Compliance, Safety,
Accountability program should be available to the public.
Lastly, any conversation about autonomous trucks must
recognize that at a minimum a driver with a CDL must be in the
cab for the foreseeable future.
This technology is not yet ready for prime time. Just last
week an article revealed that the CEO of Honda was taking a
ride in a GM autonomous prototype when the car's software
suddenly turned itself off even as the car kept moving. A
safety driver had to take control and bring the car to a halt.
I shudder to think about if the vehicle had been an 18-wheeler.
We must also make sure there are performance requirements
for new technology and that automated systems are never used as
a justification for getting rid of critical safety regulations.
Thank you again for your leadership and holding this
hearing and for the opportunity to testify. We look forward to
working together with this subcommittee to reverse the upward
trend of truck crash fatalities.
[Ms. Chase's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
introduction
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) is a coalition of
public health, safety and consumer organizations, insurers and
insurance agents that promotes highway and auto safety through the
adoption of federal and state laws, policies and regulations. Advocates
is unique both in its board composition and its mission of advancing
safer vehicles, safer motorists and road users, and safer roads.
large truck crash deaths continue to skyrocket
Fatal truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate.
In 2017, crashes involving large trucks killed 4,761 people.\1\ This is
an increase of 9 percent from the previous year and an increase of 41
percent since 2009. Additionally, 148,000 people were injured in
crashes involving large trucks in 2017. In fatal two-vehicle crashes
between a large truck and a passenger motor vehicle, 97 percent of the
fatalities were occupants of the passenger vehicle.\2\ The cost to
society from crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was
estimated to be $134 billion in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statistics are from the U.S. Department of Transportation
unless otherwise noted.
\2\ A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality
Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System, NHTSA, DOT
HS 812 554. (2016 Annual Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Each day on average, 13 people are killed and more than 400 people
are injured in large truck crashes. This preventable fatality toll
amounts to a major airplane crash every other week of the year. A
number of identified and persistent problems are contributing to these
crashes, deaths and injuries. However, solutions are available that can
help to reverse these grim statistics. Unfortunately, many of these
solutions continue to languish and worse yet, certain segments of the
industry are relentless in their efforts to roll back, weaken and
degrade essential rules and regulations. Now is the time to turn this
trend around.
mounting pressure from special interests to erode truck safety
protections
Overweight trucks disproportionately damage our Nation's crumbling
infrastructure and threaten public safety. Federal limits on the weight
and size of CMVs are intended to protect truck drivers, the traveling
public and America's roads and bridges. Yet, provisions allowing larger
and heavier trucks that violate or circumvent these federal laws to
operate in certain states or for specific industries have often been
tucked into must-pass bills to avoid public scrutiny.
According to the 2017 Infrastructure Report Card from the American
Society of Civil Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of ``D''
and our bridges were given a ``C+''.\3\ Nearly 40 percent of our
615,000 bridges in the National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older,
and one out of 11 is structurally deficient.\4\ The U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found
that introducing double 33-foot trailer trucks, known as ``Double
33s,'' would be projected to result in 2,478 bridges requiring
strengthening or replacement at an estimated one-time cost of $1.1
billion.\5\ This figure does not even account for the additional,
subsequent maintenance costs which will result from longer, heavier
trucks. In fact, increasing the weight of a heavy truck by only 10
percent increases bridge damage by 33 percent.\6\ The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) estimates that the investment backlog for
bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is $123.1
billion.\7\ The U.S. would need to increase annual funding for bridges
by 20 percent over current spending levels to eliminate the bridge
backlog by 2032.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges, American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Roads, ASCE.
\4\ 2017 Infrastructure Report Card--Bridges (ASCE).
\5\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study: Bridge
Structure Comparative Analysis Technical Report, FHWA, June 2015.
\6\ Effect of Truck Weight on Bridge network Costs, NCHRP Report
495, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2003.
\7\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions and Performance, Chapter 7, p. 7-34, FHWA, 2016.
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raising truck weight or size limits could result in an increased
prevalence and severity of crashes. Longer trucks come with operational
difficulties such as requiring more time to pass, having larger blind
spots, crossing into adjacent lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on
curves and turns, and taking a longer distance to adequately brake. In
fact, double trailer trucks have an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate
than single trailer trucks.\9\ Overweight trucks also pose serious
safety risk. Not surprisingly, trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a
greater number of brake violations, which are a major reason for out-
of-service violations.\10\ According to a North Carolina study by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), trucks with out-of-
service violations are 362 percent more likely to be involved in a
crash.\11\ This is also troubling considering that tractor-trailers
moving at 60 mph are required to stop in 310 feet--the length of a
football field--once the brakes are applied.\12\ Actual stopping
distances are often much longer due to driver response time before
braking and the common problem that truck brakes are often not in
adequate working condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ An Analysis of Truck Size and Weight: Phase I--Safety,
Multimodal Transportation & Infrastructure Consortium, November 2013;
Memorandum from J. Matthews, Rahall Appalachian Transportation
Institute, Sep. 29, 2014.
\10\ Roadside Inspections, Vehicle Violations: All Trucks Roadside
Inspections, Vehicle Violations (2016--Calendar), FMCSA.
\11\ Teoh E, Carter D, Smith S and McCartt A, Crash risk factors
for interstate large trucks in North Carolina, Journal of Safety
Research (2017).
\12\ Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 Part 571 Section
121: Standard No. 121 Air brake systems (FMVSS 121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer
and public health groups, law enforcement, first responders, truck
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and
survivors, and even Congress on a bipartisan level have all rejected
attempts to increase truck size and weight. Also, the technical reports
released in June 2015 from the U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and
Weight Study concluded there is a ``profound'' lack of data from which
to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and
consequently recommended that no changes in the relevant truck size and
weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are
overcome.
It is clear that increasing truck size and weight will exacerbate
safety and infrastructure problems, negate potential benefits from
investments in roads and bridges, and divert rail traffic from
privately owned freight railroads to our already overburdened public
highways. Despite claims to the contrary, bigger trucks will not result
in fewer trucks. Following every past increase to federal truck size
and weight, the number of trucks on our roads has gone up. Since 1982,
when Congress last increased the gross vehicle weight limit, truck
registrations have more than doubled.\13\ The U.S. DOT study also
addressed this meritless assertion and found that any potential mileage
efficiencies from the use of heavier trucks would be offset in just one
year.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 2016 Overview; and Traffic Safety Facts 2015, A Compilation of
Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System
and the General Estimates System, NHTSA, DOT HS 812 384.
\14\ Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study, Federal
Highway Administration (June 2015).
Recommendation: Congress should oppose changes to federal truck
size and weight limits, including mandating double 33 feet
trailers, pilot programs and state or industry specific
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exemptions.
Driver fatigue is a well-known CMV safety problem. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has repeatedly cited fatigue as a
major contributor to truck crashes and included reducing fatigue
related crashes in every edition of its Most Wanted List of safety
changes since 2016. Currently, truck drivers are permitted to drive up
to 11 hours per day for a total of 77 hours per week. These grueling
hours can lead to cumulative fatigue and devastating safety
consequences. Self-reports of fatigue, which almost always
underestimate the problem, document that fatigue in truck operations is
a significant issue. In a 2006 driver survey prepared for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), ``65 percent [of drivers]
reported that they often or sometimes felt drowsy while driving'' and
almost half (47.6 percent) of drivers said they had fallen asleep while
driving in the previous year. Yet, certain segments of the trucking
industry continue to push for further weakening of hours-of-service
(HOS) safety regulations.
One of the most effective tools to help prevent driver fatigue is
the use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) to record drivers' HOS.
Paper logs are frequently referred to as ``comic books'' throughout the
industry because of the ease in falsifying actual driving and work
time. The FMCSA estimates that requiring ELDs will save 26 lives,
prevent over 500 injuries and avoid over 1,800 crashes annually. In
addition, the U.S. DOT estimates the annualized net benefits of
adopting ELDs to be over $1 billion. Congress, recognizing the benefits
of ELDs, mandated their use as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act.\15\ In 2015, the FMCSA delivered on this
Congressional directive and issued a rule requiring the use of ELDs
which went into effect in December 2017. FMCSA reports that since the
implementation of the ELD rule, the percentage of driver inspections
with an HOS violation has decreased 39 percent.\16\ Despite this
compelling evidence, broad support and an established final rule, a
vocal minority continues to object to the use of this technology and is
filing meritless applications for exemptions from compliance with the
federal law with the FMCSA in a concerted effort to undermine the
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Pub. L. 112-141 (2012).
\16\ FMCSA, Electronic Logging Devices: Improving Safety Through
Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A barrage of legislative and regulatory proposals also continue to
target ELDs and HOS rules. For instance, last year FMCSA issued an
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that would dismantle
several important safeguards in the HOS regulations including the 30-
minute rest break provision. Advocates is especially concerned that the
FMCSA also eliminated enhanced driver protections for meal and rest
breaks by issuing a decision preempting California law. This egregious
agency overstep should be reversed. Further, special interests continue
to push Congress to expand working and driving limits or create carve-
outs under the guise of ``flexibility.'' These are nothing more than
attempts to force drivers to work even more demanding schedules.
Additionally, in 2016, the FMCSA published an ANPRM requesting
information regarding the potential benefits of regulatory action to
address the safety risks posed by CMV drivers who are afflicted with
obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).\17\ Compelling and consistent research
has revealed that drivers afflicted with OSA that is not properly
treated are more prone to fatigue and have a higher crash rate than the
general driver population. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) considers OSA to be a disqualifying condition unless properly
treated.\18\ Yet, in August of 2017 the FMCSA withdrew the OSA
rulemaking without providing any credible analysis or reasoning for
such an ill-advised course of action.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 81 FR 12642 (Mar. 10, 2016).
\18\ Id.
\19\ 82 FR 37038 (Aug. 8, 2017).
Recommendation: We urge Congress to reject efforts to diminish
the rule requiring the use of ELDs and to further erode HOS
regulations. Moreover, Congress should direct the FMCSA to
issue a rule to ensure that drivers are properly screened for
obstructive sleep apnea during the medical examination and that
those diagnosed with the condition are receiving the medical
treatment necessary to avoid fatigue while operating a CMV on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
public roads.
``Teen Truckers'' pose a major safety threat. Some segments of the
trucking industry are pushing to allow teenagers to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce in order to alleviate the alleged ``driver
shortage.'' A March 2019 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) study
found that ``the labor market for truck drivers works about as well as
the labor markets for other blue-collar occupations'' and ``a deeper
look [at the truck industry labor market] does not find evidence of a
secular shortage.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Is the U.S. labor market for truck drivers broken? (Mar. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMV drivers under the age of 19 are four times more likely to be
involved in fatal crashes, as compared to CMV drivers who are 21 years
of age and older, and CMV drivers ages 19-20 are six times more likely
to be involved in fatal crashes (compared to CMV drivers 21 years and
older).\21\ This alarming reality is not surprising given that
generally younger drivers are more likely to be involved in fatal
crashes because they lack driving experience and skills, and tend to
take greater risks. Development of the brain region vital to decision
making, specifically the pre-frontal cortex, may not be fully reached
until one's mid-20s.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Campbell, K. L., Fatal Accident Involvement Rates By Driver
Age For Large Trucks, Accid. Anal. & Prev. Vol 23, No. 4, pp. 287-295
(1991).
\22\ Arian, M, et al., Maturation of the adolescent brain,
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment (Apr. 3, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diverse stakeholders including safety groups, law enforcement,
public health and consumer organizations, truck drivers, some trucking
companies, and truck crash victims and survivors oppose efforts to
lower the age to operate CMVs in interstate commerce. Additionally, the
public has overwhelmingly rejected lowering the minimum age for
interstate truck and bus drivers with 73 percent of respondents in
opposition, according to a 2015 public opinion poll conducted by ORC
International.\23\ Furthermore, in 2001, a petition was filed with
FMCSA to lower the age at which a person could obtain a commercial
driver's license (CDL) to operate in interstate commerce from 21 to 18.
The FMCSA declined to lower the minimum age for an unrestricted CDL
because the agency could not conclude that the safety performance of
younger drivers was on par with, or even close to, that of older CMV
drivers. The public overwhelmingly rejected the idea with 96 percent of
individuals who responded opposing the proposal along with 88 percent
of the truck drivers and 86 percent of the motor carriers after the
petition was posted in the Federal Register.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ORC International, Road Safety Poll (2015).
\24\ Young Commercial Driver Pilot Training Program, Notice of
denial of petition to initiate a pilot program, 68 FR 34467, 34469
(June 9, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates strongly opposes the so-called ``DRIVE-Safe Act'' (H.R.
1374/S. 569) which would severely jeopardize the safety of all road
users by putting teenagers behind the wheel of large trucks in
interstate commerce. Provisions in the bill that at first glance would
seem to be pro-safety actually could be detrimental. Specifically,
certain technologies, such as active braking collision mitigation
systems and speed limiters, are only required during the scant
probationary period. The result is a teen driver would initially learn
to drive in a truck fitted with this technology but after the
probationary period, s/he could get behind the wheel of a truck without
any of the safety technology and its benefits. The teen driver is then
at a safety deficit lacking experience in safely operating trucks
without the technology. Furthermore, the technology will not account
for some mistakes this age group tends to make. Younger drivers exhibit
risky behaviors such as increased levels of distraction, following too
closely, violating traffic rules, and not using seatbelts.\25\ We
welcome the confirmation that the recommended technology provides
safety benefits and hope the proponents of the bill will join our
efforts to accelerate the adoption of proven safety technologies in all
trucks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Topics, Teenagers,
available at: https://www.iihs.org/topics/teenagers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The training proposals in this bill are woefully inadequate. The
first probationary period only consists of 80 hours of behind-the-wheel
training which can be completed in a little over one work week while
abiding by HOS requirements. Further, the 160 hours of driving time in
the second probationary period can be covered in just an additional two
weeks. In comparison, the FAA requires pilots working for passenger
airlines to have approximately 1,500 hours of flight time. These paltry
training requirements also pale in comparison to other less dangerous
jobs. For example, Texas requires a journeyman plumber to have 8,000
hours of experience; Oklahoma requires 4,000 verifiable hours of on the
job experience for a residential electrical journeyman; and, barbers
licensed in Virginia must accumulate 1,100 hours in school.
Additionally, the qualifications for the teen truck driver passing
the probationary periods are left entirely to the discretion of the
employer who is incentivized to get the driver on the road as soon as
possible. No standard tests or evaluations given by an independent
party are required. Furthermore, a teen truck driver who is involved in
a crash or is given a citation for a moving violation during the
probationary periods is not disqualified from continuing to operate a
truck.
Driving a truck is already one of the most dangerous occupations,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Allowing teenagers to
drive trucks in interstate commerce will only serve to exacerbate the
major problems with truck driver working conditions. Instead of tapping
into an unsafe driving pool of teenagers, improving upon working
conditions should result in current, experienced drivers staying on the
job and ideally lead to being healthier and more fulfilled in their
profession.
Recommendation: Attempts to pull teenagers from high school
hallways to high speed highways should be rejected by Congress.
We urge members to oppose the so-called DRIVE-Safe Act.
crucial actions necessary to improve truck safety for all road users
Require speed limiters in large trucks. According to the FMCSA,
10,440 people were killed from 2004 to 2013 in crashes where the speed
of the CMV likely contributed to the severity of the crash. On average,
that is over 1,000 lives lost annually to speeding CMVs. In September
of 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and
the FMCSA issued a joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than
26,000 pounds to be equipped with a speed limiting device.\26\ The
safety benefits of limiting the speed of a CMV are indisputable and the
NTSB has recommended that CMVs be equipped with the technology. The
NPRM estimates that setting the device at 60 MPH has the potential to
save almost 500 lives and prevent nearly 11,000 injuries annually.\27\
Setting the speed at 65 MPH could save as many as 214 lives and prevent
approximately 4,500 injuries.\28\ Speed limiters are also already
widely used in the industry and their implementation is supported by
truck drivers. Research shows that the technology is currently being
used by 77 percent of trucks on the road in the United States.\29\ In
addition, a 2007 survey of truck drivers by IIHS found 64 percent of
drivers were in favor of a truck speed governor requirement.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 81 FR 61942 (Sep. 7, 2016).
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
\29\ Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, FMVSS No. 140, Speed Limiting Devices,
p. 28 (NHTSA, Aug. 2016).
\30\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), Speed limiters
in trucks would serve 2 purposes, Status Report, Vol. 45, No. 8 (Aug.
21, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the public safety benefits of requiring speed limiting
devices in CMVs are clear and a majority of the current fleet is
already equipped with the technology, DOT continues to delay the
issuance of a final rule to require this lifesaving safety equipment.
The cost of the proposed requirement is expected to be minimal since
most CMVs are already equipped with either mechanical or electronic
capability to limit the speed of the vehicle. ``Turning on'' the speed
limiters that are not already engaged, or changing the speed control to
the limit required by the final rule, involves only a minor maintenance
cost.
Recommendation: We urge Congress to require that the U.S. DOT
issue a final rule requiring all new CMVs to be equipped with
speed limiting devices and for those vehicles currently
equipped with the technology to engage this lifesaving device.
Require automatic emergency braking to prevent and mitigate
crashes. According to NHTSA, from 2003 through 2008, large trucks were
the striking vehicle in approximately 32,000 rear-end crashes resulting
in 300 fatalities and injuring over 15,000 people annually. In 2015,
Advocates, along with the Center for Auto Safety, the Truck Safety
Coalition (TSC) and Road Safe America, filed a petition with NHTSA
seeking the issuance of a rule to require forward collision avoidance
and mitigation braking systems (F-CAM), also known as automatic
emergency braking (AEB), on CMVs with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more.
These systems alert the driver to an object in front of the CMV, such
as a motor vehicle, and can apply the brakes to stop the CMV if the
driver fails to respond. The NHTSA estimates that fleetwide adoption of
advanced AEB systems could save 166 lives per year and prevent 8,361
injuries. In addition, the NTSB has recommended that AEB systems be
required on all highway vehicles. The agency granted Advocates'
petition in October of 2015 but has not undertaken any further
regulatory proceedings.\31\ This needless delay is unconscionable when
crashes could be prevented and lives could be saved by technology which
is available and already in many CMVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 80 FR 62487 (Oct. 16, 2015).
Recommendation: We urge Congress to require NHTSA to set a
minimum performance standard and issue a rule requiring CMVs be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
equipped with AEB.
Take immediate action to address underride crashes, where a motor
vehicle travels underneath the rear or side of a truck trailer.
Technology is currently available that can significantly increase the
chances that an individual can survive these violent events. For this
reason, Advocates supports enactment of the Stop Underrides Act of 2019
(H.R. 1511/S.665) introduced by members of this Committee,
Representatives Steve Cohen (TN-9) and Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11). This
important legislation will require the current federal standards for
rear underride guards to be upgraded to meet current industry standards
as well as the installation of side and front guards.
In 2015, the NHTSA issued a NPRM to update the standards for rear
impact guards that are installed on the rear of trailers. However, the
NPRM proposed only to upgrade the federal standard to meet the Canadian
standard which was issued over a decade ago and is substandard given
guards currently available in the marketplace which have been shown to
have superior performance capabilities. In addition, the agency failed
to require that single-unit trucks (SUTs) be equipped with underride
guards, instead requiring retroreflective tape on the side and rear.
While requiring retroreflective tape is long overdue, it alone is not a
sufficient countermeasure. Therefore, in order to properly address the
public safety threat posed by rear underride crashes, the federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to rear underride guards
should be updated to meet the standards set by the IIHS in their
TOUGHGUARD award and should be applied to SUTs as well as trailers.
Side underride crashes, where a motor vehicle travels underneath
the side of a trailer or a SUT, also pose a serious threat to public
safety. In May of 2017, IIHS conducted its first testing of side
underride guards that successfully prevented a passenger vehicle from
traveling underneath the side of a trailer. Side underride guards have
now been proven to be able to save lives and mitigate crashes and thus,
should be required as standard equipment on all trailers and SUTs. In
addition, front guards that prevent a truck from overriding or
traveling over a passenger motor vehicle when the truck strikes the
rear of the vehicle have been in use in the European Union for years.
The NTSB has recommended improving comprehensive underride protection.
It is time for this lifesaving equipment to finally make its way onto
America's roads.
Recommendation: Congress should swiftly pass the Stop
Underrides Act (H.R. 1511/S. 665) which will require the
current federal standards for rear underride guards to be
upgraded and the installation of side and front guards.
To obtain a CDL, a candidate should be required to undergo uniform
adequate training. In 2015, Advocates was appointed by the FMCSA to
serve on the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee (ELDTAC)
established to complete a negotiated rulemaking on Entry-Level Driver
Training (ELDT) for novice CMV operators. The consensus reached by the
ELDTAC, as well as the NPRM issued by the FMCSA in March 2016, included
the requirement that applicants for a CDL receive a minimum number of
hours of behind-the-wheel (BTW) instruction (BTW hours requirement) as
part of the core curricula approved for applicants seeking either a
Class A or B CDL. As the FMCSA noted in the NPRM, `` . . . BTW training
for entry-level drivers is uniquely suited to an hours-based approach
because it ensures that driver-trainees will obtain the basic safe
driving skills necessary to obtain a Class A or Class B CDL and to
operate their vehicles safely--skills that can only be obtained after
spending a reasonable amount of time actually driving a CMV''.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 81 FR 11944 (Mar. 7, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the final rule issued by the agency in December 2016
removed the BTW hours requirement. Instead, the rule simply requires
that candidates demonstrate to their instructor that they are
proficient in performing a series of maneuvers while operating a
CMV.\33\ This does not ensure that CDL applicants who can pass the
state CDL skills test will spend any time actually operating a CMV on
public roads with an experienced instructor encountering safety
critical situations. This type of real-world training and experience
for CDL candidates, which several bodies of experts have determined
should be required, is needed in order to enhance the ability of CDL
applicants to operate a truck-trailer combination vehicle safely and to
avoid crashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 81 FR 88732 (Dec. 8, 2016).
Recommendation: Congress should direct the FMCSA to amend the
ELDT final rule to include a minimum number of BTW training
hours to ensure that novice drivers receive adequate training
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
before operating a CMV on public roads.
Data on carrier performance must be collected and publicly
available. With fatal truck crashes continuing to occur at an
alarmingly high rate unhampered by appropriate accountability, there is
insufficient incentive for unsafe carriers to improve their operations.
FMCSA's Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program evaluates the
safety and compliance of motor carriers and is designed to identify
high risk operations for intervention and improvement. Involvement in
previous truck crashes in and of themselves and regardless of ``fault''
has been found by industry, academia and the government to be an
accurate predictor of involvement in future truck crashes. The goal of
CSA is to implement more effective and efficient ways for FMCSA, its
state partners, and the trucking industry to prevent CMV crashes,
fatalities, and injuries.
Unfortunately, some of the CSA data was removed from public view by
section 5223 of the FAST Act.\34\ The FAST Act also required the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) to
study the CSA program method for evaluating the safety of motor
carriers and commercial vehicle drivers. The NASEM study concluded that
the method was sound and made several recommendations to improve the
CSA program including that FMCSA should continue to collaborate with
states and other agencies to improve the collection of data on vehicle
miles traveled and on crashes as well as certain characteristics of
carriers such as turnover rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Pub. L. 114-94 (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, in 2016, the FMCSA issued a NPRM to revise the carrier
safety ratings procedures in light of adoption of the CSA program. This
rulemaking was intended to allow the agency to better evaluate the
safety records of carriers. Advocates supported the agency's action to
upgrade the safety fitness determination (SFD) process, which informs
the CSA program, by using on-road safety data to evaluate carriers in
addition to an agency investigation. This update to the SFD program
would have significantly enhanced the FMCSA's ability to identify
unsafe carriers because it would have enabled the agency to use data
from the carrier's on-road operations, yet the agency withdrew the
rulemaking in August of 2017.
Recommendation: Congress should require that the public
availability of CSA scores be immediately reinstated while the
improvements recommended by the NASEM study are implemented.
The public should once again have access to this important
safety data on trucking companies without any further delay.
Furthermore, Congress should direct the FMCSA to immediately
reinstate and complete the safety fitness determination
rulemaking.
Promulgate safeguards and regulations to ensure autonomous
technology is deployed safely. Autonomous technology offers the promise
of significantly reducing crashes involving CMVs. However, the advent
of this technology must not be used as a pretext to eviscerate
essential safety regulations administered by the FMCSA. The public
safety protections provided by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) become no less important or applicable simply
because a CMV has been equipped with an autonomous driving system
(ADS). In fact, additional substantial public safety concerns are
presented by autonomous commercial motor vehicles (ACMVs).
Autonomous technology is still in its infancy as evidenced by fatal
and serious crashes involving passenger motor vehicles equipped with
driverless systems. If those incidents had involved ACMVs, the results
could have been catastrophic and the death and injury toll could have
been much worse. Some of the most pressing safety shortcomings
associated with autonomous vehicle technology, which include the ADS
properly detecting and reacting to other road users, driver engagement
and cybersecurity, are exponentially amplified by the greater mass and
force of an ACMV. As such, it is imperative that ACMVs be subject to
comprehensive regulations, including having a licensed driver behind
the wheel for the foreseeable future. The development and deployment of
these experimental vehicles must also be subject to robust safeguards
including sufficient data collection and sharing, performance
requirements and enhanced operating authorities, at a minimum.
Recommendation: ACMVs must be subject to robust federal
regulations and minimum performance requirements including that
a trained commercial driver be behind the wheel at all times.
Critical safety regulations that apply to driver HOS, licensing
requirements, entry level training and medical qualifications
should not be weakened. In addition, carriers using ACMVs
should have to apply for additional operating authority and
drivers operating an ACMV must have an additional endorsement
on their CDL to ensure they have been properly trained to
operate an ACMV.
conclusion
Truck crashes continue to occur at an alarmingly high rate. Yet,
there is a seemingly unending assault on essential federal regulations
that protect public safety. Meanwhile, rulemakings which would result
in proven safety benefits by requiring the installation of lifesaving
safety systems languish. Advocates urges Congress to require DOT to
focus on this unfinished safety agenda as the immediate solution to
reducing deaths and injuries caused by CMV crashes.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee
during this essential hearing. Nearly 5,000 people being killed and
150,000 being injured in truck crashes annually cannot continue to be
accepted as a societal norm or a cost of traveling on our roads and
highways. Advocates looks forward to working together with the
Subcommittee members to both preserve current safeguards and
regulations and to advance needed improvements.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Chase.
Christopher Spear, president and CEO, American Trucking
Associations.
Mr. Spear. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Davis, full
committee Chairman DeFazio, members of the subcommittee, let me
extend my sincerest appreciation for the opportunity to testify
today before the subcommittee on behalf of the American
Trucking Associations.
ATA is now in its 86th year as the largest voice of the
trucking industry, serving 50 State associations and a vast
array of members, including carriers, and their several million
drivers, technicians, and valued employees, truck and trailer
manufacturers, shippers, suppliers, including technology
innovators, and software companies; public and private truck
driving schools; employee health and wellness; law firms, as
well as insurers, just to name a few.
In short, ATA has presence in every State and congressional
district in the country, and it's closely affiliated with
national trucking associations throughout the world.
Despite trucks being just 4 percent of the vehicles on our
highways and two-thirds of the accidents involving trucks being
caused by passenger vehicles, the trucking industry still
spends $9.5 billion conservatively each year on safety,
including technology, training, and compliance.
Broadly, trucking employment now exceeds 7.7 million
people. That is 1 in 18 jobs in the United States, where a
truck driver is the top job in 29 States.
Trucks move more than 71 percent of the domestic freight,
and the people that drive, service, load and unload them are to
be commended. They are husbands and wives, moms and dads,
Democrats and Republicans. They include veterans, the disabled,
minorities. They are involved in your local communities, from
coaching Little League to raising thousands of dollars for kids
with cancer.
And like our men and women in uniform, they are among the
most patriotic and hardworking people in America, the first to
help those impacted by floods, fires, tornadoes, and hurricanes
by delivering food, water, medicine, and comfort, and they are
committed to helping others.
They are often the first to respond on the scene of an
accident, stopping to help save people that they have never
met. This is today's trucking industry. This is an American
story, and these are the millions of people ATA proudly
represent.
The subcommittee is tasked with the reauthorization of the
FAST Act, including a safety title. My members, staff, and I
are prepared to help you write a bill that is grounded in data,
not rhetoric; that is shaped by facts, not opinions; and relies
on reality, not emotion.
To that end, ATA has submitted written testimony for this
hearing that provides countless citations, analysis of current
issues both in effect as well as proposed, as well as
recommendations that address policy and programmatic
shortfalls.
ATA also believes it is important that you consider the
future of the trucking industry, looking beyond the hood 5, 10,
15 years out and how we can improve safety through innovation,
such as connectivity; how we can grow a diverse, trained, and
drug-free workforce that shores up the very real and very well-
documented shortage of talent; how trucking can generate and
invest real money, not fake funding, into our decaying
infrastructure; and how trucking can help you shape free and
fair trade agreements that make the United States the strongest
economy in the world.
In closing, I want to personally underscore ATA's
commitment to helping this subcommittee shape this legislation.
You deserve testimony and answers that are squarely backed by
data, not baseless rhetoric.
ATA also will educate your colleagues in the House, Senate
and the administration on why this bill matters. The political
environment we all now find ourselves in raises the bar on
getting anything passed, and this bill is no exception. This
effort will require cooperation and compromise.
Disagreements over policy are expected. Yet ATA will work
with you to resolve any differences, build consensus, and
advocate passage of a reauthorization bill that improves
safety, leverages innovation, and enables our industry to meet
the surging demands of our Nation's economy.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to represent ATA here
today and look forward to your questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Mr. Spear's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
distinguished subcommittee, thank you for providing the American
Trucking Associations (ATA) \1\ with the opportunity to testify before
you today. I would like to begin my testimony by recognizing your
leadership and focus on our nation's crumbling infrastructure. The
trucking industry stands ready to work hand-in-hand with this
subcommittee, Congress and the Administration to bring an end to the
continuing cycle of underinvestment in infrastructure, which results in
significant harm to both our economy and the safety of the motoring
public. Under your guidance, we remain hopeful that federal action can
solve this growing national crisis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations [http://www.trucking.org/] is
the largest national trade association for the trucking industry.
Through a federation of 50 affiliated state trucking associations and
industry-related conferences and councils, ATA is the voice of the
industry America depends on most to move our nation's freight. Follow
ATA on Twitter or on Facebook. Trucking Moves America Forward [http://
truckingmovesamerica.com/].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA is an 86-year-old federation and the largest national trade
organization representing the trucking industry, with affiliates in all
50 states. ATA's membership encompasses over 34,000 motor carriers and
suppliers directly and through affiliated organizations. Our
association represents every sector of the industry, from LTL to
Truckload, agriculture and livestock to auto haulers, and from the
large motor carriers to the owner operator and mom and pop one truck
operations. In fact, despite the claims by some before you today that
ATA only represents the ``mega-carriers,'' 80 percent of our membership
is comprised of small-sized carriers, whereas only 2 percent of our
membership would be considered large-sized carrier. And, our federation
has members in every Congressional district and every community.
Trucking is the fulcrum point in the United States' supply chain.
This year, our industry will move 70 percent of the nation's freight
tonnage, and over the next decade will be tasked with moving three
billion more tons of freight than it does today while continuing to
deliver the vast majority of goods.\2\ More than 80 percent of U.S.
communities rely exclusively on trucks for their freight transportation
needs. Trucks haul 100 percent of the freight originating in the
District of Columbia, and DC residents and businesses rely on trucks to
deliver 98 percent of the goods coming into the District. More than
two-thirds of the freight delivered to and from Illinois was loaded
onto a truck. In 2017, the goods moved by trucks were worth more than
$10 trillion.\3\ The trucking industry is also a significant source of
employment, with 7.7 million people working in various occupations,
accounting for every 1 in 18 jobs in the U.S.\4\ Furthermore, ``truck
driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018 to 2029. American Trucking
Associations, 2018.
\3\ 2017 Commodity Flow Survey Preliminary Report. U.S. Census
Bureau, Dec. 7, 2018.
\4\ American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
\5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without trucks, our cities, towns and communities would lack key
necessities including food and drinking water; there would not be
clothes to purchase, and no parts to build automobiles or fuel to power
them. The rail, air and water intermodal sectors would not exist in
their current form without the trucking industry to support them.
Trucks are central to our nation's economy and our way of life, and
every time the government makes a decision that affects the trucking
industry, those impacts are also felt by individuals and by the
millions of businesses that could not exist without trucks.
With this hearing, we appreciate the subcommittee's focus on the
trucking industry, as it relates to infrastructure, interstate commerce
and safety. As Congress looks towards the next surface transportation
reauthorization bill, many of the topics addressed today will be key
areas of interest and concern, which may shape the drafting of a
legislative and regulatory framework that trucking will operate under
in the years to come. The hearing's title rightly recognizes the state
of the trucking industry, and that is ``under pressure.'' Indeed, the
trucking industry is in many ways at an operational crossroads.
Madam Chair, the trucking industry is on the cusp of a
transformation in the movement of freight, one that you and your
colleagues will greatly influence. Radical technological change will,
in the near future, allow trucks to move more safely and efficiently,
and with less impact on the environment than we ever dared to imagine.
Yet we are facing headwinds, due almost entirely to government action
or, in some cases inaction that will slow or cancel out entirely the
benefits of innovation. Failure to maintain and improve the highway
system that your predecessors helped to create will destroy the
efficiencies that have enabled U.S. manufacturers and farmers to
continue to compete with countries that enjoy far lower labor and
regulatory costs and standards.
We are at a critical point in our country's history, and the
decisions made by this subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration
over the next few months will impact the safety and efficiency of
freight transportation moving forward. For the purpose of this hearing,
I will focus my testimony on four key areas that will have the greatest
and most immediate impact on the trucking industry: 1) Safety and
Technology; 2) Workforce Development; 3) Infrastructure; and 4) Trade.
Included in the accompanying Appendix is a comprehensive list of ATA's
Surface Transportation Reauthorization Priorities, provided for your
consideration and review.
ATA looks forward to working with this subcommittee, and each and
every Member of Congress, as we pursue the legislative and regulatory
framework that will ensure our nation's surface transportation needs
are met. That framework must be grounded in safety, science, data and
training. We commend you for holding this important hearing, to the
benefit of the trucking industry, interstate commerce and the millions
of Americans and U.S. businesses that rely on the safe and efficient
movement of our nation's goods.
1) SAFETY & TECHNOLOGY:
The safety of our nation's roads and bridges, and that of the
motoring public, is undeniably of paramount importance. And safety
anchors the very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping our core
values and decision-making. That is why the trucking industry invests
approximately $10 billion annually in safety initiatives, including
truck onboard technologies such as electronic logging devices,
collision avoidance systems, and video-event recorders. Investments
that also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay,
and compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random
drug tests and motor vehicle record checks). While some of these
investments are made to meet a myriad of regulatory requirements, many
of them are voluntary, progressive safety initiatives adopted by our
members. And, they are paying dividends in highway safety. That being
said, there is still more work to be done, and we are committed to the
goal of accident and fatality-free highways.
Madam Chair, the below section will briefly highlight the trucking
industry's safety record, and the many ways in which our members
continually work to improve upon it. Safety is a process that
continually adapts and evolves. Our members persistently work to adopt
processes and best practices that will make their fleets even safer.
Meaningful improvements will require an acknowledgement of the
principal causes of truck crashes and a commitment to making
appropriate countermeasures the highest priority.
THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY'S SAFETY RECORD:
Since 1980, when the trucking industry was deregulated, both the
number of fatal truck crashes and rate of fatalities have declined
dramatically: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017, Trends chapter, Table 4,
page 7, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-
and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-final-5-6-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 1980-2017, there has been a 69 percent decrease in
the large truck involved fatal crash rate;
From 1980-2017, there has been a 71 percent decrease in
the combination truck involved fatal crash rate; and
In 2017, 72 percent of large truck crashes had no truck
driver-related factors recorded in multiple-vehicle crashes.
The decline in large truck-involved fatal crashes since 1980 is
due, in part, to industry-supported initiatives, many of which were
used prior to becoming a mandated federal regulation. For instance, the
use of Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) was prevalent in ATA member
fleets dating back to the early 2000s. Now, federally mandated use of
ELDs has already had a positive effect on safety. Additionally, ATA
members support the use of additional safety initiatives that will
improve safety, such as the requirement for states to provide an
employment notification system to alert employers of drivers' moving
violations and license suspensions in a timely fashion, the use of
alternative testing specimens to detect drug use, and vehicle safety
technologies that can create a safer environment for all motorists.
TRUCK CRASH CAUSATION STUDY AND CRASH DATA:
For the trucking industry to constantly improve our safety record,
it is important that more research and attention is focused on the
causes of truck-involved crashes, with a resulting emphasis on
undertaking the appropriate countermeasures. Specifically, according to
multiple studies, data, and other indicators, the vast majority of
large truck-involved crashes are the result of driver behaviors and
errors. Furthermore, data indicates that other motorists, not the
professional truck driver, are more likely to be at fault. According to
a Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) report, 70
percent of fatal crashes involving a large truck and a passenger
vehicle are initiated by the actions of, or are the fault of, passenger
motorists.\7\ The American Automobile Association (AAA) conducted their
own version of this study and found that in truck-related crashes, the
critical factor leading to the crash was attributed to the passenger
vehicle driver 75 percent of the time.\8\ Additionally, the AAA study
found that in 10,732 fatal car-truck crash records from 1995-98, the
car drivers were more likely to be cited for multiple unsafe acts. The
study found that 36 percent of car drivers were cited for two or more
unsafe acts, versus 11 percent of truck drivers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Financial Responsibility Requirements for Commercial Motor
Vehicles, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, January 2013, page xii, footnote 2.
\8\ Kostyniuk LP, Streff FM, Zakrajsek J. Identifying Unsafe Driver
Actions that Lead to Fatal Car-Truck Crashes. Washington DC: AAA
Foundation for Traffic Safety, April, 2002.
\9\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be effective in reducing commercial motor vehicle crashes, we
must first understand the true causes of these crashes. The Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) \10\ mandated a study to
determine the cause of, and contributing factors to, crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles. In 2006, FMCSA published a report
identifying areas that need to be addressed by effective crash
countermeasures \11\. With significant improvements made to the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs), ATA believes that initiating
a new Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS) would be an effective
tool in understanding the increase in large truck-involved crashes. A
LTCCS should include a large sample size so that all segments of our
industry are included, and the data is an accurate reflection of real-
world operations. We recognize that recent data indicates that truck-
involved crashes are increasing.\12\ Our industry does not deny this.
We do, however, require accurate data that can direct our efforts and
resources in appropriately addressing and halting this increase.
Understanding the role of driver behavior in crash causation will shed
additional light on how FMCSA's use of enforcement funding and
resulting activity can be most cost-effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, H.R.3419, 106th
Cong. (1999).
\11\ Report to Congress on the Large Truck Crash Causation Study,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, March 2006.
\12\ Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts 2017, Trends chapter, Table 4,
page 7, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/safety/data-and-statistics/461861/ltcbf-2017-
final-5-6-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as a LTCCS will help identify the cause of large truck
crashes, unified electronic crash report data will help to provide
accurate and timely data on truck-involved crashes. Several states have
already adopted electronic collection of crash reports, and many have
seen the ability to provide more timely and accurate information to
stakeholders. ``Real-time'' data allows law enforcement and
transportation safety professionals to respond more quickly to
escalating trends and ``hot spots'' and helps ensure limited resources
are allocated to areas with greatest need. ATA supports federal funding
for states to adopt electronic crash report data collection, along with
funding support to upgrade existing systems, implement NHTSA's Model
Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria data fields and training of staff on new
systems.
Crash causation studies and the accurate and timely data reporting
on truck-involved accidents will help our industry understand and make
targeted and meaningful improvements to road safety. However, I
reiterate that our focus on improving safety is not just reactionary in
nature, but the core value of trucking. Our industry is proactively
taking steps to prevent the crash from occurring in the first place, as
evident in the safety processes our members have established-processes
that go well beyond what is required by Federal regulations.\13\ These
investments include safety technologies, safety training and driver
safety incentive pay. Many of these investments were industry-supported
initiatives that were not mandated at the time. For instance, ATA was
an early advocate for mandatory drug and alcohol testing, the
commercial driver's license program, a ban on radar detectors in
trucks, and the soon to be implemented drug and alcohol clearinghouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ ATA's Safety Investment Study 2016, http://www.trucking.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRONIC LOGGING DEVICES:
ATA members have long used ELDs, with many carriers installing this
critical safety technology long before the December 2017,
Congressionally-mandate implementation. Accordingly, we whole-heartedly
support the industry-wide adoption of ELDs, and the significant impact
this critical technology has on improving public safety--a technology
implementation that was fully litigated, widely debated,
congressionally-mandated, and most recently reaffirmed by FMCSA in
denying most ELD exemption requests.\14\ Compared to the outdated pen
and paper methods of tracking driver hours, this modern-day technology
is more accurate, easier to enforce, more difficult to falsify, and--
most importantly--will save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 83 Fed. Reg. 63194 (December 7, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efforts in Congress to repeal this important mandate from certain
fleets, such as H.R.1697, the Small Carrier Electronic Logging Device
Exemption Act, are misguided, supported by misinformation, and an
attempt to evade compliance with the existing laws and regulations
governing duty hours and driver fatigue. In fact, given that 91 percent
of all for-hire motor carriers in the United States operate six or
fewer trucks, this legislation would serve only to cripple the ELD rule
and give back much of the safety benefit it has brought. Enacting a
bill such as this would pave the way for non-compliant carriers to
avoid this important safety mandate and evade compliance with existing
HOS regulations, which is not in the best interest of public safety.
Opponents of the ELD implementation argue that the device has made
highways unsafe by not allowing a driver to rest when tired. ATA, with
its core principles rooted in the commitment to highway safety, would
adamantly oppose any device that does not allow a driver to rest when
tired. The simple fact is that ELDs have not changed the HOS rules that
have been in place since the early 2000's. The requirements for how
long a driver may operate a commercial vehicle, or the minimum amount
of time a driver must be off-duty, were not affected by the
implementation of ELDs. ELDs have simply replaced the traditional
``paper log'' with an electronic version that automatically records a
driver's duty status based on electronic data from the vehicle's engine
and GPS location data. The argument that an ELD does not allow a driver
to rest when tired is simply false, as the device is merely a
recordkeeping method to ensure accuracy with a driver's HOS.
There is, however, irrefutable evidence that ELD technology has
proven effective in improving safety and increasing compliance. Since
the December 18, 2017, ELD implementation date, HOS violations have
dropped by more than half, and continue to fall.\15\ The decline in
these violations, such as a driver driving beyond the maximum number of
hours allowed, is a direct result of ELDs. Now that the initial ELD
compliance date has come and gone, fleets have adopted the required
technology and are compliant. FMCSA has stated that since April 1,
2018, less than 1 percent of the nearly 3 million driver roadside
inspections have resulted in a driver being cited for not having an
ELD.\16\ FMCSA's 2014 report titled ``Evaluating the Potential Safety
Benefits of Electronic HOS Records'' quantified the benefits of ELD
use, finding that carriers using ELDs saw an 11.7 percent reduction in
crash rate and a 50 percent reduction in HOS violations compared to
those who had not adopted this safety technology. The study concluded
that ``the results show a clear safety benefit, in terms of crash and
HOS violation reductions for trucks equipped with ELDs.'' \17\ This and
other evidence has convinced ATA and the vast majority of safety-
focused carriers within the trucking industry, along with law
enforcement, Congress, FMCSA, and numerous federal courts, to support
the ELD final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Electronic
Logging Device Hours-of-Service Violation Information Graphic.
Retrieved February 28, 2019, from https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations/enforcement/406471/eld-hos-
compliance-jan2019.pdf.
\16\ Ibid.
\17\ 79 Federal Register 27041 (May 12, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOURS OF SERVICE:
As the trucking industry has adjusted to the December 2017
implementation of ELDs, concerns have been raised by varying segments
of the industry for needed flexibility in commercial motor vehicle
operators HOS. While HOS regulations are designed to provide the
framework for the safe and efficient movement of goods, there has come
to light the need for greater HOS flexibility to provide drivers the
ability to adjust to changing road and weather conditions, congestion
and sensitive truck loads.
To address those concerns, in August 2018, FMCSA initiated a
rulemaking on potential changes to the HOS rules. That rulemaking
received over 5,200 comments with input on potential changes. This
response has led FMCSA to move forward with issuing a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) which is currently at review with the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) and is expected to be published later
this month. ATA--and, other industry stakeholders--continue to provide
input to the agency on potential technical corrections to the HOS
regulations that will allow greater flexibility for various segments of
the industry.
As the agency moves forward with potential adjustments to HOS,
those changes must be based on safety data that demonstrates the change
will create a level of safety that is equal to or greater than the
level of safety that currently exists. Changes that lack the proper
data and science supporting a safety benefit should not be considered.
Additionally, while ATA would encourage the subcommittee to exert
its oversight role in considering and reviewing FMCSA's forthcoming
NPRM, we caution the subcommittee on dangerous and reactive legislation
that is not grounded in safety, science or data. Legislation like
H.R.487, the Transporting Livestock Across America Safely Act. While
the bill's title is well-chosen, the legislation as drafted is a
dangerous overreach, more than doubling the number of hours currently
deemed safe for continuous commercial motor vehicle operation. While
ATA understands and appreciates that livestock and agricultural haulers
are a unique sector of the industry facing distinctive HOS challenges
that should be reviewed and safely addressed, more than 24 hours of
straight driving is not safe in a car, and it is even less so while
transporting a trailer filled with livestock. This bill, and others
like it, needlessly and recklessly threatens the safety of people
traveling our highways, and should be rejected outright by this
subcommittee and Congress.
EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM:
ATA believes the FMCSA should establish a national employer
notification system to provide motor carrier employers with timely
alerts to driver license actions, such as suspensions, revocations, and
convictions for moving violations. Use of this system should be
voluntary, at least initially. Under the current process, motor
carriers often are not notified about drivers' convictions in a timely
manner. Employers are required to check each driver's record once per
year, however this record may reveal violations committed up to 11
months earlier. Employees are required to notify their employer of a
violation of any State or local traffic law (other than a parking
violation) within 30 days of a conviction, and of a license suspension,
revocation, or cancellation within one day. However, they are often
reluctant to do so because of the potential negative ramifications on
their employment. FMCSA estimates that at least 50 percent of drivers
may not notify employers of convictions and licensing actions within
the required time-frames.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Driver Violation Notification Service Feasibility Study, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, July 2005, figure 1, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007, a pilot ENS program was conducted to assess the
feasibility, cost, safety impact, and benefits of such a system; and to
assess methods for efficient exchange of driver safety data from
existing State systems. The pilot program, tested in Colorado and
Minnesota, allowed motor carriers to register, with the driver's
expressed permission, to receive timely electronic notifications of
convictions and suspensions. The results of the pilot indicated that a
nationwide ENS was needed and could have significant safety and
monetary benefits for motor carriers. In 2012, the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) supported FMCSA's plans to
develop and implement a national driver record notification system for
commercial vehicle operators. ATA supports a standardized ENS approach
and is advocating a national ENS system.
HAIR TESTING:
An increasing number of motor carriers are conducting pre-
employment and random drug tests using drivers' hair as a testing
sample. Hair tests provide a better, longer picture of an applicant's
past drug use and are more difficult than other testing methods to
subvert. However, since urine is the only sample type permitted under
DOT regulations, companies that voluntarily conduct hair tests must do
so in addition to mandatory urine tests. This duplicated time and
expense deters fleets from adopting this more effective testing method.
To help eliminate this redundancy and incent more fleets to conduct
hair testing, ATA strongly supports the recognition of hair testing as
a federally-accepted drug testing method.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) has long expressed an interest in recognizing hair testing as
a Federally-accepted drug testing method, and has been developing
guidelines to recognize hair testing since the early 2000s.
Unfortunately, progress has been inexcusably slow. As a result, in
2015, Congress directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to ``issue scientific and technical guidelines for
hair testing as a method of detecting the use of controlled substances
for purpose of section 31306 of Title 49, United States Code'' by
December 4, 2016.\19\ Unfortunately, this Congressionally-mandated
deadline is now more than 2 years overdue. HHS missed this deadline,
and continues to ignore the Congressional mandate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act Sec. 5402, (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of standards by HHS will pave the way for regulated
employers to use this testing method and allow them to identify a
greater number of safety-sensitive employees who violate Federal drug
testing regulations. Additionally, having hair testing as a recognized
alternative drug testing method would give motor carriers the ability
to report positive hair test results to drivers' subsequent prospective
employers through FMCSA's forthcoming Commercial Driver's License Drug
and Alcohol Clearinghouse.
Recognizing this unacceptable delay, in March 2018, the President
signed H.R. 1625 the TARGET Act with report language to HHS on the
Federal Drug Free Workplace Program that, ``The agreement strongly
encourages the Secretary to expeditiously produce the technical
guidelines for the use of hair testing as a Federally-accepted drug
testing method.\20\ And most recently, H.R.6 the SUPPORT for Patients
and Communities Act, the comprehensive opioids package passed by
Congress and signed into law in October 2018, included important
oversight and reporting requirements for HHS to follow in completing
its work on hair testing. The legislation requires HHS to report to
Congress on the status of hair testing guidelines within 60 days of
enactment and annually thereafter until final publication. The report
will include: (1) the status of the hair testing guidelines; (2) an
explanation for why the hair testing guidelines have not been issued;
(3) a schedule, including benchmarks, for the completion of the hair
testing guidelines; and (4) an estimated date of completion of the hair
testing guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ TARGET Act, H.R.1625, 115th Cong. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA urges Congress and this subcommittee to put further pressure on
HHS to pave the way toward adoption of this important safety
initiative. Unfortunately, while this country in recent years has seen
prescription opioid abuse grow to an epidemic, and an uptick of drug-
impaired driving, we continue to wait for these critical technical
guidelines to be completed, so that DOT can recognize the use of hair
testing as a federally-accepted drug testing method.
AUTOMATED AND CONNECTED VEHICLES:
Madam Chair, I would now like to discuss automated vehicle
technologies that we believe will help make our industry and workplace,
the roads and bridges crisscrossing this country, safer. Automobile and
truck manufacturers have been automating functions of vehicles for
decades, such as the antilock braking system and cruise control. As
technical solutions have grown, and costs have become more reasonable,
policymakers and regulators are trying to catch up to the market-driven
innovation and proliferating technologies. Collision avoidance system
functionalities are becoming more affordable and standard on new light
vehicles, and truck OEMs are on a similar path.\21\ New technology
companies and traditional equipment suppliers are also developing
automated vehicle technology specifically for the trucking industry,
further accelerating the development of automated vehicle technologies
in the trucking industry.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ (March 8, 2019). ALL INTERNATIONAL ON-HIGHWAY TRUCKS TO COME
STANDARD WITH BENDIX WINGMAN FUSION. Retrieved from https://
www.bendix.com/media/documents/press_releases/2019/
All_International_On-Highway_Trucks_To_Come_Standard_
With_Bendix_Wingman_Fusion319.pdf
\22\ (January 30, 2019). Self-Driving Truck Startup Embark Releases
Performance Data. Retrieved from https://www.ttnews.com/articles/self-
driving-truck-startup-embark-releases-performance-data
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The safety benefits from advancing automated truck technology also
parallels the importance of intelligent transportation systems. Plans
of deploying dedicated short-range communication (DSRC) devices on
vehicles to enable vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-
infrastructure (V2I) communications--collectively known as V2X--have
significant future safety benefits to next generation U.S.
transportation.\23\ Much work has been done by federal and state
governments, research institutions, technical standards organizations,
and technology companies to develop DSRC-based V2V protocols and
applications for single and combination vehicles. Additionally, safety
impacts of automated or assisted braking and steering are being studied
and will likely show significant improvements in mitigating crashes and
injuries.\24\ As vehicles are able to communicate with one another, the
safety on our roadways can be vastly improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Chang, J. (2016, July). Summary of NHTSA heavy-vehicle
vehicle-to-vehicle safety communications research. (Report No. DOT HS
812 300). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
\24\ (May 22, 2019). Development of Baseline Safety Performance
Measures for Highly Automated Commercial Vehicles. Retrieved from
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/research-and-analysis/technology/development-
baseline-safety-performance-measures-highly-automated
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, truck platooning--a DSRC platform technology that
utilizes V2V and advanced driver assistive systems--has passed through
early stages of testing and development, and may be deployed in the
near future. Truck platooning could improve fuel efficiency for
commercial vehicles, but more importantly, have added safety benefits
as well-allowing the ``platoon'' of vehicles to instantly react to one
another, such as applying the brakes faster than a human reaction.
While the full impacts of automated and connected vehicles on workforce
training, and labor regulation are not yet clear--as the effect of
automation on trucking and logistics operations is still developing
along with the technology--ATA does not perceive this technology to be
``driverless'' for the trucking industry, but instead a vital driver
assist tool. We expect that there will continue to be a role for
drivers in trucking for the foreseeable future, similarly to pilots who
are still in the cockpit of airplanes, fifty years after automation was
introduced to aviation. Though the role for automation could certainly
be modified and adjusted as the technologies continue to advance. A
major role of drivers is responsibility for the security and oversight
of the cargo, some of which is heavily regulated, especially hazardous
or agricultural loads. More challenges to consider involve hours of
service regulations, cybersecurity, insurance liability, roadside
events, enforcement and first responder situations.
Connected vehicles continue to be discussed as a potential safety
technology. In January 2017, NHTSA published a proposed rule
establishing a safety standard to mandate V2V communications for new
light vehicles and to standardize the message and format of V2V
transmissions.\25\ Also, FHWA issued guidance for V2I communications,
which help transportation planners integrate the technologies to allow
vehicles the ability to communicate to roadway infrastructure.\26\
Currently, three connected vehicle pilot programs are underway in
Wyoming, Tampa, and New York City.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ (January 12, 2017). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
V2V Communications. Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2017/01/12/2016-31059/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-
v2v-communications
\26\ (January 19, 2017). FHWA Announces Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/
fhwa0317
\27\ Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program. Retrieved from
https://www.its.dot.gov/pilots/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, some auto manufacturers are seeking cellular V2X (C-
V2X) frequency, not DSRC, to be dedicated on some channels of the 5.9
GHz spectrum for vehicle safety communications. As long as the full
breadth of 5.9 GHz spectrum is allocated for vehicle safety, then V2X
technologies will enter the scene, allowing cars, trucks and
infrastructure to communicate with each other. ATA believes that it is
vitally important that the 5.9 GHz spectrum that has been reserved by
the FCC exclusively for V2V and V2I communications be preserved against
encroachment from other uses such as Wi-Fi, otherwise many important
promises of automation will be lost. The FCC is anticipated to render a
decision about the use of the 5.9 GHz spectrum, and whether it will be
allocated to vehicle safety use or divided between that original
purpose and unlicensed Wi-Fi users. If the full breadth of the 5.9 GHz
spectrum is allocated for vehicle safety, then V2V and V2I technologies
will enter the scene in an accelerated manor, better allowing cars,
trucks and infrastructure to communicate with each other.
ATA also believes that including the trucking industry in the
framework of the development and testing of automated and connected
vehicle technologies is crucial. ATA continues to engage with the FCC,
FMCSA and other administrations within USDOT as well as other
stakeholder advisory groups on automated and connected vehicles to
ensure that the trucking industry's perspective is considered as future
policies are being developed. ATA continues to work with State Trucking
Associations and state legislators and transportation officials as
policies, regulations, and research emanate from cities, states,
universities, and businesses. ATA has also engaged with other
stakeholders to study and address workforce issues related to automated
trucks, as a founding member of the Partnership for Transportation
Innovation & Opportunity.
ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTIVE SYSTEMS:
Although some automated driving systems and Vehicle-to-Vehicle
technologies may be utilized in the near future, ATA member companies
presently support and utilize systems to enhance the safety of their
fleets. Substantial advancements have been made in vehicle collision
mitigation technology through advanced driver assistive systems (ADAS),
including advanced radar and LiDAR devices; enhanced camera and vision
technologies; improved object detection algorithms, and automated
steering and braking. Automated emergency braking (AEB)--a form of ADAS
technology--detects an impending forward collision with another object
in time to avoid or mitigate the accident. AEB systems, such as dynamic
brake support (DBS) and crash imminent braking (CIB), use multiple
onboard vehicle sensing technologies to monitor the proximity of
approaching objects to warn the driver and/or apply DBS and CIB
depending on the relative speed and distance between the host and
opposing vehicles that suggest a collision is imminent.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Driver Assistance Technologies. Retrieved from https://
www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/driver-assistance-technologies
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to AEB, commercial vehicles may now be equipped with
ADAS such as:
Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC)--A method for drivers to
allow the system to keep a safe space in following traffic while
maintaining a set speed through automated braking and accelerating;
Forward Collision Warning (FCW)--A feature that can
complement AEB and can generate audible, haptic and visual alerts when
a rear-end conflict emerges;
Blind Spot Detection (BSD)--A variable amount of sensors
for detecting vehicles and vulnerable road users (can be speed
dependent) that surround the truck and can warn the driver--or system--
during maneuvers;
Lane Departure Warning (LDW)--A system alert for the
driver when the vehicle drifts past lane markings without signal;
Active Electric Steering (AES)--A combination of
automated technology and sensory devices that can adjust the vehicle's
heading; preemptively steer away from emergency situations, and
maintain driver comfort during harsh environments;
Lane Keeping Assist (LKA)--An AES feature that positions
the vehicle center of its driving lane and can maintain slight turning
directions;
Camera Monitoring Systems (CMS)--Distinct camera devices
mounted around the vehicle that enhance driver vision capabilities for
blind spot ``No Zone'' areas and poor sight capabilities. CMS also has
the availability to replace conventional truck mirrors for increasing
safety and fuel efficiency; and
Adaptive Driving Beam (ADB) Headlighting--A ``smart''
vehicle head light safety feature that adjusts the forward lighting
brightness automatically through sensing detection technology for
reducing glare on surrounding traffic while enhancing the driver or
system's viewing capability in reducing accidents with vehicles and
vulnerable road users.
In October 2015, NHTSA granted a petition for rulemaking to
establish a safety standard to require ADAS on certain heavy
vehicles.\29\ The agency is currently conducting research to evaluate
real-world performance of these systems through track testing and field
operational testing. NHTSA also announced a commitment by majority of
the U.S. auto market to make AEB a standard feature on virtually all
new light-duty vehicles no later than NHTSA's 2022 reporting year.\30\
Additionally, AEB to be standard on virtually all new light-duty
commercial vehicles with a gross vehicle weight between 8,501 lbs. and
10,000 lbs. beginning no later than Sept. 1, 2025. ATA supports AEB for
all new vehicles (Class 1-8) through a USDOT voluntary program
challenging vehicle manufacturers to standardize AEB on new vehicles,
and ATA supports carrier-based programs to expedite ADAS technology
adoption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 80 Federal Register 62487 (October 16, 2015).
\30\ (December 21, 2017). Manufacturers make progress on voluntary
commitment to include automatic emergency braking on all new vehicles.
Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/nhtsa-iihs-
announcement-aeb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISGUIDED SAFETY TECHNOLOGY MANDATES:
While discussing safety technologies that our industry utilizes,
both mandated and voluntarily, I also urge this subcommittee to use
caution and best judgement as you consider technology mandates on the
trucking industry that, while well intentioned, may lead to unintended
consequences and negative impacts on both the industry and road safety.
An example of this can be found in recent legislative attempts to
mandate an unproven device known as a ``side underride guards'' on the
trucking industry. Recently introduced in both the House \31\ and
Senate \32\, the Stop Underrides Act calls for the mandating of these
devices on the sides and front of virtually all commercial vehicles,
including the retrofitting of already manufactured and in service
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1511/
all-info.
\32\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/665.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This legislation, while a response to specific tragedies, seeks to
address a certain type of truck involved accident through a highly
prescriptive industry-wide mandate. Regrettably, the bill is not based
on science, data or safety benefit. Moreover, it ignores potential
technical issues a mandate of this nature raises, as well as the other
technologies that exist for addressing these and other crashes, such as
automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and adaptive
turning assist. And, the bill ignores the diversity of our industry. In
trucking, we know that one size does not fit all, and that investments
in certain technologies that one company makes may not make sense for
another. Standards for new and in-service truck equipment should be
based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance safety,
take into account real-world operations, and weigh possible unintended
consequences.
The Stop Underrides Act also fails to consider numerous
complicating factors such as engineering tradeoffs involving weight,
strength, and effectiveness of side guards. Currently, the only testing
that has been accomplished involves a closed course staged dry van 53
trailer with a dummy car speeding perfectly perpendicular at its side
underride guard well below highway speed limits. Furthermore, the bill
raises significant operational issues related to ground clearance,
moveable trailer axles, and the diversity of truck and trailer designs.
For example, the ridged specified design of side underrides would not
work well with tank and bulk trailers that are cylindrical in size and
require underbelly accessibility; flatbed trailers, which unloaded, are
naturally curved to suppress weight; and intermodal trailers that are
shipped and locked onto specific designed chassis for hauling. Simply
put, these glaring operational concerns do not signify real world
applicability, nor justify an industry-wide mandate.
Our industry needs to be diligent in directing safety-related
resources, leveraging industry investments to result in the greatest
potential benefit to highway safety, which is the only way we can hope
to achieve the goal of accident and fatality-free highways. Equipping
the roughly 3.2 million trailers and semi-trailers pulled by Class 7
and 8 tractors and the overall 35 million commercial trucks (all
classes) in the U.S with side and front underride guards will far
exceed the $10 billion the industry currently spends annually on
safety.\33\ As a result, the Stop Underrides Act would divert a
significant amount of NHTSA and industry resources away from important
crash avoidance technologies with wide-ranging benefits in all types of
crashes to focus on a narrow type of crash and specific countermeasure
unproven in real-world applications. Furthermore, the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed a congressionally
mandated report researching this very issue. In the report
recommendations, the GAO concluded that ``The Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should conduct
additional research on side underride guards to better understand the
overall effectiveness and cost associated with these guards and, if
warranted, develop standards for their implementation.'' \34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Truck and trailer data from 2017 from ACT Research.
\34\ (March, 2019). Truck Underride Guards, Improved Data
Collection, Inspection, and Research Needed (Report No. GAO-19-264).
Retrieved from United States Government Accountability Office: https://
www.gao.gov/assets/700/697585.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATA strongly recommends that Congress and Federal Regulators work
collaboratively with the industry to incentivize safety investments,
allowing motor carrier to make the right investments that provide the
greatest overall benefit the safety of our roads, bridges and motoring
public. However, misguided and wrongheaded legislative mandates like
the Stop Underrides Act ultimately detract from our shared goal of
improved safety.
2) WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT:
THE DRIVER SHORTAGE CRISIS:
According to the Council of Economic Advisers, truck drivers are
among the top ``infrastructure occupations'' that will be needed and in
increased demand with expanded investments in infrastructure.\35\
However, as confirmed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters
\36\ and the Federal Reserve Board,\37\ the trucking industry is
already facing a severe labor shortage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ The Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Economic Benefits and
Impacts of Expanded Infrastructure Investment,'' March 2018, at 26,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Economic-
Benefits-and-Impacts-of-Expanded-Infrastructure-Investment.pdf.
\36\ U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation
Hearing, Transportation Innovation: Automated Trucks and Our Nation's
Highways, Sep. 13, 2017, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/hearings?ID=5A988178-CACC-4ADF-8EAC-784DE626B89F.
\37\ The Federal Reserve Board, The Beige Book: Summary of
Commentary on Current Economic Conditions by Federal Reserve District,
July 18, 2018, https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/files/
BeigeBook_20180718.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically:
In 2017, the industry was short 50,000 drivers, the
highest level on record; \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
2017, http://progressive1.acs.playstream.com/truckline/progressive/
ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20Report
%202017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2018, half of the nation's twelve Federal Reserve
Districts specifically reported trucking capacity and truck driver
shortage issues, with many reporting rising freight and manufacturing
costs due to the shortage; \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The Federal Reserve Board, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If current trends hold, the shortage could grow to more
than 174,000 by 2026; and \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Truck Driver Shortage Analysis 2017, supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the next decade, the trucking industry will need to
hire roughly 890,000 new drivers, taking into account retirement and
the industry's aging workforce (whose average age is 7 years older than
that of your typical U.S. worker).\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This shortage, in turn, threatens to increase the cost of moving
freight, and reduce supply chain efficiencies. The driver shortage
persists despite the fact that private fleet drivers saw their pay rise
to more than $86,000 from $73,000--or a gain of nearly 18 percent--from
2014 to 2017.\42\ Over the same period, the median salary for a
truckload driver working a national, irregular route increased to over
$53,000--for an increase of $7,000 or 15 percent.\43\ These significant
bumps in pay are in addition to the thousands of dollars in signing
bonuses, health insurance, and retirement benefits that most carriers
offer to recruit and retain drivers.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ American Trucking Associations, UPDATED: New Survey Data
Reveals Increases in Driver Compensation, March 27, 2018, https://
www.trucking.org/article/New-Survey-Data-Reveals-Increases-in-Driver-
Compensation.
\43\ Id.
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING REFORM:
Given that ``truck-driver'' was one of the most in-demand jobs in
the country with the biggest pay hikes in 2018,\45\ why is the industry
still under pressure from a driver shortage standpoint?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Paul Davidson, The most in demand jobs in 2018 with biggest
pay hikes include cashier, truck driver, USA Today, May 22, 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/05/22/jobs-biggest-
pay-hikes-cashier-delivery-driver/630728002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the nation's unemployment rate hovering at historic lows and
demand for freight transportation continuing to peak in our growing e-
commerce economy, the trucking industry is not able to replenish its
aging workforce with younger workers--due in large part to outdated
occupational licensing requirements that disproportionately burden
entry-level drivers.
As you may be aware, reforming outdated occupational licensing
requirements has been a bipartisan priority of the past two
administrations.\46\ In July 2015, President Obama was able to marshal
among a wide array of stakeholders and policymakers support for
occupational licensing reform, through the issuance of an eye-opening
report by his Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Department of
Treasury's Office of Economic Policy, and the U.S. Department of
Labor.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Nick Sibilla, ``Citing Adam Smith and Milton Firedman, Obama's
Economic Advisors Back Occupational Licensing Reform,'' Forbes, July
31, 2015, https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2015/07/31/
citing-adam-smith-and-milton-friedman-obamas-economic-advisors-back-
occupational-licensing-reform/#411b2aaf582e; Jared Meyer, ``Trump
Doubles Down on Licensing Reform,'' Forbes, July 31, 2017, https://
www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2017/07/31/trump-and-obama-agree-on-
licensing/#10d91bf9692d
\47\ The Council of Economic Advisers, the U.S. Department of
Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, and the U.S. Department of Labor,
Occupational Licensing: A Framework for Policymakers, July 2015,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/
licensing_report_final
_nonembargo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summarizing this report, Jason Furman, Chairman of President
Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, described the many ways in which
outdated licensing requirements create barriers to labor market entry
or lateral mobility, as follows:
[T]here is evidence that some licensing requirements create
economic rents for licensed practitioners at the expense of
excluded workers and consumers--increasing inefficiency and
potentially also increasing inequality. First, the employment
barriers created by licensing raise wages for those who are
successful in gaining entry to a licensed occupation by
restricting employment in the licensed profession and lowering
wages for excluded workers. . . . Second, research finds that
more restrictive licensing laws lead to higher prices for goods
and services, in many cases for lower-income households, while
the quality, health and safety benefits do not always
materialize . . . . most empirical evidence does not find that
stricter licensing requirements improve quality, public safety
or health. . . . Finally, State-specific licensing requirements
create barriers to entry for out-of-State licensed
practitioners and so reduce mobility across State lines.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Jason Furman, Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers,
Occupational Licensing and Economic Rents, The Brookings Institution,
Nov. 2, 2015, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/
page/files/20151102_occupational_licensing_and_economic_rents.pdf.
Not surprisingly, there is broad bipartisan support for rolling
back these unnecessary barriers that hold back so many Americans, which
disproportionately affect African-Americans, Hispanics, military
spouses and veterans, returning citizens, and the poor.\49\ In
recognition of similar challenges that outdated licensing requirements
pose for the transportation and infrastructure workforce, Labor
Secretary Alex Acosta has advocated for workforce development reforms
to be included in an infrastructure package.\50\ In particular,
Secretary Acosta testified in support of occupational licensing
reform.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Matthew D. Mitchell, Occupational Licensing and the Poor and
Disadvantaged, The Mercatus Center, Sep. 28, 2017, https://
www.mercatus.org/publications/study-american-capitalism/occupational-
licensing-and-poor-and-disadvantaged.
\50\ U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Transportation, & Science
Hearing, Rebuilding Infrastructure In America: Administration
Perspectives, March 14, 2018, https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/hearings?ID=D68FC40C-36BC-4319-B96F-CAC99129FE3E.
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING REFORM IN THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY:
For the reasons mentioned above, to help alleviate the truck driver
shortage and remove unnecessary barriers to entry, ATA supports the
following occupational licensing reforms.
Give 18, 19, and 20-year-olds the Opportunity to Choose a
Career in Trucking:
First, ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for
interstate truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified
apprentices that satisfy the safety, training, and technology
requirements spelled out in the DRIVE Safe Act (H.R. 1374; S. 569 in
the 116th Congress) and the new training requirements of the Obama
Administration's Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Final Rule.
Currently, 48 states and the District of Columbia allow 18-year-old CDL
holders to drive trucks intrastate without any of these additional
training and technology requirements. Many of these 18, 19, and 20 year
old intrastate drivers outperform their older counterparts when it
comes to critical safety measures such as crash rates. Additionally,
our nation's military allows 18, 19 and 20 year old service members to
operate heavy duty machinery, equipment and vehicles--demonstrating
that good training makes it possible for the average U.S. sailor
(younger than 20 years old) to steer a $4 billion aircraft carrier.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018, https://
aircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-Points-2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modern-day vehicle safety technologies have advanced by several
orders of magnitude since the current minimum age requirement was
promulgated decades ago before the advent of the internet. And research
has shown that the technologies that would be required by the DRIVE
Safe Act and endorsed by the NTSB--technologies such as active braking,
collision avoidance, and event recorders--significantly improve safety
performance. Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country
are neither employed nor in school, even as the nation is short 50,000
truck drivers. An update to the minimum age requirement is well over-
due.
Eliminate Unnecessary Barriers for Out-of-State Driver
Candidates:
Second, to better connect job-seekers to trucking careers that
offer a median salary of $54,585, health and retirement benefits, in
addition to potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, ATA
supports efforts to require states to better serve the growing number
of truck driver candidates who receive driver training outside their
state of domicile.
Currently, out-of-state trainees have to travel back and forth to
their home state, every time they pass either the CDL knowledge test or
skills test--just to obtain the basic occupational licenses necessary
to launch their trucking career. This arrangement imposes unnecessary
financial burdens on those who can least afford it and exposes them to
skill degradation. This problem could be addressed by requiring states
receiving federal funds for infrastructure projects to allow such out-
of-state trainees to (1) complete all training, (2) take all necessary
tests, and (3) obtain all necessary credentials in the state in which
they are receiving training--without having to travel back to their
home state.
As the Council of Economic Advisers has noted:
Because [occupational] licenses are largely granted by states
(rather than being nationally recognized), licensing inhibits
the free flow of licensed workers across state boundaries to
better match labor supply to labor demand. Unless the
geographic footprint and skill needs of expanded infrastructure
investments match the geographic distribution of currently
unemployed infrastructure workers, some reshuffling of workers
across state lines may be needed.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Council of Economic Advisers, supra note 1, at 33 (emphasis
added).
In the trucking industry, the geographic distribution of currently
unemployed truck driver candidates does not match the geographic
footprint of federal workforce development investments. Accordingly,
individuals aspiring to become truck drivers are crossing state lines
to obtain state-of-the-art training from motor carriers that have the
support of federal workforce dollars and have been hiring minorities,
veterans, apprentices, and other underrepresented populations at
industry-leading rates.
To better facilitate and scale this innovative model of workforce
development, ATA supports efforts to require states of domicile to (1)
accept the results of an applicant's CDL knowledge test administered in
another state, and to (2) electronically transmit or deliver by mail
the relevant credential--be it a CLP or a CDL--to the applicant without
requiring him or her to physically come back to the state of domicile.
Eliminate Skills Test Delays for CDL Applicants:
ATA supports incentivizing states to administer the CDL skills test
within 7 days of application or utilizing 3rd party testers. A low
unemployment rate and the stigma surrounding blue-collar work makes it
difficult enough to recruit drivers into the trucking industry. States
that make applicants wait up to two months to take their skills test
contributes to this problem by discouraging applicants from following
through. It also invites skills erosion.
RELATED WORKFORCE PRIORITIES:
Support Efforts to Recruit, Train, and Hire from Non-
Traditional Communities:
A growing number of ATA members recruit drivers from inner cities
and teach them life-skills such as budgeting and punctuality. These
companies are also industry-leaders in hiring veterans, apprentices,
and female drivers. Building on these successes, ATA is exploring a
pilot project in Baltimore, MD, to help expand our outreach to urban
communities. Several large ATA members are also interested in building
career entryways for returning citizens, but there are questions about
negligent hiring liability and grant funding.
Support Research on the Workforce Impacts of Automated
Vehicles:
ATA supports the commonsense adoption of automated vehicle
technology and data-driven efforts to better understand and optimize
the potential benefits of this technology for the American workforce.
While we recognize that the widespread adoption of these technologies
is decades away, ATA supports increased research that will better equip
policymakers and regulators with more data to prepare the next
generation of American workers for the future of work in trucking and
transportation.
3) INFRASTRUCTURE:
THE COST OF INACTION:
A well-maintained, reliable and efficient network of highways is
crucial to the delivery of the nation's freight and vital to our
country's economic and social well-being. However, the road system is
rapidly deteriorating, and costs the average motorist nearly $1,600 a
year in higher maintenance and congestion expenses.\54\ Highway
congestion also adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight
transportation each year.\55\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers
sitting idle for a year.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015
Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
\55\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
\56\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are impacts that serve as a brake on economic growth and job
creation nationwide. Madam Chair, a first-world economy cannot survive
a third-world infrastructure system. As such, the federal government
has a Constitutional responsibility to ensure that the resources are
available to address this self-imposed and completely solvable
situation. The Commerce Clause does not represent an antiquated 18th
century ideal; it is what binds us as a nation. E Pluribus Unum--out of
many, one.
Those who support abandoning or curtailing the federal role in
surface transportation improvement do so in contempt of the ideals that
have made the United States great. They are willing to put aside
centuries of precedent in favor of a wager that 50 states will, at
their own behest, take the actions that are necessary to prevent
further deterioration of a transportation system that binds us together
as one nation and allows our economy to thrive. This is especially
problematic for low-population, large-area states, which carry large
volumes of interstate traffic that benefit the entire nation, but do
not have the population base to fund needed improvements. The trucking
industry, the backbone of the economy, will not accept this reckless
approach, and Congress and this subcommittee should reject it as well.
Most troubling is the impact of underinvestment on highway safety.
In nearly 53 percent of highway fatalities, the condition of the
roadway is a contributing factor.\57\ In 2011, nearly 17,000 people
died in roadway departure crashes, over 50 percent of the total.\58\
Many of these fatalities result from collisions with roadside objects,
such as trees or poles located close to the roadway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Roadway Safety Guide. Roadway Safety Foundation, 2014.
\58\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the primary source of federal revenue
for highway projects, safety programs and transit investments, is
projected to run short of the funds necessary to maintain current
spending levels by FY2021.\59\ While an average of approximately $42
billion per year is expected to be collected from highway users over
the next decade, nearly $60 billion will be required annually to
prevent significant reductions in federal aid for critical projects and
programs.\60\ It should be noted that a $60 billion annual average
federal investment still falls well short of the resources necessary to
provide the federal share of the expenditure needed to address the
nation's surface transportation safety, maintenance and capacity
needs.\61\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
U.S. spends less than half of what is necessary to address these needs.
As the investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of
deficient bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway
bottlenecks and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities
attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ The Budget and Economic Outlook 2019-2029, January 2019
Congressional Budget Office.
\60\ Ibid.
\61\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance. USDOT, Dec. 2016; see also 2017
Infrastructure Report Card. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the cost and scale of addressing highway improvement needs is
daunting, it is important to note that much of the congestion is
focused at a relatively small number of locations. Just 17 percent of
National Highway System (NHS) miles represents 87 percent of total
truck congestion costs nationwide.\62\ Many of these locations are at
highway bottlenecks that are identified annually by the American
Transportation Research Institute. ATRI recently released its annual
freight bottleneck report, which identifies the top 100 truck
bottlenecks around the country.\63\ The Washington, DC area had two
major bottlenecks, while Illinois had four. While most of the
bottlenecks were in large metropolitan areas, the report found trouble
spots even in smaller cities like Baton Rouge, LA, San Bernardino, CA,
Birmingham, AL, Chattanooga, TN, and Greenville, SC. ATA's highway
funding proposal, described below, would adopt a strategy for funding
improvements at these costly choke points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Ibid.
\63\ https://truckingresearch.org/2019/02/06/atri-2019-truck-
bottlenecks/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recently released report \64\ by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) requested by Congress focused specifically on the current
state and future needs of the Interstate Highway System. This critical
network binds our nation together and reaps immeasurable economic and
national security benefits for the United States. Most importantly,
because interstates are far safer than surface roads, since 1967 its
construction has prevented nearly a quarter million people from losing
their lives in vehicular crashes.\65\ The Interstate Highway System
accounts for about one-quarter of all miles traveled by light-duty
vehicles and 40 percent of miles traveled by trucks.\66\ The TRB report
estimates that conservatively, the state and federal investment
necessary to address the Interstate system's maintenance and capacity
needs will have to double or triple over today's expenditures in the
next 20 years.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences.
\65\ Ibid, p. 2-18
\66\ Ibid, p. 2-10.
\67\ Ibid, p. S-5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE BUILD AMERICA FUND:
ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build
America Fund. The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per gallon
fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at the
terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee will be indexed
to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a five
percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee will generate nearly $340
billion over the first 10 years. It will cost the average passenger
vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased in.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, which
underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute at
all. We look forward to working with the committee to identify the best
approach to achieve that goal.
Under the BAF proposal, the first tranche of revenue generated by
the new fee would be transferred to the HTF. Using a FY 2020 baseline,
existing HTF programs would be funded at authorized levels sufficient
to prevent a reduction in distributed funds, plus an annual increase to
account for inflation.
Second, a new National Priorities Program (NPP) would be funded
with an annual allocation of $5 billion, plus an annual increase
equivalent to the percentage increase in BAF revenue. Each year, the
U.S. Department of Transportation would determine the location of the
costliest highway bottlenecks in the nation and publish the list.
Criteria could include the number of vehicles; amount of freight;
congestion levels; reliability; safety; or, air quality impacts. States
with identified bottlenecks could apply to USDOT for project funding
grants on a competitive basis. Locations could appear on the list over
multiple years until they are addressed.
The funds remaining following the transfer to the HTF and the NPP
would be placed into the Local Priorities Program (LPP). Funds would be
apportioned to the states according to the same formula established by
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, including sub-
allocation to local agencies. Project eligibility would be the same as
the eligibility for the National Highway Freight Program or National
Highway Performance Program, for highway projects only.
This approach would give state and local transportation agencies
the long-term certainty and revenue stability they need to not only
maintain, but also begin to improve their surface transportation
systems. They should not be forced to resort to costly, inefficient
practices--such as deferred maintenance--necessitated by the
unpredictable federal revenue streams that have become all too common
since 2008. Furthermore, while transportation investment has long-term
benefits that extend beyond the initial construction phase, it is
estimated that our proposal would add nearly half a million annual jobs
related to construction nationwide, including nearly 2,000 jobs in
Washington, D.C. and almost 7,000 jobs in Illinois.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ A Framework for Infrastructure Funding. American
Transportation Research Institute, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-efficient and conservative
mechanism currently available for funding surface transportation
projects and programs. Collection costs are less than one percent of
revenue.\70\ Our proposal will not add to the federal debt or force
states to resort to detrimental financing options that could jeopardize
their bond ratings. Unlike other approaches that simply pass the buck
to state and local governments by giving them additional ``tools'' to
debt-finance their infrastructure funding shortfalls for the few
projects that qualify, the BAF will generate real money that can be
utilized for any federal-aid project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some have suggested that a fuel tax is regressive, the
economic harm of failing to enact our proposal will be far more
damaging to motorists. The $100 per year paid by the average car driver
under this proposal pales in comparison with the $1,600 they are now
forced to pay annually due to additional vehicle maintenance, lost
time, and wasted fuel that has resulted from underinvestment in our
infrastructure. Borrowing billions of dollars each year from China to
debt finance the HTF funding gap--a cost imposed on current and future
generations of Americans who will be forced to pay the interest--is far
more regressive than the modest fee needed to avoid further blowing up
our already massive national debt.
Forcing states to resort to tolls by starving them of federal funds
is far more regressive than the $2.00 a week motorists would pay under
our proposal. One needs only look to I-66 in Northern Virginia, where
tolls average more than $12.00 per roundtrip and can sometimes exceed
$46.00, to understand the potential impacts on lower- or middle-income
Americans.\71\ To put this into perspective, even if motorists only
paid the average toll, the cost of a 10-mile trip over an eight day
period on I-66 would be equivalent to their cost for an entire year
under ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_
performance_ereport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a perception that the fuel tax is no longer a viable
revenue source due to the availability of electric vehicles and
improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. This notion is belied by the
facts. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates,
revenue from fuel taxes will drop less than eight percent over the next
decade, or about $3 billion.\72\ A modest increase in the fuel tax, or
a new fee on alternative fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook:
2019-2029, January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, ATA supports repeal of the federal excise tax (FET) on
trucking equipment, provided the revenue it generates for the HTF is
replaced. This antiquated 12 percent sales tax, which was adopted in
1917 to defray the costs of World War I, is a barrier to investment in
the cleanest, safest trucks available on the market. In fact, when the
FET was first adopted, it was applied to all vehicles, and now is
imposed only on heavy trucks. Income from the FET has varied widely,
mostly in response to economic conditions. Over the past decade revenue
has ranged between $1.5 billion during the recession year of 2008 and
$4.6 billion in 2015. This variability contributes to mismatches
between federal-aid money authorized and revenue available for
appropriation. In fact, the first bail-out of the HTF, in 2008, was
necessitated largely by an unanticipated drop in FET revenue.
TOLLS:
ATA opposes expansion of Interstate highway tolling authority and
highway ``asset recycling.'' Interstate tolls are a highly inefficient
method of funding highways. One study found that converting all
Interstate highways into toll roads would cost more than $55
billion.\73\ Tolling also forces traffic onto secondary roads, which
are weaker and less safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences, p. 6-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, tolls distort the business model for companies that
rely on Interstate highway traffic for a significant share of their
revenue. Motels, restaurants, truck stops and other roadside
establishments would be devastated by the imposition of tolls. Often
they are the largest employer in rural areas and small towns, and if
they are forced to cut back or close down, this could cause ripple
effects through surrounding communities. Nor are the effects likely to
be confined to the state that imposes the tolls. Indiana, for example,
seriously considered statewide Interstate tolls using a federal
exemption that allows tolling of replacement or reconstructed bridges.
These tolls would have not only severely hurt businesses in Indiana,
but also in neighboring states that rely on Indiana highways for
freight services.
In addition, tolls present a strong temptation for states to
contrive ways to unfairly shift their revenue burdens
disproportionately to out-of-state users to whom they are not
politically accountable. Rhode Island's RhodeWorks program is a case in
point: the state legislature abused the federal bridge exemption to the
general prohibition on tolling federal-aid highways to transform
``bridges'' like two-lane overpasses into toll facilities, and
authorized imposition of tolls only on tractor-semitrailers--precisely
the vehicles most likely to be engage in interstate commerce--while
excluding passenger cars and heavy trucks such as construction vehicles
and dump trucks that are more likely to come from in-state. Other
states have expressed interest in similarly extorting the interstate
trucking industry. To be clear, the trucking industry is committed to
paying its fair share of highway costs. But to treat the industry as a
piggy bank to avoid fairly distributing the burden is unacceptable, and
that is why ATA is currently challenging the RhodeWorks program in
federal court, as an unconstitutional, discriminatory burden on
interstate commerce. But Congress should also act to make clear to
states that Rhode Island's cynical exploitation of the bridge exemption
undermines the presumption against tolling federally supported roads,
and to expressly prohibit states that choose to toll the channels of
interstate commerce from doing so in a way that insulates favored in-
state users from the impact.
The exceptions to the federal ban on Interstate tolls have evolved
over the decades into a confusing, incoherent mess that serve neither
state transportation agencies, nor the public, very well. It is time to
establish a rational system that protects the public from the negative
impacts of tolls. These reforms are described in greater detail in
ATA's Surface Transportation Reauthorization Priorities document
included in the Appendix.
Related to tolls, some have suggested using asset recycling to
raise money for infrastructure investment. Asset recycling involves
selling or leasing public assets to the private sector. Where asset
recycling has been utilized on toll roads in the U.S., toll payers have
seen their rates increased, only to subsidize projects with little or
no benefit to them. One need only consider the recent 35 percent
increase in truck toll rates on the Indiana Toll Road for an example of
these abusive practices. The state gets a single tranche of money for
road, broadband, airport and other projects that have no direct benefit
for toll road users, while the private operator of the highway reaps
the profits for the next six decades. This latest increase is on top of
the doubling of toll rates prior to the initial lease in 2006, and
subsequent annual increases that have resulted in a greater than 300
percent increase in truck toll rates over the past 13 years, with
little or no benefit to toll road users. ATA is adamantly opposed to
these types of forced subsidies. Please note that our position on asset
recycling pertains only to the highway sector.
THE TRUCK DRIVER PARKING SHORTAGE:
Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a
significant shortage of available parking for truck drivers in certain
parts of the country. Given the projected growth in demand for trucking
services, this problem will likely worsen. There are significant safety
benefits from investing in truck parking to ensure that trucks are not
parking in unsafe areas due to lack of space.
Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current
federal-aid highway program, but truck parking has not been a priority
given a shortage of funds for essential highway projects. Therefore, we
support the creation of a new discretionary grant program with
dedicated funding from the federal-aid highway program for truck
parking capital projects.
4) TRADE:
TRADE & THE TRUCKING INDUSTRY:
Trucking is the largest mode of freight transportation in the
United States; over 70 percent of all freight tonnage is transported by
truck, and when trucks are not the primary mode of transportation,
other modes often depend on trucks for final delivery.\74\ Nearly
everything we buy--from food to clothing to commodities as well as
domestically produced goods and imports--has been hauled by truck at
least once before ultimately landing in the hands of the consumer. We
at ATA like to say that trade is synonymous with trucking because the
vitality of the U.S. economy depends on a robust trucking industry to
deliver goods throughout the supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ ATA U.S. Freight Transportation Forecast to 2029 (2018);
American Trucking Associations. https://www.atabusinesssolutions.com/
ATA-Store/ProductDetails/productid/4012243
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESSIONAL RATIFICATION OF THE USMCA:
Trucking dominates cross-border freight movements as well. Every
single day, there are 33,000 total truck entries along our northern and
southern borders hauling more than $2 billion of goods. To put this in
perspective, in 2018, 12.2 million truck crossings moved approximately
$772 billion of goods across our Canadian and Mexican borders.\75\
Trade with our northern and southern neighbors has created or supported
tens of thousands of jobs in the United States, with motor carriers,
suppliers and shippers, underscoring the benefits of free trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Trade Moves North America Forward (2019); American Trucking
Associations. https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/
News%20and%20Information/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/
ATA_NorthAmericanTrade2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the North American Free Trade Agreement has been a tremendous
benefit to the trucking industry, the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, or USMCA, is a timely, welcome, and necessary update to the
incumbent agreement. NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994--long
before the advent of e-commerce and digital trade. As technology
becomes even more integrated into the supply chain, it is imperative
that our North American trade framework follows suit. Simply put, a
21st century trade environment necessitates a 21st century trade
agreement, and the USMCA is the best vehicle to propel the U.S. trade
economy into modernity.
The United States, Mexico and Canada have been transformed by
nearly 25 years of tariff-free trade, generating a level of economic
integration that has made North America one of the most competitive and
successful trading blocs. The uncertainties regarding the future of
this vital relationship have a reverberating effect on the trucking
industry, as trucks haul 84 percent of all surface trade with Mexico
and 67 percent of all surface trade with Canada.\76\ The USMCA is not
just a trade agreement--it is the foundation of our economic and
broader relationship with our strongest allies that supports the
livelihoods of the nearly 90,000 people employed in the U.S. trucking
industry,\77\ including nearly 60,000 U.S. truck drivers (full-time
equivalent),\78\ from truck transported trade. Given that Canada and
Mexico are our number 1 and number 2 export markets respectively,\79\
the trucking industry supports ratification of the USMCA to both
maintain market access and to ensure the continuity of cross-border
trucking operations. Simply put--trade has benefited blue-collar
workers in the trucking industry, and we look forward to working with
Congress to make USMCA a reality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Ibid.
\77\ Ibid.
\78\ Ibid.
\79\ Top Trading Partners--March 2019: Year-to-Date Exports (2019);
United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/
statistics/highlights/toppartners.html#exports
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TARIFFS:
ATA understands the Administration's concern that countries like
China are not playing by the same set of rules that the U.S. does when
it comes to allowing direct foreign investment, access to markets, and
stealing proprietary technologies. ATA also appreciates that the
Administration would like to tackle these problems to level the playing
field for U.S. interests at home and abroad. However, we do have
concerns regarding the use of certain tariffs that can adversely affect
U.S. business activity without sending a direct message to unscrupulous
actors. For example, with regard to the tariffs proposed in the Federal
Register on May 17, 2019,\80\ ATA is very concerned that products
covered by the 8609.00.00 heading have no domestic alternative for the
trucking industry. It is our understanding that included in 8609.00.00
are 53 containers utilized in domestic U.S. intermodal moves, which
have no U.S. supplier. The largest suppliers of 53 containers are two
companies in China. As a result, U.S. logistics providers, including
trucking companies, will have no choice but to continue sourcing 53
containers from Chinese companies and incurring significant costs that
they simply cannot avoid. The price of a single container will likely
increase by $3,000 or more as a result of the proposed tariffs.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 84 FR 22564 (May 17, 2019).
\81\ Cargo Equipment Back in the Tariff Crosshairs (May 20, 2019);
JOC. https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/container-lines/cargo-equipment-
back-tariff-crosshairs_20190520.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in light of Congress' narrowing timeframe for USMCA
consideration, ATA is very concerned about the Administration's
proposal to impose 5 percent tariffs on Mexico, the U.S.'s third
largest trade partner. While ATA agrees that the migrant crisis should
be addressed thoughtfully and comprehensively, we believe that this
approach could inadvertently undermine U.S. and Mexican efforts to
ratify the USMCA. Keeping our borders open for business for free and
fair trade is important to our nation's economy, and is vital for the
nearly 90,000 Americans who work in trucking-related jobs supported by
cross-border freight movements between the U.S. and Mexico.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Trade Moves North America Forward (2019); American Trucking
Associations. https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/
News%20and%20Information/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/
ATA_NorthAmericanTrade2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CRISIS ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER, AND IMPLICATION FOR TRUCKING:
The crisis along the southern border has escalated to the point of
unsustainability. A few weeks ago, U.S. Border Patrol agents from El
Paso Sector apprehended 1,036 people--the largest group of illegal
aliens ever encountered in a single group--and took them into
custody.\83\ While the dedicated men and women of the CBP are doing
their best to address the unprecedented influx of family units and
unaccompanied children, the situation is overwhelming the resources of
CBP and has severely impacted the ability of the Department of Homeland
Security to secure the U.S. border and enforce the immigration laws of
the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Border Patrol Agents Apprehend Largest Group Ever Encountered
(May 30, 2019); Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/
news/2019/05/30/border-patrol-agents-apprehend-largest-group-ever-
encountered
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day in May 2019, an average of over 4,500 people crossed our
border illegally or arrived at ports of entry without documents.\84\ In
May of 2017, the average was less than 700 people per day.\85\
According to CBP, the month of May was on pace to be the highest month
in crossings in over 12 years and will significantly surpass the record
109,000 in April 2019.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Background Press Call by Senior Administration Officials on
the Crisis at our Southern Border (May 31, 2019); Office of the Press
Secretary. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/05/30/background-press-call-
senior-administration-officials-crisis-our-southern-border
\85\ Ibid.
\86\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address the humanitarian and border security crisis, CBP
reconfigured its staffing allocation model.\87\ Initially, 545 CBP
officers were reassigned from their posts along the southern border to
assist the Border Patrol in problematic sectors. As a result, cargo
processing and commercial throughput at ports of entry slowed
dramatically. We heard reports from ATA members that wait times at
certain ports of entry exceeded 11 hours. To mitigate these effects,
CBP then transferred 300 officers from the northern border, airports,
and seaports to the southern border to partially relieve the 545
officers and enable them to move back to their primary assignments. In
May, CBP transferred an additional 186 officers from the northern
border, airports, and seaports to supplement the 300 officers who had
previously been reassigned to support the Border Patrol. In total, 731
CBP officers were called upon to assist the Border Patrol in their law
enforcement functions along the southern border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ CBP hosted weekly teleconferences with the trade community to
share updates about CBP commercial operations at ports of entry along
the southern border. Information about CBP's staffing allocation was
communicated during these teleconferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without a solution, the humanitarian and border security crisis
will continue to overwhelm CBP's operational capacity at and between
ports of entry. The crisis, which has seen hundreds of CBP officers
diverted away from trade facilitation duties in order to humanely and
efficiently process thousands of asylum claims, has resulted in
dramatic spikes in commercial wait times at U.S.-Mexico land border
ports of entry. Such disruptions in trade operations translate to
increased costs throughout the supply chain and risk damage to the U.S.
economy. ATA strongly supports a supplemental appropriation for the
current fiscal year to help the Department of Homeland Security
confront the current challenge as the Department assesses its long-term
workforce needs and strategy.
CONCLUSION:
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you again for providing ATA with the opportunity to
testify before you today. As you recognize in the title of this
hearing, the trucking industry is under pressure, and in many ways at
an operational crossroads. Too often our federal government is mired in
squabbling about yesterday's problems rather than leading the way to
addressing tomorrow. Your leadership toward the challenges of today and
the future are vital to our continued economic strength and the
families and businesses that benefit from it.
The actions of this subcommittee, Congress and the Administration
over the next several months could help steer our great industry
towards tremendous advancements in safety, efficiency and productivity.
Providing the resources and regulatory framework that will make our
fleets safer and more connected. Allowing our industry to meet the
growing driver shortage head-on, and recruit a workforce for the next
generation of trucking. Preventing the continued decay of our
infrastructure and sense of national decline, to return the national
sense to that of a ``shining city on a hill,'' where the roads to that
city are not scarred by potholes and collapsing bridges. And
facilitating free and fair trade that will allow the trucking industry
to continue driving the economy.
Alternatively, inaction or misguided action will grind the wheels
of the trucking industry and the economy to a screeching halt. Making
our roads less safe, ceding our global leadership in freight movement
to countries that are making the necessary investments in
infrastructure, and failing to improve the well-being and quality of
life of our citizens and society.
Our unwavering hope is that Congress and the Administration will
now roll up their sleeves, make the tough decisions, and work together
to support infrastructure, the economy, and the industry that moves it.
ATA and the trucking industry stand ready to work with you on these
major issues. Under your leadership and guidance, we believe that the
important and necessary steps can and will be taken to facilitate and
support the continued movement of our economy.
__________
APPENDIX
the american trucking associations priorities for surface
transportation reauthorization
[The appendix referenced in Mr. Spear's prepared statement is on
pages 149-162.]
Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Thank you, and thank you for
staying within your time.
Now I would move on to Mr. Todd Spencer, president of
OOIDA, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Mr. Spencer.
Mr. Spencer. Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Davis, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
share the views of our Nation's small business professional
truckers here today.
My name is Todd Spencer. I am president and CEO of the
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
OOIDA is a trade association founded in 1973 by real
truckers as a result of significant disruptions that occurred
in the industry. When I say ``real truckers,'' I mean the men
and women that actually deliver our Nation's goods.
All OOIDA officers and directors must come from behind the
wheel. My background is from behind the wheel, and I still hold
a commercial driver's license.
Small trucking businesses, like those we represent, account
for 96 percent of registered motor carriers in the U.S. They
are the safest and most diverse operators on our Nation's
roads.
Our activities impact all sectors of the American economy
on a daily basis. We move everything and anything wherever it
needs to go.
I commend the subcommittee for exploring the state of
trucking in America today, but I regret to inform you the
current condition can only be defined as broken. Unfortunately,
trucking has been fundamentally broken for years and can show
little sign of improving.
Making a living as an over-the-road driver has never been
easy. Our typical member will spend 250 nights or more away
from home and family, dealing with way too much traffic and
congestion, bad and unpredictable weather every year, and
working around the schedules of all others in the supply chain.
I know all of you on this subcommittee have heard about the
driver shortage. I have, too, pretty much my entire career in
trucking. Guess what. ``There ain't one.'' Simple math tells
the story.
When the number you hear is 50,000 or some other number for
the shortage, States issue over 400,000 new CDLs every year,
every year. What is incorrectly labeled as ``shortage'' is
actually turnover, attrition.
People attracted to driving, trucking with the hopes of
doing better for themselves and their family are quickly met
with unkept promises and say goodbye to trucking.
Not all of trucking is like this. LTL carriers do not
complain about driver shortage, nor do private carriers. The
reason is pay, benefits, and working conditions. Much of the
growth that occurred in trucking during the past 2 years has
come from among small carriers. They treat their drivers
better.
I really cannot think of a worse response to the math of
the driver shortage than to lower the driving age or reduce the
already low standards to get a CDL. This really is a highway
safety issue.
What is not a myth is that new drivers crash more often and
younger drivers crash more often. There is no substitute for
experience when it comes to safety, and doing things that help
perpetuate the churn or driver turnover is not only
counterproductive to safety, but it undermines the economics
for all drivers.
The economic model for paying drivers has been broken for a
long time, despite the rhetoric you might hear about boosting
pay and bonuses. If driver pay had been pegged to the consumer
price index in 1980, most of today's drivers would be bringing
home six figures in wages.
They do not make that because their value is set by what
they can be replaced for, no matter how good or safe they may
be or even how many millions of safe miles they have driven.
Another contributing factor is how they are paid. Most
over-the-road drivers are paid exclusively by the mile with
nothing for their time. Time stuck in traffic is an issue, to
be sure, but the bigger one by far is time detained at shippers
and receivers when trying to get in and out to stay on schedule
and to comply with hours-of-service regulations.
For too many drivers this time can amount to 10 to 40 hours
per week, and to add insult to this injury of time lost, we
even have receivers and sometimes shippers now charging drivers
fees of hundreds of dollars for being as little as 15 minutes
late.
This has to change if trucking is to attract and retain the
good drivers we need to move the goods in the future, but it
will not change as long as drivers can be detained and not be
paid for their time.
Going hand in hand with this is the exemption from the
overtime pay that exists in the Fair Labor Standards Act for
drivers operating under DOT regulations. The idea way back in
the 1930s when drivers were paid mostly by the hour was to
discourage really long workweeks. Now with mileage pay as the
norm, it does just the opposite.
Highway safety is a top priority for our members and this
committee. Where we are today is that we have never had more
regulations. We have never had greater compliance with those
regulations, and we have never had more enforcement of those
regulations, and the crash rates are going up.
This is just a copy of the regulations that all drivers are
required to comply with [indicating ``Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations Handbook'']. They are trained on virtually
none, but they are there because they can be held responsible
even when they should have no responsibility.
CSA is a mandate from Congress that at best is only a
partial----
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Mr. Spencer, you are over 5
minutes. Would you summarize your remarks?
Mr. Spencer. CSA is a mandate from Congress that at best is
only a partial measure of compliance. It is a very, very flawed
system, and no matter how you may torture that data, that is
not going to change.
ELDs, a monstrous mandate on small business truckers in the
billions of dollars, realize no safety benefit whatsoever from
that, no safety benefit, and if it has a direct impact on
safety, it is quite likely a negative one because of the
pressures it puts on drivers.
[Mr. Spencer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Spencer, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify
today. My name is Todd Spencer and I began my career as a professional
truck driver in 1974. In 1978, I was elected to the Board of Directors
of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA). In 1992,
I was elected Executive Vice President of the association--a position
in which I served until the 2018 passing of our long-time leader, Jim
Johnston. On April 26, 2018, I was elected to replace Mr. Johnston as
President & CEO of OOIDA.
For those unfamiliar with our organization, OOIDA has represented
the interests of owner-operators and professional drivers for over 45
years. We were created by truckers to ensure their voices were being
heard in Washington and beyond. Decades later, we continue to be led by
men and women who make their living behind the wheel. Today, we have
over 160,000 members across the United States and Canada. No other
organization participating in today's hearing knows truckers like we
do.
For those unfamiliar with our industry, small trucking businesses
like those we represent account for 96 percent of registered motor
carriers in the U.S. We are undoubtedly the safest and most diverse
operators on our nation's roads. Our activities impact all sectors of
the American economy on a daily basis. We move everything and
anything--from agricultural products and household goods to military
equipment and energy resources.
I commend the Subcommittee for exploring the state of the trucking
industry in America today, but I regret to inform you the current
condition can only be defined as broken. Unfortunately, trucking has
been fundamentally broken for years and conditions show little sign of
improving. While there is no quick and easy solution for remedying the
many pervasive problems within the industry, I'm very eager to
highlight what can be done to help make a career in trucking more
appealing, safe and sustainable.
First, allow me to paint a picture of the current state of trucking
from the perspective of an OOIDA member.
Our members typically spend roughly 250 nights on the road each
year, keeping them away from family, friends, and the comforts of home.
They often work between 60 and 80 hours each week--a demanding schedule
that is rarely reflected in their paychecks. Some even make less than
minimum wage as a professional driver.
Truckers work in extremely difficult conditions--inclement and
unpredictable weather, dangerously congested highways and deteriorating
roads add extra stress and volatility to their jobs.
They strive to comply with an outrageously extensive list of
federal, state, and local regulations, many of which have nothing to do
with highway safety. A prime example is the electronic logging device
(ELD) mandate.
They have to contend with shippers and receivers that needlessly
detain them for hours on end, dishonest brokers that have no intention
of providing them agreed upon compensation, and large motor carriers
that subject them to deplorable working conditions.
While the life of every American is intrinsically dependent on the
work of truckers, they are widely treated as nuisances by the motorists
with whom they share the roads--motorists who are far more likely to be
responsible for a crash involving a commercial motor vehicle.
Things that many of us take for granted--such as the ability to
access basic amenities, and to park and rest in a safe location--are
daily challenges for our members. In fact, few people know the lack of
available truck parking has reached a crisis level and is now
contributing to a decrease in safety.
Here in Washington, elected officials have long viewed truckers as
reckless threats to highway safety, dispensable elements of the supply
chain, rolling sources of revenue or all of the above. Very few are
aware of the important role truckers play in our economy or the many
serious challenges facing those who make their living behind the wheel.
Unfortunately, most federal lawmakers mistakenly believe the most
significant problem facing our industry is a shortage of drivers.
Immediate acceptance of the driver shortage myth illustrates
Congress's troubling lack of understanding involving our industry.
Taking a closer look at what's actually occurring in trucking will
reveal there is no driver shortage at all. You'll also discover
embracing some of the solutions proposed by those peddling the myth
will only compound many of the actual problems I've already mentioned.
Consider this reality: there are more than 400,000 new commercial
driver's licenses (CDL) issued each year--most for long-haul
operations. However, most of these new drivers won't last more than a
few months behind the wheel. In fact, some of our nation's largest
truckload carriers have driver turnover rates that consistently exceed
90 percent year-after-year. To be clear, high driver turnover is a
serious problem in trucking but THERE IS NO DRIVER SHORTAGE.
Once you understand the driver shortage is a myth, proposals like
the DRIVE-Safe Act are exposed for what they really are--dangerous
attempts by large fleets to increase their supply of cheap labor
without taking any steps to improve compensation or working conditions.
As long as the status quo remains intact, turnover rates will continue
to be sky high among large carriers, no matter the age of their
drivers.
If Congress is serious about improving the state of trucking in
America--and I believe you are--you must start by helping to make
careers in trucking more viable. To do so, you must work to create a
regulatory environment featuring rules that are proven to enhance
safety. With the exception of driver training, you must also limit the
implementation of one-size-fits-all requirements that fail to reflect
the diversity of trucking. Additionally, steps must be taken to improve
working conditions and ensure drivers are fairly compensated.
Truckers prioritize safety, but oppose the implementation of costly
and burdensome regulations that do nothing to promote it. For example,
not enough is known about underride crashes or equipment to justify
implementation of a multi-billion dollar mandate for front and side
underride guards. The proposed speed limiter mandate would create
dangerous speed differentials on American roads, which is proven by
empirical third party research to increase crash rates. And proposals
to raise trucker's minimum liability insurance coverage to outlandish
levels would likely force many of the safest and most experienced
drivers out of business.
Truckers will tell you the best way to promote safety is to improve
driver training requirements. Too many new drivers enter our industry
without the basic skills to safely operate a commercial motor vehicle.
While the Entry-Level Driver Training rulemaking--set to go into effect
next year--will finally establish national training standards, the
regulation does not include any behind-the-wheel instruction necessary
for acquiring a CDL. None.
Truckers also want reasonable hours-of-service requirements that
reflect the current realities of their profession. Today's standards
have done nothing to improve safety, but add unnecessary stress and
complexity to a driver's day. Congress must continue to support the
administration's efforts to provide truckers greater flexibility and
control of their schedules through the modernization of HOS
requirements.
Drivers need reliable and safe parking, so they can rest when
fatigued or running out of time on their clock. OOIDA is working with
members of this panel to draft legislation that will provide dedicated
funding for the expansion of truck parking capacity. When developing
legislation that invests in America's infrastructure, Congress must
prioritize truck parking.
Like all hard-working Americans, drivers want to be appropriately
compensated for the work they do. For decades, driver compensation has
been stagnant, making careers in trucking less appealing to new
entrants and less sustainable for experienced truckers. Today, if the
wheels of a truck aren't moving, drivers typically aren't getting paid.
However, they are burning more and more hours needlessly detained by
shippers and receivers because Congress has failed to address excessive
detention time. Drivers are also exempt from over-time pay through the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This exemption was implemented in the
1930's to prevent drivers from working too many hours, but today, it
simply prevents them from receiving adequate compensation for the work
they do. The FLSA exemption for truck drivers is outdated and should be
repealed.
Truckers are subject to more regulations and greater enforcement
than ever before, and while compliance with those regulations has never
been higher, crash rates are still moving in the wrong direction. Large
motor carriers are pressuring Congress to enact unsafe policies to
combat a fictitious driver shortage, while doing nothing to address
their precariously high turnover rates. The American economy is
stronger than it has been in years, but many drivers are still
struggling to make ends meet. The lack of truck parking is becoming a
national safety crisis, but few consider it a priority for
infrastructure investment. These are the symptoms of an industry that
is broken.
Thankfully, trucking is not broken beyond repair, and hosting this
hearing is a critical step toward helping repair our industry. However,
until Congress understands the most important component in trucking is
the driver, very little will change. The next steps you must take are
clear--help make trucking an appealing, safe and sustainable career.
OOIDA is eager to work you with.
Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis, thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to testify today on behalf of owner-operators and
professional drivers. I look forward to answering your questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Spencer.
Next, Lamont Byrd, director, Safety and Health Department
of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Mr. Byrd. Chairwoman Norton, Chairman DeFazio, and Ranking
Member Davis, members of the subcommittee, I am Lamont Byrd. I
am the director of the Safety and Health Department at the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Thank you for inviting me here today to testify about the
state of the U.S. trucking industry.
The Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 members
who drive commercial motor vehicles, and ``under pressure'' is
an appropriate description of how they operate on a daily
basis.
These pressures come from many sources, and some are
related to policies that either do not exist or have not kept
pace with the changing transportation system. Specific policy
issues relating to infrastructure, driver compensation, hours
of service, driver harassment, driver health, driver training
and retention, automation, and globalization, all contribute to
these pressures.
The failure to improve and maintain the Nation's
infrastructure adversely impacts the trucking industry and its
drivers. Traffic congestion fueled by years of delayed highway
construction and improvement projects, reroutings caused by
reduced weight limits on deteriorating bridges, and the general
condition of some highways that cause road and lane closures,
all place drivers in a pressure cooker environment of stop and
go traffic.
These pressures increase exponentially as companies demand
drivers be more productive even if it means violating safety
regulations. For example, the union is involved in a case where
a driver reported that his cargo shifted en route. Management
instructed him to fix the problem and keep working.
He advised management that it was unsafe for him to do so
on the roadside and returned to the terminal to properly secure
the load and resume making deliveries. Although this driver
complied with the safety regulations and the collective
bargaining agreement, he was terminated.
We anticipate being able to get this driver reinstated, but
the company's actions send a chilling message to his coworkers.
These non-driving stressors also highlight another major
concern, proposals to increase the workday for our members.
Proposals to extend the hours-of-service short-haul provision
for CDL qualified drivers from a 12-hour workday to 14 hours
will lead to more work-related injuries and fatigue-related
crashes for drivers and increase worker comp costs for motor
carriers.
The trucking industry is one of the most hazardous
industries in the U.S. Studies show a correlation between the
misuse of opioids and workers employed in high-hazard
industries. The last thing we need to do is add more injury-
inducing work into a driver's day, especially when we consider
motor carriers already face significant challenges recruiting
and hiring qualified drivers.
These recruiting and retention challenges do not occur in a
vacuum. The pay and working conditions of drivers is directly
tied to the quality of drivers' day-to-day lives as well. While
motor carriers lament the driver shortage, they work behind the
scenes to rob drivers of rest and mealtime.
The IBT has fought in Congress against the preemption of
State meal and rest breaks for truck drivers. Basic protections
like these make the job better and help keep drivers in the
industry. Yet the California Trucking Association filed a
petition with FMCSA to preempt meal and rest breaks in that
State, which the agency erroneously granted.
We expect other State trucking and trade associations will
surely follow and recruitment and retention issues to continue.
Some view lowering the minimum driving age for interstate
drivers to 18 as another solution to this recruitment problem
even though significant evidence shows young drivers are more
likely to be involved in crashes. Any effort to lower the
driving age before the completion of the congressionally
mandated pilot program for the military would be premature.
Truck drivers are also threatened by transnational
corporations to circumvent current trade rules and regulations
that restrict cross-border trucking. Both U.S. and Mexican
carriers have taken advantage of loopholes allowing them to
operate using suspect authority which can jeopardize safety and
raise questions about who is financially responsible when
accidents occur.
I ask that an investigative report prepared by Empower, a
Mexico City-based research firm, be entered into the hearing
record, and this is a copy. It describes irregular cross-border
employment practices finding specific examples of how the B-1
visa program has been taken advantage of by companies seeking
to accomplish these goals.
[The information follows:]
``Irregular Cross-border Employment Practices of U.S.-domiciled
Trucking Companies,'' March 2019, by Empower, LLC, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Norton
The report is retained in committee files and is available online
at govinfo at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-116HPRT38932/
pdf/CPRT-116HPRT38932.pdf.
Mr. Byrd. Finally, autonomous vehicle technology holds the
potential to improve truck safety and efficiency, but the
potential for job degradation or replacement puts our members
on edge. Drivers recount how even lower levels of automation,
like automatic braking systems, can malfunction and activate
with no warning.
Congress should demand proof and accountability for any new
autonomous systems that are introduced so that these systems do
not add to the incredible pressure drivers are already
experiencing.
Thank you, and I welcome any questions you may have.
[Mr. Byrd's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
introduction
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and Health for
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT). Thank you for
inviting me here today to testify about the state of the U.S. trucking
industry. The Teamsters Union represents more than 600,000 members who
turn a key in a truck to start their workday. Whether they drive a
tractor trailer, a concrete truck, deliver beer or bakery goods, or
drop a package at your door, ``Under Pressure'' is a very appropriate
description of how truck drivers must operate on a daily basis.
These ``pressures'' come from a variety of sources, some obvious,
others not so obvious. But a recurring theme pushing drivers sometimes
to their limit is a need by carriers for flexibility and greater
efficiency. There are many reasons that put the trucking industry and
its drivers under the gun. And a lot of it has to do with policy or
lack thereof that hasn't kept pace with an ever changing transportation
system. Specific policy issues relating to infrastructure, driver
compensation, Hours-of-Service regulations and exemptions from other
safety regulations, detention time, outright driver harassment, driver
health, driver training and retention, automation and globalization all
contribute to these pressures and are discussed at length in our
testimony that follows. It's a fact that a truck driver operates in a
very regulated arena. From the time he/she obtains a Commercial
Driver's License (CDL), the driver is subject to medical certification,
drug testing, and dozens of safety regulations. Drivers for the most
part are paid by the mile, work the longest hours in any industry (60
to 70 hours per week) and don't receive overtime pay. They make money
by delivering a product on time, and the odds right now are stacked
against them in doing so by many factors.
infrastructure
The failure to invest and improve the nation's infrastructure
impacts the trucking industry, its drivers and consumers in many
adverse ways. The explosion of on-line shopping coupled with consumer
demands of ``I have to have it tomorrow'' and an even greater emphasis
on just-in-time delivery have put more trucks on the road and more
pressure on carriers and drivers to deliver the goods quickly. But
there are several ``roadblocks'' in their way caused by infrastructure
deficiencies. Traffic congestion fueled by years of delayed highway
construction and improvement projects, weight limits on deteriorating
bridges that necessitate re-routings, and the general condition of some
highways that cause road closures and detours all put truck drivers
behind the wheel longer than they need to be and in a ``pressure
cooker'' environment of stop and go traffic. Traffic jams alone cost
the U.S. $87 billion in lost productivity in 2018 according to data
analyzed by the research firm INRIX. Our hope is that this
Administration can return to the table and partner with Congress to
move forward on rebuilding America's highways, bridges, ports, and
other much needed infrastructure projects.
globalization/trade/cross-border trucking
Globalization and international trade agreements have opened new
challenges to the American worker, including truck drivers'. Ever since
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force in
1994, the Teamsters Union has fought to ensure that highway safety is
paramount in implementing the NAFTA provision that permitted Mexican
domiciled carriers to perform long haul trucking operations beyond the
commercial border zones.
After completion of a three-year pilot program in October 2014, the
objective of which was to test the safe operation of Mexican motor
carriers in long-haul trucking throughout the U.S., the DOT moved
forward, despite flawed and inadequate data, in approving operating
authority for additional Mexico-domiciled carriers for long-haul
operation into the U.S. The agency took this action ignoring the
findings of the DOT Inspector General (IG).
In May 2017, President Trump announced the renegotiation of NAFTA,
which presented an opportunity to revisit the Mexican Cross-Border
Trucking issue. The Teamsters, working with the United States Trade
Representative, were successful in having language inserted in the
services chapter of the new United States Mexico Canada Agreement
(USMCA) that not only reinforces cabotage protection for movement of
freight within the United States, but also allows the United States to
adopt and maintain limitations on grants of operating authority of
Mexico-domiciled carriers, if there is evidence of material harm or the
threat of material harm to U.S. suppliers, operators or drivers. We
will continue to work with the Administration and the Congress to
ensure that these protections will be enforced in the USMCA
implementing legislation.
Despite the promise of these new protections, American truck
drivers are threatened in new ways from transnational corporations and
the Mexican trucking industry, which have figured out ways around the
current trade rules and regulations that restrict cross-border
trucking. For example, Mexican carriers have set up shop in U.S. border
cities to take advantage of loopholes in the Enterprise carrier program
that allows Mexican-owned but U.S. domiciled carriers to game the
system and continue operating on authority that in many cases is
suspect. In some instances, operating authority has not even been
properly renewed. In others, multiple carriers use the same address,
right down to the Suite # in the same building, as their place of
business in the U.S. These practices require greater scrutiny.
Yet another harmful practice is occurring when U.S. firms set up
subsidiaries in Mexico for the sole purpose of recruiting Mexican
drivers using B-1 work visas to haul freight from Mexico anywhere in
the U.S. using American flagged equipment. While this practice may not
be illegal on its own, the result has been violations of U.S. cabotage
laws by Mexican drivers, putting Mexican drivers on U.S. roads without
English proficiency to properly understand instructions and road signs,
and a spider's web of ownership that has called into question what
carrier or company is liable when an accident occurs.
The Teamsters Union and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) recently engaged EMPOWER, a Mexico City-based
research firm, to investigate these widespread practices that harm the
American workforce and threaten highway safety; and EMPOWER's report
(which we will submit for the hearing record) reinforces several of the
concerns that we hope will be addressed by the USMCA's implementing
legislation. We realize that this committee does not have jurisdiction
on immigration matters and driver wages, but you should be concerned
about Mexican carriers conducting business in the U.S. without the
proper operating authority and this documented influx of B-1 drivers
who in some cases do not have English proficiency, and carriers who
shield themselves from liability. B-1 drivers interviewed by EMPOWER
admitted that, although they are permitted to transport cargo from
Mexico into the United States, they are often picked up in Mexico,
transported across the border and only then given a truck to drive a
load between points in the U.S., violating our cabotage laws. This is
despite the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holds
workshops with major B-1 employers about expedited border crossing
programs and U.S. cabotage law.
More relevant to the committee's jurisdiction is the issue of
financial responsibility. Let me give you a real-life example to
illustrate the convoluted ownership and hiring practices that are
permitting U.S. companies to avoid liability. That's the business plan
of Transportation Services International (TSI) as exposed in and on-
going Kentucky wrongful death case, White v. TSI, et al. According to
the discovery in that case, TSI, headquartered in Romulus, Michigan,
set up TSI-Logistica Fronteriza, S.de R.L. de C.V. (TSI-LF) in a small
office in Santa Rosa, Mexico ``as a freight transportation arrangement
company that leases international commercial drivers to American
trucking companies, under the terms of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA).'' TSI-LF hires B-1 visa drivers who are then leased
to TSI that ``do not in any way have a relationship or responsibilities
of civil, commercial, labor, fiscal or any other nature of the
Fronteriza staff''.
Under the facts of this unfortunate case, two B-1 visa drivers were
operating a tractor trailer for TSI on the evening of August 6, 2016
traveling northbound on Interstate 69, they overran their exit, #108
near Madisonville, Kentucky. Rather than proceed to the next exit and
turn around, the TSI-LF driver stopped the truck on the highway and
attempted to back it up without employing any warning signal or device.
In the process, he apparently jackknifed the trailer obstructing the
interstate's left and right northbound lanes. A mother, Krystal Brook
White, and her daughter were travelling northbound and under-rode the
trailer fatally injuring Ms. White. With the car impacted at its
underside, the TSI-LF driver drove the eighteen-wheeler another 180
feet before coming to a stop. Ms. White died that evening. When law
enforcement arrived, the drivers were unable to converse in English and
an interpreter via telephone was required for law enforcement to
conduct an initial investigation.
To avoid liability, TSI-LF has argued that it merely loans/leases
drivers to other companies such as TSI, and exercises no control over
the drivers. On the other hand, TSI claims that the drivers are not
their employees and that it should not be held liable either. This case
goes to trial this month. There are at least two other negligence cases
that we know of filed in Texas involving B-1 visa drivers.
As the EMPOWER Report points out, the use of B-1 drivers is on the
verge of de facto institutionalization. These cases illustrate the need
for Congress to review financial responsibility statutes to ensure that
responsible parties are held liable for their actions. As well, FMCSA
should review its enforcement mechanisms to ensure that foreign drivers
meet the English proficiency requirements of driving in the United
States, and review operating authority of enterprise carriers to ensure
that they are travelling legally in the US.
coercion/harassment
Companies are increasing pressure on drivers to be more productive
even if it means violating safety regulations. For example, the Union
is involved in a case where a driver/member reported that the cargo he
was transporting via truck was loaded with melons on the bottom of
pallets and improperly secured and consequently shifted while en-route.
It should be noted that the driver was unable to thoroughly inspect the
load prior to leaving the terminal because the truck was fully loaded
when he picked it up. After reporting that the load had shifted and he
could not safely deliver the cargo, he was instructed by management to
unload the truck on the road side, organize the cargo, reload the truck
and continue on his route. When he advised management that he could not
safely perform these job tasks as he did not have load securing
equipment (load bars--the ones that he had were damaged as a result of
the shifting freight; no straps and shrink wrap) and to do so on the
roadside would place him in danger. He would have also been at
significant risk of work-related injury, having to climb up and down a
small set of stairs to enter and exit the trailer while carrying cargo.
This is a union shop where in addition to regulations and company
policies that preclude the drivers from performing such dangerous work,
there is language in the collective bargaining agreement that empowers
the drivers to refuse to perform dangerous and illegal work. Yet, this
driver was summarily terminated when he returned a short distance to
the terminal for assistance. Although we anticipate being able to get
this driver reinstated at his job, this practice not only adversely
affected him, it sends a chilling message to other drivers who are
aware of this situation.
hours of service/driver's health
There are efforts to revise the Hours of Service--Short Haul
Provision for Commercial Driver's License qualified drivers from a 12-
hour work day to 14 hours. The IBT anticipates that the proposed
extension of the 12-hour exception to 14-hours, will result in short-
haul drivers spending additional time loading trailers, staging
freight, and making more deliveries. Therefore, it is reasonable to
expect that these drivers will experience an increase in the incidence
of occupational injuries and illnesses. Consequently, motor carriers
will experience higher worker compensation costs and may experience an
increase in the costs associated with fatigue-related crashes.
The trucking industry ranks among the industries having the highest
occupational illness and injury rates in the United States and the
worker's compensation costs to motor carriers are tremendous. According
to Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data for 2017, the non-fatal
occupational incidence rate for truck transportation, nationally, was
4.2 injuries per 100 workers as compared to 2.8 injuries per 100
workers for private industry.\1\ Several studies show that the majority
of work-related injuries occurring among truck drivers result from non-
driving work activities.\2\ When researchers further investigated these
findings they found that the types of injuries experienced by truck
drivers varied by industry sector but were generally associated with
falling from heights, trips, slips, falls, and overexertion due to
manual materials handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
\2\ Friswell, Williamson, Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2010
Nov; 42(6): 2068-74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drivers who are involved in short-haul operations experienced
occupational injuries primarily while performing three activities:
``(1) Operating the truck; (2) lifting/cranking; and (3) maneuvering
into/out of truck cab.'' \3\ Chandler, et. al., in further describing
the injuries indicated that incidents that occurred while operating the
truck, included losing control of the truck, being struck from behind
by another vehicle, and musculoskeletal injuries associated with
extended routine driving. With respect to lifting/cranking related
injuries, the researchers found that drivers were injured while
manually handling cargo, connecting dollies, and lifting/ adjusting
ramps to the trailers. Researchers also reported that drivers
experienced injuries due to trips, slips, and falls as they entered or
exited the truck cab and trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chandler, M., Bunn, T.L., Slavova, S., International Journal of
Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2017, Vol. 24, No. 1, 120-130.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial drivers, including short-haul drivers,
disproportionately experience musculoskeletal injuries and illnesses.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
conducted a review of over forty studies that investigated the
relationship between low-back pain/disorders and determined that there
is strong evidence that correlates physical workplace factors such as
heavy physical work, lifting, bending and twisting, whole body
vibration (WBV), and static work postures with low back pain/
disorders.\4\ All of these contributing factors to low-back pain/
disorders are present in commercial driving, particularly in short-haul
operations. This is critical when one considers that according to the
American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) a survey conducted by
the organization in 2003, MSDs costs the trucking industry
approximately $4 billion dollars each year.\5\ The Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported that workers in truck transportation experienced
work-related musculoskeletal disorders at a rate of 62.3/10,000 workers
as compared to 28.6/10,000 for private industry.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/pdfs/97-
141.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB97141
\5\ American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2003, ``American
Industrial Hygiene Association position statement on ergonomics
[online]. Available from: http://www.aiha.org/1documents/
GovernmentAffairs/P-ergonomics091403.pdf
\6\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short-haul drivers will experience increased fatigue as a result of
having to work an extended number of hours and concurrently experience
more fatigue-related occupational injuries and crashes. The National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) published a report
that summarized over 50 studies that investigated the impact that long
working hours have on illnesses, injuries, health behaviors, and job
performance.\7\ Studies showed that workers who worked long shifts,
i.e., 12 or more hours, each day and more than 40 hours per week
experienced an increase in occupational injuries and ``a pattern of
deteriorating performance on psychophysiological tests.'' \8\ This is
of significant concern when considering the fact that short-haul
commercial drivers perform safety-sensitive job functions such as
operating large trucks in oftentimes congested areas that are shared
with passenger vehicles and pedestrians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2004-143/pdfs/2004-143.pdf
\8\ Ibid, p. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, NIOSH conducted an ergonomic study for drivers in the soft
beverage delivery industry during which the researchers evaluated
drivers over a four month period.\9\ Researchers found that drivers had
to routinely lift products that exceeded the recommended weight limit
per the NIOSH Lifting Criteria.\10\ In addition, researcher collected
data on the driver's heart rates to estimate metabolic output and
determined that such drivers worked in a job that required a high level
of energy. Drivers in this physically demanding job also experienced
twice as many lost work days when compared to workers in general
manufacturing jobs. Although the study was conducted over twenty years
ago, members of the Teamsters Union who have high tenure in the
industry reported that not much has changed and that the changes that
have occurred are generally not an improvement. For example, these
drivers reported that traffic conditions are much worse; parking for
large vehicles is more limited; they continue to have to manually
deliver large quantities of heavy products such as cases and kegs while
negotiating stairs, curbs, ramps, narrow entrances and exits to
buildings, and having to perform these job tasks in inclement weather
(heat, cold, ice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-109/pdfs/96-
109.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB96109
\10\ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/94-110/pdfs/94-110.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current Hours of Service Regulation for non-CDL qualified
commercial drivers who use the short-haul exception are allowed to work
14 hours each day, extend the work day to 16 hours two times each week
and drive up to 11 hours each day. According to BLS data these drivers
have a higher rate of injury and severity of injury (based on the
number of lost work days per injury) than other commercial drivers,
i.e., non-CDL drivers who do not use the Short-Haul provision and CDL
qualified drivers. It should be noted that CDL qualified drivers
operate larger trucks that are able to carry more freight that is
larger and heavier than what is typically transported and delivered by
non-CDL drivers. Therefore, one can reasonably expect injury rates to
increase among CDL qualified short-haul drivers if the number of hours
that they are permitted to work increases.
The Massachusetts Department of Public Health released a report
\11\ concerning the misuse of opioids among workers who are employed in
industries, such as trucking, that has a high rate of occupational
injuries. Drivers are very concerned about their risk of suffering
awork-related injury, being prescribed pain killers such as opioids,
and the possibility that the use of such drugs could result in not only
adverse health outcomes, but also the chance of becoming medically
disqualified to operate commercial motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.mass.gov/news/department-of-public-health-taking-
steps-to-keep-job-related-injuries-from-leading-to-opioid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Teamsters will oppose any efforts to expand the short-haul
exemption for CDL-qualified drivers through legislative or regulatory
actions.
recruiting/retaining drivers/young drivers
Motor carrier employers face significant challenges recruiting and
hiring qualified drivers. Increasingly long work hours, difficult work,
the need for a clean driving record, and a drug/alcohol testing record
that is free from positive results, creates additional hiring
challenges for motor carriers. As a result of increases in the demand
for goods, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) projects that between
2016 and 2026, there will be a need for 108,400 additional drivers in
heavy truck transportation.\12\ It should be noted as an aging driver
workforce retires from the industry, there will be an even greater need
for qualified drivers. According to 2018 data from the BLS over 21
percent of the current driver population will reach 65 years of age in
the next ten years, with over 46 percent reaching 65 within next 20
years.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/
heavy-and-tractor-trailer-truck-drivers.htm
\13\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are some in the trucking industry who view lowering the
minimum driving age for commercial drivers to 18 as one solution to the
increasing demand for qualified drivers. The Teamsters Union is
particularly concerned about this issue as there is significant
evidence showing young drivers are more likely to be involved in
crashes. In the previous highway bill, the FAST Act, Congress
instructed DOT to study this topic using only younger drivers who had
gained driving experience during their time in the military. The
purpose of that pilot was to better gauge the potential for younger
individuals to drive in interstate commerce, while also attempting to
minimize risks to the public by only using drivers with behind-the-
wheel training who were also likely to be more responsible than your
average teenager. We believe there are serious safety risks inherent in
using any teenage drivers in interstate commerce, including in any
pilot program. But we recognize the desire to see where the facts would
lead in this situation. However, we believe that any effort to lower
the driving age, or conduct broader pilot programs before the
Congressionally-mandated military pilot program is complete, would be a
mistake.
Another issue that affects retention is driver compensation.
Teamster Union drivers are among the highest paid in the industry, with
good health benefits and pensions, which is why the retention rate is
much higher among unionized truck drivers. Our National Master Freight
Agreement also addresses the issue of detention time--that period of
time where a driver is kept waiting for his truck to be loaded or
unloaded. Teamster Union drivers are paid for this time that they are
waiting, which is why the practice is not prevalent in our industry
sector. Paying drivers for wasting their valuable on-duty time gives
motor carriers and shippers an incentive to have a load ready when a
driver arrives at the loading dock. It will also prevent drivers from
making up for lost time and possibly violating safety regulations in
the process. Congress should take the necessary steps to mandate that
drivers be paid for this detention time.
give 'em a break!
It is difficult if not impossible to discuss driver retention
without examining the day-to-day working conditions of drivers, and
what the trucking industry is doing or not doing to improve those
conditions. The Teamsters Union has fought in Congress for several
years against the preemption of state meal and rest breaks for truck
drivers. Congress, rightly so, on several occasions has rejected the
American Trucking Association's numerous attempts to pass legislation
to preempt these breaks. While motor carriers lament about the driver
shortage and what needs to be done to recruit more workers into the
industry, they work behind the scenes to rob drivers of rest and meal
time. Having not succeeded in the legislative arena, the ATA's state
affiliate, the California Trucking Association (CTA), filed a petition
with the FMCSA to preempt meal and rest breaks in that state. The
FMCSA, reversing its previous stance on the issue, decided that these
breaks are preempted by federal law. The Washington State Trucking
Association and The American Bus Association have ``copy-catted'' the
CTA's petition and we expect other state trucking and trade
associations to follow. These short 10-minute rest breaks and 30-minute
meal breaks are afforded to all workers in the states that mandate
them, not just to truck drivers. This issue is now in the courts, and
the Teamsters Union will continue to fight for the rights of drivers to
take these breaks. Fatigued drivers jeopardize highway safety for all
of us.
truck size and weight
Certain industry stakeholders continue to call for increases in
truck size and weight. Whether it's increasing the weight limit on
federal highways to 90,000 lbs. or expanding the use of the twin 33,
trailer configuration, the Teamsters Union opposes any increase in the
current Federal weight limits for trucks and the current size of double
trailers traveling on the National Highway System. Our Interstates and
other major highways are in serious disrepair and half of our bridges
are more than 40 years old with one in four being structurally
deficient or functionally obsolete. Increasing truck size and length
will put further stress on an already deteriorating infrastructure
system. While a properly deployed 6th axle can mitigate weight
increases on road surfaces, the same cannot be done on bridges. In
addition, our highways are not designed for longer combination
vehicles. Our merge lanes and entrance and exit ramps are not designed
for eighty-four feet long vehicles. Longer and heavier trucks take more
time to get up to speed and require greater stopping distances. From a
driver's perspective, our roadways are congested like never before.
Reaction times are pushed to the limit as drivers attempt to maneuver
big rigs and avoid quick changing lanes or slowed down vehicles. The
claim that increasing truck lengths and weights will result in fewer
trucks on the road is unfounded. Historically, each time increases have
occurred truck traffic has grown as shippers take advantage of cheaper
rates and divert freight from rail to highways. Currently, 39 states
prohibit twin 33-foot trailers on their highways, and there is no
justification to allow them to operate on our interstate highways.
According to FMCSA's Large Truck and Bus Crash Facts, ``the number
of large trucks involved in fatal crashes increased 10 percent from
4,251 to 4,657, and the large truck involvement rate (large trucks
involved in fatal crashes per 100 million miles traveled by large
trucks) increased 6 percent, from 1.48 to 1.56.'' Deaths from large
truck crashes reached their highest level in 29 years in 2017,
according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data.
Fatalities from big truck crashes rose even though the overall traffic
fatality rate declined. Large truck fatalities rose 9 percent to 4,761,
an increase of 392 lives lost over the prior year. Congressionally-
approved exemptions to weight and length limits based on a specific
section of highway or a specific industry should be rejected. Piecemeal
approaches undermine federal transportation policy and further
jeopardizes safety on our nation's highways.
safety-assist technology and autonomous vehicles
Autonomous vehicles have the potential to reshape the entire
transportation industry, not just the trucking industry. While some of
this technology holds the potential to improve truck safety and
efficiency in the short term, the threat of self-driving trucks
replacing or degrading millions of truck driver jobs has many of our
members on edge. We believe that the trucking industry will have the
need for skilled drivers for decades to come. But some of that relies
on this committee making sure we aren't forced down a self-destructive
path of unsafe and job-killing automation before the proper protections
are put in place.
As this hearing examines pressure points impacting drivers, the
threat of automation is one that cannot be ignored. Drivers feel like
disposable cogs in a machine when some members of this body talk
gleefully about the prospects of automating away their jobs. What's
worse, many drivers' only interaction with lower levels of automation
have actually deepened their mistrust of these new technologies. Our
members have reported dangerous malfunctions of automatic braking
systems being used in trucks right now. These systems are supposed to
make a driver's life easier, and we would gladly support them if they
did. But drivers tell us stories of these automatic braking systems
often detecting things like snow or an oncoming overpass as an
obstacle, and mistakenly slamming on the brakes with no warning. The
driver is then the only thing stopping the truck from jack knifing or
skidding off the road. Imagine surviving that incident and then having
to show up to work the next day and drive a truck with the same
technology on board? No one should have to feel like they are taking
their life into their own hands just by showing up to work. That is the
pressure drivers today are under. Congress must bring a healthy dose of
skepticism whenever you are approached with a piece of automation
technology that is being touted as improving safety or that will make a
driver's life easier. It may not live up to closer scrutiny.
supply chain accountability
Our union has taken great pride in the work we have done to improve
the trucking industry for drivers and all other road users. But changes
to the industry since deregulation have hampered those efforts. The
rise of independent contractors, the ability of carriers to avoid
liability by closing up shop and reorganizing under a new name after
they are caught breaking the law, the increase in subcontracting even
by union employers, have all negatively impacted our ability to make
sure that the trucking industry is a safe and responsible business.
A new focus of our union is ``supply chain accountability''. We
believe that everyone who uses the current transportation system;
shippers, brokers, consumers, retailers, and others, all have a duty to
help us make sure that the trucks who haul that company's goods employ
business practices that are aboveboard. Drivers at the ports of LA and
Long Beach provide a good example of how this can be accomplished.
Last year, California passed SB 1402. This bill created a system
that shippers can use to identify which port trucking companies have
outstanding labor violations on their records, such as unpaid fines and
unsatisfied judgments, before choosing to contract with them to ship
their goods. This brings important transparency to the system. It
empowers shippers to hire only responsible port trucking companies, and
in turn helps us ensure the drivers who are hauling their goods are
safe drivers and well-treated employees. If they don't, and these
shippers willingly choose to contract with low-road trucking companies
who misclassify their employees, they will be held liable for the
future labor violations incurred by that contracted trucking company.
We believe this sort of transparent and free market-based system
represents an important step in helping us uplift drivers who have been
among the most abused in our country, while also increasing safety and
security at the ports.
The current system has allowed trucking companies who flaunt
existing laws to have a competitive advantage over other employers that
play by the rules. That must change. We are pleased to see this unfair
advantage now melting away, thanks in large part to the fearless
activism of port truck drivers and the leadership of local elected
leaders that has given other supply chain users the tools to make this
change possible. We call on Congress to take this model nationally and
help us create a safe trucking industry that all system users can be
proud of.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd.
Next will be Jason Craig, director of government affairs,
C.H. Robinson.
Mr. Craig. Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member
Davis.
As one of the Nation's largest freight brokers and the
original third-party logistics provider, C.H. Robinson has a
unique view of how goods flow through our Nation.
Our employees in Phoenix, Eden Prairie, Chicago, and more
than 130 offices across 40 States send their warm greetings.
Our role within freight transportation has been described
as a travel agent for goods, although that is simplistic. Our
industry is often referred to as the third-party logistics or
3PL industry and is represented by the Transportation
Intermediaries Association.
While my colleagues have expertise in the operations of the
physical truck, I wish to focus on how motor carriers are
selected. Congress has given FMCSA many tools to remove unsafe
trucks from the roads. These include assigning carriers an
unsatisfactory safety rating and declaring carriers an imminent
hazard, among others.
C.H. Robinson has a thorough and consistent qualification
process that includes reinforcing all of these actions and
denies freight to any carrier declared out of service.
However, from time to time, mostly in tragic and severe
accidents, our carrier qualification process is challenged in
court. A common theme in negligence selection cases is that
brokers and shippers should check more than the credentials
that allow motor carriers to operate, but there has been no
guidance as to what additional data should result in denial of
business beyond the tools Congress has provided.
I have been involved in and monitoring the Compliance,
Safety, Accountability program since 2006. While the original
goal of replacing an audit-based safety fitness determination
with one that is data-based is laudable and necessary, in
practice, it has become extremely difficult to complete.
In 2012, C.H. Robinson testified before this committee
regarding then publicly available BASIC data and the confusion
it created. This data was intended to help prioritize
enforcement actions and carry the following warning: readers
should not draw conclusions about a carrier's overall safety
condition simply based on the data in this system.
Unless the motor carrier has received an unsatisfactory
safety rating or has otherwise been ordered to discontinue
operations, it is authorized to operate on the Nation's
roadways. That warning is still in place, and the SFD linking
the data with the safety rating is still not complete.
In 2014, CVSA wrote Administrator Darling to express
concern about the public display of data. They wrote, ``SMS
scores are a poor indicator of an individual fleet's propensity
to be involved in a future crash, their utility in providing
the public with information about fleet's safety performance is
limited.''
In 2016, FMCSA released a draft SFD rule that would have
established a new safety rating process. However, that rule was
withdrawn in 2017 for very legitimate reasons around data
consistency and correlation to crash risk.
Congress mandated a study of the correlation between data
and crash risk as part of the FAST Act. Part of the study was
specifically to look at, quote, ``how members of the public use
the SMS information.''
In addition, parts of the BASIC data were removed from
public view.
When the National Academy of Sciences submitted its study
in 2017, they recommended that FMCSA, quote, ``should undertake
a study to better understand the percentile ranks to support
decisions regarding the usability of public scores.''
We were tremendously disappointed that the NAS study
recommended yet another study. The experts at the NAS, quote,
``were unable to recommend to FMCSA whether to make all
percentile ranks public.''
While we agree that the use of data is an effective tool to
identify groups of at-risk carriers, data without context has
and is being used inappropriately. In some cases, brokers and
shippers have been made to take legal responsibility for
gauging the safety carriers when there is no clear regulatory
system in place for us to reliably check.
This confusion is especially damaging to smaller carriers
who may not have extensive data available in their profile.
Currently, there is no requirement to check any safety
status. A selection standard will improve truck safety by more
quickly eliminating business to those who should not be
operating.
A recent story perfectly describes the situation. In 2017,
CVSA added an inactive U.S. DOT number to the out-of-service
criteria. Our regulators did not announce this change broadly.
Many in the industry remain unaware of this.
We want to ensure the carriers we select are safe to
operate. We look forward to amplifying FMCSA decisions
regarding who should be authorized to operate on the Nation's
roadways when Congress clearly establishes a motor carrier
selection standard we can rely on. Thank you.
[Mr. Craig's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Craig, Director of Government Affairs, C.H.
Robinson
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, and members of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
thank you for the opportunity to testify at today's hearing. As one of
the nation's largest freight transportation brokers and the original
third party logistics provider, C.H. Robinson has a unique view of how
goods and commerce flow through our nation's infrastructure from
manufacturer to consumer. Our customers and transportation providers
represent the entire cross section of freight transportation stake
holders however, approximately 70 percent of our revenue is derived
from truckload or less-than-truckload services. I intend to provide you
insights into what supply chain vice presidents and directors need
Congress to accomplish to improve trucking safety while maintaining our
globally leading supply chain efficiency.
Introduction of Jason Craig
I serve as the Director of Government Affairs for C.H. Robinson. I
joined C.H. Robinson in 1996 in operations, managing the export
movements of hardwood lumber from Northern Minnesota to Asia. Over the
course of my career at C.H. Robinson I have managed operations across
modes and service lines for a wide range of shippers. I am also
currently the vice-chair of the Minnesota Freight Advisory Committee.
Introduction of C.H. Robinson
C.H. Robinson was founded in 1905 and has grown to over 15,000
employees globally. We are the 7th largest publicly held company
headquartered in Minnesota, and we have offices across the United
States. Our employees in Phoenix, Kansas City, Eden Prairie, Chicago,
and more than 130 other offices across 40 states send their warm
greetings. Our role within freight transportation has often been
described as similar to that of a travel agent for goods, although that
is a simplistic description. I prefer to think of ourselves as an
outsourced freight transportation department which companies utilize in
many different ways as their needs and our value dictate.
We do not own any commercial trucks ourselves, but rather build
technology platforms and logistics services that allow us to streamline
complex transportation management on behalf of our customers. A freight
property broker is legally defined and regulated by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration under Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. Our industry is commonly referred to as the third party
logistics or 3PL industry and is represented by the Transportation
Intermediaries Association (TIA), which has over 1,700 companies as
members.
C.H. Robinson is the original 3PL and we have seen our industry
overall thrive as investments in technology, analysis, and visibility
has led to greater value to both our customers and transportation
providers. FMCSA lists 17,966 registered property brokers in 2017 as
part of the ``2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus Statistics'', a
30 percent increase since 2013.
Confusion Created by FMCSA Publicly Available Data
While my colleagues have expertise in the operation and enforcement
of the physical truck, I wish to focus on how motor carriers are
selected and assigned to loads and how the committee can improve this
process to increase safety and end confusion in this area.
Congress has given FMCSA many tools to remove unsafe motor carriers
from the roads. These include assigning the carrier an unsatisfactory
safety rating, declaring the carrier an imminent hazard, and
withdrawing the carrier's operating authority for failing to respond to
a new entrant safety audit among other things. These tools are compiled
annually in the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's ``North American
Out-of-Service Criteria'' guide, at the carrier level, specifically the
administrative out-of-service chapter IV.
C.H. Robinson has established a detailed, thorough and consistent
carrier qualification process that includes rapidly re-enforcing all of
FMCSA's actions and denies freight to any carrier that FMCSA has
declared out-of-service freight. However, from time to time, mostly in
tragic and severe accidents, our carrier qualification process is
challenged in court. A common theme in most negligent selection cases
is that brokers and shippers should check more than the licenses and
authorities that allow motor carriers to operate on the nation's
highways, but there has been no guidance or direction provided as to
what data and what thresholds are important enough to deny offering
freight to a motor carrier beyond the tools Congress has provided FMCSA
to take carriers off the roads.
I have been involved in and monitoring the Compliance, Safety, and
Accountability or CSA program since approximately 2006. While the
original goal of replacing an audit based Safety Fitness Determination
(SFD) system with one that is data based is laudable and necessary, as
many know, in practice it has become extremely difficult to complete.
In September of 2012, C.H. Robinson testified before this committee
regarding the then publicly available BASIC data and the confusion
created by the BASIC data.\1\ This data was intended to help FMCSA
prioritize inspections and enforcement actions and carried the
following warning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BASIC data is also referred to as the Safety Measurement System
or SMS. BASIC stands for Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement
Categories.
Readers should not draw conclusions about a carrier's overall
safety condition simply based on the data displayed in this
system. Unless a motor carrier in the SMS has received an
UNSATISFACTORY safety rating pursuant to CFR Part 385, or has
otherwise been ordered to discontinue operations by the FMCSA,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
it is authorized to operate on the nation's roadways.
That warning is still in place today and the SFD linking the data
with the safety rating is still not complete. In January 2016, FMCSA
released a draft SFD rule that would have established a new safety
rating process, however that rule was withdrawn in March 2017, for some
very legitimate reasons primarily around data consistency and
correlation to crash risk. As part of the Federal Register notice
regarding the withdrawal, our comments were mentioned: ``Specifically,
C.H. Robinson noted it has long recommended a two-tiered structure that
more clearly signals to shippers and other industry stakeholders, which
carriers should not be hired due to safety concerns.''
In 2014, CVSA wrote then Administrator Darling to express concern
about the public display of motor carrier BASIC data. CVSA Executive
Director at the time, Steve Keppler wrote ``SMS (BASIC) scores are a
poor indicator of an individual fleet's propensity to be involved in a
future crash, their utility in providing the public with information
about fleet's safety performance is limited.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See letter attached as Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to feedback from across the freight transportation
industry regarding the BASIC data, Congress mandated a study of the
correlation between BASIC data and crash risk as part of the FAST Act.
Part of the study was specifically to look at ``how members of the
public use the SMS and what effect making the SMS information public
has had on reducing crashes and eliminating unsafe motor carriers from
the industry.'' In addition, Congress required FMCSA to remove certain
parts of the BASIC data from public view.
When the National Academy of Science submitted its correlation
study in June of 2017, they responded to the issue of the public use of
the data by recommending that FMCSA ``should undertake a study to
better understand the statistical operating characteristics of the
percentile ranks to support decisions regarding the usability of public
scores.'' We were tremendously disappointed that the NAS study
recommended yet another study. While the experts at the National
Academy of Science undertook a very detailed, 183 page mathematical
study regarding the entirety of the BASIC data model, they ``were
unable to recommend to FMCSA whether to make all percentile ranks
public.''
Even though a large amount of data has been hidden from public
view, other motor carrier data remains,\3\ without guidance from
Congress or FMCSA regarding which data should be used by shippers and
brokers to properly selected motor carriers. While we wholeheartedly
agree that the use of appropriate motor carrier data is an effective
tool to identify groups of potentially at-risk carriers compared to
previous eras of solely audit based decisions, data without context has
and is being used inappropriately. In some cases, brokers and shippers
have been made to take legal responsibility for gauging the safety of
carriers when there is no clear regulatory system in place for us to
reliably check. This is a significant unintended consequence of the
almost decade long delay by FMCSA and Congress to provide clear
guidance regarding which carriers should be safe to tender loads to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See screenshot of current SMS data in Appendix B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is a carrier with an unsafe driving score of 81 more dangerous than
one with a score of 78? If that is true, then why not use only carriers
with a score below 60 and shut all the other carriers down? A relative
safety system is fine for internal inspection prioritization by FMCSA,
but is damaging to market participants when made public without proper
context, especially damaging to smaller carriers who may not have
extensive data available in their profile.
Currently there is no requirement to validate any authority or
safety status when selecting and tendering a load to a motor carrier.
We feel strongly that the establishment of a motor carrier selection
standard that mirrors the tools Congress has given FMCSA to take
carriers off the road will improve truck safety by more quickly
eliminating freight opportunities to motor carriers who have their
authority pulled or are otherwise placed into an administrative out-of-
service status at the carrier level.
A recent story perfectly describes the situation. In April of 2017,
CVSA added an inactive US DOT number to the administrative out-of-
service criteria.\4\ This means that when law enforcement stops a
carrier operating under an inactive US DOT number, they are to be
placed out-of-service immediately. Neither CVSA nor FMCSA announced
this change broadly to those who select motor carriers. There is no
clear, consolidated screenshot that aggregates all the information that
allows a motor carrier to operate on the nation's roads, although they
have slowly been making improvements. The only place shippers and
brokers could see this change was by ordering the full North America
Standard Out-Of-Service Criteria Guide for $35 on the CVSA website.
Even today, many in the industry are unaware that an inactive or
suspended US DOT number is not only a separate process than suspending
operating authority, but also an administrative out-of-service
criteria. If Congress would establish a motor carrier selection
standard that allowed industry to reliably re-enforce FMCSA
administrative out-of-service criteria, carriers who should be denied
freight opportunities will more quickly be pulled off the road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Appendix C from the CVSA 2017 North American Out of Service
Criteria Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, by publishing a myriad of motor carrier data with little
clear guidance on its use (which even the experts at the National
Academy of Science are unable to recommend if they should be used by
the public or not) many shippers and brokers do not check any federal
qualifications. Other shippers may be using unrelated or less important
data with no correlation to crash risk which results in lost business
opportunities for motor carriers whom FMCSA fully licenses and
authorizes to operate.
C.H. Robinson, other brokers, and shippers are important
stakeholders when it comes to motor carrier safety. While we are not as
critical to motor carrier safety as those who operate, maintain and
drive trucks, we can and want to ensure that the carriers we select
have been deemed safe to operate on the nation's roadways by FMCSA. We
look forward to being able to amplify and re-enforce the expert
decisions at FMCSA regarding who should be authorized to operate on the
nation's roadways when Congress clearly establishes a motor carrier
selection standard we can rely on.
Other Issues of Safety Important to C.H. Robinson
truck parking
The current availability of truck parking in our country is
insufficient. In fact, when weather events challenge truck drivers,
some of our customers have begun opening their yards not just to
drivers on loads for their own freight, but for all truck drivers. They
recognize that there is simply no place for these drivers to go. We are
encouraged by provisions included in MAP-21 and the FAST Act to address
truck parking and we look forward to additional solutions to this issue
that will make America's supply chain safer and more competitive.
infrastructure investment
Outdated and poorly designed infrastructure is a safety risk to
all. C.H. Robinson wholeheartedly supports a robust investment in the
nation's freight roadways that will also improve safety and reduce
truck crashes. Properly designed and maintained ramps, merges and sight
lines help keep us all safe. We would refer committee members to the
National Association of Manufacturers infrastructure blueprint titled
``Building to Win'' that was recently released and included the
following:
Unsound infrastructure puts lives at risk. Businesses and
manufacturers are cutting into their bottom lines with wasted
time and money. According to the NAM's quarterly survey,
manufacturers consider rising transportation costs a top
business concern. The United States desperately needs a
targeted, substantial investment in revitalizing the nation's
infrastructure. Congress should legislate identifying and
prioritizing projects of national and regional significance
requiring federal investment and vision to revitalize the
nation's infrastructure.
freight advisory committees
This committee should also be aware that many supply chain
professionals feel very disconnected from the policy making process. If
they do have a local need or issue, they have trouble connecting in a
timely manner with the right agency or official who can address the
issue. Sometimes a supply chain professional may have a need in
Missouri, but controls the freight from their office in Atlanta. We see
the same frustration from state and local officials who try to engage
the freight community. The establishment of state Freight Advisory
Committees as part of the FAST Act has provided shippers an opportunity
to more directly connect with state infrastructure planners. We see
tremendous potential for these committees to be incubators of policy
and expertise for both state, regional, and national freight
transportation planners. One example of how this structure is working
successfully is how a proposal by U.S. Customs to adjust hours at a
border crossing in northern Minnesota was vetted through the Minnesota
Freight Advisory Committee and stakeholders were quickly identified to
provide input and execute a solution that worked for all public and
private stakeholders. Congress should continue to bolster this program
and provide more opportunities for these Freight Advisory Committees to
add their voices to the freight infrastructure planning process.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Craig.
Next, we will hear from Rodney Noble, senior director of
transportation global procurement, PepsiCo.
Mr. Noble. Thank you. Good morning.
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Chairman
DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, I am Rodney Noble. I
have been handling transportation for PepsiCo for over three
decades.
PepsiCo is pleased to be here today to discuss our efforts
to improve truck safety and reduce emissions. We own the
largest independently owned fleet of trucks in the U.S. We have
over 70,000 assets, including 36,000 trucks, and we employ over
25,000 drivers. Needless to say, we are experienced in
transportation.
First some background on PepsiCo. PepsiCo is the largest
food and beverage company in the United States. Our portfolio
includes Pepsi-Cola, Frito-Lay products, as well as Aquafina,
Lipton, Tropicana, Gatorade, and Quaker Oats. These brands and
others are enjoyed by our consumers over a billion times a day
around the world.
With our franchise bottlers, we employ and support the jobs
of nearly 140,000 Americans in all 50 States, the Virgin
Islands, as well as the District of Columbia.
We have 94 U.S. manufacturing sites, many in your
districts, like our Quaker plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, our
Pepsi plant in Cheverly, Maryland, our Frito-Lay facilities in
Canton, Ohio, Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Dallas, Texas.
PepsiCo is committed to reducing our absolute greenhouse
gas emissions by 20 percent by 2030. We have made significant
improvements in our fleet efficiencies by broadening our fuel
use.
We currently operate 1,500 alternative fuel vehicles. More
specifically, PepsiCo owns one of the largest commercial fleets
of electric vehicles in the U.S. and is exploring more use of
electric power across our fleets.
Frito-Lay has increased the use of our renewable natural
gas, allowing us to cut diesel fuel by 30 percent. We are on
track to cut conventional fuel by 50 percent by 2020.
We have improved our truck routings that has reduced the
miles that we have traveled. This not only cuts emissions, but
it enhances safety because reducing miles reduces a chance of
accidents.
Safety is paramount at PepsiCo, and we have created a
culture around our driver training programs. We have also
invested in technology beyond what is needed to meet the
government requirements.
Our written statement includes more on our safety
investments, as well as our training programs.
While PepsiCo is proud of our ability to innovate, we
believe more can be done, but we are constrained by the
outdated Federal laws like the current 80,000-pound gross
vehicle weight limit that was set in 1983.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I would like
to call your attention to the screen, if you would.
[Slide.]
If you look, you can see the standard 53-foot trailer that
is generally limited to 80,000 pounds in the U.S. that operates
on five axles. The other vehicle has six axles, not five, and
in Canada where the industry operates these at 102,500 pounds,
we analyzed 5 years of our operation in Canada. These vehicles
collectively traveled roughly 13 million miles, and we have had
zero fatality accidents.
PepsiCo is a member of the SHIP Coalition, which supports a
pilot program to allow single trucks on the interstate at
91,000 pounds, with the requirement of the six-axle. PepsiCo
believes that this modest increase, subject to important safety
and infrastructure protection conditions, would reduce road
wear, emissions, and increase safety.
Under this proposal, our products can move with fewer
trucks. This leads to fewer miles, reducing the chance of
accidents. This pilot would help reduce emissions and address
the nationwide commercial driver shortage.
The Federal Government can also address this issue by
passing the DRIVE-Safe Act, which I detail in my written
statement.
In conclusion, PepsiCo is committed to improving our
transportation operations. I have been doing this job 30 years,
and what keeps me up at night is what a lot of the folks here
talked about. It is the safety of our drivers, the operational
efficiency, but also attracting the next generation of drivers
to the business.
This hearing could not be more timely, and we look forward
to working with you to address these critical challenges.
Thank you for the time to be here today.
[Mr. Noble's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement Rodney Noble, Senior Director of Transportation
Global Procurement, PepsiCo
Chairwoman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today on behalf of PepsiCo to share our perspective
on important issues impacting the trucking industry.
My name is Rodney Noble and I am Senior Director of Transportation
Global Procurement. I have been with PepsiCo for 33 years and in my
current role I am responsible for strategy development and capacity
procurement for all modes of purchased transportation/freight as well
as North America Fleet procurement for PepsiCo. This role is a mixture
of transportation execution, centralized strategy, planning,
technology, integration and procurement of freight and fleet solutions
for PepsiCo across North America.
My testimony will outline our efforts to improve truck safety and
reduce emissions from trucking as part of our continuous efforts to
improve our transportation and logistics systems. But first I'll
provide some important context.
pepsico and its logistics network
PepsiCo is the largest food and beverage Company in the United
States and our portfolio includes our iconic Pepsi-Cola and Frito-Lay
products, as well as brands such as Aquafina, Lipton, Tropicana,
Gatorade, Quaker Oats, Sun Chips and Sabra hummus. PepsiCo sources over
six million metric tons of potatoes, grains, fruits, vegetable oil and
more in the U.S., from growers of all sizes. Along with our franchise
bottlers, we employ and support the jobs of nearly 140,000 Americans in
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We have a total of 94
manufacturing sites across the United States with many of these
facilities located in your Congressional districts; like our Quaker
plant in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, our Pepsi plant in Hyattsville, Maryland,
or our Frito-Lay facilities in Canton, Ohio, Jonesboro, Arkansas or
Dallas, Texas. PepsiCo considers itself part of these communities with
our employees living in small towns and large cities, and contributing
through hard work and volunteer efforts.
Although you may be familiar with our brands, you may not know of
PepsiCo's logistical network. Through our transportation subsidiaries,
PepsiCo owns the largest independently-owned fleet of trucks in the
United States. We own over 36,000 trucks and a total of over 70,000
assets including over 11,000 tractors, 12,300 vans and 8,300 service
support vehicles. PepsiCo employs over 25,000 drivers, all of whom are
integral to the success of our logistics network to make sure our
product gets from the farm to your grocery store shelf in a safe and
environmentally responsible manner. Now knowing the scope of our fleet,
you can imagine the impact that well maintained infrastructure and
smart transportation policies can have on our day-to-day operations.
environmental leadership; reducing emissions from trucking
Earlier this year PepsiCo adopted a new corporate vision, Winning
with Purpose, which conveys our belief that sustainability can be an
even greater contributor to our success in the marketplace. We are
committed to reducing our absolute greenhouse gas emissions across our
supply chain by at least 20 percent by 2030. Our fleet operations adopt
sustainability in their everyday practices and long-term business plans
by reducing emissions through efficient, new technology and the sharing
of best practices. For a number of years, we have made significant
improvements in fleet efficiency. One way is diversifying the types of
fuels we use; PepsiCo operates over 1,500 alternative fuel vehicles and
in 2018 our fleet logged over 64.5 million alternative fueled miles.
These changes have not come without their challenges, even for a
company the size of PepsiCo; incorporating emerging technology requires
additional training for our mechanics so they have the technical
skillset and expertise to operate and maintain these highly technical
systems. It also requires PepsiCo to remain current with our diagnostic
software and update our site and maintenance facilities, including our
refueling infrastructure. Despite these challenges, we believe these
investments are right for the environment and give us the ability to
contain current and future transportation costs, which means that your
constituents will continue to be able to purchase our products at an
affordable price. Here are some quick facts on our fleet:
PepsiCo owns one of the largest commercial fleets of
electric vehicles in the U.S.
PepsiCo is working to increase the volume of renewable
natural gas (RNG) used in our freight trucks. Within the Frito-Lay
division alone, the fleet reduced its diesel fuel usage by more than 30
percent. We are now on track to cut conventional fuel use from our
fleet by 50 percent by 2020, compared to a 2008 baseline.
PepsiCo is an industry leader in investing in compressed
natural gas (CNG) tractors and advanced diesel technology. Forty two
percent of our Frito-Lay over-the-road fleet has been converted to
compressed natural gas and in 2018 our CNG fleet drove 56.3 million
miles.
PepsiCo made an initial reservation for 100 all-electric
semi-trucks. This investment represents part of our broader strategy
and gives us an opportunity to explore electrification across all our
vehicle classes.
With a grant from the California Air Resources Board,
Frito-Lay will replace all of its diesel equipment in Modesto, CA with
Zero emissions or Near Zero emissions equipment in the next two years.
We believe there is more to energy efficiency than just our
equipment alone. We continually look for other ways to achieve
excellence in operations to accomplish our sustainability and
productivity goals. This includes incorporating everything from driver
training, the latest in safety technology and more efficient routing as
important components of our strategy.
safety is paramount
At PepsiCo we make a point of celebrating safety within our fleet.
One example is Frito-Lay's annual Million Mile award ceremony where we
recognize our drivers that have driven one million miles without an
accident. This past April we celebrated 78 U.S. and Canada based over-
the-road drivers from more than 30 sites who drove one, two, and three
million accident-free miles. To put that in perspective, it takes
Frito-Lay drivers approximately 10-12 years to reach the one million
mile mark. Needless to say, we are extremely proud of these drivers and
their incredible safety record.
Over the last few years, PepsiCo has created a culture around
driver-training programs, training thousands of drivers to help reduce
fuel use through their driving habits. From avoiding unnecessary
braking and eliminating idling to gentler acceleration and leveraging
cruise control, our programs encourage best practice sharing and
tracking to improve fuel mileage.
PepsiCo knows how important safety is and we have made decisions to
go above and beyond current federal and state safety regulations. The
majority of our new vehicles are outfitted with features including:
collision mitigation, lane departure, blind spot detection, LED
headlights, back-up cameras, antilock brakes, traction control and
electronic stability control. We are also adding forward facing cameras
and lane departure devices to our existing fleet, while continuing to
leverage telematics for proactive driver training on safe driver
behaviors. As a pioneer in the safety space, we also work to influence
manufacturers to bring the latest technologies to market to benefit the
industry as a whole, wherever possible.
The key to our fleet strategy is spending the time and effort to
procure equipment that is best suited to the business, allowing us to
employ the most efficient trucks for our operations. For example,
PepsiCo Beverages North America is accelerating a new and innovative
delivery system, which replaces segmented bulk and bay delivery trucks
with specially designed and specified trailers that are pre-loaded at
the warehouse. This helps ensure the right quantity and assortment of
product reaches the retail customer in a more efficient and timely
manner while saving time for route delivery drivers and fuel by
eliminating overlapping delivery vehicles.
To date, approximately 44.1 percent of routes have been converted
to this new system, resulting in a 15 percent reduction in the number
of truck days and total miles from the system. Reducing miles improves
safety because it translates into fewer exposures for our drivers and
decreases the chances of crashes.
legislation can advance our safety and environmental efforts
We are very supportive of Congress getting started on legislation
to improve our nation's road infrastructure. Better bridges and
highways will help reduce wear and tear on our fleet and improve
driving conditions for our trucks, all of which will benefit our
industry. While PepsiCo is proud of our ability to innovate around the
current challenges facing our trucking fleet, we believe more can be
done to advance safety, reduce emissions, and protect infrastructure;
but we are constrained by antiquated federal laws.
For example, the current 80,000 pound gross vehicle weight (GVW)
limit for five axle trucks operating on Federal Interstate System
highways was set in 1983, since that time the transportation industry
has seen significant safety improvements like the standardization of
anti-lock brakes. In the intervening decades a majority of States now
allow trucks over 80,000 pounds on state and local roads but the
Federal GVW limit for the Interstate System remains stubbornly stuck at
80,000 pounds. What does this mean for PepsiCo? Since many of our
products are heavy, we often hit the 80,000 pound limit and our trucks
are only partially full, which leads to more trucks on the road and
carbon emissions than if we were able to fill our trucks to their
optimal capacity.
To begin addressing this, we support Congress authorizing a pilot
program for a limited number of States to allow a modest increase in
the gross vehicle weight (GVW) of trucks on the Interstate Highway
System. PepsiCo is a member of the Safer Hauling and Infrastructure
Protection Coalition, or SHIP Coalition, which believes modestly higher
truck weights, subject to important conditions for safety and
infrastructure protection, would reduce road wear and tear and greatly
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, all while being carried out safely. We
know it can work because our company is already safely operating six-
axle vehicles at over 80,000 pounds in Canada; just one of the many
developed nations with higher GVW limits.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words and I'd like at this
time to call the Subcommittee's attention to the photo on the screen
and attached to our prepared testimony. You will see a standard 53-foot
trailer that, with tractor, is generally limited to 80,000 pounds GVW
in the U.S. and operates on 4-5 axles. The other vehicle is equipped
with 6 axles, not 5, and in Canada we are operating these at a GVW even
higher than 91,000 pounds. Before this hearing we checked back five
years and found zero fatalities in our operation of these vehicles in
Canada, even though they cover an average of 2.6 million miles
annually.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In the U.S. we believe that, by allowing more cargo to be carried
in fewer vehicles, this pilot program would reduce the growth in the
number of trucks on the road.
By allowing a given amount of cargo to be carried in fewer
vehicles, this pilot program will help: reduce congestion on roads,
lower fuel consumption, and mitigate exhaust emissions. USDOT estimated
that a 6-axle/91,000 pound configuration reduces CO2 and NOX emissions,
with NOX being a particulate matter pollutant precursor.
In addition, by reducing miles to move a given amount of cargo,
exposures on the road are also reduced, which decreases the chances of
crashes.
The additional axle comes with additional wheels and brakes,
increasing braking power. DOT found the 91,000 pounds GVW, six-axle
vehicle stopped one-foot shorter than the conventional 80,000 pounds 5-
axle vehicle. Importantly, this ten-state pilot program would
facilitate shifting truck traffic away from lower classification roads
that often pass by schools and shopping centers and through
neighborhoods with pedestrians. Instead, trucks would be able to use
the Interstate Highway System, found by the Transportation Research
Board in a 2019 report to be the safest and best suited roads for
trucks.
In addition, States that opt in to the voluntary pilot program
would have to collect certain data regarding the GVW of a truck in the
pilot program in the event of a crash. The lack of data on the loaded
weight of a truck at the time of a fatality or injury was noted in 2015
and 2016 by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) as a critical
data gap. PepsiCo is an industry leader in telematics, data collection,
and analysis--and we are particularly well equipped to provide valuable
feedback data to the program.
By requiring an additional axle the proposed pilot also addresses
concerns on potential road wear and tear. With the additional axle, the
weight transferred to the pavement is lower per axle at 91,000 pounds
GVW than a five-axle 80,000 pounds GVW vehicle. USDOT found this six-
axle configuration would reduce, not increase, life-cycle pavement
costs, with savings of 2.4 to 4.2 percent.
Another advantage of the SHIP pilot proposal is it would help
alleviate the pressure PepsiCo and the trucking industry at large is
feeling from the nationwide commercial driver shortage. With the
current shortfall of drivers only expected to increase, the ability to
more efficiently move our product would go a long way in enabling us to
continue to take the time needed to attract the highest quality
drivers.
Another way the Federal government could help to address the
commercial driver shortage is by passing the Developing Responsible
Individuals for a Vibrant Economy Act also known as the ``Drive Safe
Act''. We believe this legislation would help establish a pipeline for
drivers by allowing 18-21 year olds that already have a commercial
driver's license to drive interstate pending completion of a 400 hour
apprenticeship program with an experienced driver. Right now, young
adults coming out of high school who might be interested or even just
considering a career in the trucking industry are choosing a different
occupation because they can't afford to wait until they are 21 to be
hired and we are losing access to a valuable pipeline of potential
talent. We also believe it is important that the legislation ensures
that vehicles used in the program would be required to have the latest
safety technology.
In conclusion, PepsiCo is deeply committed to efforts to
continuously improve our truck, transportation and logistics
operations, particularly as to safety and emissions reductions. We look
forward to working with Congress to help advance sensible
transportation policies that will help improve our nation's trucking
infrastructure for the next generation.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here today and I will
be happy to respond to any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Noble.
Next, Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol on
behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and, yes,
please proceed.
Mr. Savage. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, full committee Chair DeFazio, and members of the
subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
important discussion on the state of the trucking industry.
As deputy chief of the Colorado State Patrol, I oversee our
State's CMV enforcement program. Under the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program, today I am here representing the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance where I serve as a past president. CVSA
represents State agencies who enforce motor carrier safety
regulations in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
CVSA has a number of recommendations aimed at improving CMV
safety. I am sure many of them will be included in the
discussion today.
However, from our perspective, it all boils down to one
thing, providing the motor carrier industry and the enforcement
community with a regulatory framework that is clear, safety
driven, and enforceable.
Every day across the country, CVSA members work with
industry and FMCSA to reduce crashes and save lives. At the
same time, the trucking industry continues to grow and becomes
more sophisticated every day. Finding solutions that ensure the
safe transport of goods is, needless to say, complicated.
We need a regulatory framework that can keep pace with the
changing industry. Unfortunately, regulatory activity at the
agency--one of FMCSA's basic responsibilities--has come to a
near standstill, and the necessary work to maintain regulations
is suffering.
For example, in 2016, FMCSA sent a letter to a member of
the broadband service industry indicating that wireless and
broadband services qualify under the public utility hours-of-
service exemption.
CVSA petitioned the agency in May of 2017 to update those
regulations to reflect this decision. Last March, the agency
granted our petition. Yet we are still waiting for this simple
definition change to be completed.
This may seem like a small thing, but it is just one
example of a number of similar scenarios that build upon one
another.
In addition, high-profile initiatives like rolling out the
ELD rule consume the agency's resources, especially when they
are met with a high volume of exemption requests. As a result
and in place of actual regulatory action, the agency has come
to rely heavily on interpretations, personalized letters,
informal electronic communications, enforcement guidance,
frequently asked questions, and other means providing
enforcement and industry with clarity on issues that arise with
the expectations that the regulations will be updated in the
future.
Unfortunately, that update often never takes place,
resulting in an inconsistent understanding of the requirement.
When the regulations lack clarity, they are ineffective,
creating confusion and inconsistencies in enforcement, which in
turn leads to unnecessary conflict between enforcement and
industry and ultimately it erodes the CMV community's trust in
the regulatory process.
This lack of clarity in the regulations is further
complicated by the growing list of exemptions being listed by
various segments of the industry. While we understand the motor
carrier industry is diverse, the motor carrier safety
regulations are just that, safety regulations, and any
exemption granted should be based on the clear critical need,
not merely because it would be more convenient for the
industry.
This is not to say we oppose all exemptions. We recognize
that there are times where granting exemptions is appropriate.
In those instances, FMCSA has a process in place to allow for
the review of exemption requests based on the applicant's
ability to demonstrate need and the ability to maintain an
equivalent level of safety.
We encourage Members to point their constituents to this
established process rather than incorporating exemptions into
legislation. Exemptions not only have the potential to
undermine safety, but they complicate the enforcement process
and confuse inspectors, drivers, and the industry alike.
While one individual exemption may not seem like such a big
deal, they add up and result in confusing, contradictory and
inconsistent enforcement of the regulations. To address these
concerns, we encourage Congress to impress upon FMCSA the
importance of the agency conducting its regulatory
responsibilities in a timely manner and ensure the agency has
the necessary resources, technical staff, authority, and time
to do so.
In addition, we encourage Members to minimize the number of
exemptions written in legislation and to consider the practical
impacts of any new requirements or programs to the enforcement
community's ability to conduct our critical lifesaving
activities.
Those of us in the enforcement community, including FMCSA,
as well as those in the regulated industry, cannot achieve our
mutual goal of reducing crashes and saving lives without
clearly written safety regulations that are based on unbiased
data and designed with safety as the top priority.
We look forward to working with all of you to address these
challenges.
Thank you.
[Mr. Savage's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado State Patrol,
on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Introduction
Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for
inviting me here today to discuss the state of the trucking industry in
America.
My name is Mark Savage, I am deputy chief of the Colorado State
Patrol, and I currently serve as a past president of the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). CVSA is a nonprofit association
comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal
commercial motor vehicle safety officials and industry representatives.
We represent the state agencies responsible for the administration and
enforcement of commercial motor carrier safety regulations in the
United States (U.S.), Canada and Mexico. We work to improve commercial
motor vehicle safety and uniformity by bringing truck and bus
regulatory, safety and enforcement agencies together with industry
representatives to solve highway transportation safety problems. Every
state in the U.S., all Canadian provinces and territories, the country
of Mexico, and all U.S. territories and possessions are members of
CVSA.
As Congress begins work on the next surface transportation bill,
this timely hearing will hopefully provide members with valuable
insight into the incredibly complex world of regulating the trucking
industry to ensure safety, while also providing for the efficient flow
of goods across the country. My testimony will highlight areas of
concern for the Alliance, as well as recommendations on how best to
move forward to meet our shared goal of preventing crashes, injuries
and fatalities related to commercial motor vehicles on our nation's
roadways. While a number of issues will be discussed during the
hearing, from our perspective, it all boils down to one thing:
providing the motor carrier industry and enforcement community with a
regulatory framework that is clear, safety-driven and enforceable. The
trucking industry continues to grow and become more sophisticated every
day. We need a regulatory framework that can keep pace with the
changing industry.
Clarity in the Regulatory Framework
Clear, enforceable rules are the cornerstone of an effective
regulatory framework designed to ensure safety on our roadways. It is
imperative that those subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) understand their responsibilities and that those
tasked with enforcing those safety regulations can do so effectively to
ensure the quality and uniformity of the more than four million
roadside inspections conducted annually throughout North America. Over
time, additional regulatory authority, coupled with changes to the
industry and technological advancements can result in inconsistent,
outdated and redundant regulatory language. To address this continued
evolution of the program, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) is tasked with maintaining the regulations.
Unfortunately, regulatory activity at the agency--one of FMCSA's
basic responsibilities--has come to a near standstill, and the
necessary work of maintaining the regulations is suffering. High
profile initiatives, such as implementation of the electronic logging
device rule, can consume the agency's resources, especially when those
efforts are met with a high volume of exemption requests.
For example, in 2016, FMCSA sent a letter to a member of the
broadband service industry indicating that wireless and broadband
services qualify under the `public utility' hours-of-service exemption.
After learning of the letter, in May of 2017, CVSA petitioned the
agency to update the regulations to reflect this decision. In March of
last year, the agency granted the petition, but to date we are still
waiting for the rulemaking to be initiated.
In an effort to address the growing backlog and delays, the agency
has come to rely heavily on the use of regulatory guidance to address
necessary clarifications to the regulations, using guidance documents
or frequently asked questions (FAQs) to correct technical errors in
published rules or to clarify vague regulatory language within the
safety regulations while improvements to the regulations make their way
through the rulemaking process. However, the number of full rulemakings
that can make it through the agency in any given year is limited by
staff and funding, and a number of higher profile rules tend to push
simple technical changes back in the queue, some never to be published.
As a result, a disconnect has evolved between written regulation,
regulatory guidance, interpretations and FAQs.
As a result, unintentional inconsistencies and contradictions have
worked their way into the regulatory framework. These inconsistencies
can lead to confusion among both the regulated and enforcement
communities. Recently the Office of the Secretary of Transportation
published a notice asking stakeholders to review all existing
regulatory guidance and make recommendations on which documents should
be incorporated into regulation, what can be eliminated and what other
guidance may be necessary. While this is a good start, the request was
too broad in nature, seeking comment on all existing guidance to any
regulation under the department's purview, not merely the FMCSRs
overseen by FMSCA. Asking for input on all existing regulatory guidance
is an enormous task and one that is not achievable in such a short time
frame. Instead, such a review should be conducted in a methodical and
organized manner. FMCSA should conduct a review of each Part of Title
49 of the FMCSRs on an individual basis, rather than all at once. As a
part of this review, FMCSA should examine all informal guidance that
has been issued and adopt the updated informal guidance as official
regulatory guidance.
This process, once complete, will help clarify a number of
inconsistencies in regulation, helping those who are subject to the
FMCSRs better understand their responsibilities and allowing those
tasked with enforcing the regulations to do so effectively. This, in
turn, will help improve the quality and uniformity of the more than
four million roadside inspections conducted annually throughout North
America. However, it is not enough for the agency to do this one
review. This process must be conducted on an ongoing basis, in order to
keep pace with ongoing changes and developments. Continued review and
updates to guidance are necessary to remove redundancies, reflect
recent changes, correct errors and eliminate contradictions provides
both the law enforcement community and motor carrier industry with
clearer guidelines to follow. Regulatory guidance should be reviewed
and updated on a regular basis to ensure accuracy and clarity.
As noted, there are a number of factors that contribute to the
growing delay in regulatory action at FMCSA. We recognize that many of
these factors are outside the agency's control. The result is that the
agency is struggling to meet one of its basic responsibilities, which
is to maintain the FMCSRs, something only the agency can do, in order
to keep pace with industry and ensure that motor carriers are being
held to a standard that will ensure the safe operation of vehicles on
our nation's roadways. FMCSA must be given the resources and support to
allow the agency to prioritize the day to day maintenance of the
regulations, while also meeting obligations set forth by Congress.
Allowing this critical responsibility to lapse does a disservice to
both the motor carrier industry and the enforcement community and
undermines the agency's efforts to improve safety.
Exemptions
The growing lack of clarity and inconsistency in the regulations is
further compounded by the growing number of regulatory exemptions being
issued. The federal safety regulations are designed to reduce or
prevent truck and bus crashes, fatalities and injuries by establishing
minimum credentialing and vehicle mechanical fitness requirements to
ensure interstate motor carriers and drivers operate safely. The
regulations are developed in consultation with enforcement, industry
and subject matter experts, and are intended to establish a clear set
of rules by which all drivers and motor carriers must abide. The
states, in partnership with FMCSA, work to enforce those regulations
consistently and correctly. In order to become a commercial motor
vehicle inspector, an individual must go through rigorous training.
Once certified, an inspector must conduct a minimum number of
inspections each year to maintain their certification. Inspectors must
also attend annual in-service/refresher training courses and receive
ongoing training updates as a result of various regulatory updates or
changes. Significant training and continuing education are geared
towards ensuring inspectors and roadside enforcement officials fully
understand and effectively communicate the regulations they enforce.
Inconsistencies and exceptions within the regulations require more
training and create more opportunities for mistakes, which in turn
require additional resources to correct. Unfortunately, however, the
number of exemptions continues to grow. Particularly problematic are
those exemptions issued through legislation. Issues begin with the
adoption of exemptions themselves. While the exemptions are made
effective at the federal level upon enactment of the bill, that is not
necessarily the case at the state level. The states cannot enforce
federal laws and regulations, and instead adopt or incorporate federal
regulations into their own state laws, regulations and codes. Some
states adopt federal rules by reference, allowing them to automatically
adopt federal changes immediately. However, many states do not adopt by
reference and must go through either a legislative or regulatory
process to make the federal regulatory changes effective at the state
level. This process takes time, especially in states where the
legislature does not meet annually.
Even in states where adoption is automatic by reference, there is
still a delay in the practical implementation of an exemption.
Jurisdictions must be made aware of the change and its impacts. In many
cases, interpretations and guidance from the federal agency on the
parameters and definitions of the exemption are necessary. For example,
a number of the exemptions to commercial motor vehicle size and weight
limits included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act required guidance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
FHWA worked quickly to provide the guidance to the states, but even so,
the document was not circulated until February of 2016, which left the
motor carrier industry and the enforcement community wondering how the
exemptions would work in the meantime and at times created conflicts
during roadside inspections.
Finally, once the exemption has been analyzed and guidance
provided, state enforcement personnel must be trained on the new
exemptions. Inspectors must be taken away from important enforcement
and education efforts and scheduled to be trained on the changes.
Practically speaking, this takes time. This guidance and the subsequent
training are critical to ensuring the exemption is interpreted and
enforced uniformly.
Recognizing these challenges, FMCSA has a policy in place that
allows states three years to adopt changes to the FMCSRs. While states
work hard to adopt the changes as quickly as possible, the three-year
window allows enough time for the states to go through their process
and for inspectors to be properly trained. Currently, no such provision
exists on the legislative side. Moving forward, CVSA encourages
Congress to consider including an implementation window or some other
mechanism that allows federal agencies enough time to provide any
necessary guidance on the exemption and the states enough time to adopt
the changes and train inspectors and enforcement personnel. We
understand the exemptions are intended to relieve industry of a certain
burden, but if the exemption cannot be implemented correctly and
consistently, the motor carrier industry and the enforcement community
both suffer. CVSA looks forward to working with Congress and our
partners in the motor carrier industry to identify a solution to this
issue that meets the industry's needs while also allowing for clear,
uniform application and enforcement of the regulations.
Hours-of-Service Revisions
One area of the regulations that presents a significant challenge
for the enforcement community is the hours-of-service requirements.
Recently, and motivated partially by the electronic logging device
(ELD) requirement, there has been a lot of discussion about the need
for additional `flexibility' in the hours-of-service rules. CVSA does
not have expertise in fatigue data and will not weigh in on all the
proposed changes being discussed. However, it should be noted that the
federal hours-of-service requirements exist to help prevent and manage
driver fatigue. While sleep cannot be regulated, the hours-of-service
rules set forth a framework that, if followed, allow drivers to get the
rest necessary to operate their vehicles safely. It is important that
the hours-of-service requirements continue to focus on fatigue
management and safety, factoring in the best available fatigue data.
Recognizing that the motor carrier industry is diverse, it is critical
that the regulations account for significant variances within segments
of the industry, while keeping exemptions to a minimum, in order to
ensure uniform enforcement.
ELDs and the North American Fatigue Management Program
Moving forward, CVSA would encourage that any new exemptions from
the hours-of-service requirements or any changes that provide
additional flexibility come with two requirements. First, we believe an
electronic logging device should be required. Electronic logging
devices are a valuable tool designed to help inspectors verify
compliance with hours-of-service requirements. This will be even more
important as the rules become more complicated. Hours-of-service
violations continue to be some of the most frequently found violations
by enforcement. What this tells us is that too many drivers and motor
carriers either don't understand the hours-of-service rules or are
intentionally violating them--and, as a result, drivers are likely
driving fatigued. Deployment of electronic logging devices helps
address both of these issues.
For those drivers and motor carriers who don't understand the
intricacies of the hours-of-service requirements and for those who make
the occasional mistake when using their paper log, electronic logging
devices remove the guess work and the risk of human error. This results
in better compliance with fewer violations being identified, resulting
in improved motor carrier safety ratings. For those who were using
their log books to find `wiggle room' in the hours-of-service
regulations, electronic logging devices make it easier for inspectors
to identify violations and take unsafe, noncompliant drivers off the
roadways. The devices also save time for both inspectors and drivers,
leading to more efficiency. For those in industry who demonstrate the
need for additional flexibility in the hours-of-service requirements,
it would be beneficial to require an electronic logging device in order
to help ensure compliance.
Similarly, any motor carrier or sector of industry that is seeking
authorization to drive longer hours should be required to participate
in the North American Fatigue Management Program. The North American
Fatigue Management Program is a joint effort by Canada and the United
States to provide a comprehensive approach for managing fatigue,
enhancing a motor carrier's ability to effectively deal with the
challenges of fatigue in a highly competitive, widely dispersed and
rapidly changing industry.
Personal Conveyance
Another hours-of-service issue that is related to the regulatory
guidance matter discussed above is the ``personal conveyance''
designation under the hours-of-service rules. In June of 2018, FMCSA
published new guidance providing a new interpretation of how to apply
and use the ``personal conveyance'' designation. To be able to log
personal conveyance time as off-duty, commercial motor vehicle drivers
must meet several conditions as outlined in the regulatory guidance.
These include being relieved of all on-duty activities and
responsibilities and ensuring that the off-duty trip is personal in
nature. While these conditions present certain parameters to drivers
and enforcement, the guidance it offers is incomplete because it does
not provide a maximum distance and/or time that a driver can travel
under the ``personal conveyance'' designation.
Under the revised guidance, a driver could, in theory, drive
hundreds of miles over the course of several hours all under the
designation of ``personal conveyance''. This presents the opportunity
for increased driver fatigue and risk on our roadways, as drivers may
decide to travel hundreds of miles in order to strategically relocate
to an alternate location after driving a full day. When combined with
the ability to operate under personal conveyance while laden, this new
guidance provides an opportunity for drivers to abuse personal
conveyance time in order to circumvent the hours-of-service
regulations. Further, the allowance of laden vehicles for personal
conveyance use makes it much more difficult for a roadside inspector to
determine the intent of a driver at the time of inspection. Inspectors
are consistently seeing blatant abuse of this designation and we have
heard feedback from drivers and motor carriers who indicate they are
receiving pressure from shippers to use the designation incorrectly in
order to deliver loads faster.
CVSA has petitioned the agency to provide a clear, set distance
that is permissible under the personal conveyance designation. In
setting clear guidelines on the use of personal conveyance, CVSA
recommended that FMCSA look to the standard set in Canada, which allows
drivers to use a vehicle for personal conveyance purposes for a maximum
of 75 km per day (approximately 46 miles), unladen. FMCSA should set a
quantifiable distance that drivers are allowed to log as personal
conveyance, in addition to the parameters already offered for Sec.
395.8.
Safety Technology
Given the growing size and complexity of the trucking industry,
jurisdictions do not have the resources necessary to inspect every
vehicle, driver and motor carrier operating on our roadways on a
regular basis. In order to maximize resources, jurisdictions use a
combination of methods to identify vehicles, drivers and motor carriers
for intervention and enforcement. As a result, inspectors interact with
only a small fraction of the commercial motor vehicles currently
operating on our roadways. However, technologies exist today that would
allow enforcement to identify nearly all commercial motor vehicles
electronically, while those vehicles are in motion. If this concept
were universally deployed, it would revolutionize the way commercial
motor vehicle roadside monitoring, inspection and enforcement are
conducted.
Requiring a universal electronic vehicle identifier on all
commercial motor vehicles would, in time, eliminate the need to stop a
commercial motor vehicle to review driver information and inspect the
vehicle, improving efficiencies for the enforcement community and the
motor carrier industry. It would improve the effectiveness of
enforcement programs while reducing costs, for both enforcement and
industry, all while improving safety. CVSA has petitioned the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and FMCSA to require all
commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with technology that allows
them to be identified electronically by enforcement. Deployment of this
technology would revolutionize the way commercial motor vehicle
roadside monitoring, inspection and enforcement are conducted,
exponentially growing the program and improving roadway safety.
While many questions still exist surrounding this concept,
establishing a universal electronic vehicle identifier requirement for
all commercial motor vehicles will have tremendous benefit.
Jurisdictions will save time and see improved efficiencies as
inspectors are able to more accurately target vehicles, drivers and
motor carriers in need of an intervention while allowing safe,
compliant vehicles to deliver their freight more quickly and
efficiently. Most importantly, establishing a universal electronic
vehicle identifier requirement for all commercial motor vehicles would
benefit the public by improving safety, helping to take unsafe
vehicles, drivers and motor carriers off the roadways. As industry
continues to grow and more people take to the roads, it is imperative
that we leverage technology where possible to improve the efficacy of
our enforcement programs.
Further, the need for a universal electronic vehicle identifier
becomes more critical as the industry moves forward to implement driver
assistive truck platooning, increasingly advanced driver assistance
systems, and partially or fully automated driving systems, which will
require new methods and levels of safety checks. As driver assistive
technologies evolve in commercial motor vehicle use, the proper
identification and monitoring of these commercial motor vehicles
becomes increasingly necessary. No matter the method, this proposed
requirement would enable efficient identification and inspection/
screening of vehicle systems to help ensure safe operation of
commercial motor vehicles, including those being operated with or
without a human operator on board.
The trucking industry continues to grow more complex every day and
technology plays a huge role in the ongoing evolution of the motor
carrier industry. In particular, impressive advancements are being made
in the realm of safety technology. As the industry moves ahead with
deployment of automated driving system technology and other
technologies and as Congress and the administration consider mandating
certain systems, it is important that consideration be given to the
practical aspects roadside. It is imperative that federal agencies and
lawmakers keep pace with technical developments by consulting with
industry and the enforcement community to determine the necessary
guidelines for safe operation on public roadways. In particular, a
dialog with the enforcement community is needed on the requirements and
capabilities of this technology to self-monitor vehicle systems' safety
status and interact with law enforcement. Each new requirement in the
regulations will come with a corresponding item on the roadside
inspector's checklist. If a vehicle is required to have a particular
component or piece of technology, thought must be given to how the
enforcement community will effectively inspect the component or
function, and in the pursuit of maintaining safety on our public
roadways, ensure compliance with that requirement. Regulations should
be clearly written and enforceable. With appropriate federal standards
in place, these technologies have great potential to increase roadway
safety.
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
In order to ensure compliance by the motor carrier industry,
Congress provides funding to the states through the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). The states use these funds to
conduct inspection and enforcement activities, train enforcement
personnel, purchase necessary equipment, update software and other
technology, and conduct outreach and education campaigns to raise
awareness and improve commercial motor vehicle safety issues. The funds
are used, in part, to pay the salaries of more than 12,000 full and
part-time commercial motor vehicle safety professionals. These people
conduct more than 3.5 million commercial motor vehicle roadside
inspections, 34,000 new entrant safety audits and 6,000 compliance
reviews each year.
Program Performance
The FAST Act included a number of provisions dealing with MCSAP,
making significant organizational and programmatic changes, intended to
reduce the administrative burden for both FMCSA and the states. CVSA
strongly supported the changes to MCSAP implemented in the FAST Act.
The changes, most of which were effective beginning in fiscal 2017,
have provided states with additional flexibility in how they spend
their MCSAP grant funds, streamlined the grant application process,
eliminated redundancies between overlapping programs and reduced the
administrative burden on states, allowing them to spend more time doing
the work of the program and less time on administrative activities.
This flexibility is critical, giving states the ability to design a
comprehensive commercial motor vehicle safety program that utilizes
creative solutions to address issues unique to each state, while also
meeting all program requirements.
We are just a few years into the reorganization and some pieces of
it, such as the move to a multi-year commercial vehicle safety plan,
are not yet completed. The states and agency are both still adjusting
and adapting to the new structure, processes and requirements, so it is
too early to tell if additional changes are necessary. However,
overall, feedback to date has been largely positive. In particular,
states are pleased with the additional time given to spend funds after
they are awarded by the agency, particularly given the ongoing delays
in the appropriations and grant approval processes, which results in
states receiving the bulk of their funds as late as June or August in
some fiscal years.
Until the overhaul is completely implemented and states have had
some time to get used to the new model and evaluate its effectiveness,
we are not able to say with certainty if the changes were successful or
if additional adjustments are necessary. So many of the components are
interrelated and it's not possible to evaluate the whole program with
some of the pieces left incomplete.
New MCSAP Grants Formula
One provision in particular that remains incomplete that will have
a tremendous impact on the efficacy of the new MCSAP structure is the
new MCSAP formula. The FAST Act included a requirement that FMCSA
convene a group to evaluate the current MCSAP allocation formula. The
group was tasked with recommending a new formula that will better
allocate MCSAP funds to where they are most needed. The group's
recommendations were finalized in April of 2017 and the agency is
currently in the final stages of publishing the recommendations in the
``Federal Register'' for comment. Once that process is complete, FMCSA
will need time to adjust their programs accordingly and states will
need to be able to plan for any changes in funding levels based on the
new formula. States are currently receiving funds based on an interim
formula, which was intended to serve as a short-term place holder. As
such, many jurisdictions are reluctant to make longer-term changes to
their programs before they know what funding will look like in the
future. As a result, innovative programs and technology deployments are
being placed on hold.
Funding Delays Impact Program Efficacy
The states' work through MCSAP saves lives every day, keeping
dangerous vehicles and unqualified and unsafe drivers off the nation's
roads. According to FMCSA's ``2018 Pocket Guide to Large Truck and Bus
Statistics,'' the agency regulates 543,061 motor carriers, 6.1 million
commercial drivers and 12.5 million commercial motor vehicles. The
state and local agencies that receive MCSAP funding are responsible for
ensuring those motor carriers, vehicles and drivers operate safely.
Furthermore, the commercial motor vehicle enforcement landscape is
constantly evolving and changing as Congress and FMCSA work to refine
and improve the FMCSRs and Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs).
Despite these challenges, MCSAP, as administered by the states, has
been successful in reducing crashes, injuries and fatalities on our
nation's roadways, in spite of a steady increase in the number of
commercial motor vehicles operating on those roads.
One challenge the states face is an ongoing delay and lack of
consistency in the timing of funding disbursement, which prevents many
state from being able to implement long term plans and programs. There
are a number of factors that contribute to these delays and result in
complications for the states. Allocation of MCSAP funds are tied to the
annual appropriations process, which has become more and more delayed
each year. If the process worked as it should, appropriations for the
fiscal year would be finalized before October 1 of each year and FMCSA
would have time to run the formulas and award funds, in full, at the
start of each fiscal year. Instead, continuing resolutions force the
agency to disburse the funds in phases until a final bill is approved
and the remaining funds can be released. When funds do become
available, the grant review and approval process takes far too long,
further delaying receipt of funds for safety programs. It can take
weeks and sometimes months for the agency to get the necessary
approvals to award the funds to the states. This unpredictable,
piecemeal approach to funding makes planning and management of state
enforcement programs difficult.
Relying on the appropriations cycle to determine funding levels on
a year-to-year basis does not allow the states to plan long-term. State
agencies will be reluctant to fill positions, continue enforcement
programs or engage in bold new initiatives if they cannot be confident
that federal funds will come in a timely manner, at the approved
levels.
International Harmonization
Finally, CVSA encourages Congress to promote a higher level of
collaboration between the U.S. and its North American neighbors. Many
motor carriers who are headquartered in the U.S. also have operations
in Canada and Mexico, and many foreign motor carriers have operations
here in the U.S. Efficient, safe movement of people and goods between
the three countries is critical to our economic success. Reciprocity
and uniformity of commercial motor vehicle safety regulations among the
three nations will help support this flow of people and goods. CVSA
supports improved international coordination, with respect to
commercial motor vehicle safety regulations, through increasing efforts
between the U.S., Canada and Mexico to advance regulatory reciprocity
and uniformity.
Conclusion
As this committee considers the state of the trucking industry and
begins development of the next surface transportation bill, we
encourage you to give strong consideration to the role the enforcement
community will play in any policy changes or new programs. As outlined
in my testimony, the purpose of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations is to provide a regulatory framework for motor carriers to
comply with and is designed to ensure the safety of those who travel
alongside commercial motor vehicles on our nation's roads. As the
trucking industry continues to advance and grow, it becomes more
critical that industry and enforcement are provided with a clear set of
requirements. Inconsistencies in the regulations lead to confusion
among industry and enforcement and eventually works to erode the
commercial motor vehicle community's trust in the regulatory process.
FMCSA must be provided with the tools to meet its responsibility of
maintaining the federal regulations, while also addressing evolution
within the industry. We encourage Congress, the administration and our
industry partners to work together to help shape a framework that
prioritizes safety.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Deputy Chief Savage.
Finally, Andy Young, truck safety advocate.
Pleased to have you.
Mr. Young. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, Chair DeFazio as well, and members of the subcommittee,
and good morning to my own Member, Representative Bob Gibbs. I
appreciate the warm welcome.
I also want to recognize all staffers that are in the back
of the room and standing along the sides of the room. Without
your support, this country would have some difficulty. So I
appreciate all of the effort that you put forth.
My belief is that many of the initiatives that we discuss
today will not only save lives, but also truck driver
livelihood. I am here in the truck safety advocate capacity,
and all in this room are here because of the jobs they chose or
the choices they have made.
Several people in this room are here not because of the job
they chose, and they did not choose to be here, and they are
the victims and survivors of truck crashes. I would like to
recognize them.
Christa Hammack lost her daughter, Erin Alexander. She is
here with Abigayle.
Marianne Karth lost her daughters AnnaLeah and Mary. Jerry
Karth could not be here. Neither could Lois Durso, but they are
here in spirit.
Marianne Karth is here with her daughter Rebekah Chojnacki.
I would like to recognize survivor Morgan Lake.
Also Steve and Sue Owings, who lost their son, Cullum.
I would also like to mention Laurie and Randy Higginbotham,
who lost their son, Representative Cohen's own constituent, in
an underride crash.
I am here because I belong to the truth on the issue of
underride. No matter how safe the car may actually be, the
safety features of a car are only effective if there is a good
structural interaction--vehicle crash compatibility--between
collision partners.
There must be a geometrical matchup of the crush structure
of both the striking vehicle and the vehicle being struck. The
bumpers must match up. Otherwise the lower profile car
physically goes underneath the higher profile commercial motor
vehicle. This is known as a truck underride.
The first point of impact is beyond the hood and into the
glass windshield. The second point of impact literally becomes
the heads, faces, neck, spine, and chest of the lower profile
car's occupants.
The same holds true when the truck rear-ends a passenger
car. Often the front bumper of the truck goes over the back
bumper of the car. The truck then climbs on top of the car,
crushing the back seat and the occupants.
I would like to show a video to show side underride. Pay
attention to the airbags and the seatbelts on how they are
ineffective in the side underride crash.
[Video.]
This is at 35 miles an hour. The bottom one is with a
guard. Airbags, seatbelts work with the guard. Without a guard,
they do not.
I submit to you if the car manufacturers came before you
today and said, ``Hey, we want a car without airbags or
seatbelts,'' this body would say, ``No way.''
And in the same vein, we have crashes in situations where
airbags and seatbelts do not work. Energy-absorbing bumpers,
crumple zones, do not work. Next week I am scheduled to meet
with a mother who lost her only child, a recent 18-year-old
high school graduate. A week ago yesterday was her funeral. Her
body, her head included, was covered at the funeral. These are
the closed casket injuries. The only part of her exposed was
her right hand for her mother to hold.
Truck safety initiatives such as the Stop Underrides Act of
2019, speed limiters and automatic emergency braking, all serve
to allow better interaction between cars and trucks. It is
adding equipment to these trucks that actually protect the
truck driver, too.
When the truck driver is at fault, he or she suffers with a
career-ending criminal vehicular homicide charge, frequently
resulting in jail time. The truck company then likely
encounters a civil lawsuit. The fatalities and catastrophic
injuries associated with underride crashes typically produce
seven- to eight-figure verdicts, all exceeding minimum
insurance coverage and requirements.
The truck companies are thereafter saddled with paying
judgments in excess of insurance coverage. Smaller truck
companies must sell assets or file for bankruptcy. Everyone
loses in an underride truck crash, the truck company and truck
driver included.
Just simply making the car bumpers match up with the
truck's side, front, and rear is the only way for car safety
features and all the data and science that goes into protecting
the occupants. And the data and science exists, and I submit to
you if we look at it from the right perspective, the underride
guard is required, the costs also.
We heard today as well about CSA and public scores. Chair
Norton mentioned several groups of people who rely on those
public scores. One group that was not mentioned was the truck
driver. If the truck driver is applying for a job, they need to
know that the company they are working for is safe. They need
to have access to this data.
We heard from C.H. Robinson talking about the data is
confusing. The out-of-service percentage rates are not
confusing; they are very clear. If the companies exceed the
national averages in out-of-service percentages, then they
should not be hired.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
performed an analysis that 10 percent of the motor carriers
represent nearly 50 percent of the crashes. And it is those 10
percent that are the bad apples that spoil the bunch for us.
I love trucks, I love the trucking industry, and I
particularly love the truck driver. I represent many truck
drivers who are harmed in these crashes. But we need to make
sure that these truck drivers are protected and have a job that
is worth going to, and also have a job that can pay the rent
and pay the mortgage.
Both speed limiters and AEBs and underride guards will
protect that truck driver. I have driven a truck with an
underride guard; never felt more comfortable knowing that that
guard was there. I want to look at how all these issues not
only save lives but save truck driver livelihoods.
And I thank the chair for the opportunity to testify before
you today, and I am pleased to answer any questions, and the
most challenging ones as well. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy Young, Truck Safety Advocate
Abbreviation Guide
AEB--Automatic Emergency Braking
ATA--American Trucking Associations
CMV--Commercial Motor Vehicle
FARS--Fatality Analysis Reporting System
FCAM--Forward Collision Avoidance Mitigation
FMCSA--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FMVSS--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
FUP--Front Underride Protection
GAO--Government Accountability Office
IIHS--Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
OEM--Original Equipment Manufacturer
OOIDA--Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association
PCI--Passenger Compartment Intrusion
RIG--Rear Impact Guard
SUG--Side Underride Guard
SUT--Single Unit Truck
TSC--Truck Safety Coalition
Introduction and Biography of Andy Young
Good morning Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of
the Subcommittee and good morning to my own Representative Bob Gibbs
(R-OH-7), also a Member of this Subcommittee.
My name is Andy Young and I am a truck driver holding an active,
interstate, Class A Commercial Driver's License and owner of an old
classic Peterbilt 359 that regularly hauls a much newer 45-foot car
hauler trailer. I am also an attorney and one of the founding partners
of Young & McCarthy LLP, based in Northern Ohio. My law practice
focuses on representing victims and survivors of truck crashes
throughout the country. Many of my clients are truck drivers who have
been hurt or killed by other unsafe truck drivers and truck companies.
I have successfully represented people catastrophically injured in
underride truck crashes as well. I have been published in numerous
publications and I lecture throughout the country on truck safety,
truck litigation, and trial tactics. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS), The Truck Safety Coalition, and AnnaLeah & Mary
for Truck Safety invited me to serve as a moderator for two industry
Truck Underride Roundtables hosted at the IIHS crash test facility in
Ruckersville, Virginia. I also served on the Organizational Committee
for these two events. I recently helped team-drive a 2016 International
LoneStar and a 53-foot Hyundai trailer to Washington, D.C. for a DC
Underride Crash Test. I also served as the event MC and moderator for a
speaker panel at this event. I would like to thank Chairman DeFazio,
Chairwoman Norton and Representative Cohen for sending Congressional
Staff to this important event.
As both a member of the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA) and a past-chair of the Ohio Association for
Justice's Truck Safety Section, I have provided hearing testimony
before the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee on truck size and
weight legislation. I am currently the President of Ohio's Lorain
County Bar Association and serve as an Executive Officer of the
American Association for Justice's Truck Litigation Group. My volunteer
work has resulted in awards in both organizations. I regularly consult
with truck safety advocates and attorneys across the country on truck
safety, trial, and truck crash litigation tactics. I also currently
serve on the City of Cleveland's Vision Zero Task Force. I firmly
believe that underride guards and the other truck safety topics to be
discussed at this Hearing will keep drivers from facing possible
jailtime due to vehicular homicide criminal charges and keep smaller
motor carriers from 8-figure verdicts that could bankrupt them. I am
here as a Truck Safety Advocate. I frequently volunteer my time for the
Truck Safety Coalition and AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety. My
motivation for testifying is my belief that many of the initiatives
discussed today will not only save lives, but also save truck driver
livelihoods.
A Truck Driver is ``Under Pressure'' Every Mile of Every Day
Saving lives and truck driver livelihoods can be accomplished with
the passage of many of the safety initiatives that will be discussed at
today's Hearing ``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in America.''
As someone who drives a tractor-trailer and represents victims and
survivors of truck crashes, I know all too well about the ``pressure''
that a truck driver must contend with daily. Much of the pressure comes
straight from the customer (shipper / broker / receiver) demanding that
their products arrive on time and without any damage. Often the
customer does not realize the complexity and inherent dangers of
driving a big rig. The customer does not understand this concept
because the customer usually is not subject to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations and the industry safety standards that must
be obeyed every mile of every run of every day. The customer can wield
great power over truck safety by choosing to hire and pay for a safe
and responsible truck company to haul the customer's goods. To give
them (the broker or shipper) a pass on liability would only increase
``pressure'' on ``the state of trucking in America.'' The shipper and
broker should not and must not be allowed to hire a cheaper, less safe
truck company, simply for the sake of transporting goods at the
cheapest freight rates possible. Safety must not be sacrificed for
cheaper freight rates.
The most catastrophic consequences can result when an 80,000 pound
CMV collides with a 4,000 pound car. The truck driver knows that
protecting the motoring public is his or her responsibility. The
trucking companies employing the truck drivers know this, too. Yet they
are pressured by the conflict between the cost of safety and the desire
to reduce operating costs and remain competitive. Gambling on unsafe
practices can lead to increased wages for the driver (frequently paid
by the mile) and increased revenues for the truck company--at least
until a catastrophic crash occurs with its financially ruinous
consequences. While there will always be this tension, this Committee
can help level the playing field between the responsible truck
companies and the irresponsible truck companies, and every one of us--
our families, friends, constituents--can benefit.
Ironically, car passengers are not the only ones who are at risk.
Even though their rigs are huge, truck drivers all know that their own
lives are on the line at least in part because their truck company
employers engage in unsafe practices and pressure their drivers into
engaging in unsafe practices. Tragically, truck occupant deaths have
increased to over 800 fatalities in 2017.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Truck driver fatalities increased in 2017 to the highest number
since 2003 according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor
Statistics. NHTSA reported that there were 841 occupants of large
trucks killed in crashes in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety Initiatives Can Benefit Everyone
Often when someone is injured by a truck driver or truck company
error, society in some way or another picks up the pieces. This occurs
through motor vehicle liability insurance spreading the risks of the
loss among car and truck insurance companies. Liability insurance often
is insufficient. Private and government health insurance programs fill
the gaps, as do other government welfare programs for people who can no
longer work as a result of their injuries at great societal expense. It
is not right that all of these programs should pay all of these
inordinate costs when the implementation of simple and relatively
inexpensive safety initiatives can markedly reduce the risk of
catastrophic injuries in the first place.
Safety initiatives like Automatic Emergency Braking and Speed
Limiters benefit the truck driver and everyone else on the road. Safety
initiatives like Underride Guards can both save lives for pedestrian
and automobile occupants and prevent criminal responsibility for truck
drivers who make unfortunate mistakes. It is unlikely that a truck
driver will be prosecuted for vehicular homicide when their mistakes do
not lead to the death of someone else. Increasing Broker/Shipper
Liability will encourage customers to choose safe motor carriers to
transport their goods creating positive competition for good outcomes.
Increasing Minimum Insurance Limits improve the quality of truck driver
training and truck company operations. All of these initiatives
together will help America's 3.4 million truck drivers do their jobs
and reduce fatalities to the ``Vision Zero'' that is sought by all.
Stop Underrides Act of 2019 (H.R. 1511/S. 655) and Vehicle Crash
Compatibility--Height Mismatches Result in Deaths
Late in 2018, I gave a talk as the Keynote Speaker to the State Bar
of Texas at their ``Prosecuting & Defending Truck and Auto Collision
Cases'' seminar. My topic was ``Underride Guards for Trucks to Avoid 8-
Figure Jury Verdicts.'' Underride crashes are the most horrific of all
highway crashes. Why? Because a car and its passengers fare much better
hitting a concrete wall than hitting a commercial truck.
No matter how safe the car may actually be, the safety features of
a car are only effective if there is good structural interaction
(vehicle crash compatibility) between collision partners. There must be
a geometrical match up of the crush structure of both the striking
vehicle and the vehicle being struck (the bumpers must match up).
Otherwise, the lower profile passenger car physically goes underneath
the higher profile commercial motor vehicle (``CMV''). This is known as
a truck underride crash. The first point of impact is beyond the hood
and into the glass windshield. The second point of impact then
literally becomes the heads, faces, neck, spine, and chest of the lower
profile vehicle's occupants. The same holds true when a truck rear ends
a passenger car: often the front bumper of the truck goes over the back
bumper of the car. The truck then climbs the backseat of the car,
frequently crushing children in the back seat.
Most people truly do not understand what is involved in an
underride crash until they have suffered the loss of a loved one in one
of these crashes or they have seen videos or photos of one of these
crashes. I welcome all reading this testimony to go to www.youtube.com/
watch?v=jHNIhh8NsFs to watch crash tests performed by the IIHS on March
30th and March 31st of 2017. The IIHS crashed cars into the side of a
trailer both without an underride guard on the truck and with an
underride guard on the truck to prove the safety differences. The
results are truly remarkable and speak for themselves. I further
recommend going to www.annaleahmary.com or www.stopunderrides.org to
see the three crash tests performed right here in Washington, D.C., a
few months ago, on March 26, 2019. All of these videos show crash tests
at 35 mph or under. The video of those tests without an underride guard
show the devastating consequences that must be addressed today and
hopefully fixed by Subcommittee Members with the passage of the Stop
Underrides Act of 2019.
As can be seen in these videos, air bags do not deploy because the
lower profile vehicle's bumpers and air bag sensors are not triggered.
Energy absorbing bumpers and crumple zones, all designed to keep the
passenger compartment intact, become irrelevant. The load path from the
crash results in energy that does not initially strike the intended
engineered crush structure of the passenger car. With no air bag and
the vehicle traveling underneath the opposing vehicle, (even at low
speeds), the occupant compartment is pierced, resulting in a passenger
compartment intrusion (``PCI''). Literally, the car windows and then
the heads of the occupants are smashed into the CMV.
Without Underride Guards--We Have Closed-Casket Fatalities
With passenger compartment intrusion, the seatbelts restraining the
occupants fail to prevent catastrophic injury or deadly consequences as
the energy from the collision is absorbed directly by the human body.
The car's occupants then suffer the most horrific crash consequences:
death by blunt trauma; decapitation; open skull fractures; traumatic
brain injuries; degloving of the face; spinal cord injuries;
paraplegia; or quadriplegia. Those families who lose a loved one in an
underride crash often suffer even further through a closed casket
funeral because the faces of their loved ones are literally
obliterated. This is reality and not mere conjecture or rhetoric. Just
last week, I saw a picture of an 18-year-old recent high school
graduate killed in a truck crash where her entire body was covered at
the funeral with only her hand sticking out from underneath the
blanket. This teenager was an only child and all her mother had to hold
onto prior to her burial was her hand. The consequences of these
crashes will continue if the Stop Underrides Act of 2019 is not passed.
But, it does not stop with the victims or survivors. Why? Because the
truck driver and truck company also become victims of an underride
crash.
Truck Driver and Truck Companies Are Victims of Underride Crashes Too
When the truck driver is at fault, he or she suffers with a career-
ending criminal vehicular homicide or felony vehicular assault criminal
charges. These charges frequently result in jailtime. If the truck
driver is the financial provider for his or her spouse and children,
the economic consequences to the truck driver's family can lead to
poverty and dependency.
If the truck driver is lucky enough not to be found at fault, the
truck driver still often suffers the mental health consequences and
psychological trauma associated with being an integral part of such a
horrific crash. This, too, may result in the end of a professional
driving career for the truck driver with unfortunate economic
consequences to the driver and family.
The truck company then likely encounters a civil lawsuit. The
fatalities and catastrophic injuries associated with underride crashes
typically produce seven to eight figure verdicts, all exceeding minimum
insurance requirements. Truck companies are thereafter saddled with
paying judgments in excess of insurance coverage. Smaller truck
companies must sell assets and/or file for bankruptcy. Everyone loses
in an underride truck crash, the truck company and truck driver
included.
I would like to recognize and commend House Representative,
Subcommittee Member, Steve Cohen (D-TN) for introducing the Stop
Underrides Act on March 5, 2019 which has been assigned to this very
important Committee and Subcommittee. I'd like to also recognize each
of the co-sponsors and urge others to become a co-sponsor of this bill.
I am equally grateful to Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Marco
Rubio (R-FL) for introducing the Senate version (S. 665). This bill
will save lives and truck driver livelihoods. I am hopeful that the
content of my written and oral testimony will open hearts and minds of
trucking industry stakeholders allowing for a new perspective on why
this bill makes common sense and is a simple fix to saving lives. This
debate began over 60 years ago and arguably longer than that. This
decades long problem deserves a fair and open discussion allowing for
an end with passage of this bill.
Science and Data Exists to Support Passage of the Stop Underrides Act
The ATA wrote a March 15, 2019 letter to this Committee about this
bill stating that it is ``committed to the goal of accident and
fatality-free highways.'' The ATA further states that this bill ``is
not based on science, data or safety benefit.'' I submit to you that
ATA is NOT accurate with this statement and fails to consider all of
the science, data and safety benefit that underride guards provide. I
welcome this particular topic as a point of debate during the panel
question and answer session during this Hearing to truly explore all of
the science, data, and safety not considered by the ATA's statement.
Specifically, the goal of the Stop Underrides Act is to allow for
``vehicle crash compatibility'' between cars and trucks. Again, vehicle
crash compatibility is the academic speak that the bumpers of the two
vehicles (car vs. truck or truck vs. car) must match up! Why? So that
an ordinary car's energy absorbing bumpers and crumple zones can
actually do the job that they were intended to do when original
equipment manufacturers' engineers and design teams go to NHTSA or the
IIHS to have the vehicles tested for crash worthiness. If we all pause
to consider how much money has gone into the research and development
of vehicle crash worthiness, including seatbelts and airbags, then we
come to the clear conclusion that the science and data exists.
Moreover, the true science and data that must be considered when
discussing this bill is all of the science and data extracted from
every single crash test performed weekly over the past decades. For
instance, when the IIHS gives a ``good rating'' a ``top safety pick''
or determines a car has ``superior-rated front crash prevention'' it
presumes one very important fact, that the bumpers match up. Most all
of the crash tests performed are into a barrier or another car
presuming the bumper will be the first point of impact. If we were to
take each of the ``top rated'' safety picks for vehicles and performed
crash tests of those same vehicles into the side of a commercial
trailers, then we will all see that the science and data that has gone
into protecting the occupants of the car will literally and
figuratively go out the window producing gruesome results. I
respectfully recommend that this Subcommittee invite all of the
scientists and engineers that work for auto manufacturers to come here
to discuss the millions, if not billions of dollars, cumulatively spent
to design the safest passenger vehicles in the world. At that hearing
you should ask how their safest vehicles will perform in a low-speed
underride crash test into the side of a commercial trailer. I have no
doubt that those scientists and engineers will tell you that the
science and data does exist and mandates the passage of the Stop
Underrides Act of 2019.
Interestingly, the ATA issued a ``A Brief Look at the Far Horizon''
Technology & Maintenance Council report in 2002, seventeen years ago,
predicting ``underride regulations for single-unit trucks (``SUTs'') by
2005 and ``frontal aggressivity regulations and side underride
regulations'' by 2006.\2\ Here we are now, in 2019 and SUTs are still
under the woefully inadequate 1953 regulation and front and side
underride regulations have not yet been realized (see further
historical discussion below and Appendix A). In addition, the NTSB has
recommended front, side, improved rear underride regulations for
single-unit trucks as well as tractor trailers.\3\ In fact, Europe,
Australia, Japan, India, and Saudi Arabia all have Front Underrun
Protection (``FUP'') standards. Many U.S. truck manufacturers have an
international presence--installing FUP on trucks purchased in other
countries, but not in our country. Why is that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The American Trucking Associations, Technology & Maintenance
Council (TMC), Future Truck Committee Information Report: 2002-1, A
Brief Look at the Far Horizon--An Exploration of What's to Come for
Trucking, Issued November 2002.
\3\ National Transportation Safety Board, Office of Highway Safety,
Heavy Truck Aggressivity, Office of Research and Engineering. https://
www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/hampshire_il-
Heavy%20Truck%20Aggressivity.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twelve Million Unsafe Trailers
In 2016, trailer OEMs reported that ``[n]ew trailer orders in the
United States reached 315,000, the second-highest annual total'' and
that orders were down in comparison to ``2014's record total'' of more
than 356,000 new trailers.\4\ Trailer orders are projected to have a
record-setting year for 324,000 trailers in 2019, up from 323,000
trailers in 2018.\5\ All of these new commercial trailers were added to
the 11.7 million registered trailers in existence as reported by the
Federal Highway Administration in 2012.\6\ Combining all new trailer
orders with currently registered trailers puts the total number of
commercial trailers in the United States at well over 12 million.\7\
This represents over 12 million potential opportunities for an
underride crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The American Trucking Associations, Transport Topics, Trailer
Shipments Set Record as 2015 Orders Stay Strong, by Roger W. Gilroy,
Page 1, Week of February 1, 2016.
\5\ FreightWaves, Truck Trailer Orders Down in February, but
Analysists Predict Another Record Year, https://www.freightwaves.com/
news/trucking/trailer-orders-drop-for-third-straight-month
\6\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2012/
mv11.cfm See also the American Trucking Associations' February 5, 2016
Comment on the pending NPRM Docket No. 2015-0118 Rear Impact Guards,
Rear Impact Protection. Note: as referenced in the ATA comment, many of
these trailers are not used on a regular basis.
\7\ According to the U.S. Census, the State of Ohio has a
population of 11,594,163. The State of Pennsylvania has a population of
12,787,209. The population of these states provides a basis of
comparison to show the magnitude of what the number of registered
trailers in the United States truly represents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interstate Highway System is 46,875 miles long.\8\ When one
calculates the number of registered trailers per mile of the Interstate
Highway System, this equates to over 250 registered commercial trailers
for every mile of Interstate Highway. Average daily truck volume
reaches up to 50,000 trucks on much of the Interstate Highway System
East of the Mississippi River.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.cfm#question3
\9\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, Office of Freight Management and Operations, Freight
Analysis Framework, ``Estimated Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic.''
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/
docs/06factsfigures/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With roughly 300,000 new trailers being produced annually and with
12 million registered trailers in existence, this tells you the life of
a trailer is inordinately long. Most in the industry will likely agree
that the life of a new trailer can exceed 15 years. Each year we wait
to mandate underride guards, the more the danger of catastrophic
underride crashes will exist for decades to come.
According to the recent study published by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, a truck underride crash likely happens more
often than the Department of Transportation's data suggests.\10\ The
GAO recommends, among other things, that NHTSA ``conduct additional
research on side underride guards to better understand the overall
effectiveness and cost associated with these guards, and if warranted,
develop standards for their implementation.'' \11\ A simple analysis,
as is performed below, demonstrates that indeed the costs are low and
implementation is warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Government Accountability Office, ``Truck Underride
Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed.''
https://www.gao.gov/product/GAO-19-264, April 15, 2019.
\11\ Id. at https://www.gao.gov/product_recommendations/GAO-19-264
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 60 Cents/Day/Trailer Cost for Underride Protection
The cost argument raised by the ATA, OOIDA and others in opposition
to the Stop Underrides Act of 2019 must be taken into perspective. By
way of example, an AngelWing Side Underride Guard, manufactured by
AirFlow Deflector, costs about $2,900.00, which includes shipping
anywhere in the US or Canada. The total cost of a new trailer is
roughly $50,000.00. The new cost of a trailer with an underride guard,
at the upper limit, is an additional 6% of the total cost of the
trailer. I state that this cost is at the upper limit because this is
the cost for an aftermarket underride guard. If the guard were mass
produced with the trailer, the cost is likely a lot less. Keep in mind
that depreciation tax incentives take care of the cost for the new
equipment for the purchaser, too. Consider the cost offset with the
savings brought with the fuel efficiency because the trailer guard also
comes with a fuel-efficient skirt.\12\ Consider also the cost offset
that insurance underwriters should credit to a truck company for having
underride protection a trailer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ We see fuel efficiency skirts on most trailers on the highway
now. Make no mistake, there is no barrier or robust structure behind
these fuel efficiency skirts. They are flimsy and a car can easily go
without resistance through them, much as a dog goes through a dog door.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must consider the life of a trailer. As discussed above, the
life of a trailer is at least 15 years. Consider the $2,900.00 cost of
an aftermarket side guard and then divide it by 15 years, or 5,475
days, representing the number of days the trailer is in operation. The
result is a cost of less than 60 cents per day, per trailer.
Revenue/Mile Versus Cost Analysis
To put this into further perspective, revenue generated while the
trailer is hauling freight covers the cost of the Underride Guard in
the first mile the trailer is hauling goods. This past week, I asked my
neighbor who runs and owns a freight broker company, what is ``the
cheapest'' rate to run freight from the East Coast to the West Coast?
His response was a very low charge for a brokered ``van'' type trailer
is $1.15 to $1.20 per mile. The average revenue for a brokered flatbed
is $1.90 per mile. Keep in mind this is a broker rate, so the customer
is likely paying more.
A truck company with direct customer relationship (no broker or
middle person) has revenue for vans of at least $2.00 per mile. A good
day's revenue on a truck and trailer is between 400-500 miles of
driving in one drive period. Regardless of the number of miles the
trailer is driven in one drive period, the underride guard cost at 60
cents a day pays for itself with the revenue earned in the first one-
half mile of driving each day. Essentially, the trailer guard is paid
for on each daily run before it is conceivably driven from a shipper's
doorstep to the nearest highway.
Revenue/Week Versus Cost Analysis
If an underride guard costs 60 cents per day, that equates to $4.20
per week. A truck company looks to earn revenue for a van type trailer
of $3,500.00 per week. Doing the math further, the cost of an underride
guard is 1/100th of 1% of the total weekly revenue for a trailer.
60 Cents vs. Another 60 Years Without an Underride Guard Mandate
At one time, the public seemed oblivious to the dangers of
underride truck crashes. Fortunately the IIHS crash test videos and
videos from other underride crash tests have been utilized by
television media and social media bringing greater public awareness to
this issue. The threat of underride crashes to the public is now
becoming known. For decades, government regulators, original equipment
manufacturers and the trucking industry have remained idle on this
issue without meaningfully addressing it. The websites of Marianne
Karth and Lois Durso, which are dedicated to their daughters' memory,
reflects the astonishment and disbelief that not much has been done to
protect against the horrors associated with underride truck
crashes.\13\ Their astonishment now turned into action here on Capitol
Hill leading to this day and a consideration of all truck safety
issues, including the Stop Underrides Act of 2019. Marianne Karth's
efforts and Lois Durso and Jennifer Tierney and the memory of their
loved ones, will hopefully be realized by an open understanding that
this is a cheap and easy way to achieve the ``Vision Zero'' goal of
reducing fatalities on our nation's roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.annaleahmary.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to legislative action by Members of this Congress, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the
regulatory authority to mandate that adequate protective guards be
installed by OEMs. NHTSA is well aware of the problems presented by
vehicle crash incompatibility and the need to prevent underride crashes
as evidenced by its study focused on occupant compartment deformation
and occupant injury.\14\ However, NHTSA remains slow to enact
meaningful regulation, whereas the European Union and many other
nations (United Kingdom, Brazil, Japan, Australia, and China) have
surpassed the U.S. in regulatory requirements for rear guards, front
underride protection, and side underride guards.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Eigen, A.M.: Glassbrenner, D., Mathematical Analysis Division,
National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The
Relationship Between Occupant Compartment Deformation and Occupant
Injury, DOT HS 809 676, November, 2003.
\15\ United Nations Economic Commission for Europe ECE Regulation
No. 73, Lateral Protection; United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe ECE Regulation No. 93, Front Underrun Protection; and United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe ECE Regulation No. 58 for Rear
Underrun Protection. http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs41-
60.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. first enacted rear underride guard standard on CMVs in
1953. This standard mandated rear guards for trucks manufactured after
December 31, 1952.\16\ This early standard required rear guards to have
maximum ground clearance of 30 inches. Guards were not required if the
rear axle/wheel setback was 24 inches or less from the rear of the
CMV's cargo bed. This regulation mandated rear guards for both single-
unit trucks and combination tractor-trailers. This standard included no
strength testing requirements for the rear guards. So, as a result, the
rear bars simply existed visually and easily folded under in a crash
without really preventing underride or PCI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Blower, D. Woodrooffe, J., Page, O., University of Michigan
Transportation Research Institute; on behalf of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office
of Applied Vehicle Safety, Analysis of Rear Underride in Fatal Crashes,
2008, DOT HS 811 652, August, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single-unit trucks (``SUTs''), more commonly known as ``box
trucks'' or ``straight trucks,'' likewise present the risk of an
underride truck crash due to the higher vehicle profile. These trucks
are not a ``combination'' of a tractor and a trailer with an
articulating section that requires more space for turning and backing.
SUTs are typically found in construction and/or urban settings because
they are shorter and allow for tighter maneuverability. Urban settings
also present more challenges, not only with greater vehicle congestion,
but more bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 360 degree lower-profile
protection / guards are necessary on all CMVs to protect bicyclist,
motorcyclists, pedestrians and to prevent vehicle underride.
Forty-five years after the 1953 rule, NHTSA promulgated an updated
rear underride guard standard that became effective in 1998. The new
rule required the following: rear guard ground clearance to be no more
than 22 inches and strength testing requirements. Guards are not
required if rear wheel setbacks are no more than 12 inches from the end
of the cargo bed. The 1998 standard is for combination tractor-trailers
only.\17\ Meaningful regulations have yet to become standard for SUTs
which still operate under the 1953 standard. Please see Appendix A for
a comprehensive historical chronology addressing the issues of truck
underride regulation.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ NHTSA, FMVSS: Rear Impact Protection; Final rule. Federal
Register; Vol 61, p. 2004, January 24, 1996. Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards 223 and 224: 49 C.F.R. Section 571.223 Standard No.
223; Rear impact guards. 49 C.F.R. Section 571.224 Standard No. 224;
Rear impact protection.
\18\ This historical chronology addressing Truck Underride from
1953 to present was put together by Andrew R. Young (who served as a
Moderator of the May 5, 2014 Underride Roundtable and as a Moderator of
the August, 2017 Underride Roundtable II) in collaboration with IIHS
representatives and the Executive Director of the Truck Safety
Coalition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeated Calls for Underride Protection
As can be seen in the decades long chronology for addressing truck
underride, both the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (``IIHS'')
and the National Transportation Safety Board (``NTSB'') have repeatedly
called upon NHTSA to implement better underride protection standards.
In the past eight (8) years, a 2011 crash-test analysis by the IIHS
demonstrated that underride guards on tractor-trailers continue to fail
in low-speed crashes in spite of the 1998 regulatory standard.\19\ \20\
In 2011, IIHS petitioned NHTSA for improvements for underride
protection.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The American Trucking Associations, Transport Topics,
Insurance Group Cites Concerns on Underride Guards, March 1, 2011.
\20\ Brumbelow, M.L. and Blanar, L., ``Evaluation of US Rear
Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks Using Real-World Crashes.''
Stapp Car Crash Journal 54:119-131, 2010.
\21\ Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2011, ``Petition for
Rulemaking; 49 C.F.R. Section 571 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standards; Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection.'' Arlington, VA
https://www.iihs.org/laws/petitions/pdf/petition_2011-02-28.pdf The
petition requested, among other things, a lower guard clearance from 22
inches and an inclusion of SUTs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a letter dated April 3, 2014, the NTSB urged NHTSA to take
action by improving rear underride protection systems. The NTSB letter
even went one step further, requesting that newly manufactured trailers
be equipped with ``side underride protection systems that will reduce
underride and injuries to passenger vehicle occupants.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Hersman, Deborah A.P., Chair, National Transportation Safety
Board, Safety Recommendations, H-14-001 through -007, letter to the
Honorable David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, page 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 5, 2014, Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition
(``TSC'') hand-delivered a petition for rule making which asked NHTSA
to improve the safety of rear underride guards on trailers and SUTs.
Marianne Karth and TSC also requested rulemaking to prevent side
underride and front override truck collisions. On July 10, 2015, NHTSA
granted, in part, the petition and planned on issuing two separate
notices--``an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to rear
impact guards and other strategies for single unit trucks, and a notice
of proposed rulemaking on rear impact guards on trailers and
semitrailers.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Grant of Petition of Rulemaking; 49 C.F.R. Section 571
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact
Protection, Federal Register Number 2014-16018. https://
www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0080-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Rulemaking for Single Unit Trucks
On July 23, 2015, NHTSA issued the ``Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks.'' \24\ The
agency's summary confirms that this rulemaking would respond to
Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition's petition and also, in
part, respond to the earlier petition for rulemaking by the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety.\25\ A Google search of ``Docket ID:
NHTSA-2015-0070'' can easily allow for a review of the rule and the
seventy-three (proponent and opponent) comments made by various
interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0070, Rear Impact Protection,
Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, Single Unit
Trucks. https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=25;dct=PS;D=NHTSA-2015-0070
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OEMs and several trade associations are among the strongest
opponents, citing arguments that many SUTs need to have ``good off road
mobility at construction sites'' or ``hitch connections'' and therefore
cannot have rear impact protection. Specifically, a rear guard would
interfere with the work the truck must perform.\26\ A review of the
Federal Register suggests that NHTSA seems to adopt the opposition
arguments that underride guards would not be cost effective on SUTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based upon my own research and travel (twice) overseas to ``The
Commercial Vehicle Show'' in Birmingham, England, opposition against
rear underride guards on SUTs must be met with severe skepticism. In
2015, I personally took photographs of many European CMVs that have
rear underride guard protection on trucks like dump trucks and box
trucks with lift gates. I am happy to share these photographs with
Members at the conclusion of the Hearing. There was even a vendor at
this trade show who displayed rear impact bars that allow for manual
adjustment of the guard so that it can be moved up and down as needed.
I also videoed this vendor demonstrating how one of the guards can be
manipulated and locked into upward and downward positions. By manually
adjusting the guard upward, it allows for a construction vehicle to
encounter low ground clearances or lift the guard out of the way so
that it does not interfere with a tow hitch when towing a trailer with
equipment or materials. Likewise, other photos taken show how rear
guards can easily be integrated with lift gates.
The U.S. lags far behind other developed nations. Hopefully, this
Congress and NHTSA are not too easily swayed by opposition to allow for
meaningful regulations for rear impact protection on SUTs. I submitted
the aforementioned photographs and many of the same arguments in a
``public comment'' in support of the rulemaking.\27\ T3The agency just
withdrew this regulatory action this month. This is confounding and
unconscionable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The photographs I took can be found with my public comment to
the rulemaking at this link, https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0075
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Rulemaking to Update Rear Guards on Tractor-Trailers
On December 16, 2015, NHTSA issued the ``Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Upgrade Underride'' to enhance strength testing requirements
of the 1998 standard to improve rear impact protection for trailers and
semitrailers.\28\ Again, the agency's summary confirms that this
rulemaking would respond, in part, to petitions filed by IIHS, the
Truck Safety Coalition, and Marianne Karth.\29\ A Google search of
``Docket ID: NHTSA-2015-0118'' will allow for a review of the rule and
the thirty-four public comments, virtually all of which are in support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0118, NPRM Upgrade Underride.
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=NHTSA-
2015-0118
\29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the rulemaking summary, the agency states that the new rule
would upgrade the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that address
rear underride protection in crashes into semitrailers.\30\ More
specifically, the stated goal of this rulemaking is to harmonize the
U.S. standard with the existing 2004 Canadian underride guard strength
testing requirements (from 30mph crash protection to 35 mph crash
protection).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0118, NPRM Upgrade Underride.
https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0001
\31\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A review of the comments demonstrates very little opposition
because OEMs already meet the 15-year-old Canadian standard. The lack
of opposition highlights the fact that NHTSA is seemingly not
interested in challenging OEMS to come up with a better and safer
underride solution, such as a guard that protects against a 40 mph
crash. The agency has taken no further regulatory action.
2016 Truck Underride Roundtable & the ``ToughGuard'' Award
To help incentivize underride protection beyond regulatory
minimums, the IIHS, TSC, and Anna Leah & Mary for Truck Safety hosted
the first ever ``Truck Underride Roundtable'' on May 5, 2016. IIHS's
Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia served as the host
facility.
The aftermath of the first Truck Underride Rountable motivated
trailer manufacturers to offer improvements to rear guards. As of
October 1, 2018, all eight (8) major trailer manufacturers have passed
IIHS tests exceeding regulatory standards and passed the IIHS 30%
overlap, 35mph test.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The test performed was a ``30% overlap, offset at 35mph''
crash test. 100% ``overlap'' no ``offset'' is when 100% of the car's
bumper from the right side to the left side, interacts squarely with
100% of the back of the rear guard, again from right to left. In a
real-world crash, however, the driver often attempts to steer away from
the truck at the last minute. Assuming the car driver steers left, then
only 50% or 30% of the right side of the passenger car's bumper
interacts (``overlaps'' or ``offsets'') with 50% of or 30% of the left
portion of the rear guard. Past IIHS testing showed the majority of
trailer manufacturers failed to prevent underride in offset crashes.
Passenger compartment intrusion would occur along just one side of the
car. Frequently, occupants not effected by the passenger compartment
intrusion (particularly at lower speeds) can suffer no injury at all
while those effected by the PCI can produce fatal consequences or
catastrophic injuries. Trailer manufacturer engineers have worked
toward preventing PCI even in these ``offset'' impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IIHS announced the ``ToughGuard'' award and presented this accolade
to each trailer manufacturer that passed the test.\33\ The ``ToughGuard
winners have rear guards that prevent underride of a midsize car in
three test modes: full-width, 50 percent overlap and 30 percent
overlap.'' \34\ Stoughton Trailers, LLC has taken it a step further and
announced a retroactive kit that is now available for purchase and
meets IIHS requirements. This aftermarket kit can be installed on its
trailers dating back to 2007.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Press Release, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway
Loss Data Institute, ``IIHS Recognizes Semitrailers with Good Underride
Guards,'' by Russ Rader, Senior Vice President, http://www.iihs.org/
iihs/news/desktopnews/iihs-recognizes-semitrailers-with-good-underride-
guards
\34\ Id.
\35\ Stoughton's improved rear guard probably saved the life of
Terry S. Rivet on March 2, 2017. The tractor trailer jackknifed on
slippery conditions on Interstate 90, and his car hit the rear of the
trailer when that happened, but it prevented passenger car intrusion
and the head injuries and deaths that otherwise would have occurred.
Stoughton is an American owned company that builds its trailers in
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly after the announcement of the ``ToughGuard'' award, trailer
manufacturers Hyundai Translead, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., and
Strick Trailers, LLC approached the IIHS to set up crash tests to prove
that their trailers likewise meet IIHS rear impact guard (``RIG'')
standards. IIHS publicly announced on September 27, 2018 that Strick
Trailers, LLC was the last of the three remaining trailer manufacturers
to pass the IIHS RIG standards. All eight (8) major trailer
manufacturers represent approximately 80% of the trailers on U.S.
roadways.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Press Release, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway
Loss Data Institute, ``All Major Trialer Makers Earn IIHS Award for
Good Underride Protection,'' by Russ Rader, Senior Vice President,
https://m.iihs.org/mobilenews/all-major-trailer-makers-earn-iihs-award-
for-good-underride-protection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 Truck Underride Roundtable 2 & the AngelWing SUG
For the first time, on March 30, 2017, IIHS tested a Side Underride
Guard (``SUG''). The SUG inventor is Perry Ponder, a mechanical
engineer from Tallahassee, Florida. The SUG brand name is the
AngelWing. The company promoting the AngelWing is AirFlow Deflector
with its principal place of business in Montreal, Canada. The March
30th 35 mph test with the SUG was a success. The very next day, on
March 31, 2017, the IIHS performed a 35 mph test without the SUG. This
test showed catastrophic results, sheering the top of the mid-size
Chevy Malibu off the length of the vehicle all the way to the backseat.
I personally attended both tests.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Please go to this link to watch these test https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHNIhh8NsFs
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 29, 2017, ``Truck Underride Roundtable 2'' was held and
sponsored by the same entities as the first Truck Underride Roundtable.
Those in attendance witnessed a 40 mph test of the AngelWing SUG. The
test was a success. I participated as a member of the organizing
committee for both Truck Underride Roundtables and as a Moderator at
both as well. The focus of this Underride Roundtable was on SUGs,
instead of the previous year's focus on rear impact guards. It was
hoped that information from this event and the results of the SUG crash
test would similarly encourage trailer manufacturers in the direction
of adding side SUGs to their trailers. Wabash did introduce a prototype
trailer with a lighter weight and cheaper SUG, but it is unknown if
this is available for consumer purchase. I hope that Wabash and others
trailer manufacturers have approached the IIHS to test their SUGs. At
worst, the entire trucking industry can no longer feign ignorance of
the catastrophic consequences of a collision resulting in occupant
compartment intrusion. If trailer manufacturers are so keen to go
beyond minimum compliance to protect the rear of the trailer from an
underride, then why not the sides too?
Conclusion on Comments on the Stop Underrides Act of 2019
Truck drivers and truck companies should demand meaningful
underride guards from trailer manufacturers. When the first point of
impact is a car's windshield and thereafter the occupants' bodies
inside, then the insurance minimums are incapable of protecting the
truck company and truck drivers from potential exposure beyond
insurance limits. Legislators must join safety advocates to encourage a
demand for safer underride protection or help to push meaningful
legislative or regulatory change that can finally put to rest the over
60 years of inaction by the industry. Vehicle crash compatibility
(making the car bumpers match up with the truck's side, front, and
rear) is the only way for a car's safety features to protect occupants
when that car collides with a heavy commercial motor vehicle. I urge
all Subcommittee Members join in supporting the Stop Underrides Act of
2019 to end 60 years of these preventable crashes.
Truck Drivers Benefit from an Increase in Insurance Minimums
The primary threat to a truck driver's life on the road is an
unsafe or negligent truck driver. A 4,000 pound car hitting a truck
will likely not cause the truck driver to lose his or her life.
However, an 80,000 pound truck that causes a truck versus truck crash
can cause the loss of a truck driver's life. As aforementioned, truck
occupant deaths increased significantly over the last reported year. In
fact, I just recently settled a case on behalf of a truck driver's
family. The truck driver unfortunately burned alive and died in his
truck cab because another truck driver was doing something incredibly
and admittedly unsafe. Fortunately, the offending truck driver and
truck company were from Canada and had enough insurance to net a $3.5
Million U.S. Dollar result for my truck driver client's family.
Increasing insurance minimums will protect the truck driver and his
family because the limits from 1980 are truly not enough to protect
those catastrophically killed or injured in a truck crash. Moreover,
increasing insurance minimums will also protect the taxpayer. In the 8-
figure type catastrophic scenario, someone has to pick up the medical
costs for anything beyond the insurance minimums. The negligent truck
company's insurance should be that party, not the public, because that
will directly incentivize safer trucking operations.
Interestingly, the Owner-Operators Independent Drivers Association
(``OOIDA'') represents members that belong to one of two groups. The
majority of the membership are the true Owner-Operator, someone who
simply owns a tractor only. This Owner-Operator cannot hold himself or
herself out as a for-hire motor carrier without motor carrier
authority. As such, the majority of OOIDA's members are leased-on to a
larger motor carrier under FMCSR 376.12. It is the larger motor carrier
that must provide the insurance when the leased-on Owner-Operator is
hauling freight in either the motor carrier's own trailers or a
customer's trailer. The Owner-Operator then benefits when he or she is
leased-on to a motor carrier that has more than the minimum insurance.
Not only is he or she protected, but his or her equipment is protected
under the blanket of a larger insurance policy. Similarly, and not
aforementioned, the Owner-Operator would also benefit if the leased-on
motor carrier's trailer has underride guards. Both the costs of the
underride guard and the increased insurance does not fall on the back
of the Owner-Operator, but onto the motor carrier to whom he or she is
leased-on.
OOIDA's other group of members are smaller truck companies with
motor carrier authority. These people are particularly vulnerable to
civil liability verdicts that exceed insurance minimums because they
are ``mom and pop'' type operations without deep pockets or significant
assets. They typically do not have the ability to pay for catastrophic
claims in the event that one of their drivers causes an underride
crash, catastrophic injury, or fatality that exceeds minimum insurance.
Increasing insurance minimums will further protect them from financial
ruin. I doubt that we will hear OOIDA take this stance because OOIDA
writes insurance policies typically just above the insurance minimum at
$1,000,000.00. OOIDA also profits from writing these policies. OOIDA's
insurance arm likely does not want increased insurance minimums. I am
hopeful that Subcommittee Members will address this topic during the
question answer session so that OOIDA's representative and I can have a
friendly debate on this issue. I hope to persuade OOIDA to change their
stance in opposition to insurance minimums and that Subcommittee
Members will keep in mind the various hats that the OOIDA
representative wears when providing testimony on this issue on behalf
of its varied membership.
The minimum insurance level set in 1980 for general freight motor
carriers is $750,000.00 per accident. This insurance minimum, untouched
since the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 was enacted by Congress, has never
been adjusted to keep pace with inflation and is now completely
inadequate. Had the $750,000 limit automatically increased each year
for inflation, today minimum insurance coverage for trucking operations
would be about $2,400,000.00.\38\ Most truck companies have not
increased their insurance coverage with inflation and, instead, carry
about $1,000,000.00 in coverage. That is not enough. While responsible
companies and drivers carry much more than $1,000,000.00 in coverage,
too many companies do not. The insurance minimum covers all persons
injured in the crash, and the current $750,000.00 is woefully
inadequate in cases involving serious medical injury. This is
especially true in crashes involving multiple vehicles which can result
in catastrophic injuries and even deaths.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Determined using the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ``CPI Inflation Calculator'' at https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/cpicalc.pl
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take into consideration an unsafe truck driver that causes a multi-
vehicle crash that results in four (4) fatalities or more. The minimum
insurance does very little for these innocent victims' families. In
fact, broker/shippers then shoulder the burden of these multi-fatality
crashes because the truck driver who killed these four people was
presumably an unsafe driver or driving for an unsafe company that
should not have been hired. Moreover, the public CSA data likely showed
this company held Out-of-Service rates that exceeded national averages,
so the broker/shipper had no business hiring such a truck company in
the first place, unless they had an economic incentive to do so.
In 2014, the FMCSA released a report to Congress that examined the
adequacy of the current financial responsibility requirements for motor
carriers. The conclusion was clear: today, the costs of injuries and
fatalities arising from crashes far exceeds the minimum insurance
levels interstate operators are required to carry. These costs are real
and are often in the form of the cost of medical care, which in the
case of a catastrophic injury is shifted from the negligent wrongdoer
to the taxpayer funded programs such as Medicare or Social Security
Disability. Worse yet, when there is insufficient compensation,
families, including truck drivers, are forced to declare bankruptcy or
rely on government programs after being financially drained.
Lastly, raising the trucking insurance minimums will give insurance
companies real incentives to enforce safety, with the effect of
providing crash victims better compensation for their injuries. This
includes truck drivers who I have repeatedly stated are victims of
truck crashes too!
I urge this Subcommittee to require the FMCSA to reinstate its
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPRM'') to increase the
minimum financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers. Or,
as an alternative, members of the Subcommittee can direct the Secretary
of Transportation to take immediate action to index the minimum level
to inflation, which can be accomplished without a rulemaking.
A ``National Hiring Standard'' for Broker/Shippers is Misleading
As the title of this Hearing indicates, truck drivers and the
trucking industry are ``Under Pressure.'' In reality, while the
proposed national hiring standard sounds like it is pro-safety, it is
deceptive and dangerous and will neither enhance interstate commerce
nor truly create a ``national hiring standard.'' It disguises the
indemnification of broker/shippers as the creation of a national safety
standard. The ``standards'' offered contain no safety performance data
and restrict those who have been adversely impacted in a truck crash,
including truck drivers.
An increase in ``pressure on the State of Trucking in America''
would be to create a ``national hiring standard'' that further
insulates broker/shippers from the responsibility of making sure their
freight is shipped safely. A cheap motor carrier offers lower freight
rates simply because they are skimping somewhere to keep their profit
margins. Skimping anywhere usually implies safety is the first to be
sacrificed. They use worn out equipment, undertrained drivers, and
dangerous drivers. It is frequently the demands of the brokers/shippers
to get freight to its destination ``on time'' that creates the
pressures discussed at this Hearing. All of us in this room and all of
the constituents represented by the Members of this Subcommittee are
somewhat guilty of hitting the ``next day shipping'' button on the
website vendor's payment and shipment page, further putting pressure on
truck drivers and truck companies. Insulating broker/shippers from
liability will increase the danger on the roads by allowing them to put
further pressure on trucking companies to reduce costs and race to the
delivery point in time without having any responsibility for choosing
the cheapest, fastest carriers. This perpetuates the risks to the truck
driver and the motoring public. Broker/shippers are not subject to the
FMCSRs the same way as a truck driver and motor carrier. It is
unfortunate as many truck drivers and truck companies violate the
FMCSRs just to keep the relationship with the broker/shippers. In this
scenario, ``the customer is always right'' does not apply. It is
frequently the broker/shippers that ask, encourage, or coerce truck
drivers and truck companies to violate safety policy. If the trucking
company will not compromise its safety practices with cheaper
equipment, cheaper drivers and faster driving, the broker/shipper just
picks a competitor who will--which spirals safety on the roads downward
and puts responsible trucking companies at an unfair competitive
disadvantage. We cannot encourage broker/shippers by immunizing them
from liability which would allow them to push truck drivers and truck
companies even harder to haul freight unsafely.
Broker/shippers are third-party intermediaries responsible for
hiring the companies and the drivers who transport goods on our
highways. The broker/shippers do not own the goods that are being
transported, nor do they physically transport the goods. Instead, the
broker/shipper facilitates and coordinates the shipment of goods in
various capacities, including hiring the truckers providing transport.
In many instances, the broker/shipper will choose the cheapest option,
hiring independent contractors and fly-by-night companies with horrible
safety records. These contractors frequently disappear or declare
bankruptcy when a lawsuit is filed. Immunizing the third-party broker/
shipper, which is sometimes the only party that can be held responsible
for any wrongdoing in the shipping process, shifts responsibility to
the underinsured truckers and leaves motorists hurt or killed on the
road without sufficient remedy or recovery. This arrangement shifts the
burden of the loss onto the taxpayers through government programs or
increased health insurance rates.
The broker/shippers have been asking Congress to establish a so-
called ``national hiring standard.'' This would be a mistake,
essentially providing immunity to the broker/shipper who meets a
meaningless set of criteria with respect to hiring a trucking company.
The criteria are meaningless because they are already required by law
and because the safety fitness determination program is seemingly non-
existent. The ``national hiring standard'' proposal does not create any
new standards to determine if trucks are safe, but instead uses the old
FMCSA standards that are ``outdated'' to avoid liability.
Indeed, no process exists right now for a safety determination
rating because the FMCSA rulemaking that would have established the
standard has been dropped. This makes the public information on the
Compliance, Safety, Accountability/Safety Measurement System, FMCSA
website, all the more relevant. Congress should not bury a motor
carrier's safety score from public view. Instead, the public and
broker/shippers should easily be able to see a motor carrier's true
scores and make wise decisions based on them. Moreover, if a truck
driver is intending to apply for a job with a motor carrier, he or she
should also be able to see the public safety scores of the truck
company he or she is applying to work for so he or she can make an
informed choice to choose to work for a safe trucking company. The safe
trucking companies, which are the majority, should also encourage CSA/
SMS scores to remain public for all of these same reasons.
The so-called ``national hiring standard'' does not increase safety
standards or ensure that trucks are safe. Instead it's an immunity
provision that further erodes public safety.
Speed Limiters Reduce Crash Risk and Saves Money
Since truck drivers are typically paid by the mile, there is a
strong incentive to drive too fast. In my home State of Ohio,
Legislators are incorporating into the budget a possible increase of
the speed on Ohio's highways to 75 mph. Of note, it has been reported
that the Ohio Trucking Association is behind the push for the speed
limit increase. Why? Because the new electronic logging device
(``ELD'') mandate makes it harder to distort on hours-of-service
(``HOS'') requirements. Per mile compensation always encouraged unsafe
truck drivers to falsify logs and go farther and get the extra pay by
mile. Now that it is harder to distort the HOS with the ELD mandate,
unsafe truck drivers are incentivized to make up the difference by
driving faster to achieve more miles and more pay.
High speeds are a significant contributing factor to high fatality
rates on our nation's roads. Consider the fact that NHTSA and the IIHS
only crash test vehicles at 45 mph or less. The human body cannot
sustain crashes at higher speeds. Just ask NHTSA and IIHS why they do
not crash test at higher speeds? Their answer will likely be similar.
An increase in speed limits on highways does not make any sense because
even the safest vehicles will not protect occupants. Yet state by state
speed limits are increasing throughout the country. With increased
speeds on our nation's roadways, we have 80,000-pound trucks driving at
increased speeds too. Unfortunately, I regularly see truck drivers
tweet photographs onto social media platforms showing their truck's
speedometer topping out above 80 mph. Not only is the truck driver
speeding, he or she is recklessly taking photographs and tweeting about
it too!
My truck is an older, classic Peterbilt. I have it deliberately
governed at a maximum speed that is less than the 70 mph Ohio's
highways allow. I will tell you from a truck driver's perspective,
there is no reason to go 70 mph or greater unless there is an economic
incentive to do so. Unfortunately, that equates to a disincentive for
the safety of the truck driver and the motoring public.
On September 28, 2016, both the FMCSA and NHTSA filed an NPRM
requiring the installation of speed limiting devices in heavy
vehicles.\39\ A comment period elicited over 2,250 comments debating
the merits of the proposal and to garner feedback as to whether speeds
should be limited to 60, 65, or 68 mph.\40\ The rulemaking was a
response to petitions from the ATA and Roadsafe America. It is
estimated that limiting truck speeds will prevent 1,115 fatal truck
crashes annually.\41\ Both agencies have taken no further regulatory
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0188, https//www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=NHTSA.2016-0087
\40\ ``Suggesting 60-68 mph, FMCSA, NHTSA propose truck speed
limiters'' FleetOwner, August 26, 2016, www.//m.fleetowner.com/
regulations/suggesting-60-68-mph-fmcsa-nhtsa-propose-truck-speed-
limiters
\41\ Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0188, https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NHTSA-2016-0087
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no cost to speed limit a truck. In fact, most larger truck
companies have already figured out that a speed limited truck at a
lower speed saves exponentially on fuel and adds to the bottom line.
Speed limiters improve a truck company's profitability and safety.
Please mandate speed limiters to protect truck drivers, particularly
the younger and newer truck drivers, from going at speeds that will get
them and likely others killed.
Automatic Emergency Braking Will Save Lives
The top three causes of truck crashes are rear end collisions, lane
departures, and rollover accidents.\42\ OEMs continue to introduce
safety technology to prevent each of the top three causes of crashes,
including automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, and
electronic stability control systems, the latter of which is already
mandated. Rear end collisions are listed as the top cause of truck
crashes annually, accounting for approximately 33,000 or 23.1% of all
truck wrecks.\43\ Automatic Emergency Braking (``AEB'') technology is
proving to have great success at preventing rear-end collisions. It is
anticipated that once this Subcommittee's Members mandate automatic
emergency braking, rear end collisions will no longer top this list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ James Hedlund and Daniel Blower, The Large Truck Crash
Causation Study (LTCCS) Analysis Series: Using LTCCS Data for
Statistical Analyses of Crash Risk, January 2006, Office of Information
Management, Publication #: FMCSA-RI-05-037, ``Table 4--Estimated Number
of Truck Crashes by Crash Type.''
\43\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Years of Forward Collision Avoidance Technology
Early collision warning systems have been in existence for well
over a decade. Penske Logistics announced on September 18, 2001 (almost
18 years ago) that it was installing collision warning system equipment
on its entire tractor fleet.\44\ At that time, Penske Logistics' Vice
President of Safety, Paul Pentazer, was quoted as stating, ``we feel so
strongly about the benefits . . . we now include it as standard
equipment on all new tractor orders.'' \45\ This older technology did
not include automatic emergency braking. Forward collision warning
technology (without automatic braking) simply emits an urgent audible
alert with a driver display to warn the driver of an impending
collision or that the driver's following distance is unsafe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ``Penske Logistics to Install Eaton Vorad Collision Warning
System Throughout Tractor Fleet Following Successful Pilot Program with
Whirlpool Corporation.'' Published September 18, 2001, https://
www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/penske-logistics-to-install-eatonr-
voradr-collision-warning-system-throughout-fleet-followign-successful-
pilot-program-with0-whirlpool-corporation-72060747.html Note to Reader:
The Vorad from Eaton was acquired by Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems,
LLC (an Elyria, Ohio based company) in 2009.
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collision Warning/Mitigation encompasses three related
technologies: 1) Forward Collision Warning/Alert Systems; 2) Adaptive
Cruise Control; and, 3) Collision Mitigation Systems.\46\ Forward
Collision Warning is the most basic, simply alerting drivers (both
audibly and visually, on an in-cab display) that a rear end collision
is imminent. Adaptive Cruise Control allows a truck to maintain a set
time-gap between it and a vehicle in front of it, by automatically
decelerating if the other vehicle slows down and re-accelerating (up to
a set speed) if the other vehicle speeds up or switches lanes. The most
advanced systems alert drivers to potential conflicts with objects and
automatically initiate emergency braking to stop the commercial vehicle
from causing a rear-end collision or, at a minimum, reduce the severity
of the crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ 2014 Freightliner Cascadia's Driver's Manual, Publication
Number STI-478-6 (2/13), Part Number STI 478, Page 6.1, Daimler Trucks
North America, LLC
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-board radar is mounted in the front bumper to detect vehicles up
to 500 feet in front of the truck.\47\ Earlier radar systems could only
track metallic vehicles and had a tendency to miss smaller vehicles
such as motorcycles and bicycles. Radar systems were unable to detect
pedestrians. Technology evolved allowing for camera-based systems with
enhanced detection capabilities that will also detect pedestrians and
bicyclists.\48\ Fleet acquisition managers now have the option to
install both of these advanced technologies for the safest overall
operation.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Meritor WABCO ``OnGuard'', http://www.meritorwabco.com/
Product, 2,15,2,OnGuard%e84%a2-Collision-Safety-Systems-.aspx; Bendix
``Wingman Advance'', http://www.bendix.com/en/products/acb/
wingmanadvanced_1.jsp
\48\ ``Development of a Camera-Based Forward Collision Alert
System'' General Motors Company and Mobileeye Vision Technologies,
Ltd.; http://www.mobileye.com/technology/applications/vehicledetection/
forward-collision-warning/.
\49\ ``Freightliner Detroit Assurance Suite of Safety Systems''
https://freightliner.com/demand-detroit/detroit-assurance-suite-of-
safety-systems/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going too fast and not allowing for a safe stopping distance are
primary causes of rear end collisions. In 2016, advanced camera-based
technology was introduced that reads and compares the posted speed
limit to the truck's real-time speed.\50\ An audible alert is issued to
the truck driver when the truck is more than 5 mph over the posted
speed limit. If the truck is more than 10 mph over the speed limit, the
audible alert is accompanied with a one-second speed reduction
(automated engine throttle reduction) to slow down the truck and
refocus the driver's attention.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ ``Bendix Takes Wingman Collision Avoidance Tech To Next Level,
Includes Auto Slowdown for Speeding.'' Overdrive Magazine, http://
www.overdriveonline.com/bendix-takes-wingman-collision-avoidancetech-
to-next-level-includes-auto-slow-down-for-speeding/
\51\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choosing to Stop Short of a Collision with Automatic Emergency Braking
The choices made by a truck company's fleet acquisition personnel
demonstrate whether a truck company prioritizes crash avoidance. FCAM
technology with AEB is currently available as a market option when
purchasing equipment from an OEM. By choosing to install FCAM
technology, a trucking company's purchasing decision can dramatically
reduce the number of preventable rear end collisions or at the least,
reduce crash severity, likely preventing a fatality.
Bendix Wingman Advance and Meritor WABCO's OnGuard are the two
leading FCAM options available to install on fleet equipment.
According to Dean Newell, Vice President of Safety, Maverick USA,
``we have seen a clear downward trend in rear end incidents since we
started putting OnGuard systems on our trucks . . . our rear end
accidents were at a rate of 0.09 per million miles in 2008, and they
went down to 0.06 per million miles in 2011.'' \52\ Jim Boyd, manager
of fleet technical services at Southwester Freight (a 3,000 unit motor
carrier), utilizes both Bendix and Meritor WABCO collision avoidance
systems, giving them a positive review. He has been quoted as saying
the systems ``might not completely help you avoid a crash, but they
certainly can take some of the speed out of a crash. We feel like our
success with the systems has already made a positive impact on accident
reduction.'' \53\ An FMCSA study found that between 8,597 and 18,013
rear end crashes could be prevented annually with the use of Forward
Collision Warning systems.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ The American Trucking Associations, Transport Topics, Anti-
Crash Systems Proliferate as Fleets See Safety Benefits, January 23,
2012.
\53\ The American Trucking Associations, Transport Topics,
Collision Avoidance Systems Succeed in NHTSA Field Test, page 23, June
20, 2016.
\54\ ``Benefit-Cost Analyses of Onboard Safety Systems,'' by Amy
Houser (MC-RRT), February 2009, Federal Motor Safety Administration
Office of Analysis, Research and Technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Emergency Braking Mandate Needed
NHTSA along with the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
completed a year-long test of trucks equipped with collision avoidance
systems. The test was a success and involved 150 trucks, more than 100
drivers from 7 unidentified motor carriers traveling and producing 3
million miles of data, with no rear end crashes.\55\ NHTSA reported
that fleet safety managers should recommend crash avoidance system
technology with new fleet acquisitions.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The United States Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ``Field Study of Heavy-Vehicle
Crash Avoidance Systems'' DOT HS 812 280, June 2016; The American
Trucking Associations, Transport Topics, Collision Avoidance Systems
Succeed in NHTSA Field Test,'' page 1, June 20, 2016.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 16, 2015, NHTSA granted a petition submitted by truck
safety advocates ``to establish a safety standard to require automatic
forward collision avoidance and mitigation systems on certain heavy
vehicles.'' \57\ The ATA's former Director of Engineering publicly
proclaimed that, ``ATA strongly believes that preventing rear-end
crashes is a far better strategic goal than mitigating them and
strongly recommends that all vehicles (light and heavy) be equipped
with forward collision warning and mitigation braking technology.''
\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ The United States Department of Transportation, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Grant of Petition for
Rulemaking, ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard; Automatic
Emergency Braking.'' DOCKET NO.NHTSA-2015-0118. https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2015-0099.
\58\ Ted Scott, Director of Engineering, American Trucking
Associations, February 5, 2016 Public Comment on NHTSA Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards: FMVSS No. 223 and 224 Rear Impact Guards,
Rear Impact Protection, DOCKET NO. NHTSA-2015-0118. https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTHSA-2015-0118-0015 Please note that
Ted Scott has since passed away, may he rest in peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All too often the bad apple spoils the bunch and we hear about a
truck driver who is drowsy, distracted, drunk or drugged causing a
collision resulting in multiple fatalities. For example, on June 25,
2015, truck driver Benjamin Brewer was reported to have been awake 55
hours straight and on methamphetamine when he caused six fatalities
after rear ending seven vehicles that had stopped in a construction
zone.\59\ Truck driver John Wayne Johnson was charged with a rear-end
crash that took the lives of five Georgia Southern University nursing
students and severely injured two others in an April 2015 crash.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Shelly Bradbury and Alex Green, ``Death on the Highway: Six
People Died When A Tractor-Trailer Slammed Into Traffic on June 25--But
the Crash Was One of Many, And It Will Happen Again,'' Chattanooga
Times Free Press, December 20, 2015.
\60\ American Trucking Associations, Transport Topics, Driver,
Company Indicted in 2015 Truck Crash That Killed Five, page 23, June
20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEB is a proven technology endorsed by many in the trucking
industry. A mandate for AEB on all new trucks will clearly ease the
pressure on ``the State of Trucking in America.'' Unfortunately, in
spite of various studies, the granting of a petition, and the support
of many in the industry, NHTSA has taken no further regulatory action
on this issue. How many more people need to die before a mandate? It is
imperative that Members require NHTSA to take immediate action on this
issue. The European Union mandated all new trucks to be equipped with
AEB beginning in 2015. We are now several years beyond that. Why is
Europe protecting its motoring public and we are not?
Conclusion
The fact that truck drivers are victims of crashes is an important
point to consider. Not only are they on the receiving end of truck vs.
truck crashes, but they suffer lifelong consequences when they are on
the giving end. Speed Limiters are a simple fix, cost no money, and
will protect truck drivers and the motoring public from harm. Speed
limiters are supported by many in the industry as being cost effective,
efficient, profitable and safe. AEB is also a simple fix. Mandating
this technology will clearly reduce crashes and fatalities and is
supported by many in the trucking industry.
Nearly 40 years is too long to keep insurance minimums from
increasing, especially considering the effect of inflation and the huge
increase in truck volume and traffic. Victim truck drivers and the
motoring public deserve to have their families protected with increased
insurance minimums.
Lastly, 60 years is far too long to ignore the very real problems
of vehicle crash incompatibility. We need to have underride guards that
allow the safety engineering of passenger cars to interact with safety
features of trucks, so that all of those features can work together to
protect vehicle occupants. The fact that many catastrophic injuries and
deaths are easily and affordably preventable, yet nobody is doing
anything to prevent them, is simply unconscionable.
Each of the items discussed here will help achieve the ``Vision
Zero'' initiatives all over the country. I hope Members of this
Subcommittee sense and realize the urgency needed to fix these issues
without further delay.
I would like to recognize those in this room that are not here
today because their choice in a job have led them to this Hearing. They
are the family members of victims of truck crashes. Christa Hammack
(lost her daughter, Erin Alexander in a side underride in Texas on May
4, 2018) is here with her younger daughter, Abigayle. Marianne Karth
(lost her daughters AnnaLeah and Mary in a rear underride in Georgia on
May 4, 2013) is here with her daughter Rebekah Chojnacki (pronounced
Hoy Not Ski). Unfortunately, her husband Jerry Karth could not be here,
but needs recognition and thanks as well. Also, Lois Durso could not be
here today, but has been tirelessly working with Marianne to raise
underride awareness here in DC after losing her daughter Roya Sadigh in
a side underride on November 24, 2004. These individuals, in
particular, have more courage than anyone I have ever met and deserve
thanks and recognition for their work to prevent others from
experiencing the same grief they have felt since the fateful day their
loved ones perished.
``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in America'' needs to have
the pressure relief valve released. These safety initiatives help. They
help your constituents, the motoring public, and the truck driver. Help
the truck drivers of America by co-sponsoring the Stop Underrides Act
of 2019 and move forward these other initiatives! No longer can
Congress, NHTSA, FMCSA, and the trucking industry sit idle on these
important issues. Your decisive action is desperately needed to save
lives and truck driver livelihoods. I thank you all for the opportunity
to testify before you today and I welcome any and all questions, even
the most challenging ones. Thank you again!
APPENDIX A
truck underride prevention attempts
historical chronology
1953 First federal standard requires underride guards for both
combination tractor-trailers and single-unit trucks, but
includes no strength testing requirements.
1967 Actress Jayne Mansfield dies in a rear underride truck crash.
1969 National Highway Safety Bureau (precursor to NHTSA) proposes
guards on combination tractor-trailers and single-unit
trucks with 18-inch max clearance; predicts side guards
will be added after further research.
1971 NHTSA abandons 1069 rulemaking.
1972 NTSB recommends NHTSA require energy-absorbing underride and
override barriers.
1976 IIHS crashes Ford Granada into tractor-trailer with improved,
prototype guard that prevents underride. Same test with
federally compliant guard results in severe underride.
1977 IIHS petitions NHTSA for a new rear underride standard.
1981 NHTSA issues proposal to upgrade underride protection requirement.
1986 IIHS study shows rear guards designed to prevent underride work
well on British rigs.
1996 NHTSA issues new standard effective 1998, covering combination
tractor-trailers and requiring 22-inch max clearance and
strength testing. The standard does not affect single-unit
trucks. They remain under the 1953 standard.
2004 Transport Canada issues standard after crash tests show U.S.
standards is insufficient. Canadian rule approximately
double strength requirements.
2010-12 IISH testing shows guards can fail in 35 mph impacts. Guards on
Manac trailers are the only one from the 8 largest
manufacturers to prevent severe underride in 30% overlap
test.
2011 IIHS petitions NHTSA for improvements to standard for rear
underride protection.
2013 NHTSA releases study, ``Heavy-vehicle crash data collection and
analysis to characterize rear and side underride and front
override in fatal truck crashes.''
April 3, 2013 NTSB urges NHTSA to take action to improve underride
guards, including side underride guards.
May 5, 2014 Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition submit their
own petition for underride rulemaking.
July 23, 2015 In an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, NHTSA
suggests rear underride guards would not be cost effective
on single-unit trucks.
Dec. 16, 2015 NHTSA proposes adopting Canadian underride guard
requirements for combination tractor-trailers only.
May 5, 2016 IIHS, AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, and Truck Safety
Coalition host industry-wide, Underride Roundtable to
identify solutions to this six decade long concern.
March 1, 2017 IIHS announces and presents its ToughGuard Award to five
(5) national trailer manufacturers. Trailers that qualify
for the ToughGuard Award have rear guards that prevent
underride of a midsize car in three test modes--full-width,
50 percent overlap, and 30 percent overlap at 35 mph
Mar. 30, 2017 IIHS performs a successful 35 mph crash test of a Chevy
Malibu into the side of a semi-trailer with an aftermarket
side guard crash attenuator named AngelWing Underride
Protection. The test was performed with the AngelWing
inventor, Perry Ponder, and Robert Martineau, CEO of
AirFlow, a Side Guard Manufacturer.
Mar. 31, 2017 IIHS performs a similar test as the day before, however
this test was performed without the Side Guard
demonstrating the catastrophic and fatal consequences of
underride truck crashes.
Aug. 29, 2017 IIHS, AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, and the Truck
Safety Coalition host the 2nd Underride Roundtable to
further identify solutions to the issues associated with
side underride and passenger compartment intrusion. IIHS
performed a successful 40 mph crash test of a Chevy Malibu
into the side of a semi-trailer with an aftermarket
AngelWing Underride Protection side guard.
Dec. 12, 2017 ``Stop Underrides Act of 2017'' was introduced into both
the House and Senate.
Sept. 29, 2018 IIHS announces all eight (8) major trailer manufacturers
have earned the ToughGuard Award for rear underride guards,
exceeding FMVSS standards.
March 5, 2019 ``Stop Underrides Act of 2019'' was introduced into both
the House and Senate.
Mar. 26, 2019 AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety host in Washington, D.C.
three (3) grassroots crash tests into the sides of
trailers, two with side underride guards, and one without a
side underride guard.
June 2019 NHTSA withdraws the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to
amend the FMVSS to single-unit trucks to be equipped with
improved rear guards.
June 12, 2019 The House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Highways and Transit hold
a hearing titled, ``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking
America'' to allow for testimony on safety initiatives
including the Stop Underrides Act of 2019.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Young. We want to
proceed now with questions from Members. Each Member will have
5 minutes. And I will begin by recognizing myself.
Just leading off, Mr. Young, where you left us, let me
again thank those who are here who have had loved ones lost in
crashes of various kinds. This hearing is first and foremost
about finding answers. I heard your testimony about underride
guards, Mr. Young.
Let me ask Mr. Spear because prior to being at ATA, he was
with Hyundai. And I would be very interested in your response,
whether you think vehicle crash compatibility is an issue and
requires additional considerations on the part of the
companies, and how you would respond.
Mr. Spear. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a real issue.
The opportunity to meet with a number of the advocates of the
side underride legislation--not Mr. Young, unfortunately, yet--
but a number of the others in the room, and I admire them for
their passion and opening up this debate. I do think we have a
difference of opinion on how best to improve safety. And I
think----
Ms. Norton. Your view is what on that.
Mr. Spear. I think compatibility between cars and trucks is
possible. I think Hyundai is a good example. I am not longer on
the payroll, so I think I can say this candidly. They are the
only OEM that actually manufactures cars and truck trailers. So
they are unique. I do not know of any other OEM in the world
that does both.
And I am very well aware that they are doing connectivity
tests that can utilize automated emergency braking in the
vehicle. Two-thirds of the accidents that involve trucks are
caused by passenger vehicles, largely from speeding and
texting. People are paying less attention to what they are
doing on the road, and they are hitting the truck. It is a
fact.
And I think technology has a role to play. Connectivity----
Ms. Norton. So the truck must be prepared to defend itself.
Mr. Spear. Well, I think connectivity could solve a lot of
the problem. If the brakes are applied, even if the driver is
not aware, the car will not hit the trailer. This legislation
assumes that an accident is going to happen. The equipment that
was shown in the videos at 35 miles an hour, it is my
understanding it is not effective beyond 35 miles an hour.
Studies at GAO even recommended to you that more study
needs to be done on this. The added weight, the structural
integrity of the trailer, is it compromised? These are valid
questions that I think need to be fleshed out before you
proceed with something like this and apply it to all trailers,
as proposed in the testimony.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. It was important to hear
from somebody from the industry.
I have to ask this question. Ms. Chase, of course,
testified about--she said a dozen people would be killed before
the end of the day. Now, what bothers me is I am used to--I am
an American. I am used to things getting better, not worse.
I said in my opening testimony that there was a 10-percent
increase in 1 year, between 2016 and 2017, and a 40-percent
increase in 10 years, in truck crash fatalities. We have got to
understand why this is happening in order to get to a remedy.
And so I need some feedback from those of you on the panel.
Why are we going the wrong way, and what can be done about it?
Mr. Spear. I think you would get a number of answers from
this panel. I will begin in brief. I think there are a lot of
factors that contribute to the increase. We do not deny it. It
is happening. The overall trend over several years, it is going
down, but this recent uptick is very alarming.
Ms. Norton. It is 10 years.
Mr. Spear. Yes. I am going back further, the overall. But I
will say the uptick is alarming. I think it is caused because
the economy is strong. There are more people at work. There are
more people commuting. And quite frankly, the Federal
Government is not investing in infrastructure. There is less
room. There are a lot more accidents out there happening as a
result of the lack of infrastructure investment in this
country.
And we are still out there moving freight. Seventy-one
percent of the domestic freight in this country is moved by
truck. Those demands do not go away, so we have to find ways to
be safer, given the current decaying infrastructure that we are
being dealt.
Ms. Norton. Anybody else? Yes, sir?
Mr. Spencer. Yes. I would jump in on this. Realistically,
what looking at the data shows is there is a disconnect between
compliance with the regulations and improved safety outcomes.
See, most of the regulations that are in force that make up CSA
do not have anything to do with safety. But that has been the
entire focus.
The operating environment for drivers, truck drivers, has
become much, much more stressful. The one thing the ELD did was
make drivers feel like they are constantly under pressure,
being watched every minute. It exacerbated the shortages of
places to park, for truckers to park, that we have had for 20
years.
Those are the kinds of things that are essential to
actually improving commercial vehicle safety. You have to have
experience, knowledgeable drivers. The other net effect of many
of the regulations is more and more drivers have suddenly said,
``There are other things that I could do.'' They have retired.
They have left our industry. They will be replaced with some
level of new people that will be less skilled and more likely
to be involved in crashes.
Ms. Norton. That is for sure. No specific time yet behind
the wheel to get a CDL license.
Thank you very much. My time is expired. I go to our
ranking member, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you again to the
witnesses. Mr. Craig, thank you for your hospitality for a
couple of tours of your facilities up in the Chicagoland area.
Please offer my best to the team at C.H. Robinson.
Mr. Spear, I am going to come to first. But I do want to
note, this subcommittee has 56 Members on it. It is probably
the most geographically diverse committee or subcommittee in
this entire Congress. While I can appreciate the urban needs of
Chairwoman Norton, my district is mostly rural. My district has
many rural roads where many of your carriers are moving freight
all around.
As a matter of fact, I have got about 7,750 farms producing
almost $450 million in grain exports every single year. These
farmers obviously rely upon our Nation's infrastructure and
rely upon our transportation to get their commodities to the
marketplace and get them out into the global marketplace.
My question is: What can we as policymakers do to ensure
our farmers continue to have access to the markets that they
need? So that being said, I want to drill it down a little bit
further.
Mr. Spear, I notice that ATA's priorities for a surface
reauthorization bill, that in your priorities you believe motor
carriers should be allowed to conduct marijuana testing of
operators. In Illinois, the State legislature just recently
signed into law the legal use of recreational marijuana. So
there is no doubt that this is a concern for the industry and a
concern for this committee.
Can you expand on the intersection of marijuana consumption
and the trucking industry, and what we can do at the Federal
level to improve safety?
Mr. Spear. We fall under the Federal requirements for drug
testing, not States. And obviously, the use of marijuana,
impairment from marijuana, opioids, these are all concerns to
our industry and are added headwind in terms of attracting
talent in.
And nine States plus the District, as well as Canada, now
legalizing recreational marijuana is going to put added strain,
added pressure, on the industry and its ability to hire people
that are drug-free. We simply cannot have that in this
industry. You cannot have people that are using controlled
substances, that are impaired, operating 80,000-pound
equipment, or tanks full of chemicals or petrol. OK? It is a
problem that the States, we do not believe, are taking into
consideration.
And there is no technology out there that allows you, an
officer, to pull someone over and test for an impairment of
marijuana as they do for alcohol. You can do a breathalyzer,
instantaneously.
Mr. Davis. Are you aware of any----
Mr. Spear. That technology does not exist yet for
marijuana.
Mr. Davis. So you are not aware of anyone testing any
technology that would be able to do that, like a breathalyzer
does for alcohol?
Mr. Spear. I think it is coming. It probably may be 3, 5
years out, from what I am told. But the best we can do right
now is on the front-end screening, when hiring, hair testing
should be a viable means in lieu of urinalysis. It gives you a
better picture to see if that individual is a user.
And that conversation should happen before that driver is
hired. And it is something that you all put into the FAST Act.
It has been sitting over at HHS for 3 years. They have not
kicked out their requirements so that DOT can move forward.
DOT is ready to move forward on this. It is an alternate.
It is not a mandate. You can do either/or. And I think as we
move in this direction where we are legalizing recreational
marijuana, we have got opioid use in every community in the
country, it seems. Our industry has to operate safe, and we
need the tools to do it.
So we put it back on you to help us with that. Get on HHS.
Get this thing done and out. We will work with innovators to
come up with immediate ways to test. This is a problem that is
not going away.
Mr. Davis. Are you seeing in the States that have already
legalized recreational use of marijuana even more of a shortage
of drivers being willing to take some of the opportunities that
are available in the industry?
Mr. Spear. Absolutely. We have several carrier members that
pay the extra expense to do hair testing in addition to the
urinalysis, and when the driver comes in and applies and they
know they are going to have to take a hair test, a lot of them
just walk right out the door. They are using marijuana. They do
not even go forward with the test. So we know this is a
problem.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I just want to also note
something. I do not expect anybody to be able to have to answer
this. But earlier this week I had a constituent in my office.
He is a civil engineer. He conducts friction tests on pavement
in the Chicagoland area up along the tollways.
And to complete these tests, he has to drive his Ford F-350
with a trailer, about 1,200 pounds, 3 hours to get to the
Chicago area, sits around for about 7 hours waiting for traffic
to die down, and by the time he gets out onto the workplace, he
has only got about 4 hours, because of the hours-of-service
rules, that he can actually do his job.
I do not think the rules that we pass in this committee,
the bills that we pass and sign into law, ever intended for
somebody like that to be impacted the way he is. I think it is
something that this committee and subcommittee needs to take a
look at in the future, and I certainly hope that the panelists
would agree.
Thank you very much. I yield back no time because I have
none, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
I recognize the chair of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair. I would just like to
delve into whether or not we have a shortage of truck drivers
or people willing to undertake truck driving. Or is it problems
within the industry that are causing tremendous turnover, which
make it appear that we have a shortage?
So as I understand, the Teamsters in their master agreement
have essentially detention time?
Mr. Byrd. Yes. Yes, we do.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. So what kind of turnover do you have?
Mr. Byrd. We have--and thank you for the question. We have
very low turnover, certainly less than 10 percent. I think it
is largely related to compensation and having very good working
conditions relative to the industry.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mr. Spencer, would you comment on the
independent truck driver's experience with detention time and
whether or not that is causing a problem for entrants or people
moving out of the industry?
Mr. Spencer. It is a monstrous problem that has actually
cost trucking specifically as much as $3 billion a year and
society over $5 billion. But the way it plays out is it means
driver workweeks are always going to be 70 to 80 hours and
sometimes longer.
Now, they are not always working all of those hours. But
their time is being controlled by others, and the biggest
bandits on that deal are going to be shippers and receivers.
And I should point out that these folks even now in some
instances have the gall to actually charge drivers for late
deliveries.
Mr. DeFazio. And how tightly are they scheduling people?
That is the first time I have heard about that.
Mr. Spencer. Well, actually, Walmart started doing it more
than a year ago. Made quite a noise doing it. Having said that,
the dilemma that drivers have, they are asked to work around
everyone else's schedules. They voluntarily choose to try to
stay out of traffic congestion as much as they possibly can to
accommodate everyone. They do not have their time. The rigidity
of the regulations sometimes forces them to do things that they
do not want to do.
Mr. DeFazio. All right.
Ms. Chase. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DeFazio. Yes.
Mr. Young. Can I jump----
Mr. DeFazio. Yes. Go ahead.
Mr. Young. The detention time is really key. The shippers
and the receivers are not regulated like the truck driver. So
ultimately, the shippers and receivers can abuse the entire
Federal Motor Carrier safety regulatory code and then
ultimately try to escape liability, which would not be a good
thing because they are the ones that have put the pressure on
these poor truck drivers.
And it is really important that the shippers and receivers
hold onto some of that responsibility, and it starts with
detention time. We need to eliminate some of these late fees
with just-in-time shipping, eliminate detention time. With
ELDs, we should know and be able to figure out which are the
major abusers. Thank you for the time.
Ms. Chase. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Yes?
Ms. Chase. May I add a comment to that? It struck me as I
went on the ride-along that I mentioned earlier that while we
were sitting there waiting for the load both to arrive and to
be loaded, that I was getting paid but the truck driver was
not, which there was some irony in that.
I also just wanted to mention--and ask for your permission,
Madam Chairwoman--for this study to be submitted to the record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The study referred to follows:]
Stephen V. Burks and Kristen Monaco, ``Is the U.S. labor market for
truck drivers broken?,'' Monthly Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, March 2019, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
The report is retained in committee files and is available online
at https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr.2019.5.
Ms. Chase. Thank you. There is a study from March of 2019
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And Advocates does not
have an independent economist, but we rely on the studies of
everyone else. And I just wanted to mention this quote:
``While we do use ATA data to identify one segment of the
trucking labor market, long-distance truck load motor freight,
that has experienced high and persistent turnover rates for
decades, the overall picture is consistent with a market in
which labor supply responds to increasing labor demand over
time, and a deeper look does not find evidence of a secular
shortage.''
So I found that study to be completely telling.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
To the Pepsi testimony on the 102,000-pound truck, I think,
in Canada, that truck, I do not believe, even with six axles,
would meet our bridge formula in the U.S. Do they have
different bridges?
Mr. Noble. Correct. In our proposal, we are only proposing
the 91,000-pound, not the 102,500-pound. Now----
Mr. DeFazio. OK. What would be the comparison of a stopping
distance of a 91,000-pound, six-axle truck to an 80,000-pound,
five-axle truck?
Mr. Noble. When we looked, the study shows that with adding
the extra axle adds the extra brake. It is a 1-foot-shorter
stopping distance on that vehicle.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Now, of course, one issue here is reaction
time, and without automated braking. Do you support the idea
that we should move to automated systems to get the braking
going faster?
Mr. Noble. At PepsiCo, obviously, all the safety features
that we have--safety is paramount. So it is not just in
conjunction of just reaction, but we have got to do more, and
we have done more, to add to our trucks all the different
safety features, just like the collision mitigations, the lane
departures, blind spot, the headlights, backup cameras,
antilock brakes, traction control, stability control, and
driver training.
So I think all of that in conjunction enables a safer
fleet. But it cannot be just one or the other.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. My time is
expired.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Spencer, the FAST Act required that, regarding the
analysis of violations and other safety data under the
Compliance, Safety, Accountability, the CSA, program be removed
from public view until the deficiencies identified by the
National Academy of Sciences study were addressed.
To your knowledge, have the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences been fully implemented, the report? Can you
comment what is the status, Mr. Spencer?
Mr. Spencer. I understand that those issues are being
addressed and tweaked now. As I said in my earlier comments,
what we see is the big connect between relying on these
particular regulations and actually safety. The regulations
track compliance but they do not really measure or actually
identify safe/unsafe, and that has been mentioned several times
here today.
We are optimistic it can get a little bit better, but we
think there needs to be a different focus on what we enforce.
And again, about the last thing that we want to be doing is
causing experienced drivers to leave trucking, and we have that
right now for lots of reasons.
Mr. Gibbs. No. I agree with you. I do not think they should
be made public until we have fixed that system or changed it or
whatever because I think it has not been fair to the drivers.
And you concur at that. Right? It should not be made public, no
doubt?
Mr. Spencer. All the way along, no one can rely on that
data, that information, as an indicator of safety. In fact,
early on some of the basics were compared with crashes, and
FMCSA identified those that had more violations had fewer
crashes. That has not been fixed.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Mr. Young, you noted in your testimony
regarding the motor carrier selection standard, that it is
really pointless. And you are concerned about providing cover
to the brokers and shippers. Can you expound a little bit on
that?
Because my understanding is we have got 1,700 or so brokers
and shippers and 3 to 4 million carriers. And what this
legislation would do is it would require that--to make sure
that when the brokers are hiring carriers that they meet some
minimum standards, like they have insurance, they have a good
safety record. And in your testimony, you said it was
pointless. So can you expound on that so I understand that a
little bit better?
Mr. Young. Yes. You missed the comments earlier. But I want
to thank you for your warm welcome. Again, I am proud to be one
of your constituents.
Very briefly, the way that the current system is set up is
that the brokers and shippers need to be looking at the
driver's scores and the motor carrier's scores, and
particularly the out-of-service percentages, in my opinion, not
just simply the basics, the behavioral analysis, safety
improvement categories, and those 640 infractions that are part
of those categories.
But if the out-of-service percentages are exceeding the
national averages, the brokers should not be allowed to hire
those particular folks or escape liability from hiring those
particular folks when they are involved in a crash.
As I indicated also in my oral testimony, 10 percent of the
motor carriers represent close to 50 percent of all the
crashes. So the brokers and the public needs to know what these
scores are in these safety scores in order to avoid those 10
percent bad apples so that they do not hire them.
And if they do not have a rating because, as we heard from
Chair Norton, about 86 percent do not have ratings, or if the
ratings do not exist or there is not enough information
available, then the brokers and shippers should take it upon
themselves.
C.H. Robinson used to have a safety questionnaire and audit
that was included as part of their survey in order to get a
motor carrier to sign on with them. It is my understanding that
that is no longer part of their overall system. So it is really
important that the brokers and shippers are not hiring these 10
percent bad apples spoiling the bunch or creating multiple
fatality situations.
Mr. Gibbs. Now, this data you refer to, is this separate
from the CSA? Or----
Mr. Young. Yes. It is both, quite frankly. So the brokers
and shippers were trying to escape liability in this last
Congress, in the session, and it is anticipated that it is
going to come up again. And it is important to not allow
shippers and brokers to escape liability, particularly when
they are the ones perpetuating cheaper freight rates. So safety
must not be sacrificed for cheaper freight rates.
So really, it is these 10 percent of bad apples and motor
carriers that the broker and shipper needs to be aware of. And
quite frankly, it is the broker and shipper that puts the
pressure on the industry. So if the broker and shipper----
Mr. Gibbs. I have only got 10 seconds, but I was just
concerned----
Mr. Young. Oh, my apologies.
Mr. Gibbs. That is fine. On the CSA, where do you come down
on that? Is that a broken system? Has it been unfair? Has it
been fair? What do you see in that?
Mr. Young. I think it is a good system from the standpoint
that it helps provide something as opposed to nothing.
Mr. Gibbs. My time is up and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Young. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate you and
Ranking Member Davis holding this important hearing, and thank
the witnesses for being here.
One important issue that I have worked on, and would like
to return to--I know it has been discussed--is truck underride
crashes, circumstances wherein all the passenger safety
mechanisms placed in passenger vehicles are effectively
rendered null and void when striking the rear, side, or front
of a semi-truck tractor-trailer.
Sadly, in 2014, Randy and Laurie Higginbotham of my
community lost their 33-year-old son Michael to an accident of
this type, as thousands of others have. And it was unnecessary.
Unfortunately, this is an issue that has been on the industry's
radar for decades, yet little action has been taken. Policies
to prevent this are long overdue.
Ms. Chase, I know you discussed this earlier. You mentioned
in your testimony in 2017 large truck crash fatalities took
4,761 lives, a 9-percent increase from the previous year, and
an increase of 41 percent since 2009. That same year, 2017,
there were 148,000 individuals injured in large truck crashes.
Of those injuries, some of the most debilitating came because
of truck underride crashes.
Can you expound on your testimony and suggest what Congress
can do to effectively cure this problem?
Ms. Chase. Yes. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
And thank you also for your leadership on the underride issue.
We are very grateful that you have introduced legislation to
help eradicate this horrific and violent type of crash.
I think that the video that Mr. Young showed was very
telling. There is just no escaping the laws of gravity and of
physics. And when there is a proven solution such as an
underride guard, we would really encourage Congress to require
the Department of Transportation to issue a final rule, a
performance standard, that would require this problem to be
solved. We have the solutions. We just need the leadership to
make it happen.
In addition, I also outlined a couple of other technologies
that are proven and on the roads today, such as automatic
emergency braking; a few of the other witnesses also mentioned
it. That should be standard technology in all cars.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you so much. And I appreciate your mention
of my ``leadership.'' It is unfortunate that I have that
leadership. It is not because of any particular study or
knowledge. It is because constituents had their lives changed
when their son was killed. And it could have happened to
anybody in this committee. And if it would have happened to
anybody in this committee, they would be in favor of changing
this law as well. It just has to come home.
Mr. Young, based on your unique experience as an Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association member and an
attorney, do you believe the industry will voluntarily self-
regulate for the sake of safety on this matter, or do you
believe they need to be brought to the table?
Mr. Young. I believe there needs to be a mandate. This has
been a 60-year-old problem that began in 1953, and it still has
not been solved. While the industry protects the back of a
semi-trailer, why not the sides as well? We have the entire
open sides, and we are talking about crumple zones, airbags,
energy-absorbing bumpers, and seatbelts.
There is a ton of safety and data that has gone into the
crashworthiness of cars and protecting those occupants. But the
bumpers have to match up in order for that to work. I do not
see the industry doing this without a mandate.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
An additional issue I have worked on and would like to
bring to the attention and ask some questions is about double-
deck livestock trailers that transport horses in interstate
commerce. This remains largely legal in this country. Double-
deck trailers with horses crammed inside have tipped over and
been implicated in accidents, in part because the animals
cannot retain their balance--they have enough trouble at Santa
Anita when they are running--and leading to dangerous
situations on the road.
In one particularly gruesome accident in Illinois, 59
horses were being transported in a double-deck trailer. It
crashed. Numerous horses were left dead while authorities
worked for hours to rescue surviving animals from the wreckage.
Simply no reason to put the safety of other drivers and
passengers on the road at risk, as well as the welfare of the
horses being transported in these conditions, when trailers are
specifically designed for and can accommodate horses.
Mr. Young, once again, based on your experience--attorney,
owner-operator group--do you think this is a worthy issue for
inclusion in the highway safety and transportation laws?
Mr. Young. I believe it is a worthy issue because we are
talking about the high center of gravity. My truck company used
to run scrap-hauling boxes with a power takeoff unit, and those
scrap-hauling boxes have such a high center of gravity that
when I went to OI to ask for insurance on it, they said,
``Well, we do not even insure high-center-of-gravity boxes like
that, or the power takeoff unit for those scrap-hauling
boxes.''
So when you are talking about something with a high center
of gravity like the horse trailers, then that is definitely a
safety initiative. And if our goal is to get to Vision Zero and
truly get to Vision Zero, then yes, it needs to be included.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Appreciate the panel, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Madam Chair, I yield my time to the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Webster.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Webster is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Massie,
for yielding.
Let's see. Mr. Noble, were you the one with the slide that
showed the trailers with their weight?
Mr. Noble. Yes, sir.
Mr. Webster. Does the weight, the 80,000 pounds, does that
include the weight of the trailer and the cargo?
Mr. Noble. Yes, it does.
Mr. Webster. OK. So Mr. Noble--well, no, Mr. Spear. Let me
ask you, is there anyone in your arena--I know you also cover
the trailer manufacturers--are they working on anything that
would make a lighter trailer? I have done a lot of study for
resilient construction dealing with composites, but it did not
have to do necessarily with building trailers. It had to do
more with possibly using them for I-beams on bridges and so
forth.
But if you had a lighter trailer, you could carry more
weight. Is that correct? And still have the same weight?
Mr. Spear. The weight of the vehicle, generally, as the
rules are written, discount the weight of the trailer and
truck. So that is not counted against the capacity. When it is
80,000 pounds, it is 80,000 pounds of what you are carrying.
There are always investments in the trailer to make it
stronger, lighter. There are limits to that, obviously; you do
not want to compromise the integrity of the trailer either.
There are standards that it has to uphold to, that it has to
meet.
Mr. Webster. Yes. Whether the same size I-beam, that's a
composite, is stronger than steel. So that would not be the
problem.
So would that not, though, be a case for proving that if
you had a lighter trailer, it seems like the idea of trailer
weight and so forth, if it is not included, then the cargo
itself could be more even though you are going beyond the
capacity. You would not be adding anything to the weight on the
road. Is that correct?
Mr. Spear. Yes.
Mr. Webster. Is there any thought of that?
Mr. Spear. Well, certainly. Obviously, size and weight,
length and weight, have not been changed federally since 1982.
So you have a mix-match now since that time of States that have
been given exemptions, so you have a various degree of weight
and length configurations throughout the country. It is just a
quilt of limits that are permitted.
So if you are a manufacturer, you have got to meet a
Federal limit. Obviously, we are interstate commerce, so we are
jumping State to State all the time. So if you go from one
State that allows it to another that does not, that equipment
is not going to be as useful to the carrier.
So they are generally designing standards that are
interstate-based unless you are running regional. Like in the
West, you can run a number of configurations to weight as well
as length. You have got Rocky Mountain doubles. You have got
triples. Triple 28s. Those are not uncommon equipment used in
various States.
So you have to take into account the patchwork of
configurations that State laws now permit. The manufacturer now
has to work with the carrier to design equipment that meets
their customer needs. Does that make sense?
Mr. Webster. Yes, that makes sense. However, we do not do
State to State. We do give waivers, I assume. But the point is,
if the trailer and the cargo weight were combined, which it
probably should be if you are talking about what is going to
tear up the roads or be unsafe or whatever, it seems like those
two combinations should add up to really what weight we allow
on the roads.
And the point is, if you did much investment possibly in a
lighter trailer with composite material, you could get to a
point where you would be able to have more cargo, really the
same impact on the road, though. Do you think that is true?
Mr. Spear. Yes. I think there is evidence to show that,
without compromising safety. I think the stoppage distance is
exhibited in previous answers to questions. It is well
documented. It is well tested.
Mr. Webster. I mean, the stoppage distance is going to be
governed by the overall weight no matter what. Even if we do
not count that as the weight of the trailer, as part of the
weight that you can carry on the road, still when you come to
stopping you have got to include that into whatever calculation
you are making in whatever time you can stop.
Do you know what the weight of a trailer is? I do not know.
Do you?
Mr. Spear. It varies. There are so many configurations--28s
to 48s to 53s. You got tank. Flatbed. It depends on what you
are hauling.
Mr. Webster. OK. Well, if you are not hauling anything, it
is just--do you know?
Mr. Noble. Yes. If I may, we have been working on
lightweight trailers because, obviously, our products with
Pepsi are heavy. So we have been lightweighting our trailers
for many years so trailers around that 15,000 pounds. So any
more cargo--but we still have empty space on the trailer.
So one of the ideas that we have proposed in the SHIP
Coalition is by putting more cargo, allowing more weight on
that single trailer--we are not asking for length, more length
on the trailer, but on that single trailer--then we can move
more product with less miles, less accidents.
So when we look at the weight--and still be bridge-
compliant. So all the efforts that you are talking about,
lightweighting trailers to increase the cargo space and move it
safely, is what we are looking to do.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Webster.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking
Member Davis, for hosting this very salient hearing today. And
thank you to the witnesses for your testimony.
The American trucking industry is rapidly evolving and
complex. As this Congress looks to pass sweeping surface
transportation legislation and a robust infrastructure package,
we are tasked with considering both the effects of trucking on
our roads, jobs, economy, and more, as well as Federal and
regulatory input on the trucking industry.
More than ever, as our trucks are getting larger and
heavier, more technologically advanced, and seek to travel
further distances, we must ensure that those behind the wheel
and those who share the road are optimally safe. I look forward
to engaging the bevy of transportation professionals here today
to achieve safer roads and regulations for all.
Mr. Spencer, your testimony illuminates the concern that
heavy regulation on truck drivers may color the trucking
industry, that it could get an undeserved reputation as a field
with unappealing and unsafe work. With retention rates already
under threat, there is valid concern that entry to the trucking
workforce may be hindered.
How can we improve working conditions to attract and retain
drivers in a rapidly evolving industry?
Mr. Spencer. The reason drivers stay is because of pay,
benefits, and working conditions. The reasons they leave are
for the lack thereof. Many of the regulations that are on the
books today hold drivers accountable for everything that could
possibly go wrong, but none of those really address the
frustrations and the lost time that drivers will spend in
shipping and receiving facilities.
Again, we are talking about anywhere from 10 to as much as
45 hours a week, every week. That puts a workweek for a truck
driver at 80, sometimes more, hours per week. When somebody is
considering an occupation, a career, do they take one that
involves work 40 or 45 hours a week where you are home, or one
that is 80 hours or more and you are away from home and you do
not make more money?
I do not think that is a real tough decision. People are
going to make the decision that works best for them, and who
can blame them? We have to address the economic issues for
drivers, how they are paid, and the quirks that allow them to
actually work unlimited hours without any kind of overtime
compensation.
The market cannot fix that kind of stuff if drivers are
paid nothing for their time and the vast majority are paid
nothing for their time right now.
Mr. Johnson. Are you seeing any indication that younger
drivers are eager to enter the trucking workforce?
Mr. Spencer. Actually, I have never really seen instances
in my career in trucking where this was immediately attractive
to young people. And trucking is not--I entered trucking in my
mid-20s. I became a truck owner at 26. Generally, people that
enter trucking today are doing it because of issues with
another job, another career they had. They look for something
better.
In theory, a trucking career is appealing because it is all
about productivity, and if you are willing to work, you
should--a reasonable person would assume they will get ahead.
What too many figure out really, really quick is that everybody
is working their tails off and they are not getting ahead and
it does not look like it is ever going to change.
Mr. Johnson. Would you say that there are specific
protections that should be put in place for 18- to 21-year-old
drivers?
Mr. Spencer. I am not a--we, our organization, is not a
proponent of lowering the permissible driving age for
commercial drivers below 21. And everything about this
committee is about safety. When we look at the numbers of
crashes, of where crashes take place, and the drivers, you do
not take that age down. You take it up. You take it up to at
least 25, which is largely what it was back in the 1970s when I
entered trucking.
Mr. Johnson. Let me ask Mr. Byrd this. Would you agree with
that?
Mr. Byrd. I would agree that we do not support lowering the
age for drivers in commercial trucking. One of the approaches
that we have used to attract young workers to the trucking
industry is establishing an apprenticeship program. So we
recruit candidates who are 18, 19 years old, and we teach them
about the trucking industry, the transportation industry,
working on the dock, and working various other aspects of the
trucking industry--shifting, working in the yard.
And as they approach 21 years old, we have by that time
given them significant seat time on ranges and taught them how
to properly drive and prepare them for working in the industry.
So that has been our approach.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Mr. Spear, you are raising your
hand?
Mr. Spear. I would like to give, if time permits, Madam
Chair, just an alternative view to this question. Eighteen- to
twenty-one-year-olds are already legally allowed to drive a
class 8 in 48 States. OK? It is current law. I would love to
know where the opponents on this panel were when those 48
States passed those laws. I did not hear anything from them.
But they are quick to point out that federally, we should not
do it. We should not do it.
Bottom line, the DRIVE-Safe Act, the reason one-quarter of
the House and Senate, bipartisan, Members like Ms. Jackson Lee,
understands why cosponsoring this matters--because it is safer.
Four hundred hours of apprenticeship-based training, of which
240 of those hours have to have an experienced driver in the
cab with the 18- to 21-year-old.
It has to have speed governors, cameras, anticollision
mitigation systems. None of the 48 States have any of that
currently. This is a step towards safety, not away. And I would
love to know where the Members and the opponents of this bill,
18- to 21-year-olds, are on our military. I was just on the
Abraham Lincoln. It is over in the gulf now. Over 5,000 sailors
on that aircraft carrier, Madam Chair, and the average age is
19.
When I was up on the captain's deck, he gave an order for a
20 degree right rudder. And I heard a 19-year-old female sailor
at the helm take that order, ``Right degree, aye, sir.''
Nineteen years old she was, steering a $4 billion aircraft
carrier. Ninety aircraft were $30 million apiece. Two nuclear
reactors. And 104,000 tons of displacement.
I think if we can teach somebody to steer an aircraft
carrier, I am pretty sure we can teach them how to cross State
lines in a class 8.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Your time is expired. I
should note that a military pilot test is going on as I speak.
I appreciate your raising that, and your note about 48 States
or 47 States should indicate that they can only drive in the
State. And the issue for us is across the States, where we
still have work to do.
Mr. Babin. Put on your microphone, please.
Dr. Babin. I am sorry. OK. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Under the Trump administration, FMCSA has rightfully
withdrawn rulemakings related to sleep apnea, safety fitness
determination, and minimum insurance limits. The agency has
also categorized the speed limit or mandate as a long-term
action, which essentially places it on the back burner.
I wanted to ask you the first question, Mr. Spencer. Do you
and your members support these types of actions, and are there
additional regulatory--or, rather, deregulatory--actions that
the Federal Government could take to help make trucking a more
viable career without jeopardizing safety, such as modernizing
today's rigid and convoluted hours-of-service requirements?
Mr. Spencer. Thank you, Congressman. I can tell you that
our members, small business truckers, the small business
trucker industry, really embraces the idea of regulatory
reform. Most of the--as I mentioned in my testimony earlier, we
see a tremendous disconnect between the regulations and actual
safety.
But the focus is on enforcing regulations, and some of
those are clearly counterproductive. You mentioned sleep apnea
specifically, and I know some are focused on that as the big
bugaboo now. But it does not cause drivers to crash trucks. And
what happened when we had increased focus, increased
enforcement--and this was all economically driven--we put a lot
of those guys out of trucking. And as a result, we believe that
is a contributor to fatalities on the road going up.
We, our organization, would like to see a wholesale review
of all of the truck safety regulations. And if there is not a
connection to crashes, why are we wasting time, money, and
effort on enforcing it? Focus on those things that do have
something to do with crashes. We will get a better bang for our
buck. And we are tickled the administration is pursuing that.
Dr. Babin. OK. Well, thank you very much.
And then secondly, Mr. Spear had mentioned veterans and
Active Duty personnel. In my district, a truck driver that does
not have a transportation worker identification credential, or
a TWIC card, is essentially no truck driver at all. Drivers
need this card to gain access to the Port of Houston, which I
represent, and all of the petrochemical facilities that I
represent, the highest concentration in the United States.
As we face a nationwide truck driver shortage, any backlog
and delay in the TWIC card approval process is only
exacerbating the problem. And I am introducing a bill this very
day to allow TSA to provide provisional temporary TWIC cards
within a day or so of application to honorably discharged
veterans while their background checks are being processed so
that they do not have to wait potentially months before they
can drive.
Surely if these veterans recently passed rigorous security
screening so they could drive trucks on bases in Afghanistan,
they should not be waiting months for approval for a TWIC card.
Now, these are veterans who have had driver experience.
And I would ask if anyone on the panel today thinks that it
is a dangerous or bad idea for an honorably discharged veteran
with truck-driving experience to qualify to get a provisional
TWIC card on the day they apply. And does anyone believe that
this idea will help address driver shortages and veteran
unemployment rates, among other issues?
I guess, Mr. Spear, I am going to ask you first.
Mr. Spear. Well, thank you for dropping the bill. I can
tell you right now, from your description, we would be first in
line to support it. I have testified on this issue before in
the Senate. It has been 18 years since 9/11. Eighteen years.
And our own TSA cannot produce a common access card like DoD
has.
DoD recognizes the TWIC card. If you are a driver with a
TWIC card, you can get on any military base in the country.
Dr. Babin. That is right.
Mr. Spear. But you go to any other facility that is
hazardous, it is not recognizable because TSA has not come out
with a standard. They keep changing the rules. Administration
to administration, I could point fingers at both sides of this.
It is absolutely certain. The burden that comes back to our
drivers to have to obtain a TWIC card, the cost associated with
it, the time associated with it, it is ridiculous.
I testified in the Senate. I served in a couple war zones,
Iraq included. And I am amazed that in the Green Zone in
Baghdad, the Iraqi Government can come up with an ID that is
almost identical to the DoD common access card. Now, Iraq is
not known as a bastion of efficiency. But if these guys can
come up with a common access card and our own TSA cannot do it
in 18 years' time, what does that say? I applaud you for the
bill.
Dr. Babin. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I see my
time is expired, but I will----
Mr. Young. Representative Babin, I would like to chime in
on the speed limiters and sleep apnea issue. My Peterbilt 359
actually has a speed limiter. It is under the 70 mile an hour
in the State of Ohio.
My physique required my medical card physician to require
me to take a sleep test. Fortunately, I passed it. I do not
need to have it. It is really not sleep apnea that causes the
accidents. It is the fact that sleep apnea causes folks to be
drowsy and not get enough sleep to remain alert behind the
wheel.
There is a lot of medicine behind this and medical doctors
that support it, including my own doctor who said, ``Hey, if
you have sleep apnea, it is better for your heart condition to
make sure that you have a CPAP, et cetera.'' And I think the
drivers that have CPAPs subscribe to it, like it, and agree
that it makes them more alert behind the wheel. So thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Mr. Babin's time has
expired.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member
Davis, for organizing this hearing.
Two thousand seventeen was a record for Chicago and the
Nation for roadway fatalities. I want to ask a question about
emergency braking, but I would like to preface it with some
statistics. According to the Federal crash data from the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, from 2009 to
2017 truck crashes in which a truck rear-ended a passenger
vehicle increased by 50 percent, despite the availability of
new safety technologies like forward collision warning systems
and automatic emergency braking that help prevent such crashes.
For example, Schneider National saw a 68-percent decrease
in rear-end crashes and a 95-percent reduction in rear-end
collision claims since it began equipping collision mitigation
systems in 2012. Another company, Conway, conducted an internal
study, which reviewed AEB electronic stability control and lane
departure warning. They found a 71-percent reduction in rear-
end collisions and a 63-percent decrease in unsafe following
behaviors with the safety features.
In fact, some of the most popular truck models, like Volvo
VNL 760, the Peterbilt 579, the Freightliner Cascadia, the Mack
Anthem, and every new international truck, now include AEB as
standard. Mr. Young and Ms. Chase, briefly, please, do the
Truck Safety Coalition or the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety support requiring original equipment manufacturers to
manufacture new trucks with AEB technology?
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes, we
absolutely support automatic emergency braking as standard
equipment. In fact, in 2015, Advocates, together with the Truck
Safety Coalition and some organizations, petitioned the
Department of Transportation to conduct a rulemaking that would
require FCAM, also now known as AEB, in all trucks. This is
technology that has been proven to be successful, and there is
no reason that it should not be in all trucks today.
Mr. Garcia. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Yes. While the manufacturers indicate that they
have made them standard, there is a delete credit. So if a
dealer tells the motor carrier who is purchasing a vehicle,
``Hey, I can make it cheaper for you just to delete the AEB,''
that is why we need an AEB mandate. Because the original
equipment manufacturers have made it standard does not mean it
is getting on these trucks. And these will truly prevent
crashes along with speed limiters and many of the other issues
we are talking about.
Mr. Garcia. And again, to both of you, would your
organization support legislation that would require all motor
carriers to require their trucks be equipped with AEB to use
this crash prevention and mitigation technology?
Mr. Young. Absolutely, because of the fact that you have
this front override or front underride, this, and along with
the underride bill, will prevent these crashes. So it is an
``and both'' type of a scenario.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Ms. Chase?
Ms. Chase. Yes. Absolutely, we would support that.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you.
Changing gears to trucking insurance minimums, to both of
you again, the cost of medical care and other expenses has
increased in the last 40 years, as has inflation. Still, no
change in four decades has been made to trucking insurance
minimums since 1980, and the current insurance cap is $750,000.
Is that correct?
And do you think that the current level of insurance is
sufficient to fully compensate families and ensure safety in
the event of a crash involving a truck? And would your
organizations support adjusting truck insurance minimums?
Mr. Young. Thank you for the question. The insurance
minimums are grossly inadequate. As you indicated, it has been
nearly 40 years, so it was originally set in 1980. If we
adjusted to inflation, the minimum insurance should be $2.4
million.
In addition to that, the money that is the premium is for
the first million dollars, or the lower level. It is not a
double in the coverage in order to get double the coverage. So
you do not have to pay double the premium to get double the
coverage.
So an increase in insurance minimum will protect families
in particular, even truck drivers who are killed by other
negligent truck drivers. And then when you have a situation
where there are multiple fatalities, which we hear about on a
regular basis, there is not enough insurance for all the folks
there. So then the taxpayer gets saddled with having to take
care of these people through Medicare or Medicaid and Social
Security disability if there are injuries.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. Ms. Chase, very briefly?
Ms. Chase. As our board is comprised half of insurance
companies, we do not take a position on this issue.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you.
And lastly, Mr. Byrd from the Teamsters, in your statement
you mentioned that the potential expansion of the short-haul
exemption from 12 hours to 14 hours is a problem. Can you tell
us why expanding it would be bad for workers?
Mr. Byrd. Thank you for question. Well, drivers, CDL-
qualified drivers, they are driving larger trucks. They are
delivering more freight. They are delivering heavier freight
than, say, for short-haul operators that are driving vehicles
that weigh less than 25,001 pounds.
So what that is going to result in, we believe, is that
these drivers will work longer hours. They will handle more
freight. They will handle heavier freight, and it will put them
at increased risk of experiencing musculoskeletal disorders,
for example.
And one of our big concerns is that along with that, we
have an aging driver workforce among our membership. So you
have got older drivers who would be called upon to do more
work, to do heavy work, and we are concerned that it could have
an adverse impact in terms of them experiencing injuries.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Garcia's time has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I got a lot of car drivers that want to ask me this one
here. Does California have a specific 55.1 mile-per-hour speed
limiter when trucks are on the four-lane freeway passing each
other doing those 4-mile-long turtle races? You do not have to
answer that, but there is a lot of frustrated car drivers
getting behind those turtle races when they are going 55.1 for
about 4 miles.
Anyway, what I am going to jump to here is the FET tax and
a repeal we are working on. The FET on new trucks is 12
percent, which is higher than alcohol and tobacco sin taxes in
most States. This tax has been around 100 years. It was in
place to help pay for World War I. It does not really generate
that much money, and it adds about $20,000 in costs to new
trucks.
And so when we are trying to incentivize people to get
newer, cleaner burning, more safe trucks, that seems like that
is an opposite effect. It is really going to be huge for jobs
and for injecting more into the truck builders economy as well
as putting safer and nicer rigs on the highway.
So Mr. Noble and Mr. Spear, do you think repealing this tax
would lead to an increase in purchases of these cleaner, safer,
nicer trucks?
Mr. Noble. I do not necessarily have an opinion on if the
tax is repealed, how that would affect. Again, from a PepsiCo
standpoint, emissions, it is not about necessarily the expense
of the equipment. It is the right thing to do from an emission
reduction and investing in the technology for the right
business reasons.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. No opinion?
Mr. Noble. No opinion.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK.
Mr. Spear. Yes. We would favor repealing it. As you said,
it is from 1917. And of those taxes that were put forward at
that time for World War I funding, this is the only one that
still stands as law. All the others went away. I do not know
what the history is behind that and why ours is the only one
that still remains intact. But it is not just and it is an
inhibitor of buying new, safer, more environmentally friendly
equipment. And it is a serious number. If you are purchasing a
truck brandnew, this is an issue.
So we would strongly recommend that it be repealed. We also
understand that you are working under requirements to offset.
We get the budgetary restraints that Congress is under. We
would also work with you when funding an infrastructure bill to
find ways to do that because I think this would be a really
good step forward.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. We are certainly looking at offsets on
that, too. But Congress, over the decades, has kind of turned
it on and off over time.
But, Ms. Chase and Mr. Spencer, based on what you know
about these newer trucks, do you think they are safer and more
efficient for our network?
Ms. Chase. I do think that newer trucks have the capability
to be safer. And most certainly they should be equipped with
the technologies that I mentioned earlier, such as speed
limiters, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning.
And when I just did a ride-along last week, I experienced
firsthand how safe a truck can be.
And so I think that all trucks should be required to be as
safe as the one I was in.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, the laws--the speed limiter is not stuck
on 55.1 on California freeways, right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaMalfa. Mr. Spencer?
Mr. Spencer. Specific to California, you know, the point
that you make over and over and over is speed-limited trucks,
whether they are speed limited through technology or through
artificially low speed limits, simply serve as impediments,
barriers to other people trying to drive down the road.
And I think it is really, really interesting, too, that we
have proponents for making tougher, rear-end underride
equipment on trailers when we have policies that actually have
the net effect of causing more cars to rear-end trucks. I think
it is somewhat ironic that we do that.
Your question is specifically to the Federal excise tax.
That is money right now that goes into the Highway Trust Fund
that has been short for a number of years. As small-business
truckers, we would like to see the Highway Trust Fund fully
funded through user fees. Simply picking off the user fees that
go into the--now we think it's sort of shortsighted public
policy.
We are optimistic that at some point Congress will make the
decision----
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, I got you.
Mr. Spencer [continuing]. To fully fund it.
Mr. LaMalfa. So, you know, I appreciate that. Well, let's
shift real quick, Mr. Spencer, to ELDs, and flexibility that
people are looking for on that.
Do you think they are really improving the safety of
trucks? You kind of alluded to that before. Are they really
improving safety, or is the flexibility actually making people
do strange things on ELDs?
Mr. Spencer. Again, my background is trucking. I did it
myself. When I drove, I drove when I felt like driving. I drove
to accommodate--whether I drove to accommodate shippers and
receivers. And it wasn't always in blocks of 10 or 11 or 14.
Again, what ELDs have done has created the stress level for
drivers. But what they have pointed out is the problems that we
have with existing hours-of-service regulations, which there is
broad agreements that we need to modify them to provide
drivers' flexibility.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, especially with livestock or hazardous
materials. The way I see it, if you got--you know, you need to
get that extra hour, or you need to get this material somewhere
it isn't--oh, got to take a break, I am in the middle of I-80,
between San Francisco and wherever. It doesn't seem to provide
sensible flexibility.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr.----
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Norton [continuing]. LaMalfa. Your time has expired.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and to
all of the witnesses who are here today. I represent the Third
Congressional District in Kansas, which is the Kansas side of
the Kansas City metro area. And I am sure some of you know that
KC is the largest--the second largest intermodal shipping hub
in the United States. And a lot of that is because of the
agricultural commodities that we transfer from rural parts of
Kansas all over the country.
And these are, actually, the very rural areas that Ranking
Member Davis was speaking about earlier, which--you know, I
would like to suggest that the urban-rural divide is maybe not
as vast as we might think it is. And when rural Kansas does
well, urban Kansas does well, and the entire country benefits.
So I spent a little bit of time at DOT, and I had the
chance to work on autonomous vehicle policy while I was there.
And the development of the various types of technologies is
something that is really interesting to me. The safety of
drivers and of passengers is always of primary concern, as many
of you have stated today.
I am also really concerned about making sure that folks
aren't being left out of the conversation about automation,
that people are still able to make a living. And so I would
like to ask some of our witnesses today if you can talk to me a
little bit about what you think intentional implementation of
autonomous systems looks like, whether that be the braking
systems, or other types of autonomous implementation.
So I would like to ask Mr. Spear, Spencer, Byrd, or Mr.
Noble, depending on the time, all of you, what does that look
like to you? What does intentional autonomous vehicle policy
look like, so that we are taking care of everyone?
Mr. Spear. Well, I think--and I have served on the Federal
Advisory Committee at DOT on this issue, and representing
trucking interests--and I am glad for that, because I felt for
the longest time--and I have worn the auto hat, as well, at
Hyundai--that trucking was not included in this discussion. And
I think we need to be.
We are moving 71 percent of the freight, we are paying half
the tab into the trust fund. We have got skin in this game. And
nothing to slight my friends in the autos, but we are not going
to hand the whole playbook to them and the DOT to write. We
have to be at the table to accommodate what the future is going
to look like.
Now, that really gets to the heart of it, because I think
levels 2, 3, driver-assist technology, it is here, it is going
to continue to grow. But to go to level 5 with no steering
wheel, no pedals, driverless, I get really bullish on this,
because I see people reporting on it all the time, that we are
going to go driverless. And if you are trying to recruit
somebody into this industry, if they think their job is going
to be gone in 5 years, they are probably going to move on to
something else.
First of all, it ain't happening. We are not going
driverless tomorrow, not 5, not probably even 50 years out. It
will come someday. But we have pilots in planes for a reason. I
kind of like that. But not just passenger planes. We have
pilots in cargo planes. So you are going to have drivers in
trucks for a long time. They are hauling 80,000 pounds. A lot
of them are hauling petrol, chemicals. In this secure
environment, I don't think you want that driverless.
I think you are going to see cars evolve quicker, and they
should; two-thirds of the accidents that involve trucks are
caused by passenger vehicles speeding and texting. And that is
where AEB coming online.
And connectivity, that 5.9 gigahertz the National Safety
Council and ATA are advocating at FCC, you connect the truck
and the trailer with the car, the brake hits, you are not going
to be hit in the trailer. It is a different way to get at the
side underguards and the rear guards. I would like to take an
approach where the accident doesn't happen at all. That
technology assumes you are going to hit the trailer. So
connectivity, I think, could solve a lot of the problem, and
lower the fatality rate in getting us to zero.
Mr. Spencer. My perspective of small-business truckers, or
at least certainly of our organization, is that we recognize
the potential for automated systems to tremendously improve
highway safety, the potential. But we struggle to separate
reality from what are simply marketing claims.
And I heard some statistics thrown out a while ago for a
big carrier that reports marvelous results with the use of
different technologies. Well, I had heard that stuff before,
and I have had our fellows look at the safety data that gets
reported at FMCSA, and we don't see any difference in real road
safety.
So we would like for small business to be in a position
where you have confidence that you can invest in technology
that actually really will work.
Ms. Davids. Thank you. And can I ask that you submit
additional comments to the record for our review? Because my
time has expired. But I just want to--I love you bringing up
that truckers have not been at the table for the conversations,
because everyone should be included in the conversation about
this.
Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Davids.
Mr. Westerman?
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would also like to thank all the witnesses for being here
today. As I listen to your testimony, and talking about the
vastness of the trucking industry, how it touches all parts of
our country, I couldn't help but think about all of our
transportation systems here, and how they are so interwoven.
And I know with rail and waterways and ships and trucks and
planes, we have it all in this country, and it, overall, I
think works quite well, probably better than any place else in
the world.
And you know, with the vastness of it, and just in trucking
by itself, I think it is great to have all of the different
views at the table. And as a matter of fact, as you all gave
your testimonies, I started taking notes of where there seemed
to be disagreement on issues.
You know, I wrote down there is a driver shortage, there is
not a driver shortage; ELDs have improved safety, ELDs have
worsened safety; automated and autonomous technologies are
good, automated and autonomous technologies are bad; we need
more flexibility in hours of service, flexibility in hours of
service is unfair and unsafe; we have an aging driver
workforce, and we are forcing experienced drivers out, yet we
shouldn't allow younger drivers or apprenticeship programs; we
have too many regulations, we need more regulations; making
site-specific or industry-specific weight exemptions are
increasing truck volume, but not weight, would reduce the
number of trucks on the road, improving safety and reducing
emissions. Increasing weights and volumes or making any
exceptions damages infrastructure and decreases safety.
So there is no--and I could have taken a lot more notes.
There is no end of competing ideas at the table today.
And just talking about the reality of the world outside of
DC, and how we sometimes see things here, I know I can take you
to Arkadelphia, Arkansas, in my district. It has got a little
two-lane road running right between two college campuses. And
they get several hundred log trucks that go down that road
because they can't get out on the interstate for just a little
ways to get around the town. Now, to me, that is a safety
issue. But if there is no room for exemptions or common sense,
then we will continue running the log trucks down a two-lane
road between two college campuses.
So my question--and this is open to anyone who would dare
take it--can any of you suggest a safety regulation, a policy
change, or an initiative that would improve safety that you
think everyone else at the table today would agree with?
Mr. Craig. I can certainly take that question. I think
establishing a motor carrier selection standard would.
Mr. Young's suggestion that we use out-of-service rules,
and eliminate--and not use everybody who is more than 50
percent above the national average indicates the confusion in
that area. Right?
If that is true, then we wouldn't be able to use 50 percent
of the truckers out there. I don't think anybody agrees with
that. But the question is the confusion--because there is no
selection standard--is that--where do we draw the line? Is it
20? Do we eliminate 25 percent of the carriers? Do we not hire
5 percent? Do we not hire 8 percent?
If Congress established a motor carrier selection standard,
the rules that are enforced now would be enforced across the
network, across the transportation freight network by shippers
and brokers evenly, and exactly like FMCSA and CVSA intended.
We would be able to take those carriers off the road.
Mr. Young. Mr. Craig confuses the testimony that was given.
Ten percent of the motor carriers, just 10 percent of all motor
carriers, make up a near 50 percent of the crashes. And if you
look at the out-of-service percentage ratings, which are very
clear, if the out-of-service percentage ratings exceed national
averages, then you need to look at that carrier a lot closer.
You got to give them the strict scrutiny.
So you are not accidentally hiring one of these 10 percent
bad apples that ultimately cause these multifatality crashes,
that these folks can't be compensated because minimum
insurances are inadequate, or because we don't have vehicle
crash compatibility with the underride guards.
So he did not point out one that we don't--we disagree on
this issue.
Mr. Craig. I think it shows the confusion in this area, and
establishing a standard would help, because right now you don't
have to check anything.
Mr. Young. As long as the standard does not take away or
create an immunity for brokers or shippers, because they are
the ones that are really pressuring the truck drivers. They are
the ones that are putting the late penalties and fines on these
folks. The just-in-time shipping, they are the ones not
regulated, where the truck driver is accountable. The brokers
and shippers need to remain accountable if they are hiring
those bad apples. Because cheaper freight should not sacrifice
safety.
Mr. Craig. And there is a coercion rule already in place
for exactly what Mr. Young is talking about. And the
insinuation that cheaper rates equal less safety, 2018 should
have been the most safe year on record, because rates were at
their absolute highest.
Mr. Westerman. I am out of time, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Spencer. I----
Ms. Norton. The witness may answer.
Mr. Spencer. I think there would be broad consensus that
improved driver training would have a positive outcome, and I
think there would be broad consensus on this panel that that
could be positive.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some
concerns that are not being covered yet with the growing
problem, the misclassification of port truck drivers,
especially in my two biggest ports in the area, in Los Angeles
and Long Beach, where hundreds of drivers are being forced by
unscrupulous trucking companies into working as independent
operators as a way for the companies to pay drivers below
minimum wage, and then they deny them benefits, creating an
unlivable wage for them and their families.
These truck drivers are forced to lease trucks at prices
they can't afford. A common example is a truck driver being
paid $200 a day, but having to pay lease fees of $190 a day,
leaving $10 a day. Some of the drivers are actually making less
than the leasing costs, and they are in debt. And if a truck
driver misses one payment, that truck is appropriated, taken
from them.
It is unthinkable that companies continue to get away with
a scheme to underpay truck drivers, who are hardworking people,
who--and so, consequently, when there is a shortage of truck
drivers, you wonder why they leave the type of employment and
go somewhere else to get a better coverage for their families.
Mr. Spear, what is the American Trucking Associations doing
to stop these bad actors?
Mr. Spear. I appreciate the question, Congresswoman. You
and I discussed this at length previously. I promised you I was
going to go to the Port of L.A. I did that. I visited all seven
terminals, spent a lot of time there, looking at the situation.
We have also canvassed our members on this issue. I am
unaware of any of our members that are abusing that. I do not
deny, however, that it is happening.
And I think, for any bad actor that is pressuring drivers
into a situation that is not sustainable, that they can't
afford the equipment, they are pigeon-holed into it, and they
can't get out, that is a situation that needs to be remedied.
How widespread it is, I honestly, from that visit and those
discussions, still do not have a conclusive idea of how
widespread this problem is.
I think it is fairly isolated. Nonetheless, it is a
problem. If it is existing, it needs to be dealt with. And I
think working with our Federal regulators, as well as State,
definitely need to coordinate this and understand how it could
be remedied.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is not----
Mr. Young. Representative, every lease-purchase program is
that bad situation. It is not just in California. Every time a
truck driver gets roped into one of these lease-purchase
programs, where they are promised, ``Hey, we are going to give
you keys to a truck, come drive for our company,'' the next
thing you know all of the money they earned goes into the
equity of that truck, and these poor people, these poor truck
drivers, are then saddled with not being able to take any money
home to pay their mortgage or their families.
I would love to get ATA on record saying that they are
against the lease-purchase programs for the entire industry. I
would love to get that right now.
Mrs. Napolitano. Or hopefully get banks or--to purchase for
them the trucks without having to pay big interest rates.
Mr. Noble, Mr. Craig, what are the business community and
the broker community doing in your industries to not contract
with the trucking companies that use abusive labor practices
and misclassify their workers?
Mr. Noble. Obviously, at PepsiCo, we have our own private
fleet. So we try to put as much of our freight on our own
private fleet, but we know the actors. We know the safety
records. We know we have the control.
But as you mention, 50 percent of our freight moves with
carriers. And we do contract with our friends at C.H. Robinson
on that. And so we do depend--and we make sure that we are
picking the right partner, carrier partner, that is selecting
the right carrier to move our freight safely.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Craig?
Mr. Craig. Yes, I would actually point to the new
California rule around checking if a carrier has had a judgment
against them on an employment law. That is a great example of
how good regulation will work to have the effects on the
industry that you are talking about. We check the list that the
Department of Labor of California publishes frequently, to make
sure that we are not hiring those carriers. So----
Mrs. Napolitano. We have a good enforcement attorney
general, Mr. Becerra.
Mr. Craig. But the key there is the clear indication of who
to hire and who not, and to be able to reinforce the decisions
of the California Department of Labor. Absolutely.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Byrd, do you have any comment, concern
over this misclassification?
Mr. Byrd. Yes. I know that we have a port division that
works tirelessly to work closely with drivers to ensure that
they are properly classified. And it is my understanding that
there may have been some litigation and other activities
surrounding properly classifying drivers.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Spear----
Ms. Norton. I thank you very much. Mrs. Napolitano's time
has expired.
I want to call on Mr. Gallagher. A vote has been called. I
ask Mr. Gallagher for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I know we
have had some talk about six axles, and I know this is bound up
in a broader debate we are having about just how to fix funding
issues of the Highway Maintenance Trust Fund, to fix our roads
and bridges.
I would highlight the fact that the Minnesota Department of
Transportation found that the addition of a six-axle reduces
wear and tear on roads by 37 percent. This allows for an
increase in truck weight at the same time--at the same overall
dimension as current trucks.
USDOT has said they don't have enough information to know
the impact of increased truck weight with a six-axle on our
roads, which is why I joined with many of my colleagues in
asking for Congress to authorize a pilot program, so we can
simply get that information.
But a question for Mr. Noble. In Canada I understand that
PepsiCo is already safely operating 91,000-pound, six-axle
trucks. Have there been any safety concerns with operating that
truck configuration?
Mr. Noble. Thanks for the question. When we look at Canada
we are hauling over the 91,000 that we are proposing with the
SHIP Coalition in Canada. Obviously, with that six-axle does
come with the extra braking power that allows it to stop with
that six-axle.
We also run that configuration in other countries, as well.
And most of the developed markets have higher weight limits
than what we have, that were established in 1983 here in the
U.S.
Mr. Gallagher. So just to follow up on that, we do have a
comprehensive size and weight study from USDOT that says a
91,000-pound, six-axle truck would have a 1.2 billion reduction
in annual vehicle miles traveled on U.S. roads. How would that
reduction--I mean, if you believe that analysis--in vehicle
miles traveled impact PepsiCo?
Mr. Noble. Any miles that we can save by filling up the
capacity on our vehicles--not just at PepsiCo--but any capacity
that is wasted--we have talked about driver shortage, or driver
retention, or whatever. If we can eliminate the miles, then we
can retain--and a better safety record by eliminating that
mile.
But when you look at the proposal, that--again, when we--we
want the--the States have heavier weight limits in most States.
What we are asking for is allow the 91,000-pound to get off of
those local and State roads, and put them on the access of the
interstate, where they are designed more to do. And that way
you--obviously, you are running in much more--you are not
running the route miles when you are running State roads and
highways, and you are not bypassing the colleges the other
congressman was talking about. You are putting them on the
safer roads, bypassing the State and local roads, and allowing
it to be more safer, less miles.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure. In addition to safety, I think one of
the promising positive externalities of this approach would be
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as someone who is
concerned about climate change. And so I just would hope that
we could move forward with the pilot program, with the idea
that it would result in safer roads, and also a healthier
climate.
I know that my colleague, Mr. Westerman, talked about the
ability to allow logging trucks, in particular, access to
Federal highways so that they don't have to go on roundabouts
and local roads, which itself presents a safety concern. I have
a bill that would authorize such a program, and I just would
encourage my colleagues on the committee to consider that. I
know it is not a silver bullet to our problems, but I think it
is one small way where we can authorize pilot programs like
this. And giving those logging trucks the ability to navigate
on safer routes, I think, would again increase safety and also
result in a more efficient use of fuel for that truck.
Mr. Noble. That is a perfect example of what we are trying
to accomplish with the coalition, with other members like Home
Depot, Tyson, that are members of the coalition. Because,
again, if you can take those heavier-weight trucks onto the
interstate, where they belong, and where it is designed more
for, then you can do that.
Every mile you reduce--talking about emissions, every mile
is a reduction, and it saves 2.5 pounds of carbon. You know, so
obviously, with our emissions that we are trying to save at
PepsiCo, not just with electric, but also going to alternative
fuels--CNG in our tractors--but also it comes down--the best
mile to drive is the miles you don't have to. And eliminating
the miles is the best way.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, I am out of time. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gallagher.
We have a vote on. We understand there is one vote, so we
are recessing this committee and asking Members to return
immediately after that vote.
This hearing is recessed.
[Recess.]
Mr. Lowenthal [presiding]. Good, we are going to reconvene
the hearing. Unfortunately, there has been another motion on
the floor that we are going to have to leave. So I am going to
ask one question, and then we are going to recess again,
adjourn the hearing again. And so I thank the panel for putting
up with us. But we are not doing too well, you know? So--but
let me begin.
At our April hearing I raised the issue of obstructive
sleep apnea, and the critical importance of combating driver
fatigue. As Members know, as we all know, the NTSB has for
years recommended that the FMCSA issue clear guidelines to
screen for sleep apnea. But the Administration withdrew the
rulemaking in 2017 to improve this screening.
So the first question I have is for Ms. Chase. Can you talk
about the risks posed to highway users by untreated sleep
apnea?
Ms. Chase. Yes, thank you for the question. Fatigue is one
of the largest problems facing the trucking industry right now.
In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board has
repeatedly included it on its Most Wanted List, addressing the
issue of driver fatigue. And it is particularly troublesome
when there are ways to combat it, such as, to your point, the
diagnosis of sleep apnea, and then the treatment.
And the fact that the Administration withdrew that
rulemaking is problematic, and we would encourage this
subcommittee to move forward with legislation that would direct
a final rule on the issue.
It is not that we don't want truck drivers with this
infliction driving, it is just that we want it treated, and
especially when there are ways to treat it.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I raise the issue because one
night, my wife awakened me and said, ``You are not breathing.''
I said, ``What are you talking about, I am not breathing? I
am breathing. I am fine.'' And it turns out--I then went to GW
Hospital, did all the tests, and I found out that I have
serious sleep apnea, which I was completely unaware of. I had
some fatigue during the day, but I just attributed that to the
normal aging process. I think that--I was treated, and I am
doing quite well.
And it is not a major treatment, but it is--but I also
don't want to create extra out-of-pocket expenses for truck
drivers. I appreciate that this can be somewhat of an expense.
Now, I am lucky, I have both my own insurance, and I am covered
here by being part of the health insurance that is offered to
Members, in terms of our attending physician. But drivers, I
think--people in many places, when their employers don't pick
it up, are stretched to the limit.
So the question really is how do we screen--if anybody has
any ideas: How do we screen for sleep apnea, without creating
additional costs for the drivers? What are we going to do about
this now, given the fact that some--you know, I can only say,
``Well, we really need''--making sure that everybody's health
insurance covers all of this, and we don't have that now with--
we are in a battle right now.
The courts--actually, there is cases before the courts to
get rid of all of the Affordable Care Act.
So I am just kind of asking why we haven't done it. And is
there something that Congress needs to do about ensuring that
truck drivers do not have to be burdened with additional costs?
So any thoughts about this? Because I think it is a serious
issue.
Mr. Spencer?
Mr. Spencer. I will speak on behalf of truck drivers, in
that sleep apnea is a medical condition----
Mr. Lowenthal. Yes.
Mr. Spencer [continuing]. That we believe drivers--if
anyone has it, if it is a concern to you, you should seek
treatment for that.
And also--but looking at the crash data, I would take
considerable issue with those that claim that sleep apnea is
causing crashes, because all sleep apnea is is something that
causes you not to get the quality of sleep that you may need.
Whether or not you crash a vehicle, whether it is a car or a
truck, has to do with driving when you are sleepy, driving when
you are drowsy, something that no driver should do.
But, you know, one of the key things, one of the key
dilemmas that professional truck drivers have, is that they
don't have places to park to get off the road, where they
actually can get--it might be a break or it might be a long 8-
or 10-hour restorative sleep. But, I mean, that is the biggest
challenge that virtually all in trucking deal with right now,
and it is not a new challenge. It has been an issue for 20
years.
And we talk about infrastructure. We talk about safety. The
environment that drivers in transportation have prided in has
to come with some way for people to get off the road when they
need it. So I hope that can be a focus, an ongoing focus, going
forward, because it is certainly sorely needed.
Mr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I am going to yield back.
Shall we continue? We have only, I believe, 6 minutes and
46 seconds left to go and vote. What a crazy system this is.
So does Mr. Lipinski not want--fine.
Then we are going to recess this hearing one more time.
This hearing has been recessed.
[Recess.]
Ms. Norton [presiding]. We are going to have to proceed,
notwithstanding this mischief from the other side, or else we
will never get this done. And I am pleased that Mr. Pence is
here. And I am going to recognize Mr. Pence for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. All right. I am going to sit here and still
sweat.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Davis, thank you all
for being here. I was a perpetual truck owner, started
companies, sold companies, so I really like the trucking
business.
In the interest of your time, I am going to ask two quick
questions. And if each of you can, just give me a quick answer.
And the first, you know, driver safety is paramount to me.
Running trucking companies, making money, was number two.
Turnover was always the most expensive thing.
And I think, as you mentioned, Mr. Spencer, new drivers are
the most dangerous. And I am not quite quoting you exactly.
And Mr. Spear, you mentioned that the economy, it is
booming, and there is a greater demand.
So, number one, what can we do about driver turnover? What
is the number-one thing you--each of you think we can do about
driver turnover? Take----
Ms. Chase. Thank you for the question. Oh, should--I am
sorry.
Mr. Young. I didn't know which end we were going to start
from.
Ms. Chase. Should I go?
Mr. Pence. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Chase. OK, thank you for the question. I think one of
the things that we should do, from a safety perspective, is
make the job safer. Right now truck driving is one of the most
dangerous professions. And if you include the equipment that I
mentioned earlier such as speed limiters, automatic emergency
braking, and lane departure warning, just to name a few, that
would make the turnover rate decrease.
Mr. Pence. They would feel safer. Thank you.
Ms. Chase. Yes.
Mr. Spear. For turnover, I would say pay. It is going up.
It should go up.
Mr. Pence. It is. I have got, in my district, some 125,000
propane haulers, 95,000 Fortune 500 day deliveries, and they
have driver shortages. Do you think we are just going to keep
going up?
Mr. Spear. No, I think it will plateau at some point. It is
not sustainable, you know, to continue to go up. But I think it
has to go up to a certain level, but I also think, to earlier
comments to questions, it is a combination of things. It is the
work environment. Are you doing long-haul versus, you know,
local, regional. There are different conditions that drive
someone's decision to be in trucking.
And so it has to fit each person's lifestyle. It is added
pay, it is added benefits. These things culminate into a reason
for being in trucking.
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Spencer. Actually, the easy--the quick one is pay,
benefits, working conditions.
Having said that, there is actually more to it in that most
people that enter trucking as a career really have no idea what
the lifestyle is, what the job is.
And again, I lamented about the lack of any real meaningful
driver training, from the standpoint of safety. But, you know,
realistically, we turn people loose and we expect them to know
how to do all kinds of really, really important things,
including descending mountains with loaded trucks, and they are
not prepared, and they are not comfortable, and they don't
stick around.
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Byrd. I thank you for the question. I think, again,
compensation, including benefits, improving working conditions.
I think improving the infrastructure that would allow drivers
to not encounter so much congestion, so that they are better
able to complete their runs efficiently, I think, would--are
things that would--also could help----
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Craig. The one aspect I would add is truck parking. We
routinely hear about a lack of truck parking and inadequate
truck parking from our carriers----
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
Mr. Noble. I agree with the--you know, what we have done
with the equipment, adding the safety features, and the
ergonomics in the tractors, I think, has done a lot for the
drivers, as well as I agree with--and I am a shipper, and we
need to do more to continue to generate velocity and not tie up
the driver's time at the dock, versus driving.
And I think that gets to a lot of respect that we need to
have for drivers.
Mr. Pence. All right, thank you.
Mr. Savage. Thank you for the question, sir. I think a lot
of drivers, when I talk to them, they are concerned about the
safety aspects of trucking. And so I think making regulations
clear, concise, easily understandable is going to save lives on
our----
Mr. Pence. This was mentioned, yes. Thank you.
Mr. Young. Safer trucks, including underride guards, having
those drivers know that no car is going to ever get underneath
that trailer, and they are not going to deal with a fatality,
or have to deal with potential jail time.
Mr. Spear mentioned earlier that that was a 35-mile-an-hour
test. IIHS did test at 40 miles per hour, the angel wing, and
the inventor of that test tested at 47 miles per hour.
Pay, driving conditions, and I was going to talk about
truck driver parking. Mr. Craig and I agree on that----
Mr. Pence. All right, thank you. One, yes or no--time to
look at a third dedicated truck lane? Yes or no? Right down the
way.
Ms. Chase. I don't have a comment on that one.
Mr. Spear. It is not free and it is not cheap.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Spencer. No, not dedicated just truck.
Mr. Byrd. No, not just truck.
Mr. Craig. I would defer to my experts on the equipment
side on this.
Mr. Noble. No opinion.
Mr. Savage. No, due to speed differences between the two.
Mr. Young. No, the infrastructure should go to truck driver
parking.
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. And thank you, Mr. Pence.
Mr. Lipinski for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Byrd, I want to
start off--can you elaborate on your testimony that Mexican
carriers are taking advantage of loopholes in the enterprise
carrier program that allows Mexican-owned but U.S.-domiciled
carriers to game the system? How is this harming American
workers?
Mr. Byrd. Well, many Mexican long-haul carriers--primarily
the enterprise and certificate carriers--were supposed to meet
a November 2003 deadline to renew their operating authority for
long-haul operations beyond the commercial zone.
It is our understanding that a lot of carriers didn't do
that, and that, although the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration has authority to take their operating authority
away, that was not enforced, due to, I think, some staffing
issues and some budget issues.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I am going to move on to a
question that I want to have Mr. Byrd and also Mr. Spear speak
to.
I know, Mr. Byrd, in your testimony you mentioned that you
believe the trucking industry will have the need for skilled
drivers for decades to come, even though autonomous trucks are
being developed right now.
And Mr. Spear, your testimony agrees, and you make the
parallel to the aviation industry, which still has pilots 50
years after automation of the cockpit.
So I want to ask both of you. I guess let me start with Mr.
Spear.
What role do you foresee drivers will play in the future of
increasingly automated driving?
Mr. Spear. I am a bit bullish on this. I think it is
driver-assist, not driverless. I think technology has a role to
play. I think you are going to see more of it in trucks. I
think there is going to be more connectivity between trucks,
trailers, and cars. Just the 5.9 gigahertz that I mentioned, I
think if FCC were to give seven channels of that to safety, you
could really dramatically reduce the number of fatalities each
year. That AEB kicks in, the car is going to see it based on
the frequency, even if the driver doesn't.
So I think driver-assist is a huge catalyst in the safety
debate, and we need to embrace it, not be afraid of it. But I
am very bullish against this idea that we are going to be
driverless. I mean you will see it in cars before you see it in
trucks, for the same reasons we have pilots in planes. So I am
just not buying it.
I also think, though, that the tech element of the industry
is going to evolve, and you are going to see not only drivers,
but technicians have more of a technology background. They are
going to have more of a software headset. And I think a lot of
that could attract a younger generation of talent into the
industry that is more tech-savvy. And we are seeing it on new
equipment. It is very prevalent. I have toured several OEMs,
and I have seen in multiple cubicles 25-, 30-year-olds writing
software for the OEMs. I mean this is where we are going. And
it is coming, I just don't view it as driverless.
I think it is a way to equip the driver to make them safer,
more productive, better rested. There are a lot of good
takeaways from this that I think are worthy of our attention.
Mr. Lipinski. Yes, Mr. Byrd, how do you see----
Mr. Byrd. Yes, I would echo many of Mr. Spear's comments. I
will focus, however, on--I do agree, I think it will be driver-
assist. It is the last mile.
I think that there will be quite a bit of autonomous
vehicles, that type of technology, operating on our highways.
But once we get to that last mile, that delivery in that urban
type environment, I see the drivers still playing quite a
significant role, as far as that is concerned.
Mr. Lipinski. And Mr. Spear, you agree with that? Is that
the way you envision it?
Mr. Spear. I do. I think you look at the dynamic of each
sector of the industry, and you probably see long-haul where
there are less cars around the truck. Concepts like platooning
are certainly being tested. But we are seeing a lot of
technology enter in that makes that driver better rested,
better equipped, could multitask.
We have seen testing out on our highways in various States
and localities that is proving fruitful. But I think in an
urban environment, particularly, you are going to need that
driver. I mean there are so many variables that, you know, no
algorithm that we see can----
Mr. Lipinski. Let me----
Mr. Spear [continuing]. Can handle all that.
Mr. Lipinski. Let me ask in the brief time, Mr. Byrd, what
do you see as workforce investments that we are going to need
to make in drivers, so that they can--for this new situation.
Mr. Byrd. In terms of--I am sorry?
Mr. Lipinski. Workforce investments, such as training, that
we are going to have to do.
Mr. Byrd. I think this is absolutely important that we have
training, very robust training for drivers, especially as we
move forward with adding technologies into the vehicles.
And as I have noted in my testimony, we have an aging
driver workforce, so we anticipate that there will be younger
drivers entering the workforce. So it will be necessary for
them to get proper training and seat time to operate safely.
Mr. Spear. Ours is multipronged. But, really quickly, we
need to take care of our own, those that are in the workforce.
Cessation programs, wellness programs, really taking care of
those that want to drive for a long period of time. You know,
companies have to step up to the plate and take care of their
workforce.
We need more urban hiring, minorities, women. That
workforce is out there, and we need to leverage our Federal,
State, and local resources to attract that talent into the
industry that may not even be aware that our industry exists.
Veterans, exiting service people from the military that have
that skill set.
And as we have talked at length, 18- to 21-year-olds. It is
legal in 48 States. That works pretty good from Redding,
California, to San Diego, not so good from Providence, Rhode
Island. I can be at the border in 20 minutes. So that kind of
logic doesn't make any sense.
And there is no training, there is no technology
requirements in any of those 48 States. That is why this bill
is so powerful and bipartisan in both chambers, is because it
makes sense. It is grounded in training and technology,
something that doesn't exist in those 48 States.
I think you have to do all of those things simultaneously
to address our next steps toward growth, as an industry.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. And Mr. Lipinski's time has expired.
Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding
this hearing. I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for
your great testimony here today, and your patience, as we took
a short break to vote on a couple of adjournment motions.
The movement of freight and goods is key to our country's
economic future and maintaining our global competitiveness,
growth over the last 20 years. Improvements in the
manufacturing process and new technology are placing an ever-
greater strain on the capacity to move goods. And this growth
is only expected to continue increasing.
In fact, USDOT estimates that freight volumes will increase
45 percent by 2045. With more than 80 percent of the U.S.
communities relying exclusively on trucks for their freight
transportation needs, it is important for this Congress to make
the investments needed to ensure a well-maintained and reliable
road network in order to reduce congestion and improve safety.
I know all of the members of the panel agree. My first set
of questions are for Mr. Craig from C.H. Robinson.
Thank you for being here today, and I really enjoyed my
visit to C.H. Robinson's facility in the Phoenix area, back in
April.
When a shipper or broker like C.H. Robinson hires a
carrier, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has
regulations in place to guide that process. What does the
agency currently require a shipper or broker to assure before
they hire a motor carrier?
Mr. Craig. So right now there is technically no standard.
But FMCSA does have a series of licenses and authorizations.
Some of those include--CVSA has published that in chapter 4 of
their out-of-service guide. Those include having a valid
authority, not being placed out of service, not being declared
an imminent hazard, things like that. And again, they are
compiled in chapter 4 of the out-of-service guide.
Mr. Stanton. And can you elaborate more on some of the
issues that C.H. Robinson has encountered when utilizing
information from the agency to hire a motor carrier?
Mr. Craig. Sure. While I mentioned in my testimony that we
have got a qualification process, that often gets challenged.
Folks can take any data that is published out there, and make a
carrier look poorly. I have included appendix B, which is a
screenshot of the CSA website. And this carrier, you can poke
holes in various different parts of the data here to make this
carrier look bad.
So a variety of different data is used to say that our
decision was--could have been negligent.
Mr. Stanton. And you advocate for the establishment and
implementation of a motor carrier selection standard. In your
view, how would the establishment of such a standard impact
safety on our roads? Obviously, every panelist has talked about
the importance of safety, and I do want to hear comments from
Mr. Byrd, Mr. Young on the same topic. Please.
Mr. Craig. Sure. As I demonstrated in the testimony, the--a
great example was in 2017 CVSA added the inactive USDOT number
to their out-of-service criteria. However, because there is no
standard right now, and nothing that people can rely on,
oftentimes people overlook this. Many in the industry were
completely unaware of that.
So the carriers that did have an inactive DOT number, they
were allowed to get freight from other brokers. That is one
thing that we do check now. But I know many in the industry
don't check that on a regular basis.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Young, Mr. Byrd?
Mr. Young. Yes, please. What C.H. Robinson is proposing,
or--and what the legislation proposes is the bare minimum. Even
a chameleon carrier can change its stripes and switch from a
bad company into a new DOT number, and then ultimately be
qualified under that criteria.
The criteria that should be used is the third-party
Intermediaries Association's published criteria that is
currently--I don't know if it is currently published, but we
certainly have it. It is a three-page criteria that has a
laundry list of issues and items that are available. I don't
believe you were here when I indicated before 10 percent of the
motor carriers represent near 50 percent of all crashes. The
idea is to identify these 10 percent. Out-of-service percentage
ratings, all the detail and the information on CSA allows some
of that information to be there.
To go the extreme to the bare minimum would just be
detrimental, and then ultimately allow selecting carriers based
on unsafe ratings, and ultimately create a bigger problem in a
bigger pool of these bad apples that are going to create more
crashes.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you so much.
Mr. Byrd?
Mr. Byrd. Yes, we would agree. We have great concern that
allowing shippers to waive any liability would be a huge
concern. We believe that all players in the transportation
supply chain should share in a liability, and that carriers
that are hired should have good safety records.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Craig? Please.
Mr. Craig. Can I make one quick point, that a motor carrier
standard, establishing that, would not allow any broker to
waive liability? In fact, if you didn't adhere to the standard,
you would almost be negligent by--you know, by default.
Mr. Stanton. All right. Thank you very much. I am out of
time, so I will not be able to ask Mr. Spear about the big,
bold infrastructure package, but will at a future time.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanton. There being
no other Members here, I want to thank all of you for giving
what has been very, very helpful testimony, making the
subcommittee understand the dilemmas in which we find
ourselves, and I hope we will unravel in the 2020 bill we are
in the process of preparing.
I thank all the Members who attended and asked such
challenging questions.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing. Feel free to submit further information as you see
fit.
And without objection, so ordered.
Thank you very much for attending. The subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and thank you to our witnesses for
being here today.
I also want to welcome Mr. Todd Spencer--a fellow Missourian who's
testifying on behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association. Todd's been advocating--passionately, I might add--for
small business truckers for over 40 years. I'm glad to see him back
before the Committee again.
Enacting a long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill is
a top priority of mine.
In order to be successful, we must work together to develop a bill
that has robust bipartisan support as well as strong stakeholder
support.
Today's hearing is an intregal part of our process to develop that
bill.
The trucking industry is important to our Nation.
It creates jobs and helps spur economic growth by serving as a
vital mode of transportation for American products.
It is particularly important to rural America.
According to the USDA, trucks carry 70 percent of agricultural
products, helping our farmers to compete in the global marketplace.
A few of my objectives in this area for the bill are:
Ensuring that we have the necessary infrastructure to
move our goods domestically and internationally;
Incorporating technological advancements into our system
to improve safety and efficiency; and
Providing a regulatory environment that addresses safety
needs and allows U.S. businesses to thrive.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses and the important
discussion that follows.
I yield the balance of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I am pleased that the Chairwoman is holding this hearing today, as
it allows us to examine the current priorities and issues within the
trucking industry in our nation. I am eager to hear from the
stakeholders serving on the panel today about the challenges faced by
motor carriers, truck drivers, shippers, and brokers--and how these
challenges impact the safety, operations, jobs, and movement of goods
in this industry. Regarding the current state of trucking, my interests
are specific to how we as a legislative body can adequately address the
promotion of road safety; the development, deployment, and impact of
autonomous vehicles on the transportation workforce; and the necessity
of investment in workforce advancement.
My district is a major hub for trucking and is a site of noteworthy
innovations in transportation. With the significance of this industry
in my district, I am dedicated to addressing trucking's imminent and
long-term concerns.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
large truck crashes claimed 4,761 lives in 2017--this number of
fatalities has followed an upward trend for crashes involving large
trucks and buses since 2009. This is of significant concern to me, as
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has disclosed that
Texas has one of the highest averages in the nation of fatal large
truck and bus crashes between 2014 and 2016. I welcome the panel's
comments on how our legislative body can best support the wellbeing of
our trucking workforce and protect the safety of our constituents.
In my home state of Texas, the Permian Basin is experiencing
tremendous growth in the energy sector. This growth has had a
significant impact on our roads and bridges, as oversized and
overweight trucks are facing difficulty in clearing bridges and are
prematurely wearing out highway pavement. The Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) is working to improve freight infrastructure
design, improve grade separation, and widen two-lane roads. Last year,
Texas was awarded two BUILD grants to improve the infrastructure in the
Permian Basin used to address some of these issues. A greater
commitment is needed at the national and state levels to improve
highway infrastructure. As the cost of construction is rising and
infrastructure continues to deteriorate, funding sources must be
identified and allocated to expand and improve highway infrastructure.
The importance of the truck driving industry in the delivery of
goods cannot be overstated, therefore drivers must have access to
adequate parking to comply with federally mandated regulations,
including hours-of-service (HOS) compliance. If no available parking
location is nearby as drivers are running out of HOS, this places the
driver in a difficult situation. In the North Central Texas region, as
in other large metropolitan areas across the nation, the lack of
available truck parking is a significant issue. TxDOT is working on a
study to assess and address truck parking needs with practical,
innovative, and cost-effective strategies through partnerships with the
private sector. The goal is to improve safety on the roadways and
mitigate community impacts associated with truck parking.
For my district, the development and deployment of autonomous
vehicle technologies has quickly emerged as a prominent and complex
issue. This expansion in the various technologies across different
levels of automation will undoubtedly have tremendous effects on our
nation's surface transportation system and our workforce. This is
already evident in Dallas, where a pilot program has been completed
this year which engaged self-driving trucks to deliver mail between
distribution centers in two different states.
These developments in autonomous vehicles have significant
implications for the trucking workforce, as displacement is a
substantial concern. It is due to these specific concerns that I have
previously introduced and am currently updating the Transportation
Workforce Modernization Act. My legislation will direct the Secretary
of Transportation to establish a program to provide grants to retrain
transportation workers. It will also commission a study by the
Comptroller General of the United States to identify the impact of
driverless vehicle adoption on our nation's workforce; trucking,
freight, and personal transportation industries; wages; job losses; and
creation of new jobs. With my legislation, I join the efforts of this
Congress to meaningfully address the contemporary concerns and
priorities of our nation's trucking industry.
Thank you. I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Carol D. Miller, a Representative in
Congress from the State of West Virginia
My district of Southern West Virginia is the cross roads of
transportation for trade and trucking, connecting the eastern seaboard
and inland America. The highways of West Virginia are essential for our
nation's goods and products to reach consumers and to be exported
around the world. West Virginia produces some of the finest natural
resources and manufactured goods. Unfortunately, our highway system
does not meet that same standard. In the past, we have faced crumbling
infrastructure and uncompleted highways, such as the King Coal Highway
and Tulsa Highway, but this is starting to change. For example, the
road connecting my district's famous ``Bridge to Nowhere'' to the
airport is finally under construction. West Virginia is getting back on
track. Finishing these projects could cut travel times in half, boost
economic output, improve driver safety, and save lives, just as many on
our panel today have highlighted in their testimony. It is one of my
main priorities to connect West Virginia with the rest the country, by
focusing on our infrastructure and promoting economic development.
Statement of Lane Kidd, Managing Director, Alliance for Driver Safety &
Security (The Trucking Alliance), Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Norton
the trucking alliance
The Alliance for Driver Safety & Security, commonly known as the
Trucking Alliance, is a coalition of interstate freight transportation
and logistics companies. A select number of insurance and technology
businesses also support the work of the Trucking Alliance.
The Trucking Alliance is solely focused on advancing safety reforms
to:
Improve the safety and security of commercial drivers;
Reduce the number of large truck accidents; and
Eliminate all large truck crash fatalities.
This statement reflects the unanimous position of the Trucking
Alliance Board of Directors.
member companies
Trucking Alliance carriers affiliate by invitation. Companies agree
to adopt specific safety and operating standards that exceed federal
regulations.
Two member carriers are in the top five largest trucking and
logistics companies in the United States. The other member carriers are
among the 200 largest US trucking firms. These companies collectively
employ 82,000 professional drivers and logistics personnel. Thousands
of independent owner-operators are contracted to these companies.
Collectively, Trucking Alliance member companies own and operate 70,000
large tractors, and more than 220,000 semitrailers and intermodal
containers, to serve supply chain networks, both domestically and
internationally. More information about the Trucking Alliance can be
found here [https://truckingalliance.org/].
the trucking industry must reduce large truck crashes
The subject of the House T&I Subcommittee hearing is ``Under
Pressure--The State of Trucking in America.'' There should be no
greater pressure on the trucking industry than to reduce large truck
crash fatalities and injuries.
In the last reportable year (2017), there were more than 415,000
large truck accidents on our nation's highways. These large truck
crashes tragically killed 4,761 people, including more than 600 truck
drivers. Another 148,000 people were injured. These statistics should
alarm every trucking company employer, whose drivers share the road
with millions of motorists every day.
large truck crash fatalities can be eliminated
Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO of Maverick USA in Little Rock,
Arkansas, is a co-founder of the Trucking Alliance and serves as the
coalition's president. Williams is a former chairman of the American
Trucking Associations and has served on numerous industry stakeholder
boards and commissions, including the Transportation Research
Board.``The trucking industry is indispensable to the US economy,''
Williams recently said. ``But the industry has too many accidents. More
truck drivers lost their lives in 2017, than in any year in the
previous 10 years. We must aggressively address these tragic figures.''
Williams believes a first step is to reverse the industry priorities.
``Support progressive safety reforms that make sense for our country
and citizens first, our industry second, and our companies third.''
Yet several trucking-specific bills before the House Transportation
& Infrastructure Committee would propose the opposite--legislation to
benefit companies first, the trucking industry second, and our country
and citizens, third. This committee must adopt safety reforms to reduce
large truck crashes and reject legislation that would appease special
interests but sacrifice public safety in the process.
The trucking industry should strive to achieve the same safety
performance record as the US airline industry. For example, the
Trucking Alliance fully supports the work of the Road to Zero
Coalition. Announced in October 2016, this coalition has more than 900
cities, corporations, and government agencies. The Trucking Alliance
serves as one of 21 organizations on the Road to Zero Steering Group,
the only stakeholder from the trucking industry.
The Road to Zero Coalition plans to fully eliminate all highway
accident fatalities within 30 years. If progressive safety reforms and
emerging technologies are adopted, the trucking industry can eliminate
all large truck crash fatalities much sooner. This subcommittee can
have an integral role in achieving these objectives.
The House T&I Subcommittee on Highways and Transit should consider
the following safety priorities, to reduce large truck crashes,
injuries and fatalities:
1. No Industry Segment Should Be Exempt from Installing Electronic
Logging Devices (ELDs)
In 2012, Congress required all interstate commercial trucks to
install an ELD, as part of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act.''
ELDs are recording devices. The devices are engaged to the truck's
engine. ELDs verify when and for how many hours a truck driver operates
a commercial vehicle. ELDs verify if a truck driver exceeds the maximum
number of on-duty hours allowed by law, thereby reducing truck driver
fatigue, a major factor in large truck crashes.
Rather than embrace ELDs for the safety benefits they will achieve,
certain industry segments want an exemption from ELDs. H.R. 1673 and
H.R. 1698 would allow thousands of truck drivers to operate `off the
grid' and without a reliable way to verify whether they are in
compliance with on-duty regulations. These bills would compromise
public safety. The T&I Subcommittee should reject these two bills,
outright.
Another bill, H.R. 1697, would allow any motor carrier that
operates 10 or fewer trucks to operate without an ELD. Hundreds of
thousands of truck drivers could operate their trucks without an ELD,
and presumably, utilize the paper logs that ELDs replaced. Paper log
books are easily falsified. H.R. 1697 should be rejected.
ELDs should be required in all large commercial trucks, regardless
of how many trucks are owned, the commodity being hauled, length of
trip, or whether the truck driver operates in interstate or intrastate
commerce.
2. Thousands of Commercial Truck Drivers are Illicit Drug Users
The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 requires
drug and alcohol testing of ``safety-sensitive'' transportation worker
occupations. These occupations require performance in the public
sector. Drug use is strictly prohibited. Truck driving is considered a
safety sensitive occupation, along with other transportation workers in
aviation, rail, pipeline, transit, and other transportation modes.
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) administers the 1991
law, incorporating drug test guidelines approved by the US Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS). USDOT currently recognizes one drug
test method--a urinalysis. USDOT allows employers to require additional
drug test methods, as part of the employer's hiring practices.
A growing number of trucking company employers, including Trucking
Alliance carriers, require a second drug test, a hair analysis, as part
of their pre-employment truck driver hiring policies. The Trucking
Alliance recently submitted data to USDOT, showing compelling evidence
that thousands of habitual drug users are manipulating federal drug
test protocols and obtaining jobs as commercial truck drivers.
This survey data compared the pre-employment drug test results of
151,662 truck driver applicants, who were asked to submit to two drug
tests--a urinalysis and a hair analysis. Almost all applicants held an
active commercial driver license. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the
truck driver applicants tested drug-free. However, thousands of
applicants failed either or both drug tests.
Alarmingly, the urinalysis, the only method recognized by USDOT,
and relied on by almost all trucking company employers, actually failed
to identify most drug abusers. The urinalysis detected drugs in 949
applicants, about 1% of the population. However, 8.6%, or 8,878 truck
driver applicants, either failed or refused the hair test. Put another
way, the urinalysis missed 9 out of 10 actual illicit drug users. The
most prevalent drug was cocaine, followed by opioids and marijuana.
Applicants who failed or refused the hair test were disqualified for
employment at these companies, but likely obtained the same job
elsewhere, at companies that administer only a urinalysis.
This survey is the first of its kind in the trucking industry. The
results represent a statistically valid sample. According to the
American Trucking Associations, there are 3.5 million commercial truck
drivers. The survey can project with a 99% confidence level, and a
margin of error of <1%, that 301,000 commercial truck drivers would
fail or refuse a hair analysis today, for illegal drug use.
The survey results are compelling evidence that thousands of
habitual drug users are skirting a system designed to prohibit drug use
in transportation. Thousands of drug abusers are obtaining jobs as
truck drivers, despite their drug use.
The T&I Subcommittee can intervene to mitigate this problem. Urge
HHS to expeditiously complete its hair test guidelines, so USDOT can
quickly recognize hair testing for DOT pre-employment and random drug
test protocols. Further, until USDOT recognizes a hair analysis, no
employer will be allowed to submit hair test failures into the pending
USDOT Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse. This will make it virtually
impossible for another employer to know if a person applying for a
truck driver job has previously failed a drug test.
Drug use in the trucking industry is a public safety crisis. This
survey can project as many as 301,000 commercial drivers would fail or
refuse a hair test. These illicit drug users must be identified and
taken out of commercial trucks and off the nation's highways. The
trucking industry has no greater safety issue, than to aggressively
address illegal drug use among commercial truck drivers.
3. Truck Drivers Should Be 21 Years or Older to Operate Commercial
Trucks in Interstate Commerce
Federal regulations require a person to be at least 21 years of age
before operating a commercial vehicle in interstate commerce. The
Trucking Alliance supports this age restriction.
Most states allow teenagers between the ages of 18-21 to operate
commercial trucks within their state boundary. While statistics are
lacking, anecdotal evidence suggests these teenage truck drivers
operate lighter weight, short trucks, such as delivery vans and
straight or panel trucks.
Few teenagers actually operate Class 8 tractor-trailer combinations
within their state. These big rigs carry a laden weight of 80,000
pounds. These are the tractor trailers used in interstate commerce.
Operating these tractor trailer combinations requires elevated skills,
considerable experience, maturity and self-discipline.
State restrictions that allow teenagers to operate some types of
trucks in intrastate commerce, can serve as the proper framework for
gaining experience. These teenagers are essentially in an
apprenticeship. They operate smaller trucks, make local deliveries,
return to their place of work each day. They are always under close,
constant, and daily supervision, unlike the working environment
experienced by long-haul commercial drivers.
Supporters of teenage truck drivers in interstate commerce use the
analogy that 18-21 years old kids are allowed to serve in the military.
But teenagers serving in the military are also under daily, highly
regulated, constant, and strict supervision. There are many job
occupations, for which serving in the military doesn't provide an
automatic qualification. Current state restrictions offer teenagers an
opportunity to gain a limited, highly supervised introduction to the
trucking industry.
Statistics are lacking on the overall safety performance of local
teenage truck drivers. But the industry's property and liability
insurance rates, for incurring the additional risk of teenage truck
drivers in interstate commerce, would assuredly go up.
For these reasons, the House T&I Committee should reject H.R. 1374.
This legislation would allow teenagers to operate Class 8 tractor
trailer combinations in an unsupervised environment and in interstate
commerce, after only 10 weeks of training. The nation's public highways
should not be used as a proving ground to determine if teenagers can
operate Class 8 tractor trailer combinations safely. Current
restrictive state provisions allow teenagers an apprenticeship to the
industry. H.R.1374 could compromise public safety and should be
rejected.
4. Large Trucks Should Adhere to a Reasonable Maximum Speed of 65-mph
The Trucking Alliance supports a new federal safety standard that
would require all large commercial trucks to maintain a maximum speed
limit of 65 mph on the nation's highways.
According to NHTSA, in 2017, speeding was one of the factors for
almost 27% of motor vehicle crash deaths. The World Health
Organization's ``Report on Road Safety'' estimates that for every 1%
increase in mean speed, there is a 4% increase in the fatal crash risk
and a 3% increase in the serious crash risk. The top speed of large
tractor trailer combinations should be limited.
The trucking industry has historically supported truck speed
limiters. Most trucking companies already utilize truck speed limiters,
usually setting the trucks to operate at maximum speeds between 62 and
68 mph. As far back as 2006, the American Trucking Associations
submitted a petition to NHTSA, requesting that truck manufacturers
install truck speed limiting devices. The National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) estimates that setting a truck speed limiter at 65
mph, could save as many as 214 lives and prevent approximately 4,500
injuries from large truck crashes each year.
Slowing the top speed of tractor trailers will greatly reduce the
number of fatalities and the severity of injuries from large truck
crashes. Congress should support legislation that would direct the
Secretary of Transportation to issue a final rule requiring truck speed
limiting devices and for those commercial vehicles currently equipped
with the technology to engage the devices.
5. Collision Mitigation Systems Should Be Required on New Commercial
Trucks
Collision mitigation systems installed in commercial trucks can
reduce large truck crashes.
The Trucking Alliance supports the conclusions of a 2017 study by
the AAA Foundation for Traffic Study. The study, entitled ``Leveraging
Large Truck Technology and Engineering to Realize Safety Gains'',
researched four truck safety technologies, all of which can greatly
reduce injuries and fatalities in large truck crashes:
1. Lane Departure Warning Systems, which detect when the vehicle
drifts out of its lane and warns the driver;
2. Video-based Onboard Safety Monitoring, which utilizes in-
vehicle video cameras and sensors;
3. Automatic Emergency Braking Systems, which detect when the
truck is in danger of striking the vehicle in front of it and brakes
automatically, if needed; and
4. Air Disc Brakes, which will eventually be superior to
traditional drum brakes, as these systems are continually improved.
The Trucking Alliance supports the deployment of these Advanced
Safety Technologies (ASTs) and other technologies in new commercial
trucks. ASTs are not limited however, to the four technologies in the
AAA Foundation report. In fact, the Trucking Alliance endorses a wide
variety of ASTs that are now deployable or under development for large
trucks.
These ASTs include, but are not limited to:
Forward Collision Warning Systems
Adaptive Cruise Controls
Automatic Emergency Braking Systems
Lane Departure Warning Systems
``Blind Spot'' Warning Systems
Electronic Stability Control
Roll Stability Control
Speed Limiters
Video-based Onboard Safety Monitoring systems
Kinematic-based Onboard Safety Monitoring Systems
Vehicle-to-vehicle Communication
Air Disc Brakes (ADB)
Brake Stroke Monitoring Systems; and others.
Some ASTs, such as Roll Stability Control Systems, have been in
operation by fleets for a decade. Other technologies, such as video and
kinematic-based onboard safety monitoring systems and ``Blind Spot''
mirror replacement systems are newer technologies that carriers are
testing in the field.
For these reasons, the Trucking Alliance endorses ASTs and its
member carriers have agreed to pursue the testing and deployment of
these ASTs, as they are more fully developed, tested, and the safety
benefits are confirmed through these field tests.
In the meantime, the Trucking Alliance urges Congress to require
NHTSA to set a minimum performance standard and issue a final rule
requiring that commercial motor vehicles are equipped with automatic
emergency braking systems, as standard equipment.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement before the
Subcommittee and its hearing on the state of trucking in America.
Letter from Cian Cashin, Director of Government Affairs, American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Norton
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)
thanks you for holding its June 12th hearing entitled, ``Under
Pressure: The State of Trucking in America.'' AAMVA supports the role
of the Subcommittee in its oversight of commercial vehicle safety and
its important role in facilitating interstate commerce.
As part of that hearing, AAMVA noted the testimony of trucking
industry officials with respect to commercial driver testing. AAMVA
takes this opportunity to go on record regarding state safety
olbigations with respect to motor vehicles and the states' previous and
ongoing efforts to facilitate driver availability.
AAMVA supports the role of its industry partners, but finds recent
proposals related to commercial driver's license (CDL) testing
problematic. With the understanding that Congress may see the proposal
again, AAMVA specifically cites legislation introduced in the last
Congress (HR 4719) as the basis for potentially problematic changes to
the commercial testing system. On behalf of our members, we hope the
following describes some of these challenges, and illustrates the
proactive steps the association is taking to mitigate the issues
communicated by industry--without the need for additional legislation.
background
AAMVA appreciates HR 4719's intent to expand the labor pool for an
in-demand, economically beneficial labor force. It is critical that
these new drivers are prepared to safely operate large commercial
vehicles. For their safety and the safety of the entire motoring
public, state motor vehicle officials must only provide qualified
drivers with a CDL. State authorities' core mission lies in public
safety, not in applicant volume and private certification graduation
rates. One of the key issues facing CDL skills test wait times is the
repeated testing of the same applicant. In many of those cases, rather
than prepare for a one-time, successful test, individuals are
repeatedly taking a time-consuming test to ``learn what they don't
know'' so that they can fill those knowledge gaps between scheduled
retesting. Whether the applicant passes the test or not, state (and
third-party) CDL skills testing administrators must allocate each
applicant the entire amount of time predicated upon successful
completion of the full test.
AAMVA cites that numerous steps are currently underway to improve
the success of first-time applicants. This includes FMCSA's work on an
``Entry-Level Driver Training'' program as established through a final
rule published in December, 2016 (81 FR 88732). This program will
establish new minimum training standards for certain individuals
applying for their commercial driver's license for the first time; an
upgrade of their CDL; or a hazardous materials (H), passenger (P), or
school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. These individuals are
subject to the entry-level driver training (ELDT) requirements and must
complete a prescribed program of instruction. AAMVA fully believes this
course of action will assist in uniform curriculum delivery and
limiting the instances of unprepared applicants repeatedly monopolizing
the CDL skills testing schedule.
AAMVA members have proactively addressed the issue by reviewing all
aspects of the CDL testing process for improvement of the testing
model. The objective of this effort is to better align CDL testing
procedures with current industry practices and the CMVs being
developed. Utilizing metrics such as common crash causation and CVSA
and citation data, our goal is to align testing practice with the
modern commercial environment. The effort includes:
Modifications to the Vehicle Inspection (VI) portions of
the skills test which has contributed to high failure rates
This includes a significant reduction in the number of
vehicle inspection items required as part of the skills test
Revisions to the CDL Skills Test score card
Review and evaluation of the road test for modernization
based on CMV crash causation factors and evolving equipment
technologies
Modernization of the knowledge test item pool based on
updates to the CDL Test System
Modernizing the test system to accommodate rapidly
evolving technologies
AAMVA is currently field testing the modified testing method to
ensure it keeps pace with new technology, industry standards, training
practices, jurisdictional needs and driver competencies. Testing
results will be collected and analyzed by an independent third party to
ensure the proposed changes are valid and reliable.
Specific to HR 4719, AAMVA cites the following concerns with the
legislation:
The legislation mandates sanctions on states without providing any
potential solution.
While this legislation cites adherence to ``program
requirements,'' the legislation provides no effective solution
other than mandating submission of report data with respect to
the status of skills testing for individuals applying for a
CDL. The mandated reporting data includes wait time, the number
of qualified CDL examiners, and the number of available CDL
skills testing sites in the states. AAMVA stresses that the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has already
been mandated by Congress to conduct a report on this exact
same data through Section 5506 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (P.L. 114-94). This previously mandated
report should effectively serve as a survey of the national CDL
skills testing environment. Potentially sanctioning state
governments over redundant reporting is excessive and
unnecessary.
The legislation represents the potential for forced or coerced
privatization of state agency resources.
This legislation's amendments to 49 USC 31305 includes the
stipulation that compliance with ``the program'' is dependent
on whether or not a ``State prohibit s or currently does not
authorize public and private commercial driving schools, or
independent CDL testing facilities, from offering a CDL skills
test as a third- party tester.'' However, any skills testing
issues in a State that currently authorizes third-party testing
environments are essentially exempt from sanctions even if they
result in skills testing delays. Potential sanctions are
therefore not based on the performance of the state, but
instead are applicable only to those states that do not
privatize their agency functions to third parties. Any
preconception that the states have not already considered
third-party testing as a viable safety alternative are
erroneous. All states have considered this option at one time
or another, and to force or coerce privatization of state
authorities without direct knowledge of the exact legal and
resource issues they face is presumptuous.
The legislation commandeers priority national safety systems for simple
reporting transactions.
Amended Section (e)(3) would mandate the United States
Department of Transportation add appropriate data fields
concerning a CDL skills test location for the purpose of
reporting CDL skills test information. The systems cited for
reporting data include the Commercial Driver's License
Information System (CDLIS) and the Performance and Registration
Information Systems Management (PRISM) program. AAMVA can
advise, as operator of CDLIS on U.S. DOT's behalf, that
modification of national safety systems to carry simple
reporting data is unnecessary and excessively expensive. CDLIS
is a national networking system, which means that modification
of CDLIS to carry any additional data would require
modification of every single state's motor vehicle records
system. The reporting data mandated by this Act will have
nothing to do with active safety records of any individual
driver, but will be used exclusively to analyze the current
status of testing. Further, the provisions would require
extensive expansion of the number of inconsequential records
associated with these systems--both at the state and federal
level. Each applicant, whether they are ultimately awarded a
CDL or not, would require a record be created to carry their
testing wait times--not their driver safety record. Costs for
modifying every single state's base system of records and the
CDLIS central site is prohibitive and the legislation's
proposal to modify these systems to carry simple reporting data
is misplaced. AAMVA also emphasisizes that the Commercial
Skills Test Information Management System (CSTIMS) has already
been established for this purpose.
The definition of ``skills test delay'' is problematic.
The legislative definition of ``skills test delay'' is based on
the period ``beginning on the date an individual is certified
by a training provider to sit for the CDL skills test and
ending on the date the individual completes the test.''
Verification of the ``date an individual is certified by a
training provider to sit for the CDL skills test'' will be
difficult (if not impossible) to verify without defining who
constitutes a ``training provider'' and how certification can
be recognized. Further, defining ``delay'' as the inability to
schedule and retest within a period of 7 days from the date of
certification or the failure of a previous test seems
unreasonable for any type of professional license. Even in
terms of non-commercial license retesting, many states mandate
a required remedial wait time between tests so that the
applicant can further practice in a safe, controlled
environment and further study the rules of the road before
subjecting the public to an unproven driver in a unfamiliar
vehicle.
AAMVA believes the ultimate solution to any perceived issues with
the commercial licensing testing model is best resolved without
legislation. The states have been proactive in realizing the changing
environment of commercial transport and have actively engaged various
stakeholders (including industry) in developing solutions.
As partners in protecting the national interest, AAMVA thanks the
Committee for its continued emphasis on safety, and looks forward to
continued collaboration as this and other issues arise.
Respectfully,
Cian Cashin
AAMVA Director of Government Affairs
Letter of June 17, 2019, from Cal Dooley, President and CEO, American
Chemistry Council, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
June 17, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
RE: June 12 Hearing, ``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in
America.''
Dear Chairman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pleased to submit this
statement for the record of the Subcommittee's June 12, 2019, hearing,
``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in America.'' We appreciate the
Subcommittee's focus on improving truck safety while addressing
transportation challenges that impact U.S. manufacturers and consumers
alike.
ACC represents the leading companies in the business of chemistry.
ACC members provide innovative products and services that make people's
lives better, healthier and safer. As a $526 billion enterprise, the
business of chemistry is a key element in the nation's economy and a
large customer of the U.S. trucking system. The U.S. chemical industry
is growing, and is increasingly reliant on the U.S. trucking system. A
recent analysis conducted by PwC shows that with more than $200 billion
in announced new capital investments, an estimated 60 million metric
tons of additional chemical and plastics production capacity is
expected to come online by 2022. This will require over 900K additional
truck shipments each year. ACC is are concerned that constraints in the
trucking industry may hinder our future growth and investments in the
U.S. economy.
A recent survey of ACC members revealed that 81% of companies have
experienced significant challenges due to constraints in the trucking
industry. These challenges include service deterioration, delays, and
missed shipments, resulting reduced productivity, increased
transportation costs, and lost business. The United States needs smart
transportation and infrastructure policies to confront these
challenges.
ACC supports several specific policy proposals discussed by
witnesses during the hearing. In particular:
We support the DRIVE Safe Act that would create an
apprenticeship program for commercial drivers under the age of 21. This
would provide much needed relief for the nation's truck driver
shortage, while imposing appropriate requirements on drivers and
employers to protect public safety.
We support efforts to safely modernize America's truck
weight limit on Interstate Highways. This includes allowing trucks with
a 6-axle, 91,000 lbs. configuration, thereby reducing road congestion,
fuel consumption, emissions, and infrastructure costs.
Thank you for your consideration of this submission to the hearing
record.
Sincerely,
Cal Dooley
President & CEO
cc: The Honorable Peter DeFazio
The Honorable Sam Graves
Statement of the Associated General Contractors of America, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Norton
AGC believes the current hours of service rules should not apply to
construction industry drivers and recommends a broad construction
industry exemption from current hours of service rules. Congress and
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration have recognized the
unique and safe driving conditions that construction industry drivers
operate by providing a variety of exemptions to construction drivers
from various parts of the regulations. AGC believes a broad exemption
to the hours of service rules for construction industry drivers is
necessary and justified based on the record of safe operation that the
industry has demonstrated under the exemptions already provided.
Construction Industry Drivers are Faced with Unique Circumstances
Construction industry truck drivers operate in unique circumstances
that make the hours of service restrictions particularly onerous.
Consider the following:
A road cannot be built on frozen ground. And, in many states across
the country the construction season is limited to spring and summer
months. Similarly, because roads cannot be constructed during rain
events, there is an extremely limited period in which road construction
projects can be completed. Further complicating the situation, the
daily window for road construction and maintenance services is tight
because state transportation agencies (DOTs) must balance the
convenience of the motoring public with the ability to construct or
maintain a roadway. Generally, active road construction activities may
last for up to 12 or 14 hours per day.
As a result, construction companies must utilize every minute of
every day available to complete these projects. Unnecessary
restrictions placed on CMV drivers associated with construction
projects chew into those precious available hours during this fixed
season.
Drivers in the construction industry transport perishable materials
such as concrete and asphalt. These products must be transported and
applied within tight time limits or are unusable and wasted.
Typically, construction industry drivers spend much of their time
not actually driving but waiting to pick-up or deliver materials or
load/unload equipment.
Construction companies must obtain permits and pre-approved routes
to operate longer trailers that can transport asphalt drums and silos,
for example. These tractor-trailers can be up to 120 feet long, 16 feet
wide and weigh over 240,000 lbs. While transporting these pieces of
large construction equipment short distances, drivers are not allowed
to deviate from the pre-approved routes identified to avoid low bridges
and weight restricted areas. The permitted routes can easily increase
what would normally be a 75-mile drive to 200 miles--often triggering a
30-minute break requirement. Complying with the current 30-minute break
requirement would be unsafe and difficult or impossible to accomplish
considering the load size. Finding a location and releasing a driver
from all on-duty responsibilities associated with that type of
construction material load is impractical, inefficient, and creates
additional safety problems.
Many companies who operate in multiple adjoining states run a
central equipment shop and dispatch center to more efficiently move
equipment, materials, and employees to various projects throughout
their area of operation-saving time and precious daylight hours. Under
the current construction exemptions, companies that operate in these
areas frequently travel more than 50 or 100 air-miles and are ``on-
duty,'' although not driving for periods of time. Nonetheless, the 30-
minute break requirements are triggered, and they are disqualified from
the 24-hour restart exemption.
Example: A truck driver drives 55 air miles from the work reporting
location to Site A to deliver a piece of equipment, immediately
excluding the construction exemption for a 24-hour restart. Once the
driver employee arrives at Site A, the equipment is unloaded, and the
driver employee begins to perform work-related duties (on-duty but not
driving). After a few hours, the employee drives the empty truck
another 50 air-miles, away from its start location, to pick up another
piece of equipment at Site B. At Site B, the driver works (on-duty but
not driving) and loads the equipment onto the truck before returning to
his work reporting location and unloading the equipment. Because the
driver has exceeded the 100 air-mile radius, the short haul exemption
is similarly voided, and the driver is required to take a 30-minute
break prior to any 8 hours on duty--even though those hours were not
continuously spent driving behind the windshield.
Limited Exemptions Granted
Congress and the FMCSA have both recognized these characteristics
of construction industry driving practices as different from long haul
drivers and therefore should be provided some relief from HOS
restrictions. Currently there are a variety of exemptions and
exceptions, as follows:
Construction industry drivers transporting construction materials
and equipment that drive within a 75 air-mile radius from their work
reporting location are allowed a 24-hour reset/restart to the driver's
70 hour/8 day on duty clock.
Short haul construction industry drivers that stay within a 100-
mile radius of their normal work reporting location are exempt from
requirements to maintain a log, including ELD requirements. Under this
short haul exemption ready-mix concrete truck drivers and asphalt
delivery drivers have a 14 hour on-duty allowance to still stay within
the short haul exemption. However, the ready-mix exemption only
includes trucks that have a mixer drum agitator and does not include
dump trucks and other trucks critical to concrete paving operations.
While the asphalt exemption includes the delivery truck, water truck,
tack distributor, equipment hauler, pickup sweeper and attenuator
truck, other trucks are not included.
Ready mix and asphalt delivery drivers can also count time waiting
to deliver their product to meet the 30-minute rest period during an
eight-hour shift. Additionally, while the definition of asphalt
includes ``related materials and equipment,'' it is not clear if this
definition would include aggregates, sand and other trucks used in
asphalt paving.
Safety Record in Tact
The construction industry has welcomed this relief and demonstrated
strong compliance with the hours of service regulations in the past.
The record shows that the Congressionally mandated 24 hour reset
provision has not been detrimental to public safety nor has it had
adverse effects on driver health. AGC also believes this provision has
benefitted the nation by allowing the delivery of vitally needed
infrastructure in a timely and cost-effective manner.
In providing this exception in 1995, Congress recognized that the
hours-of-service regulations were too restrictive on several
industries, including the construction industry. In granting this
exception in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
(section 345) Congress also directed the Secretary of Transportation to
ensure that granting the construction industry exemption would be in
the public interest and would not have a significant adverse impact on
the safety of commercial motor vehicles. If at any time the Secretary
determined that this was not the case, the Secretary could ``prevent
the exemption from going into effect, modify the exemption, or revoke
the exemption.'' Now, more than twenty years after the rules'
implementation, no specific adverse impact has been identified.
Uniform Construction Industry Exemption Makes Sense
While the exemptions that have been granted to the construction
industry are helpful, they are limited, do not address all the
industry's needs and are confusing to administer and enforce. On any
given construction site, some trucks and products are exempt from some
HOS requirements while others are not. The fundamental reasoning behind
granting the existing exemptions applies more broadly across all
construction industry trucking operations. Asphalt and paving
operations do not occur with only the vehicles that are delivering
those specific materials to the jobsite. Aggregate must be placed on
the road bed before either concrete or asphalt can be placed. Water and
oil must be applied, attenuators put in place to protect workers,
debris removed, equipment transported, and an array of other operations
that are essential to completion of a road, bridge, runway and other
transportation facilities. For these reasons, AGC believes it is
essential to provide a uniform construction industry exemption.
The simplest and most straightforward approach would be an
exemption from all of the provisions of 49 CFR Part 395 for drivers of
vehicles in the construction industry, similar to the exemptions for
drivers of USVs as defined in 49 CFR Sec. 395.2 and transporters of
agricultural commodities in 49 CFR Sec. 395.1(k).
A wide variety of trucks and materials involved in transportation
construction include: liquid asphalt, hot mix, concrete, aggregates,
clay, water, oil, various types on construction equipment (pavers,
excavators, backhoes, compactors, etc.), striping, and numerous others.
It is not feasible for FMCSA to identify which of these construction
trucking operations or material deliveries should be covered and which
should not. Therefore, a broad exemption is necessary.
In addition to transport of materials, the exemption should also
clarify that vehicles owned or operated by a company under contract for
the construction or reconstruction of a highway or other transportation
facility when operated within the immediate construction project as
described in the contract.
A construction exemption would recognize local nature of these
operations and the fact that non-uniform requirements and piecemeal
exemptions increase the risk of crashes by increasing exposure.
Alternative Approach
If a full construction exemption is not granted, AGC supports the
changes that would mitigate some of the impacts of HOS restrictions on
construction industry drivers, as follows:
expand short haul exemption
Since many construction operations are local in nature, the short
haul exemption has been helpful but limited. Expansion of the short
haul to 150 miles would significantly reduce the impact of HOS on the
construction industry.
The short haul exemption should allow for an additional 2 hours of
on-duty time. These additional 2 hours are crucial due to the seasonal
nature of construction, and the fact that drivers in this industry are
so frequently waiting at a jobsite--which we classify as ``on duty not
driving''.
AGC supports providing one set of HOS rules for short-haul
operations, wherein a CDL driver would be exempt from the requirements
if the driver operates within 150 air-miles of the work reporting
location and completes the work day within 14 hours. Expanding the rule
to a uniform 150 air-mile standard would make the rule uniform for all
CMV drivers and give additional flexibility to CDL drivers.
In addition, since drivers in the construction industry are so
frequently either loading materials, waiting to be loaded, unloading,
or waiting to unload, the 30-minute rest break just is not necessary.
Drivers operating under the short-haul exemption and transporting
construction materials and equipment should be allowed to count this
waiting time as an alternative to a 30-minute rest break.
eliminate the return to work reporting location requirement for the
short-haul rule
The current short-haul exceptions require the driver, whether in a
CDL or non-CDL vehicle, to return to the driver's normal work reporting
location and be relieved from duty with 12 hours to be eligible for the
exemptions in 49 CFR Sec. 395.1(e)(1) or (2). AGC supports the
Coalition proposal that FMCSA revise the rule to eliminate the
requirement that a driver must return to the normal work reporting
location and be relieved from duty within the time limit to be eligible
for the exemption.
There is nothing magical about a normal work reporting location.
Going back to the same origin point every day does not necessarily
promote safer driving habits. Many drivers begin their duty period from
home, or from different jobsites, or motels on the road. Construction
operations can be mobile. The construction job location is always
changing. With modern telecommunications between drivers and
management, it is not necessary for the driver to be physically present
at a work reporting location to be relieved from duty in person.
Drivers often now communicate with dispatchers and managers
electronically daily, often exclusively, with no diminution in safety.
AGC supports the Coalition suggestion that the rule simply require
the driver to establish the origin point for that duty period, using
GPS or some equivalent means, and be relieved from duty within 14
hours. Drivers can notate their origin for the day in order to
establish the 150 air-miles radius. If they are relieved from duty by
the end of the 14-hour duty period, they would be exempt under Sec.
395.1(e)(1) or (2).
adverse driving conditions
AGC calls for expanding the exception in 49 CFR Sec. 395.1(b)(1)
to allow drivers to drive for an additional two hours beyond the 14
hour daily on-duty limit in addition to the 11-hour driving limit. This
approach would provide an additional margin of safety for drivers. For
example, in rare instances drivers get caught in inclement weather in
which they must stop and put chains on their vehicles. Because these
drivers do not drive more than a few hours per day on average,
providing an exception to the 11-hour driving limit does not offer any
relief. But allowing them an extra two hours beyond the 14-hour daily
driving window would provide some additional relief and give them an
opportunity to return to a safe haven within the regulations.
sleeper berth flexibility
Finally, AGC calls for additional flexibility for drivers using the
sleeper berth rules to divide the minimum 10 hours off duty into two
separate periods. Presently, drivers must take at least 8 consecutive
hours of the 10-hour off duty period in the sleeper berth as required
by 49 CFR Sec. 395.1(g)((1)(ii)(A)(1). Yet the consensus among motor
carriers using this provision that few, if any, drivers, can generate
sufficient rest with 8 consecutive hours of more confined in the
sleeper berth compartment. The Coalition supports an approach that
would allow drivers to take two periods of fewer than 8 consecutive
hours in the sleeper berth while still accumulating 10 hours off duty.
This flexibility is important for construction industry drivers for
scheduling time critical operations. It is especially important
particularly in rural areas or remote projects. Liquid asphalt delivery
is an example of how this flexibility is necessary. In many areas
asphalt terminals can be long distances away from the project location.
In some states there may be only one liquid asphalt terminal. For the
liquid asphalt to be delivered on a time critical schedule a driver may
need to pick up product the evening before and drive to the project
location and be ready to deliver the next morning. A sensible split
sleeper berth rule, instead of the current requirements for splitting
the required 10 hours off duty, could resolve many of the scheduling
problems. AGC urges FMCSA to revert to the previous sleeper berth
rules.
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO,
Intelligent Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Norton
June 12, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Holmes Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
upcoming hearing entitled ``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in
America,'' the Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS
America) writes to underscore how new and developing Vehicle-to-
Everything (V2X) technology that depends on the 5.9 GHz band can
dramatically reduce truck fatalities and crashes. Vehicle-to-Vehicle
(V2V), Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I), and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian
(V2P)--collectively referred to as V2X--have incredible potential to
dramatically improve the safety, accessibility, and operational
performance of our roads and truck safety.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 70% of crashes involving
trucks happened in situations that could be addressed by V2V systems.
V2V deployments available today include systems that provide emergency
braking. Another benefit of connected vehicles is their ability to be
the ``eyes and ears'' of other vehicles. Non-Line-of-Sight awareness
means that drivers and vehicles will be able to see around corners and
receive information about hazards in the roadway, even if they cannot
see the hazard. V2V communications help move traffic more efficiently
with demand responsive traffic signaling and allow emergency response
vehicles to preempt signals.
The concept of V2I is to provide the vehicle and the driver
information about infrastructure operations--weather and pavement
condition, how signals are directing traffic, and even the location of
potential hazards at intersections and other critical road safety
hotspots. V2I applications include red light violation warnings,
reduced speed zone warnings, curve speed warnings, and spot weather
impact warnings. V2I soon will support other applications that will
disseminate the condition of the infrastructure, such as bridge
integrity, and may even collect data from vehicles that describe
pavement condition. According to NHTSA, V2I technology helps drivers
safely negotiate intersections and could help prevent 41 to 55 percent
of intersection crashes. Another connected vehicle safety application
that helps drivers with left turns at intersections could help prevent
36 to 62 percent of left-turn crashes, according to NHTSA.
Public sector agencies can also reap the benefits of V2X. Tens of
millions have already been invested in this effort, including
incorporating connected vehicle (CV) technologies into infrastructure.
Through the combined efforts of the public and private sectors,
hundreds of millions have been invested in development, rigorous
testing, and deployment of today's V2X solutions. A majority of states
and dozens of cities are deploying or planning to deploy CV technology.
Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) is deploying CV technology
along the 402 miles of I-80 where winter wind speeds and gusts result
in trucks blowing over and often lead to road closures. WYDOT's CV
pilot focuses on commercial vehicle operators by developing
applications to support advisories, including roadside alerts, parking
notifications, and dynamic travel guidance. WYDOT is equipping 400
vehicles, a combination of fleet vehicles and commercial trucks with
on-board units (OBUs). Of the 400 vehicles, at least 150 would be heavy
trucks that are expected to be regular users of I-80. In addition, of
the 400 equipped-vehicles, 100 WYDOT fleet vehicles, snowplows, and
highway patrol vehicles will be equipped with OBUs and mobile weather
sensors.
Driver-assistive truck platooning enabled by V2V and Vehicle-to-
Cloud (V2C) communications links the active safety systems, braking,
and acceleration between pairs of trucks. Using connected vehicle
technology, trucks and their drivers benefit from shared safety and
awareness, and the trucks can safely operate at closer distances to
form a `platoon.' This kind of connected ``cooperative'' automation
improves safety and driver teamwork as well as fuel efficiency and
emissions. Since 2018, a number of truck OEMs and technology companies
have been running commercial trials of truck platooning, working with
major trucking fleets. These systems combine best-available truck
safety systems with V2V, making trucks much safer in both individual
operation and when paired in platoons. Truck platooning systems using
V2V have been developed in the U.S. by companies such as Kenworth,
Peterbilt, Volvo Trucks, Navistar, and Peloton Technology. In addition,
in the E.U., all six European truck OEMs have developed truck
platooning systems enabled by V2V and the same is true for top OEMs in
Asia. Currently, truck platooning systems using V2V continue to move
freight on a daily basis in the U.S. as part of ongoing fleet activity,
setting the stage for growing commercial use of platooning.
V2X will enable us to deploy safety solutions that protect
vulnerable users of the system, which will be transformational. V2P is
an important component of communications. In Colorado, where the
largest increase was in vulnerable users of the system, fatalities
increased from 484 in 2014 to nearly 700 in 2017. By allowing vehicles
to communicate with these users through sensors or vehicle to device
communication, we can significantly reduce the number of pedestrians
killed on our roadways.
V2X technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, which
can provide numerous economic, environmental, and societal benefits,
such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption, and increased access
for older adults and people with disabilities.
However, V2X communications are by no means guaranteed. The 5.9 GHz
band for V2X is being targeted by cable companies and their supporters
who are seeking additional spectrum for WiFi and are aggressively
pressuring the FCC to force V2X to share that spectrum with unlicensed
consumer broadband devices. Under this threat to the V2X band, wisely
reserved by the FCC to allow for common-standard, cooperative vehicle
safety that the marketplace cannot provide on its own, now is the time
for national leadership to put public safety ahead of entertainment--
particularly given that cable/WiFi solutions can expand into other
areas of available spectrum.
Speed matters when safety information is involved. Sharing the band
could compromise the speed and put lives at risk. What if a driver
knew, in fractions of a second, that an airbag deployed in a vehicle in
front of him/her? Alternatively, that the vehicle in front, around the
next curve, was sliding on black ice? Or a pedestrian is around the
next corner? Thanks to V2X technology, that driver would react--and
avoid a crash. It is crucial to note that V2X can do things that are
impossible for the best active safety systems or even automated
vehicles: V2X enables vehicles and their drivers to see around corners,
over hills, and perceive the status, non-visible characteristics and
operational intent of surrounding vehicles. This allows for cooperative
safety applications that cannot be achieved in other ways--dramatically
improving safety for all vehicles and roadway users. Notably, V2X
provides solutions that will allow for safer interaction between
vehicles operating at all levels of automation--from traditional human-
driven to driverless. Deploying life-saving technologies that allow
cars, buses, trucks, bicycles, pedestrians, motorcycles, streetlights,
and other infrastructure to talk to each other will ensure more people
arrive home safely. With roadway fatalities and injuries growing each
year, even while individual vehicles themselves have been made safer
than ever before, it is clear we are facing a major national health
crisis. Given the unique safety solutions that can only be provided by
V2X and which will strongly complement future advanced vehicle safety
systems and automation, it would be a tremendous mistake by the U.S.
Government if the 5.9 GHz band, which it wisely reserved for
transportation safety, is not firmly preserved and protected.
ITS America supports prioritizing the entire 5.9 GHz band for
existing, new, and developing V2X technologies. We want to make sure
all three phases of testing for the 5.9 GHz band are complete in a
timely manner before the FCC rules on whether the spectrum can be
shared between V2X operations and unlicensed devices like WiFi. Any
unlicensed use in the band should be done without harmful interference
to the incumbent technology or other intelligent transportation systems
technologies. Furthermore, any protocols and solutions that are allowed
to make use of the 5.9 band must adhere to common-sense fundamentals
that allow for effective operations of V2X safety solutions across the
nation: allowing for interoperability and backward-compatibility with
systems already deployed today on vehicles and infrastructure.
Building on extensive government-industry collaboration over the
past years, V2X deployment has been underway and is growing. As a key
part of taking on the national health crisis of growing fatalities and
injuries on our roads, now is the time to move past the current period
of damaging regulatory uncertainty and accelerate the deployment of
life-saving V2X transportation technologies.
Sincerely,
Shailen P. Bhatt
President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
cc: House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Ron Thaniel, ITS America Vice President of Legislative Affairs
Statement of Phil Hunt, Executive Vice President, Uline, Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Norton
fostering innovation in the trucking industry
On behalf of Uline, I wish to submit to the Committee written
testimony as related to the adoption of Twin 33-foot trailers and
addressing the commercial vehicle driver shortage.
Uline is a family owned business leading the nation in selling and
distributing shipping, industrial and packaging materials. We have
seven distribution centers across the United States, spanning from
coast to coast and 6,000 employees. Our business model is based on
guaranteeing next day delivery of any of our 34,000 plus inventory
items if ordered by 6 PM.
For years, the infrastructure in the United States has steadily
deteriorated and Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive
infrastructure package to improve our roadways and foster innovation
within the trucking industry. At the same time, the trucking industry
has continued to grow as our nation's population and subsequent
consumer demand for shipping increases. The adoption of Twin 33, (T-33)
trucks will allow the trucking industry to meet consumer demands while
reducing the number of trucks on the road, safety concerns, CO2
emission, fuel consumption and road wear and tear per ton of freight.
Additionally, the adoption of T-33 trucks will help alleviate the
ongoing issue of driver shortages within the trucking industry. The
industry must continue to adapt and adopt innovative changes to ensure
efficient and safe shipping throughout the nation and facilitate our
nation's economic growth.
twin 33 trailers
A modest five-foot increase to twin 28, trailers maintains the same
maximum total vehicle weight while increasing cargo volume capacity by
almost 20 percent, which subsequently reduces the number of required
trips and vehicles on the road. T-33s would be used to facilitate Less-
than-Truckload (LTL) operations, which include cargo packages and
relatively small shipments. LTL operations heavily rely on twin
trailers.
Twin 33s in Action: Currently, T-33s are permitted to operate on
certain highways in up to 20 states--the trucks are prohibited from
local roads, as are twin 28, trucks. To date, there have been no
reports of crashes related to the use of T-33s.
fuel & co 2 emissions
According to the EPA, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions via
transportation sources account for around 34 percent of total ``human
activity caused'' CO2 emissions. Increases in CO2 emissions over the
past twenty years from fossil fuel combustion are influenced by many
factors including population growth and economic growth--which are
among the same factors that have increased shipping needs and demands.
The most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce the
consumption of fossil fuels.
Less trips results in less fuel consumption and in turn less CO2
emissions. The utilization of T-33s could reduce trucking fuel
consumption by around 200 million gallons per year which would result
in a reduction of about 4.4 billion carbon emissions.
infrastructure & roadway congestion
According to a 2018 study by transportation consulting firm, INRIX,
congestion cost our nation billions of dollars in 2017 alone. This
figure, among other factors, reflects lost productivity, increased
costs of delivery via transportation due to congested roads, and wasted
fuel. Our nation's roads and bridges have many structural issues that
are exacerbated by continuous vehicle congestion.
Due to T-33s increased cargo volume capacity, less trips are
required. If T-33s were adopted nationally the number of vehicles that
are on the road would be reduced providing some relief from the
constant strain on the roadways and the burdens of delayed traveling.
The Department of Transportation has estimated that a shift to T-33s
would have reduced traffic delays by more than 50 million vehicle-hours
in 2011.
lowered shipping costs
Consumer demand continues to grow, especially with the booming
online shopping market. An estimated 96 percent of Americans now shop
online--requiring an increased number of packages that must be
delivered by truck. This trend is only going to increase as a reported
23 percent of Americans say they shopped more online in 2018, and 11
percent say they plan to increase their online shopping in 2019. No
longer does a consumer expect to wait a week for delivery, they want
their products as quickly as possible. For example, our successful
business model is based on guaranteeing next day delivery of any of our
34,000 plus inventory items if ordered by 6 PM.
Now more than ever, the trucking industry must employ innovative
means of shipping to reduce shipping costs for both retailers and
consumers and meet consumer needs. T-33s require less trips, less
drivers and less fuel, which in turn reduces helps keep shipping costs
down for the retailer and consumer while also reducing roadway
congestion.
According to Americans for Modern Transportation (AMT), T-33s would
lower costs for carriers if more freight can be carried per truckload
resulting in about $2.6 billions dollars saved in shipping costs.
safety
While some opponents of T-33s have claimed that the larger the
truck the more likely accidents will occur, according to AMT by
increasing the length of the trailers, the truck's high-speed dynamics
are improved which results in less roll-overs and jackknifes. Moreover,
the less trucks on the roadways reduces the likelihood of a crash or
malfunction.
Notably, as stated by the Coalition for Efficient and Responsible
Trucking (CERT), the increased length limit on twin trailers for LTL
shipment does not increase the overall maximum weight limit nor the
axle or bridge formula limits.
According to AMT:
Several significant dynamic safety performance characteristics are
improved by increasing twin trailer lengths from 28, to 33, while
keeping vehicle weight constant:
Rearward Amplification is the increased side force or lateral
acceleration acting on the rear trailer because of rapid
steering in articulated vehicles. Rearward amplification
increases the risk of trailer rollover. A controlled comparison
shows that rearward amplification under controlled conditions
is reduced by 20 percent in T-33 configurations.
Load Transfer Ratio is the proportion of load on one side of a
vehicle transferred to the other side during a transient
maneuver. When load transfer ratio reaches a value of one,
rollover occurs. Lower values are better. Controlled
simulations show an 11 percent lower load transfer ratio for T-
33s compared to T-28s.
High-Speed Transient Offtracking occurs when rear wheels track
outside the front wheels during an avoidance maneuver. T-33s
offtrack 13 percent less than T-28s during the same avoidance
maneuver, making lane edge excursions and associated incidents
less likely.
As mentioned earlier, there have been no reports of crashes related
to the use of T-33s. Safety is and should always be of top priority and
T-33s are capable of improving trucking operations while keeping
everyone on the roadways safe.
driver shortage
Commercial Motor Vehicle driver shortages are an ongoing and
critical issue for the trucking industry and affects the entire supply
chain, resulting in more frequent shipping delays and higher inventory
carrying costs. According to AMT, if the current industry trends
continue, the trucking industry could be short 174,000 drivers by 2026.
This is a major issue for both private carriers including Uline whose
customers rely on our next day delivery guarantee, and particularly for
over-the-road or long-haul for-hire truckload segments who face the
highest rate of shortages.
Permitting the use of T-33s nationally would increase route
efficiency requiring less delivery trips for drivers. This will help
reduce the growing issue of driver shortages and the coupled issue of
driver burn out and the issue of ``churning'' which results in the
frequent route and job changes by drivers.
Additionally, it is important to note that shortage rates continue
to increase, in part, due to the existing barriers-to-entry for new
drivers, including age requirements. While there are many industry-wide
changes that must be made in order to drastically reduce driver
shortages, lowering the driving age requirement and expanding the pool
of potential drivers will be a critical part of the ultimate shortage
solution. Currently, 48 states allow drivers to obtain a commercial
driver's license (CDL) at age 18 years old to transport freight for
intrastate purposes but are then prohibited from driving in interstate
commerce until they are 21 years old. The FMCSA's pilot program aimed
at recruiting and training younger drivers may help alleviate the
ongoing issue of CMV driver shortages by introducing an entire new
population--upwards of 13 million--of potential drivers to the industry
that has been inaccessible until now.
In order for the pilot program to be successful, FMCSA must ensure
that adequate safety measures are taking during the testing and
training process. Uline supports the program requiring an entry-level
driver training (ELDT) course prior to the (CDL) skills exam and an
additional apprenticeship program prior to being qualified as a CMV
interstate driver.
The apprenticeship program will allow drivers 18-21 years old to
ease into the industry safely by mastering the skills acquired through
then ELDT course and CDL skills exam alongside an experienced driver.
The apprenticeship program should require at least 400 hours of ``on
duty'' time, which should include at least 240 hours of actual driving
time. The ``on duty'' requirement should only be viewed as a minimum
requirement and performance benchmarks should be established throughout
the apprenticeship prior to graduating from the program.
In an effort to further reduce any potential safety concerns, the
trucks that will be used in the program should be equipped with the
latest safety technology. As proposed in the DRIVE-Safe Act, the trucks
used in the program should be outfitted with active braking collision
avoidance systems, forward-facing event recording cameras, speed
limiters set at 65 miles per hour or less and automatic or automatic
manual transmissions. This technology, coupled with the supervision of
an experienced driver, will instill upon the young driver a level of
safety that is not currently required by CDL interstate drivers above
the age of 21. This pilot program will establish a safe and consistent
driving record from an early age.
support the adoption of t-33s
On behalf of Uline, I respectfully urge Congress to adopt the use
of T-33s nationwide.
Uline, like many others in the industry, are eager to reduce
congestion, CO2 emissions, fuel consumption, driver shortages and
shipping costs while increasing safety and delivery capabilities.
Shipping demands do not remain stagnant and neither should the
industry's means of delivery.
Letter of June 25, 2019, from Heidi K. McAuliffe, Esq., Vice President,
Government Affairs, American Coatings Association, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
June 25, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chairwoman
House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, DC.
RE: June 12 Hearing, ``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in
America.''
Dear Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
The American Coatings Association (ACA) is pleased to submit this
statement for the record of the Subcommittee's June 12, 2019, hearing,
``Under Pressure: The State of Trucking in America.'' On behalf of the
paint and coatings industry and the professionals who work in it, I
write to you to express our strong support for the Drive Safe Act (H.R.
1374 & S. 569).
The ACA is the premier trade association for manufacturers of
paints and coatings and their raw material suppliers. The majority of
our raw materials and finished goods are transported via highway and
America's trucking industry, joining the nearly 71% of total freight
the industry is responsible for moving in the United States. Not only
is the trucking industry imperative to America's economic stability and
growth, but it is vital for our members, their manufacturing needs, and
consumer satisfaction. The Drive Safe Act will not only provide relief
from the severe driver shortage the coatings industry is facing, but it
will also effectuate safer roads and highways.
The Drive Safe Act would create an apprenticeship program for
commercial drivers under the age of 21 and thereby rid the trucking
industry of arbitrary regulations that prevent it from fully utilizing
the drivers it can already hire. Currently, 48 states allow 18-21-year-
olds to procure a commercial driver's license and operate a commercial
vehicle in intrastate commerce after simply passing a written exam and
a driver's test. Thereafter, an 18-year-old Texas driver would be able
to drive over 700 miles from Houston to El Paso to deliver raw
materials to a coatings manufacturer, but it would be illegal for an
18-year-old Virginia driver to drive 14 miles from Springfield to
Washington D.C. to move paint between two retail suppliers. The Drive
Safe Act will not only allow the trucking industry to fully utilize a
demographic it can already hire, but it will rid the industry of
arbitrary regulations that confine a national industry with state
borders.
The Drive Safe Act implements a rigorous 400-hour apprenticeship
program that requires a minimum of 240 hours be spent driving with an
experienced commercial driver. This extensive training will not only
actively teach the apprentice safe truck operation techniques but will
also guarantee the apprentice is prepared to safely perform all aspects
of a trip, including fueling, weighing loads, and other procedures.
This universal training will better support safe roads and highways
when compared to the minimum amount of testing that is currently used.
As the trucking industry continues to embrace vehicle automation,
telematics, and other technological advances that are beneficial to our
manufacturers and their suppliers, full use of the 18-21-year-old
demographic takes advantage of a key talent pool and also helps
alleviate the driver shortage. Properly trained drivers should not be
confined by state borders and arbitrary regulations. The Drive Safe Act
will provide for safer, better educated, and better equipped apprentice
drivers, as well as provide an additional pool of drivers for the
coatings industry to transport finished products and raw materials.
The American Coatings Association looks forward to working with
Congress to advance this important legislation.
With Kind Regards,
Heidi K. McAuliffe, Esq.
Vice President, Government Affairs
Letter of June 27, 2019, from Chris Spear, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Graves of Missouri
June 27, 2019.
Hon. Daniel Webster
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Webster:
During the June 12 hearing before the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit you asked me a question on the subject of truck weights. I
would like to take this opportunity to clarify my response to your
question in order to make sure that you have complete and accurate
information. I would also like to request that this letter be made part
of the hearing record.
Your question pertained to the potential for increasing the payload
of a truck by reducing the weight of the equipment (i.e. the tare
weight). My response implied that the tare weight of the vehicle is not
counted when determining whether the truck is in compliance with the
80,000 pound federal gross weight limit. In fact, the combined load and
weight of the equipment is counted against the weight limit. I regret
any confusion my initial response may have caused; and trust the
additional information provided here more fully answers your question.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct the record and I look
forward to working with you to improve the safety and mobility of our
Nation's roadways. If you have further questions please do not hesitate
to contact me or my staff.
Sincerely,
Chris Spear
President & CEO, American Trucking Associations
cc: Chair Eleanor Holmes Norton
Ranking Member Rodney Davis
Letter of June 10, 2019, from Randy Mullett, Executive Director, The
Americans for Modern Transportation Coalition, Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Graves of Missouri
June 10, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Thank you for your leadership in the effort to improve our nation's
infrastructure and safety on roadways. As you examine the pressure the
trucking industry faces, we hope you will consider the benefits
identified by The Americans for Modern Transportation Coalition. Our
solution will reduce congestion with no cost to the taxpayer, increase
safety, maximize efficiency and increase environmental gains by
updating an outdated rule to allow a modest five-foot increase to twin
28, trailers. Increasing the national twin trailer standard from 28
feet to 33 feet will bring immediate and meaningful improvements to our
nation to reduce some of the pressures the industry currently faces:
Improved Safety on Our Roads--The reduction in the number
of trucks on our roads would have tangible safety benefits.
Additionally, Twin 33, trailers perform better than many other truck
configurations on four critical safety measures, including stability
and rollover. Research shows that the adoption of Twin 33, trailers
would result in 4,500 fewer truck accidents annually, and 53.2 million
hours saved due to less congestion. Furthermore, the following
additional safety features on Twin 33s will enhance safety as they
travel on the existing national highway network in a Twin 33
configuration:
Automatic emergency braking system
A speed limiting device capped at 68 miles per hour
Electronic stability control
On-board safety video recorder
Economic Benefits--Twin 33, trailers can move the same
amount of freight with 18% fewer truck trips, allowing consumers and
businesses to realize $2.6 billion annually in lower shipping costs and
quicker delivery times. As times are good for the economy; freight
movement also is increased and drives private investment.
Longer Life Cycle for Our Roads and Bridges--The
implementation of Twin 33, trailers will result in 3.1 billion fewer
truck miles traveled each year, greatly reducing the impact on roads
and bridges with less congestion at no cost to taxpayers.
Environmental Gains--The efficiency gains from the
adoption of Twin 33, trailers would equate to 255 million fewer gallons
of fuel and 2.9 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions.
The private sector continues to make investments in our workforce,
new technologies, and existing equipment to ensure that our fleets are
as safe, efficient and sustainable as possible. We need the same
forward-looking effort from our partners in federal, state and local
governments so that all Americans have access to the full promise
enabled by a modern transportation system.
As we know, investments today will have residual future benefits.
The 116th Congress has a unique opportunity to lay the foundation for a
modern American infrastructure system, and we are encouraged that the
House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure has been full steam
ahead on debating solutions. Infrastructure reform requires smart
investments, consistent with the fundamental federal role, and
leveraging resources from all levels of government and the private
sector. We urge the Committee to support the types of investments and
commonsense policies that will enhance safety as well as spur economic
growth and job creation.
We look forward to continuing to work with the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee to seize this opportunity to usher the
country into a new era of safety and infrastructure investment.
Sincerely,
Randy Mullett
Executive Director, The Americans for Modern Transportation
Coalition
cc: Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the U.S. House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter of June 12, 2019, from Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Graves of
Missouri
June 12, 2019.
Dear Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to supplement the record of your
hearing with our views on trucking policy. Broadly, we encourage
members of the Subcommittee to focus on technologies, practices, and
policies that show the most promise in improving the safety and
performance of trucking in the United States.
As freight volume continues to grow at a faster rate than highway
lane-miles, Congress should examine solutions that can improve
operations without costly additional physical capacity expansions. One
proposal that deserves serious consideration is permitting the
operation of twin 33-foot trailers throughout the Interstate Highway
System and National Network.
Today, space in truck trailers is often underutilized. Due to the
geometry of 28-foot trailers and the freight they carry, 28-foot twin
trailers generally ``cube out'' before they ``weigh out''--that is,
become filled to practical capacity well before reaching highway gross
vehicle weight limits.
Allowing twin-33s in all 50 states would allow fewer vehicles to
transport the same volume of freight. This would save fuel and time,
but would also save lives by reducing the number of trucks on the road
and thereby reducing the probability of dangerous truck-car
interactions. A smaller commercial motor vehicle fleet would also be
easier and cheaper to outfit with the latest safety technologies.
In a constrained infrastructure funding environment with great
uncertainty surrounding the future of motor vehicle technology,
Congress should focus on low-cost, ``no regrets'' policies that can
deliver more bang for the buck by making better use of existing
infrastructure and other resources. Allowing twin-33s to operate
nationwide would be a positive step in that direction.
Sincerely,
Marc Scribner
Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Appendix to Prepared Statement of Chris Spear, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
the american trucking associations priorities for surface
transportation reauthorization
May 16, 2019
PREAMBLE--The American Trucking Associations supports a federal
surface transportation program that makes our highways safer, reduces
fossil fuel use and lowers emissions, and helps the trucking industry
to become more productive. In order to meet these goals, the next
reauthorization bill should provide the resources necessary to bring
the highway system to a state of good repair and address severe and
growing highway congestion. Through a combination of regulatory
flexibility and financial incentives, the legislation should promote
the use of safer, cleaner, more cost-effective and more energy-
efficient commercial trucks.
ATA supports the following reforms to the federal-aid highway program:
I. PREVENT THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND FROM GOING BANKRUPT AND ENSURE THAT
THE FUND HAS THE SUFFICIENT, SUSTAINABLE REVENUE NECESSARY TO
ADDRESS SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES
Funding
Increase the federal fuel tax by 20 cents per gallon,
to be phased in over four years. The fee will be indexed to
both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a five
percent annual cap.
Establish a new fee on electric vehicles in order to
ensure that all who benefit from transportation investments
contribute their fair share.
Establish a glide-path for a new user fee based
revenue source for the Highway Trust Fund to supplement and
ultimately replace the fuel tax over the next decade.
Expenditures
The first tranche of revenue generated by the new fee
will be transferred to the HTF. Using a FY 2020 baseline,
existing HTF programs will be funded at authorized levels
sufficient to prevent a reduction in distributed funds, plus an
annual increase to account for inflation.
$5 billion will be dedicated to a new National
Priorities Program (NPP) administered by the U.S. Department of
Transportation. The NPP is a grant program designed to address
the most critical highway bottlenecks.
All remaining revenue will be placed into a Local
Priorities Program (LPP) and distributed by formula to the
states. Project eligibility is the same as the eligibility
under the National Highway Freight Program or National Highway
Performance Program, for highway projects only.
II. ENSURE THAT THE FREIGHT PROGRAMS CREATED UNDER THE FAST ACT
EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE MOST CRITICAL FREIGHT DEFICIENCIES
With the creation of two new freight funding programs, the 2015
FAST Act legislation recognized the critical role that the federal
government plays in facilitating the efficient movement of freight in
interstate commerce, a role memorialized by the U.S. Constitution. Both
the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (AKA
INFRA) and the National Highway Freight Program provided dedicated
funds for projects that improved traffic flow and safety on
transportation facilities with significant freight volumes. These
programs should be continued. In addition, ATA recommends the following
reforms:
Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Program (AKA INFRA)
Maintain 10 percent cap on non-highway projects. Trucks
move 70 percent of freight tonnage and are key to the efficient
movement of intermodal freight. Furthermore, trucks are the only
freight mode that contribute directly to the Highway Trust Fund and
should not be forced to further subsidize modes that do not contribute.
Maintain 10 percent cap for lower cost projects. Federal
funding should focus as much as possible on those high-cost projects
that state and local governments have difficulty funding, yet are
crucial to interstate freight mobility.
Increase funding to ensure federal prioritization of
freight mobility (i.e. interstate commerce).
Maintain current eligibilities. Expanding eligibility
would create a loss of focus on the most important parts of the freight
transportation network.
Prohibit USDOT from making either the state/local match
or the use of private financing a criteria for project selection.
Give priority to projects that address freight
bottlenecks identified under 49 USC 70102(b) (4).
National Highway Freight Program
Maintain 10 percent cap on non-highway projects.
Increase funding to ensure federal prioritization of
freight mobility (i.e. interstate commerce).
Eliminate 50 percent transferability to other apportioned
programs in order to ensure that all available resources are used for
their intended purpose.
III. REFORM FEDERAL INTERSTATE TOLLING AUTHORITY
While restrictions on the authority to toll Interstate highways
have been imposed since the inception of the Interstate Highway System
in 1956, over the years a patchwork of exceptions has been created.
Federal law governing where, how and under what circumstances a state
may toll existing, general-purpose lanes of the Interstate system is
now a confusing, contradictory mess that serves neither state or local
transportation agencies nor highway users very well.
ATA believes that Interstate tolls are highly inefficient compared
with many other funding options and the diversion created by tolls
causes needless safety, congestion, environmental and quality of life
problems. However, we recognize that many in Congress would like to
maintain some level of tolling flexibility. On the other hand, we
believe it is important to have a tolling regime that is easily
understood and is tied to federal policy considerations that take into
account fairness and equity for highway users, safety, interstate
commerce and the environment, as well as states' desire to use tolls as
a tool to address congestion and fill their transportation funding
gaps.
Currently, there are three options for states to toll existing
general purpose lanes on the Interstate System:
Tolling a replacement or reconstructed bridge or tunnel;
The Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation
Pilot Program, which allows up to three states to toll a single
Interstate highway; and
The Value Pricing Pilot Program, which allows up to 15
jurisdictions (generally states) to toll an unlimited number of
Interstate miles as part of a demonstration of the concept of
congestion pricing.
We believe that Congress desires to maintain tolling flexibility
for the states to address congestion through pricing of highways and to
fund very costly bridge and tunnel projects. However, the interests of
highway users must also be protected. Therefore, ATA proposes replacing
the current three options above with the following:
States may toll existing, general purpose lanes of the Interstate
System if they meet the following criteria through application to the
Secretary of Transportation:
Congestion Pricing--States must demonstrate that the
pricing of highways (not the projects funded by tolls) by themselves
significantly alleviate congestion and improve air quality in a highway
corridor, including on alternative routes.
Bridge/Tunnel reconstruction or replacement--Eligible
projects are those with a total project cost of at least $2 billion.
These are single facility costs, not network costs.
General requirements:
A state must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement
for each project.
When conducting an EIS for a network of tolls, an EIS
must determine the effects of both individual toll locations and the
collective network effects of a proposal.
Revenue generated by the tolls can only be used for
financing costs and project costs related to the facility or Title 23
eligible highway or transit projects that directly benefit the users of
the tolled facility. This requirement should apply to existing tolls on
Interstate highways as well. Revenue from the lease or sale of an
Interstate toll facility should also be subject to this requirement.
The maximum toll rate for any vehicle class may not
exceed any other toll rate by more than five times.
Any toll discounts must be offered to all users,
regardless of residency or the state a transponder was purchased from.
This requirement should apply to existing tolls on Interstate highways
as well.
At a minimum, the State's application, either through an
EIS or separate documentation, should demonstrate the following:
There is a net congestion reduction, taking into
consideration mobility on both the tolled route and any routes
to which traffic diverts. There is also a net reduction in
vehicle emissions on these routes.
The number and severity of crashes is not likely to
increase.
If additional maintenance or capacity improvements on
diversion routes are anticipated, the state must document these
improvements and include a plan to implement them within a
reasonable timeframe.
Environmental justice impacts of tolls and mitigation
measures.
A cost-benefit analysis that includes the impacts of
tolls on roadside businesses, commercial vehicle operators, and
the impacts on businesses and consumers affected by tolls, both
inside and outside the states where the tolls are located.
A determination with regard to whether the location
of tolls or the toll rate structure discriminates against
interstate commerce.
The state is required to submit a report to the Secretary
every five years with an analysis of the above, and the Secretary is to
determine whether the state continues to meet the requirements.
IV. PROVIDE DEDICATED FUNDING FOR FREIGHT INTERMODAL CONNECTORS
Freight intermodal connectors--those roads that connect ports, rail
yards, airports and other intermodal facilities to the National Highway
System--are publicly owned. While they are an essential part of the
freight distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the
attention they deserve given their importance to the nation's economy.
Just nine percent of connectors are in good or very good condition, 19
percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in poor
condition.\1\ Not only do poor roads damage both vehicles and the
freight they carry, but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found
a correlation between poor roads and vehicle speed. Average speed on a
connector in poor condition was 22 percent lower than on connectors in
fair or better condition.\2\ FHWA further found that congestion on
freight intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay
annually and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay.\3\ Congestion on
freight intermodal connectors adds nearly $71 million to freight
transportation costs each year.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Freight Intermodal Connectors Study. Federal Highway
Administration, April 2017.
\2\ Ibid.
\3\ Ibid.
\4\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. Estimates
average truck operational cost of $66.65 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One possible reason connectors are neglected is that the vast
majority of these roads--70 percent--are under the jurisdiction of a
local or county government.\5\ Yet, these roads are serving critical
regional or national needs well beyond the geographic boundaries of the
jurisdictions that have responsibility for them, and these broader
benefits may not be factored into the local jurisdictions' spending
decisions. While connectors are eligible for federal funding, it is
clear that this is simply not good enough. Congress should set aside
adequate funding for freight intermodal connectors identified by FHWA
to ensure that these critical arteries are given the attention and
resources they deserve. Furthermore, FHWA should add connectors to
major military installations to the list of eligible roads in order to
address deficiencies on arteries that are critical to national defense.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. ADDRESS THE SHORTAGE OF PARKING FOR TRUCK DRIVERS
Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a
significant shortage of available parking for truck drivers in certain
parts of the country. Given the projected growth in demand for trucking
services, this problem will likely worsen. There are significant safety
benefits from investing in truck parking to ensure that trucks are not
parking in unsafe areas due to lack of space.
Funding for truck parking is available to states under the current
federal-aid highway program, but has not been a priority given a
shortage of funds for essential highway projects. Therefore, we support
the creation of a new discretionary grant program with dedicated
funding from the federal-aid highway program for truck parking capital
projects. ATA recommends that FHWA conduct a nationwide study, with
biennial updates, to determine specific locations with the most
critical truck parking shortages. Congress should set aside at least
$100 million per year for a FHWA administered grant program to address
the truck parking shortage, with preference given to projects that
address the shortages identified by FHWA. Eligibility should be the
same as for Sec. 1401 of MAP-21 (i.e. Jason's Law).
VI. ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL EXCISE TAX ON TRUCKING EQUIPMENT
Repeal the federal excise tax (FET) on trucking equipment, provided
the revenue it generates for the HTF is replaced. This antiquated 12
percent sales tax, which was adopted in 1917 to defray the costs of
World War I, is a barrier to investment in the cleanest, safest trucks
available on the market. In fact, when the FET was first adopted, it
was applied to all vehicles, and now is imposed only on heavy trucks.
Income from the FET has varied widely, mostly in response to
economic conditions. Over the past decade revenue has ranged between
$1.5 billion during the recession year of 2008 and $4.6 billion in
2015. This variability contributes to mismatches between federal-aid
money authorized and revenue available for appropriation. In fact, the
first bail-out of the HTF, in 2008, was necessitated largely by an
unanticipated drop in FET revenue. Based on Congressional Budget Office
projections, approximately $5 billion per year will be required for
replacement.
VII. REINSTITUTE THE VEHICLE INVENTORY AND USE SURVEY
The Census Bureau and the Department Transportation should
reinstitute a Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey (VIUS). The latest VIUS
data is from 2002, which is extremely outdated. The VIUS gathered
information on the physical and operational characteristics of trucks
as part of the U.S. Economic Census conducted every five years, in
years ending in 2 and 7. The 2002 report surveyed about 136,000 trucks
and collected data on features such as make, model, and age; miles per
gallon, distance traveled and area of operation; trailer configuration;
and goods hauled by weight, commodity, and presence of hazardous
material.
There is no alternate source for most of the data the VIUS
provided. It is the only source of physical and operational
characteristics of heavy-duty trucks, including fuel use. Sound
policies to address energy use and environmental impacts of trucks need
to reflect the distribution of trucks among weight classes, body types,
and usage patterns.
VIUS data is also fundamental to understanding how we use and
manage our highways, including issues such as highway cost allocation
and roadway safety. In addition, as the Census Bureau states in its
summary of the 2002 VIUS data release: ``The Department of
Transportation uses the data for analysis of cost allocation, safety
issues, proposed investments in new roads and technology, and user
fees. The Environmental Protection Agency uses the data to determine
per mile vehicle emission estimates, vehicle performance and fuel
economy, and fuel conservation practices of the trucking industry. The
Bureau of Economic Analysis uses the data as a part of the framework
for the national investment and personal consumption expenditures
component of the Gross Domestic Product.'' Census also wrote: ``Tire
manufacturers use the data to calculate the longevity of products and
to determine the usage, vocation, and applications of their products.
Heavy machinery manufacturers use the data to track the importance of
various parts distribution and service networks. Truck manufacturers
use the data to determine the impact of certain types of equipment on
fuel efficiency.''
VIUS data is essential to industry, policymakers, and researchers
and should be reinstated as a regular part of the economic census.
VIII. SUPPORT LIMITED, COMMON-SENSE REFORMS TO FEDERAL TRUCK SIZE AND
WEIGHT LAWS
1. Give automobile transporters a 5 percent increase in gross and axle
weight limits on Interstate highways and reasonable access routes. This
is necessary to accommodate the significant increase in heavier light
trucks and hybrid/electric vehicles. It would substantially reduce the
number of trucks on the road.
Legislative language:
OPERATION OF CERTAIN SPECIALIZED HAULING VEHICLES ON THE
INTERSTATE.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--A State may not prohibit the operation of an
automobile transporter with a gross weight of 84,000 pounds or less
on--
``(A) Any segment of the Interstate System (except a segment
exempted under section 31111(f) of title 49); or
``(B) those classes of qualifying Federal aid primary highways
designated by the Secretary under section 31111 (e) of title 49.
``(2) REASONABLE ACCESS.--A state may not enact or enforce a law
denying reasonable access to automobile transporters, to and from
highways described in paragraph (1), to loading or unloading points or
facilities for food, fuel, repair, or rest.
``(3) AXLE WEIGHT TOLERANCE.--A State shall allow an automobile
transporter a tolerance of no more than 5 percent on axle weight
limitations set forth in subsection (a).
``(4) AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORTER DEFINED.--In this subsection, the term
`automobile transporter' has the meaning given that term in section
31111(a) of title 49.''
2. Authorize the operation of triple-trailer trucks in Washington State
Triple-trailer trucks (i.e. three 286" trailers) have operated
safely throughout the western U.S. and on certain eastern routes for
decades. Washington State is surrounded by states that allow triples,
including Oregon, Idaho and Montana. Authorizing the use of triples in
Washington would close an important gap in the Pacific Northwest truck
freight network, creating greater efficiencies throughout the region.
Triples would reduce truck vehicle miles traveled, reducing crash risk
and lowering truck emissions output.
3. Eliminate overall length limits for triple-trailer trucks without
increasing trailer length
The 1991 ISTEA freeze on longer combination vehicles (LCVs) froze
not only the length, weight and routes of operation for LCVs, but also
any other state regulations pertaining to LCVs. The comprehensive
nature of the freeze gives states almost no flexibility to make
changes, even when they make sense and are consistent with Congress'
larger objective of ensuring that LCVs do not operate beyond their
current dimensional, weight or geographic limits.
The legal length limits for Montana and Oregon, as codified under
23 CFR 658, Appendix C, place an overall length limit on triples (i.e.
from the front of the tractor to the rear of the last trailer). For
Montana the limit is 110 for a conventional tractor and 105 for a
cabover. In Oregon, the overall length limit is 105. Federal law also
imposes overall length limits in South Dakota and Ohio.
In Oregon's case, the length limit forces carriers to use cabover
tractors, which are not sold in the U.S. and have to be special ordered
from other countries. Length limits prevent the use of the most modern,
driver-friendly equipment.
ATA supports an exemption to federal law that allows states, at
their option, to eliminate overall length limits while retaining
current trailer length limits.
Legislative language:
``If a State statute or regulation in effect on or before June 1,
1991 placed a limitation on a vehicle's overall length, nothing under
Section 1023(b) of P.L. 102-240 would prevent a state from authorizing
the use of a longer tractor, even if such change results in an increase
in the vehicle's overall length, provided the State does not also
authorize an increase in the cargo-carrying length of the vehicle.''
4. Increase weight limits on the Massachusetts Turnpike to match the
New York Thruway; modernize trailer length limits for LCV doubles
Interstate 90 is an important freight artery serving Upstate New
York and Massachusetts. Both routes (the New York Thruway and
Massachusetts Turnpike) have for decades allowed the operation of twin
48 foot trailer trucks under permit. However, federal weight limits in
each state differ, creating costly inefficiencies for carriers and
their customers. In Massachusetts, the gross weight limit for these
vehicles is 127,400 pounds, while the limit in New York is 143,000
pounds for a 9-axle truck and 138,400 pounds for an 8-axle truck.
Federal law should be amended to authorize Massachusetts to increase
its weight limit for tandem trailer trucks to match New York limits.
Furthermore, federal law should be amended to allow both New York and
Massachusetts to authorize the use of 53 foot trailers in tandem
operations, to reflect modern equipment specifications and state law
governing trailer length limits for single trailer operations.
5. Allow Kansas to modify its Interstate highway weight limit to match
weight limits on non-Interstate highways
Kansas law allows heavier trucks to operate off Interstate than is
allowed under federal law to operate on the Interstate system. This
proposal would allow Kansas to create uniform limits for all highways.
Specifically, it would authorize the following weight limits on the
state's Interstate system:
Any truck may operate on the Kansas Interstate system at
a maximum gross weight of up to 85,500 pounds, provided it complies
with the federal bridge formula. No permit is required.
A truck carrying agricultural commodities may operate on
the Kansas Interstate system at a maximum gross weight of 85,501-90,000
pounds, provided it is equipped with 6 axles and complies with the
bridge formula. A permit is required.
6. Allow Wyoming to modify its Interstate highway weight limit for LCVs
to match weight limits on non-Interstate highways
Wyoming law allows heavier LCVs to operate off Interstate than is
allowed under federal law to operate on the Interstate system. This
proposal would allow Wyoming to create uniform limits for all highways.
Furthermore, surrounding states allow heavier Interstate weight limits,
creating regional inefficiencies. Specifically, the proposal would
allow LCVs in Wyoming to operate on Interstates above the current
117,000 pound gross weight cap, provided they meet axle and bridge
formula requirements.
IX. PROVIDE GRANTS FOR THE ADOPTION AND UPGRADE OF AUTOMATED SIZE AND
WEIGHT PERMITTING SYSTEMS
Some commercial motor vehicles and some military vehicles exceed
standard size and weight limitations for operating on public highways
and must apply for and receive oversize/overweight (OS/OW) permits from
the states in which they need to operate. These types of vehicles are
uniquely and vitally important to expeditious military and emergency
relief operations. However, timely issuance of OS/OW permits across
multiple states is inconsistent, even during normal business hours.
Reliability of timely permit issuance is particularly concerning during
nights, weekends and holidays when states' offices issuing the permits
are generally not open. This results in trucks having to park on the
state border, greatly increased cost of service, and adds hundreds of
unnecessary miles and critical hours getting to destination with
urgently needed supplies.
Some states have successfully addressed this issue by automating
their permit-issuing system for OS/OW loads traversing highways that
are appropriate for those vehicles. The Federal Highway Administration
issued a report, Best Practices in Permitting Oversized and Overweight
Vehicles, demonstrating that states that automate their OS/OW
permitting systems improved highway safety, protected infrastructure,
reduced overhead, and increased state revenues. However, mostly due to
budget constraints, several states do not have these systems, or their
systems are inadequate.
ATA recommends providing federal grants of up to $2 million per
state for the purpose of creating or upgrading automated permitting
systems. While these expenses are eligible under FMCSA's High Priority
Innovative Technology Deployment (ITD) Program, this program is over
subscribed. ATA and the Specialized Carriers and Rigging Association
propose to set aside funds from the ITD program for automated
permitting systems, provided it receives sufficient additional funds to
ensure that funding for other important programs is not affected.
ATA supports the following reforms to improve the safety of the
trucking industry:
I. ENSURE THE INCLUSION OF ORAL FLUID TESTING AND ANY ADDITIONAL
ALTERNATIVE TESTING SPECIMENS INTO TESTING PROGRAMS FOR
OPERATORS OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES
In the FAST Act, Congress expanded the Secretary of
Transportation's authority on the use of hair testing as an acceptable
alternative to urine drug testing. ATA would like to ensure that the
use of alternative specimens, such as oral fluid, outlined in HHS
federal workforce testing programs, be deemed acceptable for use in
testing programs for operators of CMVs.
Legislative Language:
Amend 49 U.S.C. 31306(b)(1)(B) to read:
(iii) to use any alternative specimen for testing outlined by
Department of Health and Human Services scientific and technical
guidelines.
II. ENSURE THAT MOTOR CARRIERS, IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY, ARE
PERMITTED TO TEST FOR MARIJUANA
In 1987, 16 people died and 164 people were injured in an Amtrak
train collision outside the Chase community in eastern Baltimore
County, Maryland. That day, the locomotive crew violated several signal
and operating rules, and marijuana use was deemed a contributing factor
in the crash. In 1991, prompted in large part by the 1987 Amtrak crash,
Congress authorized mandatory drug testing for employees in safety-
sensitive positions in transportation modes regulated by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. ATA believes that in the interest of
safety, to prevent crashes like the 1987 Amtrak crash, motor carriers
should be allowed to conduct testing of commercial motor vehicle
operators for the use of marijuana.
Legislative Language:
Add to 49 U.S.C. 31306(b)(1)(B):
(iv) to conduct preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random, and
post-accident testing of commercial motor vehicle operators for the use
of marihuana.
Amend 49 U.S.C. 31306(b)(1)(C) to read:
(C) When the Secretary of Transportation considers it appropriate
in the interest of safety, the Secretary may prescribe regulations for
conducting periodic recurring testing of operators of commercial motor
vehicles for the use of alcohol, marihuana, or a controlled substance
in violation of law or a Government regulation.
III. ENSURE THAT EMPLOYERS OF EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN MAINTAINING HIGHWAY
SAFETY ARE ALLOWED TO PROHIBIT MARIJUANA USE AS A CONDITION OF
EMPLOYMENT
Many states prohibit employers from discriminating against
prospective employees solely for medical marijuana use. Additionally,
many states are looking to adopt similar employment protections for
recreational use and some are looking to eliminate an employer's
ability to conduct pre-employment drug tests for marijuana as a
condition of employment. However, ATA believes that employers have an
obligation to ensure all employees are in a safe working environment
free from hazards. Employers understand that to maintain a safe working
environment they must maintain a drug-free environment. Due to
marijuana's unique metabolic process, the ability to maintain a drug-
free working environment for employees involved in maintaining highway
safety often includes pre-employment and random drug testing to deter
use. ATA supports federal preemption of state laws that prohibit
testing for marijuana use in employees involved in maintaining highway
safety.
IV. SUPPORT A FEDERAL MANDATE FOR ELECTRONIC CRASH REPORT DATA
COLLECTION
In states that have adopted electronic collection of crash reports,
many have seen the ability to provide more timely and accurate
information to stakeholders. ``Real-time'' data allows law enforcement
and transportation safety professionals to respond more quickly to
escalating trends and ``hot spots'' and helps ensure limited resources
are allocated to areas with greatest need. ATA supports federal funding
for states to adopt electronic crash report data collection, along with
funding support to upgrade existing systems, implement NHTSA's MMUCC
data fields and training of staff on new systems.
V. SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW LARGE TRUCK CRASHWORTHINESS STANDARDS
ATA supports NHTSA, along with the support of FMCSA, to develop
ways to improve crashworthiness standards for newly manufactured class
7 and 8 trucks, and a relative scale against which to measure a truck's
crashworthiness.
VI. SUPPORT CREATION OF A NATIONAL EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
An employer notification system (ENS) is a term for programs that
allow trucking companies to register their drivers with state licensing
agencies which, in turn, notify the trucking company when a truck
driver receives a traffic violation, conviction or change in commercial
driver's license status. This notification process allows trucking
companies to take timely action to address unsafe driving behaviors.
Currently, over 16 states have separate and distinct ENS-type programs,
in addition to third-party, for-profit companies that offer an ENS
program service for motor carriers to enroll in. The Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration has previously conducted an ENS pilot
program and needs statutory authority and direction to establish a
national ENS. ATA supports a standardized ENS approach and is
advocating a national ENS system.
VII. ENSURE A UNIFIED NATIONAL FRAMEWORK TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT,
TESTING, AND DEPLOYMENT OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES
ATA shares DOT's perspective that the integration of automation
across the transportation system holds great potential for improving
safety, enhancing mobility and facilitating the movement of freight.
ATA supports the development and deployment of automated vehicle
technology for all vehicle types. The U.S. transportation industry is
in an era of technological evolution that promises increased safety and
efficiency for highway vehicles and a safer environment for vulnerable
road users. Automated driving systems are peaking in research and
development, and are guided through regulatory activities in driving
market utilization. It is important to recognize that roads are shared
with commercial vehicles and should be included in laws that govern
transportation safety and national travel. Bills and regulatory actions
that govern the deployment of vehicle technology or fund technology
research should not exclude commercial vehicles.
VIII. SUPPORT A NATIONAL STANDARD FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTED
VEHICLE SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND DEPLOYMENT OF TRUCK
PLATOONING
Much work has been done by the federal government, state
governments, research institutions, technical standards organizations,
technology companies and vehicle manufacturers to develop national
Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) protocols and applications that ensure
interoperability for on-road vehicles. NHTSA has estimated that just
four V2V applications--which communicate on the 5.9 GHz spectrum--could
avoid or mitigate 89 percent of vehicle crashes, and this will have
benefits for all road users. Also, truck platooning that can utilize
V2V has increased fuel economy benefits by decreasing the distance of
following trucks for improved aerodynamics. Currently, the 5.9 GHz band
is reserved for vehicle safety communications, but pending FCC action
could result in degradation of V2V technology deployment. ATA supports
adoption of V2V and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) technology--
collectively known as Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X)--for the purpose of
improving traffic safety. ATA recommends that Congress should take
action to preserve the entire 5.9 GHz spectrum for connected vehicle
safety communications for the improvement of transportation safety and
efficiency.
IX. INSTRUCT DOT TO GRANT ATA'S PETITION ON AMENDING NATURAL GAS
CONTAINER INSPECTION INTERVALS
Current safety standards require a visual inspection of natural gas
containers on motor vehicles every 36,000 miles or 36 months, whichever
comes first. ATA submitted a petition to NHTSA on April 13, 2016,
recommending that the requirement be revised to once every 36 months,
with no mileage interval. Commercial vehicles were not considered in
this standard and already require an annual inspection to meet DOT
compliance, exceeding the time inspection interval. The inspection is
extremely burdensome, taking natural gas commercial vehicles out of
service for an average of four days a year at an annual cost up to
$2,500 per vehicle, affecting up to 175,000 vehicles, according to NGV
America. Natural gas vehicles produce cleaner emissions and can be less
expensive on fuel costs. Congress has an opportunity to relieve this
costly and unnecessary burden by instructing USDOT to initiate a
rulemaking.
X. SUPPORT AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO EXPEDITE ADVANCED VEHICLE SAFETY
SYSTEMS
Vehicle safety systems have improved greatly and are increasingly
being developed beyond regulatory requirements. For example, vehicle
manufacturers have voluntarily committed to making automated emergency
braking (AEB) standard on virtually all automobiles by 2022. ATA
supports extending this voluntary commitment to all new vehicles,
including trucks, and commends commercial vehicle fleets for choosing
to equip collision avoidance systems (CAS), like AEB, improving on-road
traffic safety. The FAST Act (Section 5222) requested a Beyond
Compliance Program that would reward motor carriers in these areas,
which has not been enacted. ATA seeks the deployment of a Beyond
Compliance Program and stands ready to work with DOT to create a
carrier-based incentive program to expedite CAS technology adoption,
and encourages Congress to support enhancing traffic safety in such
way.
XI. IMPROVE DISTRACTED DRIVING LAWS AND ENFORCEMENT
Congress should adopt federal distracted driving laws for all
vehicles that mirror FMCSA's regulations for commercial drivers. ATA
also supports increased funding for law enforcement and detection
systems to reduce distracted driving in all vehicles.
XII. SUPPORT THE SWIFT ADOPTION OF FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR HAIR TESTING
ATA strongly supports the recognition of hair testing as a
federally-accepted drug testing method. Hair testing is a validated,
proven, effective method for detecting illegal drug use that has been
widely embraced by private industry and many governments worldwide.
Development of standards by the Department of Health & Human Services
(HHS) will pave the way for regulated employers to use this testing
method and allow them to identify a greater number of safety-sensitive
employees who violate Federal drug testing regulations. Additionally,
having hair testing as a recognized alternative drug testing method
would give motor carriers the ability to report positive hair test
results to drivers' subsequent prospective employers through FMCSA's
Commercial Driver's License drug and alcohol clearinghouse.
In 2015, Congress mandated that HHS must develop scientific and
technical guidelines for hair testing within one year. HHS missed this
deadline and continues to ignore the Congressional mandate. ATA urges
Congress to put further pressure on HHS to pave the way toward adoption
of this important safety initiative.
XIII. REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT FOR CDL DRIVERS TO INCLUDE 10 YEARS OF
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY TO 3 YEARS IN APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT
Under statute, motor carriers are required to verify 10 years of
employment history for CDL drivers seeking employment. However, motor
carriers are only required to verify CDL violations, accident history
and drug testing violations from the applicant's previous employers
going back three years. This is because this information is often
irretrievable after three years. Motor carriers that wish to verify
employment status beyond the required three years should be allowed to
do so, but, given the dearth of information available and the
inefficiency of gathering it, this should not be required.
Legislative Language:
Amend 49 U.S.C. 31303(c)(2) to read:
(2) The Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe by
regulation the period for which notice of previous employment
must be given under paragraph (1) of this subsection. However,
the period may not be less than the 10 [3]-year period ending
on the date of the application.
XIV. RECOMMENDED RESEARCH
1. New Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS)--The Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) mandated a study to
determine the cause of, and contributing factors to, crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles. In 2006, FMCSA published a report
identifying areas that need to be addressed by effective crash
countermeasures. With significant improvements made to the FMCSRs, ATA
believes that initiating a new LTCCS would be an effective tool in
understanding the increase in large truck involved crashes.
2. Study on Single Vehicle Large Truck Crashes--In 2017, single-
vehicle crashes made up 20 percent of all fatal large truck crashes.
However, they accounted for 59 percent of large truck driver
fatalities. ATA recommends that FMCSA look at the causes of single-
vehicle crashes and develop recommendations to reduce the severity.
3. Study on Adaptive Speed Control systems for CMVs--In FMCSA's
Large Truck Crash Causation Study from 2006, ``traveling too fast for
conditions'' was cited as the critical pre-crash event 18 percent of
the time (weighted estimate). This was the single most frequently cited
factor in crashes where trucks were assigned a critical reason. With
new technology being adopted on adaptive speed controls, ATA recommends
that FMCSA review the potential safety benefits of adaptive speed
control systems.
4. GAO Report on FMCSA's Driver Medical Exemption Program for
Vision, Hearing, and Seizure standards--FMCSA issues hundreds of driver
exemption for vision, hearing, and seizures annually. ATA would like
GAO to review FMCSA's exemption program to investigate the safety of
drivers that are unable to meet the minimum medical qualifications in
Sec. 391.41 but have been given an exemption by FMCSA.
5. Study on Automated Detections Systems for Distracted Driving
Prohibitions--In 2017, 3,166 people were killed in motor vehicle
crashes involving distracted drivers reported by NHTSA. Additionally,
NHTSA has reported that it estimates at any given time about 5 percent
of drivers are either visibly holding a device to their ear or visibly
manipulating a handheld device. ATA believes that automated detection
systems similar to speed or red-light cameras could be deployed
nationwide to reduce distracted driving crashes.
6. Study Looking at Operational Factors of Non-internal Combustion
Engine Commercial Motor Vehicles--Non-internal combustion engine
commercial motor vehicles (NICE CMVs) pose unique challenges to highway
safety. ATA would like to recommend a study to look at what safety
standards and regulations are unnecessary for NICE CMVs; what
challenges for first responders in identifying and controlling NICE CMV
incidences, and how lower levels of NICE CMV sound impact drivers and
the surrounding environment
7. GAO Report on State Highway Safety Data and Traffic Record
Systems--Federal statute requires states certify that ``an assessment
of the State's highway safety data and traffic records system was
conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years'' to qualify for a
State traffic safety information system improvements grant, per. 23
U.S.C. Sec. 405(c). ATA recommends GAO assess whether state traffic
records system are complete, accurate, and timely traffic safety data
is collected, analyzed, and made available. Additionally, GAO should
review the process for states self-certifying their programs.
ATA supports the following reforms to reduce the trucking industry's
environmental footprint:
I. ESTABLISH FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR INSTALLATION OF EMISSIONS/FUEL
REDUCTION EQUIPMENT
ATA strongly supports the goal of reducing carbon emissions,
achieving cleaner air by reducing idling, and promoting energy
conservation technologies for heavy-duty on-road diesel vehicles. The
trucking industry consumed 39.2 and 15.7 billion gallons of of diesel
and gasoline respectively in 2017. To expedite the purchase and
integration of all energy conservation technologies, ATA supports
measures to make such equipment affordable to all fleets in the way of
tax credits and the elimination of federal excise taxes on such
purchases.
II. ALTERNATIVE FUEL INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD-OUT INCENTIVES
In order to expand the nation's alternative fueling infrastructure
build-out for the use of cleaner-burning fuels, ATA supports federal
tax incentives for this infrastructure to help expedite the
introduction and deployment of new truck engine technologies.
III. ALTERNATIVE-FUELED VEHICLE PURCHASE INCENTIVES
The development and deployment of zero and near-zero emission
trucks have the potential to significantly reduce the industry's carbon
footprint and overall emissions profile. However, these new vehicles
can be significantly more expensive to purchase. To help expedite the
introduction of these next-generation vehicles, ATA supports federal
tax credits and other innovative funding mechanisms to help transform
the future of goods movement in the trucking sector.
IV. SUPPORT REAUTHORIZATION AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE DIESEL
EMISSIONS REDUCTION ACT
The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) provides grants and
rebates to incentivize equipment and vehicle owners to install retrofit
technologies on existing heavy-duty diesel vehicles and engines, or
replace engines and equipment, reducing emissions, often by more than
90 percent. EPA has estimated that from 2009 to 2013 the program
upgraded nearly 73,000 vehicles or pieces of equipment and saved over
450 million gallons of fuel. This reduced total lifetime emission
reductions by 14,700 tons of particulate matter (PM) and 335,200 tons
of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and yielded up to $12.6 billion in
estimated health benefits.
Because of the long-lived nature of diesel vehicles and equipment,
particularly heavy-duty off-road equipment, more than two-thirds of the
legacy fleet in the U.S. still does not meet the most current emission
reduction standards adopted in 2010 or later, even though they met the
standards in effect when the equipment was sold. Since implementation,
DERA has become one of the most cost-effective federal clean air
programs. EPA's most recent estimates are that every $1 in federal
assistance is met with another $3 in non-federal matching funds,
including significant investments from the private sector, and every
federal dollar generates between $5 to $21 in health and economic
benefits. ATA seeks reauthorization of DERA through 2024 and requests
annual funding levels of $100 million, in order to to continue the
significant health and environmental gains achieved under this program.
Legislative language: See S. 747
ATA supports the following reforms to address the trucking industry's
shortage of qualified drivers:
I. GIVE YOUNGER DRIVERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE A CAREER IN TRUCKING
ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate
truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified apprentices that
satisfy the 400 hours of supervised training and vehicle safety
technology requirements spelled out in the DRIVE Safe Act, as well as
the new training requirements of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
that will take effect in 2020. Driver training and vehicle safety
technologies have advanced by several orders of magnitude since the
current minimum age requirement was promulgated decades ago. Meanwhile,
6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country are neither employed nor
in school, even as the nation is short 50,000 truck drivers. An update
to the minimum age requirement is well over-due.
Legislative Language: See DRIVE Safe Act: S. 569, H.R. 1374
II.ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY BARRIERS FOR OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER CANDIDATES
ATA supports an increase in the CDL Improvement Grant Program by an
amount necessary for states to implement changes to their IT systems so
that states can better serve the growing number of driver candidates
who receive training outside their state of domicile. This will allow
drivers to (1) complete all training; (2) take all necessary tests; and
(3) obtain all necessary credentials in one state--without having to
travel back to their home state. Currently, out-of-state trainees have
to travel back to their home state every time they pass either the CDL
knowledge test or the CDL skills test just to obtain the basic
occupational licenses necessary to launch their trucking careers. This
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it
and exposes them to skills degradation.
III. ELIMINATE SKILLS TEST DELAYS FOR CDL APPLICANTS
ATA supports incentivizing states to administer the CDL skills test
within 7 days of application or utilizing 3rd party testers. A low
unemployment rate and the stigma surrounding blue-collar work makes it
difficult enough to recruit drivers into the trucking industry. States
that make applicants wait up to two months to take their skills test
contributes to this problem by discouraging applicants from following
through. It also invites skills erosion.
IV.SUPPORT RESEARCH ON THE WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES
Automated and connected vehicle technologies have the potential to
dramatically impact nearly all aspects of the trucking industry. These
technologies can bring benefits in the areas of safety, environment,
productivity, efficiency, and driver health and wellness. Automated
driving technology is the next step in the evolution of the safety
technology currently available, and will help to further improve driver
safety and productivity, as well as the safety of other motorists and
road users. Automated technology comes in many levels that will assist
the driver and in some cases, handle the driving task. The application
of automated and connected vehicle technology in the trucking industry
will center on solutions in which there remains a role for drivers,
recognizing the duties and requirements drivers have beyond operating
the vehicle.
For these reasons, ATA supports the commonsense adoption of
automated vehicle technology and data-driven efforts to better
understand and optimize the potential benefits of this technology for
the American workforce. While we recognize that the widespread adoption
of these technologies is at least 25 to 30 years away, ATA supports
increased research that will better equip policymakers and regulators
with more data to prepare the next generation of American workers for
the future of work in trucking and transportation.
Additional Issues:
I. ORDER A GAO STUDY TO ASSESS COMPETITIVE CONDITIONS AT PORTS AND THE
EFFECTS ON INTERMODAL CHASSIS
ATA is concerned about commercial activities around ports that
impact American workers, companies and the families and businesses
supplied by global trade. Foreign shipping companies that move
containers between foreign and US ports operate with limited antitrust
immunity to allow for the smooth flows of trade in a complex,
multimodal operation. There are many examples of unreasonable
commercial behavior by some of these foreign shipping companies,
dictating equipment and non-negotiable pricing of equipment and
activities to American trucking companies who haul containers from
ports that employ thousands of workers. In some ports, there are
reports of some foreign shipping companies forcing American trucking
companies to use a designated chassis provider at a non-negotiable cost
and non-negotiable interchange terms. This example of a lack of
competitive market also reduces the incentive for chassis leasing
companies to maintain the most safe and roadworthy equipment for the
motor carriers that are forced to lease it at a price they can't
negotiate.
ATA urges Congress to order a General Accountability Office study
of competitive conditions in ports and the fees charged to American
trucking companies for chassis used to move foreign shipping company
containers. It should include analysis of the market for chassis,
``street turns,'' per diem fees, and demurrage. This example of a lack
of competitive market not only arbitrarily raises supply chain costs
with no offsetting benefits, but also reduces the incentive to equip
the chassis with the latest safety technology including radial tires,
LED lights, and anti-lock brakes. This report should be made to
Congress within 180 days of enactment.''
II. IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE AT PORTS OF ENTRY
Land Ports of Entry (POEs) along the northern and southern borders
are in dire need of repair, upgrades, and additional infrastructure to
accommodate increasing commercial traffic between the U.S., Mexico, and
Canada. Since the enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA), border crossings have increased dramatically, and in 2018,
there were nearly 12.2 million truck entries combined on the Canadian
and Mexican borders. Moreover, trucks haul 84 percent of all surface
trade with Mexico and 67 percent of all surface trade with Canada.
Existing POEs are, on average, over 40 years old and were not
constructed with the foresight to support and facilitate this
significant amount of cross-border traffic. Moreover, most POEs along
the U.S. land border with Mexico and Canada were built to support the
distinct and independent operations of pre-Department of Homeland
Security components, such as the Customs Service; the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service; and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. As a result, many POEs feature insufficient or outdated
infrastructure that make it difficult for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) to deploy necessary, modern security technology or to
deploy sufficient personnel to move people and goods in a timely
manner.
Improvements are desperately needed at POES along our northern and
southern land borders to enhance trade facilitation and to reduce wait
times. Examples of necessary enhancements include:
Construction of additional commercial lanes (HTF)
Renovations for aging bridges that support commercial
motor vehicles (HTF)
Redesigning existing commercial lanes to improve
efficiency (HTF)
Construction of bypass roads to reduce commercial traffic
(HTF)
Infrastructure modifications to ensure the accessibility
of Free and Secure Trade (FAST) lanes for Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) participants (HTF)
Infrastructure to connect highways with POEs (HTF)
Technology that can be adapted to handle more volume,
increase efficiency, and improve accuracy of detection efforts (GF)
Construction of additional facilities to enable Customs
and Border Protection (CBP) and other Partner Government Agencies
(PGAs) to carry out the functions of commercial operations, including
accepting entries of merchandise, collecting duties, and enforcing the
customs, immigration, and trade laws of the United States (GF)
HTF: Funded from the Highway Trust Fund
GF: Funded from the federal General Fund
While SAFETEA-LU set aside money for many of these types of
projects, Section 1437 of the FAST Act simply made border
infrastructure an eligible expense under the Surface Transportation
Block Grant program. Given the clear needs and federal interest in
ensuring the efficient flow of people and goods across our land
borders, ATA recommends restoring a dedicated funding program, with
money apportioned among the northern and southern border states.
ATA opposes the inclusion of the following items:
1. Language creating a mandatory vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee
or truck-only VMT fee. These types of fees require substantially more
testing before they can be implemented on a widespread basis.
2. Expanding the authority to toll Interstate highways. Tolling
existing Interstate highways causes significant problems related to
traffic diversion to alternative routes, including greater crash risk,
congestion and additional maintenance costs. It also has significant
negative consequences related to environmental justice.
3. Incentives to encourage highway asset recycling (i.e. the lease
or sale of public highways and bridges). Asset recycling is an abusive
practice that forces motorists on the affected highway to subsidize
projects and programs from which they derive little or no benefit.
4. Devolution of federal responsibility for highway funding. The
federal government provides an average of 50 percent of states' highway
capital budget, and this revenue cannot be easily replaced. The federal
government has a constitutional and practical duty to ensure that
highways, which are the conveyor belts for 70 percent of the nation's
freight, effectively meet the country's interstate commerce
requirements.
5. Expanding the eligibility of Highway Trust Fund funded programs
to additional non-highway projects. The vast majority of both people
and freight move on the highway system and pay federal highway user
fees for that privilege. The user pays, user benefits concept should
not be degraded by siphoning HTF revenue for additional non-highway
purposes. Furthermore, the percentage of HTF revenue that is dedicated
to non-highway projects or programs should not increase.
6. Rolling back weight and dimensional limits. Reducing the
capacity of trucks would increase the number of trucks on the road.
This would create additional crash exposure, increase congestion and
emissions, and make everything shipped by trucks more expensive.
7. Underride Guard industry-wide mandate (See STOP Underrides
Act). Underride guard mandates seek to address a certain type of truck-
involved accident through a highly prescriptive industry-wide mandate,
ignoring the diversity of our industry and potential technical issues,
as well as the other technologies that exist for addressing these and
other crashes, such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring
systems, and adaptive turning assist.
8. ELD Exemption Language (See Small Carrier ELD Exemption Act, Ag
Business ELD Exemption Act). Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) have not
changed the hours-of-service (HOS) rules that have been in place since
the early 2000's. The requirements for how long a driver may operate a
commercial vehicle, or the minimum amount of time a driver must be off-
duty, have not changed, nor have the requirements for when a driver
must rest. The argument that an ELD does not allow a driver to rest
when tired is simply false, as the device is merely a recordkeeping
method to ensure the accuracy of a driver's HOS.
9. Changes to HOS not grounded in safety and data (See TLAASA).
HOS changes should be based on safety data that demonstrates the change
will create a level of safety that is equal to or greater than the
level of safety that currently exists. Changes that lack the proper
data supporting a safety benefit should not be considered.
10. Removal of new trailer fuel consumption requirements under the
December 2016 EPA/NHTSA Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
Efficiency Standards (Phase 2). USDOT determined that trailers pulled
by combination tractors are part of a vehicle and are within its
authority to regulate for fuel consumption. Beginning in 2021, new
trailers will be subject to NHTSA standards for fuel consumption for
the very first time and see increased stringency levels in both 2024
and 2027. ATA member fleets assisted in the development of the Phase 2
trailer standards and seek to ensure full implementation of such
requirements.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Catherine Chase,
President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 1. Ms. Chase, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration announced last month its intent to pursue a pilot
program to allow drivers ages 18-21 to operate commercial vehicles
interstate. This is in addition to a pilot program that Congress
authorized in the FAST Act for drivers under 21 with military driver
training--which is not yet operational. Congress specifically
authorized this pilot with requirements for the agency to report back
on the findings and results, including safety impacts.
Do you believe it would be irresponsible for Congress to make any
permanent changes in statute to the driver age before these pilot
programs have concluded and the agency and Congress have evaluated the
results?
Answer. Lowering the age for interstate trucking operations is not
only irresponsible but would also severely jeopardize public safety. In
fact, data shows that commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers aged 18 to
20 are four to six times more likely to be involved in fatal crashes
compared to CMV drivers 21 and older. Generally, young drivers lack
experience and skills as well as tend to take greater risks and as such
are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes. Moreover, brain
development in the region vital to decision making, the pre-frontal
cortex, may not be fully reached until one's mid-20s.
Recognizing that the safety performance of younger drivers was not
on par with, or even close to, that of older drivers, the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has previously declined to lower
the minimum age for drivers to obtain an unrestricted commercial
driver's license (CDL). Furthermore, in response to the petition to
lower the age, the public overwhelming rejected the idea with 96
percent of individuals opposing the proposal along with 88 percent of
truck drivers and 86 percent of motor carriers commenting.
Also during the hearing, a point was raised that members of the
military who are of teenage years are permitted to be at the helm of a
naval aircraft carrier and thus, should be allowed to operate a truck
in interstate commerce. This assertion is an apples to oranges
comparison. First, a young person at the helm would have had a
significant amount of naval training that would include at least eight
weeks of intensive boot camp and six weeks of boatswains mate school.
In sharp contrast, proposed legislation (DRIVE-Safe Act, H.R. 1374)
requires a potential teen truck driver to undergo approximately three
weeks of behind the wheel training. Second, a young person on an
aircraft carrier would be under the supervision and direction of a
Captain. Not only are orders such as turning a vessel directed by the
Captain, the Captain's decision to instruct such a maneuver would be
supported by a chain of command of officers and enlisted men and women
involved in navigation of the ship through radar, sonar and numerous
other functions. Moreover, trucks are not equipped with highly
sophisticated radar and other navigational systems, are not staffed
with specialists to monitor each system, and do not have the movements
of the driver directed by a team of support staff constantly overseeing
operations. Third and fourth, ships operate most often in open waters
and at speeds not exceeding 30 knots (less than 35 miles per hour),
which stands in stark contrast to densely traveled highways and roads
where trucks can operate at speeds up to 80 mph.
Advocates has opposed the establishment of the pilot program
authorized in the FAST Act as well as the additional program announced
by FMCSA in May due to the significant safety concerns associated with
the high crash rates of younger drivers as noted above. Nonetheless,
Advocates has urged FMCSA to establish the programs in such a manner as
to protect public safety as well as capture enough relevant and useful
data on participating drivers.
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Driving Training Standards
Question 2. Do you support the current training standards for the
ELDT 2020 training program?
Answer. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) supports
many provisions of the entry-level driver training (ELDT) 2020 rule,
including the requirements that trainers register with the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the establishment of
uniform curriculum for students. However, Advocates strongly opposes
the failure to include a requirement that candidates receive a minimum
number of hours of behind-the-wheel (BTW) training in the final rule
issued in December 2016.
In 2015, FMCSA convened the Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory
Committee (ELDTAC) to draft federal training requirements for
candidates seeking a commercial driver's license (CDL). The ELDTAC
reached a consensus that would have required candidates seeking a class
A CDL receive 30 hours of BTW training and candidates receiving a class
B license receive 15 hours BTW training. There is ample support for the
consensus reached by the ELDTAC on this important safety issue. The
leading CDL training schools as well as many states already require
that students complete a minimum number of hours of BTW training. In
addition, numerous experts including a majority of FMCSA's Motor
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) have recommended that CDL
candidates receive a minimum number of hours of BTW training. Mandating
that candidates complete a minimum number of hours to enter a
profession is a widely accepted practice throughout transportation
modes including commercial airline pilots. States require entrants of
other occupations such as plumbers, electricians and barbers gain
practical experience before earning a license. Despite the abundance of
evidence of the benefits of requiring a mandatory number of BTW hours
training, FMCSA failed to include such a provision in the final rule.
This egregious error should be corrected by Congress.
Question 3. Do you support current standards that do not require a
minimum BTW (Behind The Wheel) time?
Answer. Advocates does not support current standards that do not
require a minimum number of hours of BTW training for the reasons
stated above. During the ELDTAC negotiations, diverse stakeholders
including members of the Committee representing safety groups, training
schools, law enforcement, the motorcoach industry and individual
drivers all supported requiring a minimum number of BTW hours.
Relatedly, Advocates has long supported graduated driver licensing
(GDL) laws for novice drivers of motor vehicles that include a minimum
number of hours of supervised driving behind-the-wheel before s/he can
earn a full or unrestricted license. Motor vehicle crashes are the
number one killer of American teens. The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS) notes that ``teenagers' lack of experience behind
the wheel makes it difficult for them to recognize and respond to
hazards.'' As such, nearly every state and the District of Columbia
have enacted these laws which reduce overall crashes among teen drivers
of about ten to thirty percent, according to IIHS.
Question 4. Do you believe that truck drivers should demonstrate
their driving capabilities on the streets and highways rather than in
parking lots?
Answer. Yes. During the work of the ELDTAC, Advocates strongly
supported a requirement that part of the BTW training include a minimum
number of hours spent operating a truck on public roads. Such a
requirement was included in the consensus reached by the committee.
Ensuring that a candidate spends time operating a CMV on public roads
with an experienced instructor encountering safety critical, real-world
situations is essential to enhancing the ability of an inexperienced
driver to operate a truck safely and to avoid crashes.
Questions from Hon. Rob Woodall for Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Question 5. While you gave your opening remarks, I was keeping tabs
on each of the issues that you, on behalf of the Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety, both support and oppose. For example, I've noted that
you support the use of speed limiters, automatic emergency braking,
underride guards, and driver training improvements, just to name a few,
while you oppose increasing truck weight and size, allowing younger
truckers to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce,
and increasing flexibility in Hours of Service (HOS) regulations. Now,
while I certainly recognize that there are issues out there that the
trucking industry itself remains divided on, I'm curious to learn more
about whether you believe opportunities exist for the trucking industry
and safety advocates to work together on moving the needle forward in
the name of achieving both safety and efficiency.
If so, could you please provide a list of issues that could
potentially be paired together?
Question 5.a. Such pairings might not get either party all of what
they'd like to achieve, but could instead be a step in the right
direction for both parties. I look forward to learning more about
whether you believe opportunities exist, along with some examples, and
if you believe they do not, I would ask that you please elaborate as to
why that might be the case. I ask this question because I would be more
than happy to work with you on any such proposals that could stand to
benefit both parties, and I do hope we can find some common ground to
work together on tackling these big issues.
Answer. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) has a
long and successful history of working with members of the trucking
industry on important safety advances. Notably, in the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, Pub. L. 112-141), Advocates
joined with several industry stakeholders to advance the requirement
that trucks be equipped with an electronic means to ensure compliance
with hours of service rules (now known as electronic logging devices or
``ELDs''). This important safety victory, which took effect in December
2017, is helping ensure that ``tired truckers'' are kept off the roads
as evidenced by the 53 percent reduction in the percentage of driver
inspections with an hours of service violation. We have also joined
forces with industry groups in our efforts to oppose exemptions to this
lifesaving rule as well as any legislative or regulatory proposals that
would further rollback or weaken hours of services rules. Advocates has
partnered with many of these same representatives to advance much-
needed safety technology such as speed limiting devices and collision
avoidance systems.
Furthermore, we are aligned with a number of companies and industry
stakeholders in our staunch opposition to truck size and weight
increases. Bigger trucks are broadly opposed by not only Advocates and
other safety groups but also many of the Nation's largest trucking
companies, truck drivers and independent operators.
Additionally, we remain committed to defeating any proposals that
would lower the age to obtain an interstate commercial driver's license
(CDL) from 21 to 18. Our position is shared by a number of industry
stakeholders including those that represent truck drivers, owner
independent operators and large motor carriers. Advocates also shares
the concerns of many in the trucking industry that the entry level
driver training to obtain a CDL is severely lacking. It is our hope
that we can come together in support of a proposal to improve training
and give drivers the experience they need to ensure they are safe when
they hit the road.
Advocates' sole mission is advancing safety by reducing crashes,
deaths, injuries and associated costs on our roads. Thank you for your
question and we welcome the opportunity to work with you and to
collaborate with anyone who shares that goal including continuing our
long-standing relationships with our trucking industry allies.
Question 6. Thinking more specifically about regulations and
compliance, I, too, want as many people covered by such regulations to
be operating in accordance with them. But unfortunately, we all know
too well that definitions used to apply regulations don't always keep
pace with industry. And unfortunately, the turfgrass industry in my
state has found themselves in such a scenario where the state
recognizes turfgrass in a different manner than does the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). To complicate things even
further, the FMCSA recognizes ``agricultural commodities'' differently
than does the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and numerous other federal and state agencies, which
all recognize horticultural and aquaculture products as an agricultural
commodity. To fix this discrepancy, I'm the cosponsor of a bill, H.R.
1673, the ``Agricultural Trucking Relief Act,'' which would provide
clarity for the definition of an ``agricultural commodity'' as it
relates to transportation policy and compliance with new Electronic
Logging Device (ELD) and HOS rules and regulations. Again, I absolutely
believe that we must work to ensure that our regulations are clear and
concise so that individuals are able to easily comply with them, and
I'd hope that you'd agree with me on that goal.
But in the process of working to ensure that our shared goal is
achieved, do you find that you are opposed to efforts that work to
update and harmonize definitions so that operators can ensure
compliance rather than having to second guess?
Answer. Advocates remains opposed to legislative proposals that
would result in additional carve-outs for certain industries, sectors
or states from truck safety rules. Under current federal law (49 U.S.C.
31136 (note)), drivers transporting agricultural commodities from the
source of the agricultural commodities to a location within a 150 air-
mile radius from the source during planting and harvest periods (as
determined by each state) are already exempt from hours of service
(HOS) regulations. For the purpose of this exemption, agricultural
commodities are currently defined as any agricultural commodity, non-
processed food, feed, fiber, or livestock and insects. This exemption
already provides a significant amount of flexibility for drivers.
Moreover, given that the term ``agricultural commodities'' is being
used as an umbrella for exemptions to truck safety rules, we have
already seen a number of other attempts by certain segments to be
included in the definition and have serious concerns about such
proposals.
Aquacultural products can include such varied materials as fish,
crustaceans, molluscs, aquatic plants, algae, and other organisms.
Horticultural work encompasses the growing of flowers as well as of
plants for ornament and fancy. Floricultural activities involve the
cultivation of flowering and ornamental plants for the floral industry.
None of the materials listed above would fall under the well-defined,
commonsense definition of an agricultural commodity included in the
current regulation. The items that could fall under this new definition
are seemingly limitless as anyone could attempt to make a case that
their product is sensitive to temperature or climate and at some risk
of perishing in transit simply to seek the exemption from HOS rules.
Drastically expanding the exemption to include these additional non-
agricultural industries will result in an untold number of commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) drivers not having to comply with the HOS
regulations at a time when fatigue is a major safety issue in the
trucking industry.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has repeatedly
cited fatigue as a major contributor to truck crashes and included
reducing fatigue related crashes in every edition of its Most Wanted
List of safety changes since 2016. Additionally, self-reports of
fatigue, which almost always underestimate the problem, document that
fatigue in truck operations is a significant issue. In a 2006 driver
survey prepared for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA), ``65 percent [of drivers] reported that they often or
sometimes felt drowsy while driving'' and almost half (47.6 percent) of
drivers said they had fallen asleep while driving in the previous year.
Many of the recent efforts to weaken the HOS rules by expanding
exemptions to the regulation result from the implementation of the
electronic logging device (ELD) rule that went into effect in December
2017. The ELD rule in no way altered or changed the HOS regulations. In
addition, since the implementation of the ELD rule, driver inspections
with an HOS violation have decreased by 53 percent, thereby
demonstrating its effectiveness.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 1. Mr. Spear, in your testimony, you specifically mention
H.R. 487, the ``Transporting Livestock Across America Safely Act'',
which provides additional exemptions from hours of service rules for
livestock haulers. You call the bill a ``dangerous overreach, more than
doubling the number hours currently deemed safe'' that will
``needlessly and recklessly threaten the safety of people traveling on
our highways'' and that it ``should be rejected outright''. Livestock
haulers currently can operate without an Electronic Logging Device to
track their hours, and their drivers can already operate far longer
than other industries based on recent US DOT guidance.
Can you elaborate on why you oppose this bill?
Answer. The ATA believes H.R. 487, the Transporting Livestock
Across America Safely Act, is dangerously mistitled, as the bill would
not create an environment where livestock is transported ``safely''.
This legislation, if enacted, would undermine the safety of our roads
and bridges, providing an environment where commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers could operate more than 24 hours straight, without rest,
for the purpose of transporting livestock and insects. While ATA
understands and appreciates that livestock and agricultural haulers are
a unique sector of the industry, facing distinctive hours-of-service
(HOS) challenges that should be reviewed and carefully addressed, this
bill would not safely do so. Currently, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) regulations allow a driver a maximum of 11 hours
driving before requiring a 10 hour off-duty break. If enacted, this
legislation would provide a driver with the ability to drive more than
24 hours straight, over double the current regulation. Driving 24 hours
straight in any vehicle, let alone a commercial vehicle weighing 40
tons, is not a safe practice.
ATA previously outlined these, and other concerns in a letter to
members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation and U.S. House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/What%20We%20Do/Hill%20Report/
ATA%20letter%20opposing%20TLAASA%205.2.19.pdf
Questions from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for Chris Spear, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 2. Mr. Spear, certain proposals to attract younger drivers
to the industry call for more robust training, and advanced safety
technologies such as collision mitigation and speed limiters, but only
for teenage drivers and only during their initial probationary period.
Does ATA support enhanced training and safety technologies for all
new drivers to the industry, not just younger drivers?
Answer. It is important to note that the DRIVE Safe Act's training
and technology requirements do not apply ``only for teenage drivers.''
Rather, under the bill, professional apprentices who have reached the
age of 20--and are no longer in their teens--are covered by the same
training and technology requirements that apply to professional
apprentices aged 18 and 19. In addition, those requirements of the bill
do not apply ``only during their initial probationary period.'' Rather,
those requirements apply for the entire duration of the
apprenticeship--across two probationary periods--which consists of a
minimum of 400-hours of training.
Having clarified the training and technology requirements of the
DRIVE Safe Act, the ATA also wishes to make clear our support of the
following enhanced training and safety technology requirements that
have already been mandated by Congress and by FMCSA:
The Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Final Rule: \1\
Mandated by MAP-21 and finalized in December 2016 during the Obama
Administration, the ELDT Final Rule was the result of a negotiated
rule-making process that involved a compromise achieved among a broad
array of stakeholders from labor, safety advocates, truck driver
training schools and industry, including: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 81 Fed. Reg. 88732 (Dec. 8, 2016) https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2016-12-08/
pdf/2016-28012.pdf.
\2\ 80 Fed. Reg. 7814, 7814-7815 (Feb. 12, 2015) https://
www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2015/02/12/2015-02967/minimum-training-requirements-for-
entry-level-
drivers-of-commercial-motor-vehicles-negotiated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
Truck Safety Coalition
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
AFL-CIO (Amalgamated Transit Union)
AFL-CIO (American Federation of Teachers)
AAMVA
CVSA
NAPFTDS
CVTA
ATA
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs): \3\ Initially proposed
as an agency rule in 2007, finalized in 2020, and finally effectuated
by bipartisan Congressional action in MAP-21, ELDs have been
legislated, promulgated, and litigated--with Congress voting three
times from 2012 to 2017 in favor of this requirement and a federal
court rejecting a challenge to the rule. ATA fully supports the
replacement of decades-old, burdensome paper logs that consume
countless hours and are susceptible to fraud. ELDs put the safety of
all motorists first, and the benefits of the rule exceed the costs by
more than $1 billion, making it a rule that ATA can firmly support and
easily adopt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ATA Hails Arrival of ELD Mandate Effective Date, Dec. 18, 2017,
https://www.trucking.org/
article/ATA-Hails-Arrival-of-ELD-Mandate-Effective-Date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to other vehicle safety technologies, ATA supports the
development and testing of cost-effective onboard systems for all motor
vehicles in an effort to enhance the safety of all roadway users and
the use of those systems which have a proven significant safety
benefit. However, ATA believes incentives should be provided to
encourage their adoption. In this regard, enactment of the DRIVE Safe
Act would be an effective incentive that would result in the increased
adoption of safety technologies in fleets, as carriers are granted
access to a broader pool of potentially qualified, safe, and
professional interstate drivers aged 18, 19, and 20.
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Chris Spear, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 3. It's graduation season right now and students are
weighing their options for various careers and trades. Facilitating a
path forward to a career in trucking is a worthy pursuit, but we must
also ensure that truck driving will be a good job, as the industry
undergoes rapid transformation.
You represent a spectrum of trucking operations. How can we improve
industry conditions in order to ensure good-paying, sustainable careers
for the next generation of drivers?
Answer. 18,350 trucking companies are located in Minnesota;
primarily small, locally owned businesses, served by a wide range of
supporting businesses. With 137,530 trucking industry jobs in Minnesota
as of 2017, trucking accounted for 1 in 18 jobs within the state. Total
trucking industry wages paid in Minnesota during 2017 exceeded $7.0
billion, with an average annual trucking industry salary of $50,627.
Nationally, according to USA Today, ``truck-driver'' was one of the
most in-demand jobs in the country with the biggest pay hikes in
2018.\4\ According to an ATA study, private fleet drivers saw their pay
rise to more than $86,000 from $73,000--or a gain of nearly 18%--from
2014 to 2017.\5\ Over the same period, the median salary for a
truckload driver working a national, irregular route increased to over
$53,000--for an increase of $7,000 or 15%.\6\ These significant bumps
in pay are in addition to the thousands of dollars in signing bonuses,
health insurance, and retirement benefits that most carriers offer to
recruit and retain drivers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Paul Davidson, The most in demand jobs in 2018 with biggest pay
hikes include cashier, truck driver, USA Today, May 22, 2018, https://
www.usatoday.com/story/
money/careers/2018/05/22/jobs-biggest-pay-hikes-cashier-delivery-
driver/630728002/.
\5\ American Trucking Associations, UPDATED: New Survey Data
Reveals Increases in Driver Compensation, March 27, 2018, https://
www.trucking.org/article/New-Survey-
Data-Reveals-Increases-in-Driver-Compensation.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many 18-year-old Minnesotans, the ability to activate one's
earning capacity immediately upon high school graduation while
receiving health and retirement benefits offers a better pathway to the
middle class than the student-debt-laden-four-year-college route,
particularly since nearly half of all students who begin college do not
graduate in six years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Education, Fact Sheet: Focusing Higher
Education on Student Success, July 27, 2015, https://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/fact-sheet-focusing-higher-
education-student-success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, blue-collar professions are still stigmatized in our
society and culture that place a disproportionate emphasis on four-
year-degree colleges at the expense of vocational schools or the
skilled trades. Unlike other blue-collar professions, however, the
trucking industry faces yet another barrier to entry in FMCSA's
regulations that require an individual to be at least 21 years old in
order to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. This means that other
blue collar industries essentially get at least a three year head start
in advance of the trucking industry in the ability to recruit, hire,
and train straight out of school the already-limited subset of students
who for a variety of reasons decide to forego a four-year-degree.
What is more, unlike other blue-collar professions, there are many
barriers to entry for new truck drivers beyond the minimum age
requirement, such as CDL testing standards, strict drug and alcohol
testing regimes, and safe and clean driving records. If motor carriers
could reach potential truck driver candidates straight out of high
school, the trucking industry would be in a better position to help
develop candidates develop skills, habits, and attitudes necessary for
a long and satisfying career in the trucking industry. Specifically,
connecting young professionals to trucking careers earlier would help
divert individuals away from the path of controlled substances--which,
once taken, would render that individual practically unemployable for
our industry. Reaching these individuals earlier and acculturating them
through the hiring and training process would lower the risk of that
person ever taking drugs.
Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving
is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers
enrolling at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\9\
This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back
end of their second, third, or fourth careers. They may also be at a
point in their lives where they have accumulated unsafe driving habits
as drivers of passenger vehicles. Mid-30's is also when many
individuals start families and have young children at home, but, truck
drivers--unlike other blue collar professions--are often away from home
for long stretches as part of the job. The away-from-home aspects of
the job may be easier to deal with for drivers aged 18, 19, and 20,
rather than someone who is 35 years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Commercial Vehicle Training Association, 2018 Legislative
Agenda, https://cvta.org/
wp-content/uploads/CVTA-Legislative-Agenda-2018.pdf, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, to better connect Minnesotans and Americans to
middle-class jobs in the trucking industry and to improve industry
conditions in order to ensure good-paying, sustainable careers for the
next generation of drivers, ATA supports the following reforms:
I. GIVE YOUNGER PROFESSIONALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE A CAREER IN
TRUCKING
ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate
truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified apprentices that
satisfy the 400 hours of supervised training and vehicle safety
technology requirements spelled out in the DRIVE Safe Act, as well as
the new training requirements of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
(EDLT) Final Rule that will take effect in 2020. Driver training and
vehicle safety technologies have advanced by several orders of
magnitude since the current minimum age requirement of 21 was
promulgated decades ago.
48 states and the District of Columbia allow 18, 19, and 20-year-
olds to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce, and many of these drivers
already achieve safety levels equivalent to, if not greater than, that
of their 21, 22, 23, and 24-year-old counterparts--even without the
benefit of having trained under the enhanced training standards of the
ELDT Final Rule, without the minimum 400 hours of training required by
the DRIVE Safe Act, and without the safety technology requirements of
the DRIVE Safe Act. Despite this level of safety performance, however,
18, 19, and 20 year old truck drivers are somehow prohibited from
driving 1.5 miles from Texarkana, TX into Texarkana, AR--even though
they can drive hundreds of miles throughout Texas.
In addition, our nation's military currently allows 18, 19, and 20-
year-old service members to operate heavy duty machinery, equipment,
and vehicles--demonstrating that properly-designed training can enable
U.S. sailors (whose average age is younger than 20 years old) to
operate a $4 billion aircraft carrier.\10\ Further, according to the
Council on Foreign Relations, 20 percent of the Marine Corps is under
21, while 10 to 15 percent of the 1.29 million active duty members of
the U.S. military overall is also under 21.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking
Points, https://aircraftcarrier.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
\11\ Council of Foreign Relations, Demographics of the U.S.
Military, https://www.cfr.org/
article/demographics-us-military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country are
neither employed nor in school, even as the nation is short 50,000
truck drivers. The DRIVE Safe Act would allow trucking industry
employers to connect these young professionals-in-waiting to jobs that
pay a national median salary of $54,585, in addition to offering
potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, health insurance,
and retirement benefits.
Additionally, connecting young professionals to trucking careers
earlier would help divert individuals away from the path of controlled
substances--which, once taken, would render that individual practically
unemployable for our industry. Reaching these individuals earlier and
acculturating them through the hiring and training process would lower
the risk of that person ever taking drugs.
An update to the minimum age requirement is well over-due.
Legislative Language: See DRIVE Safe Act: S. 569 [https://
www.congress.gov/
bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/569/text], H.R. 1374 [https://
www.congress.gov/
bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1374/text]
II. ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY BARRIERS FOR OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER CANDIDATES
ATA supports an increase in the CDL Improvement Grant Program by an
amount necessary for states to implement changes to their IT systems so
that states can better serve the growing number of driver candidates
who receive training outside their state of domicile. This will allow
drivers to (1) complete all training; (2) take all necessary tests; and
(3) obtain all necessary credentials in one state--without having to
travel back to their home state. Currently, out-of-state trainees have
to travel back to their home state every time they pass either the CDL
knowledge test or the CDL skills test just to obtain the basic
occupational licenses necessary to launch their trucking careers. This
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it
and exposes them to skills degradation.
III. ELIMINATE SKILLS TEST DELAYS FOR CDL APPLICANTS
ATA supports incentivizing states to administer the CDL skills test
within 7 days of application or utilizing 3rd party testers. A low
unemployment rate and the stigma surrounding blue-collar work makes it
difficult enough to recruit drivers into the trucking industry. States
that make applicants wait up to two months to take their skills test
contributes to this problem by discouraging applicants from following
through. It also invites skills erosion.
IV. SUPPORT RESEARCH ON THE WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES
Automated and connected vehicle technologies have the potential to
dramatically impact nearly all aspects of the trucking industry. These
technologies can bring benefits in the areas of safety, environment,
productivity, efficiency, and driver health and wellness. Automated
driving technology is the next step in the evolution of the safety
technology currently available, and will help to further improve driver
safety and productivity, as well as the safety of other motorists and
road users. Automated technology comes in many levels that will assist
the driver and in some cases, handle the driving task. The application
of automated and connected vehicle technology in the trucking industry
will center on solutions in which there remains a role for drivers,
recognizing the duties and requirements drivers have beyond operating
the vehicle.
For these reasons, ATA supports the commonsense adoption of
automated vehicle technology and data-driven efforts to better
understand and optimize the potential benefits of this technology for
the American workforce. While we recognize that the widespread adoption
of these technologies is at least 25 to 30 years away, ATA supports
increased research that will better equip policymakers and regulators
with more data to prepare the next generation of American workers for
the future of work in trucking and transportation.
Question 4. Have you given thought to how we can equip drivers with
additional certifications (such as mechanical aptitude) that could
increase their pay meanwhile driving down overall costs in the supply
chain?
Answer. ATA has been evaluating a number of proposals involving
industry-recognized, nationally-portable certifications and would
welcome the opportunity to explore ideas like this further with you and
your staff.
Our Roads Our Safety
Question 5. Are you supportive of FMCSA's program Our Roads Our
Safety?
Answer. ATA is a proud founding member of the Our Roads, Our Safety
program alongside FMCSA, the American Bus Association and AAA. As the
first trucking industry representative in the Our Roads, Our Safety
partnership, ATA contributed time and resources to the program's first
effort, which was a three-part animated video series on wide right
turns, blind spots, and long stopping distances. Over the past three
years, ATA has advised FMCSA on safety messages, shared Our Roads, Our
Safety content with our membership digitally and at ATA conferences,
solicited new association coalition members, hosted Our Roads, Our
Safety meetings at the ATA office, served as judges for the Road Safety
Art Contest, and worked closely with FMCSA to execute campaign
projects. Most recently, Our Roads, Our Safety released a truck safety
video featuring former ATA Chairman Kevin Burch as an advocate for
highway safety. ATA continues to support Our Roads, Our Safety in order
to promote highway safety related to large trucks and buses to the
trucking industry as well as the motoring public.
Question 6. How can this program be expanded to help truck drivers
and the public to understand how to operate around large trucks and
buses?
Answer. ATA believes the Our Roads, Our Safety team at FMCSA has
done a tremendous job of targeting messages to specific audiences in
states and cities that have disproportionate rates of large-truck
involved crashes. Moreover, we believe the program should continue to
use innovative digital media advertising practices on YouTube and other
social media platforms to spread safety messages to the general public.
Additionally, using outdoor advertising opportunities like well-placed
bikeshare dock ads, billboards in high-traffic areas, and
advertisements at professional sporting events have all proven to be
effective mediums to reach the right audiences. Our Roads, Our Safety
should continue to have a presence at major trucking industry trade
shows like the Great American Truck Show, Mid-America Trucking Show,
ATA's MCE annual meeting, and the National Truck Driving Championships,
as well as other large, industry-centric events.
ATA also believes FMCSA and commercial motor vehicle industry
stakeholders must continue to think beyond standard marketing practices
to engage new audiences, specifically young, emerging passenger-vehicle
drivers. ATA's Share the Road program visits dozens of high schools
each year to perform truck safety demonstrations for tens of thousands
of students. The program uses professional truck drivers as authentic
safety advocates to establish credibility among an increasingly
distracted demographic and allows students to receive hands-on
experience with tractor-trailers. Other Our Roads, Our Safety partner
organizations have similar outreach programs in order to educate young
drivers. Our Roads, Our Safety can support such efforts by compiling
best practices among truck safety advocates like ATA to produce
curricula or guidelines for other industry stakeholders, state trucking
associations or community groups looking to implement similar programs
at a grassroots level. Our Roads, Our Safety could serve as an
intermediary between schools looking for highway safety demonstrations
and OROS partner organizations who have the trucks, professional
drivers and resources to perform such demonstrations.
Questions from Hon. Sam Graves of Missouri for Chris Spear, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 7. During the hearing, the article entitled ``Is the U.S.
labor market for truck drivers broken?'', by Stephen V. Burks and
Kristen Monaco, which appeared in the March 2019 issue of the Monthly
Labor Review, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, was referenced.
What is ATA's position on the conclusions reached by the authors?
Answer. ATA does not agree with the conclusions reached by Mr.
Burke and Ms. Monaco that there is no systemic driver shortage. But
before correcting the authors clear misunderstandings about the
trucking industry, ATA would like to address statements made by other
witnesses regarding the Monthly Labor Review article in submitted
written testimony and during the hearing as well. In both written
testimony and answers provided during the question and answer portion
of the hearing, the article was characterized as an official Department
of Labor (DOL) publication, and Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) study.
In fact, the article written by Mr. Burke and Ms. Monaco is not an
official opinion, study or report from BLS or DOL, but instead the sole
opinion of the authors. Acting BLS Commissioner Bill Wiatrowski
confirmed as much to ATA Chief Economist Bob Costello in an email this
past March, stating that ``the opinions in all articles, including the
recent trucking article, do not represent official positions of the BLS
or the DOL,'' and that ``any opinions are strictly those of the
authors.'' Claims that this article is an official study or position is
patently false and incredibly misleading.
With respect to the article written by Mr. Burks and Ms. Monaco, as
noted above, it demonstrates some basic misunderstandings about the
trucking industry generally, and how we at ATA and in the industry
discuss the driver shortage. First, the trucking industry is large and
diverse--with many types of carriers, services, jobs and career paths
for drivers. ATA has long recognized this when we discuss the driver
shortage--repeatedly emphasizing that the shortage is generally
contained to one segment of our industry: the over-the-road or long-
haul for-hire truckload segment. The authors go out of their way to say
their data could not tell the difference between drivers in this
segment and other drivers--this error is compounded by the fact that
some of the data utilized in the analysis is nearly two decades old.
Second, this work ignores ATA's long-standing contention that at
the heart of the shortage is the need for qualified drivers. Unlike
other ``blue collar'' jobs the authors compare truck drivers to--motor
carriers cannot simply hire anyone to do the job. There are many
barriers to entry for new drivers: age requirements, CDL testing
standards, strict drug and alcohol testing regimes and, perhaps most
importantly for many fleets, safe and clean driving records.
Carriers repeatedly say it isn't that they don't have enough
applicants for their open positions--they do. What they do not have is
enough applicants who meet the demanding qualifications to be hired. In
some cases, carriers must reject 90% of applicants out of hand because
they fail to meet at least one of the prerequisites to drive in
interstate commerce.
Finally, the authors ignore the most critical difference between
driving a truck and other ``blue collar'' jobs: unlike their blue
collar brethren, truck drivers are often away from home for long
stretches as part of the job. Not adjusting their conclusions for
something as important as work-life balance leads the authors to make
some ill-founded claims.
In addition to this clear misunderstandings about trucking, the
authors' own concession that wages are going up significantly, as motor
carriers are unable to hire quality drivers, undercuts their own
conclusions. This alone suggests there is a systemic issue with getting
enough labor in the for-hire truckload driver market.
Safety
Question 8. What is ATA's position on H.R. 1511, the ``Stop
Underrides Act''?
Answer. ATA remains opposed to H.R. 1511, the ``Stop Underrides
Act''. The Stop Underrides Act is not based on sufficient science, data
or demonstrated overall effectiveness. Moreover, it disregards the
significant technical issues a mandate of this nature raises, as well
as the other proven technologies that exist for addressing these and
other crashes, such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring
systems, and adaptive turning assist. The bill also ignores the
diversity of our industry, failing to take into account that trucking
is not a one size fits all industry, and that investments in certain
technologies that one company makes may not make sense, or be safe, for
another. Standards for both new and in-service truck equipment should
be based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance
safety, take into account real-world operations, and weigh possible
unintended consequences.
The need for sufficient data and research is not only ATA's
positions, but also a recommendation made by The Government
Accountability Office (GAO). At the request of members of Congress, the
GAO published a report reviewing the topic of underride crashes.
Through a yearlong investigation, including numerous interviews with
State and Federal Government, Local Police Departments, Foreign
Governments, and over 29 industry groups, including those supportive of
this mandate, GAO concluded that more study should be conducted by DOT
on this issue--study that can examine the possibilities of unintended
consequences that no parties involved with this issue wants to see. ATA
agrees with GAO's findings and recommendation for additional research
on side underride guards. Our industry's unwavering commitment to
safety should not be impeded by hastily mandating a technology that
government experts report requires greater study.
GAO's recommended study can further investigate the real-world
outcomes of crashes with trailers equipped with side underride guards.
Study that should analyze the crash outcomes beyond testing that has
previously been conducted on closed courses. To date, ATA is only aware
of testing that has been completed on a closed course, at well below
highway speeds of 35 and 40 M.P.H., during perpendicular side impact
crashes into a stationary trailer. With national highway speed limits
of 65 and 70 M.P.H. on the rise, we do not know what may happen in a
crash during a realistic highway scenario--at highway speeds, with a
moving truck and trailer, and with other traffic present. Beyond the
unknown effects of highway crashes, concerns still remain as to the
long-term structural integrity of trailers if side underride guards
were added to trailers. In comments filed with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in May 2016, the Truck Trailer
Manufacturers Association (TTMA) noted a European trailer
manufacturer's experience with trailer failures due to the increased
rigidity in the trailer structure from added frame supports for side
underride guards. The trailers were less flexible when operated over
uneven road surfaces or on surfaces that produced twisting forces,
which led to the trailers becoming disabled during highway use and
thereby creating a safety hazard for other motorists. To promulgate
legislation or rulemaking without knowing these safety impacts would be
irresponsible and would go against the goal of all stakeholders
involved in highway safety.
Furthermore, a mandate of this nature would indisputably divert
industry safety resources away from crash avoidance technologies with
wide-ranging benefits in all types of crashes to focus on a narrow type
of crash and very specific countermeasure unproven in real-world
applications. In the written testimony provided by Andy Young, a fellow
witness at June 12, 2019 ``State of Trucking In America'', Mr. Young
states that there are 11.7 million registered trailers in existence, as
reported by the Federal Highway Administration in 2012. The testimony
further states that trailer orders, in 2019, are projected to reach
324,000 trailers. By these projections, the testimony concludes that
``combining all new trailer orders with currently registered trailers
puts the total number of commercial trailers in the United States at
well over 12 million.'' Equipping the estimated 12 million trailers
with a side underride guard, identified in Mr. Young's testimony as
costing approximately $2,900 including shipping, would equate to
approximately $34.8 billion spent on underride guards. That staggering
figure would result in what is likely the largest unfunded mandate on a
private sector industry in U.S. history. Furthermore, when combined
with the expected cost of labor in installing these guards, which would
need to take into account the time a trailer is out of service while
installation takes place, would exceed the industry's annual net
revenue, essentially putting trucking out of business, and grinding our
economy to a screeching halt.
Additional information regarding ATA's opposition to the ``Stop
Underrides Act'' can be found here:
https://medium.com/@TRUCKINGdotORG/side-underride-guards-
what-we-know-
about-them-and-what-we-have-yet-to-learn-e54dbcb0afd2
https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/
ATA%20Stop%20Underrides%20Act
%20Follow%20Up%20Opposition%20Letter%206.19.19.pdf
https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/
ATA%20letter%20Opposing
%20the%20Stop%20Underrides%20Act.pdf
Question 9. What policy proposals should Congress consider to
ensure the safety of the Nation's roadways and prevent the types of
crashes that are the focus of this legislation?
Answer. ATA continues to believe that the most effective
improvements to road safety should be directed at preventing the crash
from happening in the first place. The Stop Underrides Act focuses on
mitigation after the crash has already taken place. Our focus should be
on crash avoidance that can be achieved by enhancing vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) connectivity. As such, ATA has been a leading member of the
Safety Spectrum Coalition, which includes the National Safety Council,
in the effort to preserve the 5.9 GHZ spectrum for vehicle safety use,
which will have significant implications for connectivity crash
avoidance. In NHTSA's January 2017, V2V Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for light-duty vehicles, the Agency estimates that four safety
applications enabled by the proposed rule could avoid or mitigate 89%
of light-duty vehicle crashes. NHTSA is currently also conducting
research on V2V for heavy vehicles, and estimates that 70% of crashes
involving trucks occurred in scenarios that could be addressed by V2V
systems.
Specifically related to ``underride crashes'', ATA has long
supported efforts to strengthen rear underride guards, based on data
from years of study by NHTSA and the experiences of our members.
Because NHTSA is currently examining the potential benefits and
problems with side underride guards, ATA believes the agency should be
allowed to proceed with its efforts to improve underride guards without
having the outcome predetermined by legislation.
Questions from Hon. Troy Balderson for Chris Spear, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 10. There are proposals to lower the minimum age
requirement for interstate truck drivers from 21 to 18. Congressman
Hollingsworth's DRIVE-Safe Act (H.R. 1374) allows for this change, if
candidates who already have a CDL complete an approved 400-hour
apprenticeship program that includes in-truck training and experience.
The candidates must be accompanied by an experienced CDL holder during
this apprenticeship program.
Do you believe that the 400 hours of additional training is enough
time to ensure younger drivers will be capable and responsible on the
roads?
Answer. As with all entry-level drivers, individuals aged 18, 19
and 20 will vary in the number of hours each needs to master the skills
necessary to operate a CMV safely in interstate commerce. This is why
the training requirements of the DRIVE Safe Act was designed to require
the satisfaction of 10 performance benchmarks, along with a minimum of
400 hours of training. In other words, under the bill, apprentices must
train until they can demonstrate competencies and skills enumerated in
each of those 10 specific benchmarks, even if it takes longer than 400
hours of training to do so.
Significantly, the bill defines an apprentice as an individual
under the age of 21 who holds a CDL. This means that all of the
training and technology requirements of the bill are post-CDL
requirements. Accordingly--because the bill would not be effective
until one year after enactment--even if the bill became law today, all
of the training and technology requirements of the DRIVE Safe Act would
be required on top of the Entry Level Driver Training (ELDT) Final Rule
going into effect in February 2020, which are all pre-CDL requirements.
Beginning on February 7, 2020, all entry level drivers--including
those age 18, 19, and 20--seeking to obtain a Class A CDL must first
obtain training from a provider approved and certified by FMCSA in its
training registry. Specifically they must complete a Class A CDL
curriculum that covers a minimum of 49 topics specifically enumerated
in Appendix A of the Final Rule: 30 specifically enumerated topics as
part of the Theory Instruction portion of the curriculum and 19
specifically enumerated topics as part of the Behind-the-Wheel portion
of the curriculum.
The combined effect of the ELDT Final Rule and the DRIVE Safe Act,
if enacted, would mean that 18, 19, and 20 year olds seeking to become
interstate drivers would have to do the following:
a) Complete a curriculum of CDL Class A Training with an FMCSA
approved training provider that covers a minimum of 30 topics as part
of the Theory Instruction portion of training;
b) Pass the CDL Knowledge test; obtain a Commercial Learner's
Permit (CLP);
c) Complete a curriculum of CDL Class A Training with an FMCSA
approved training provider that covers a minimum of 19 topics as part
of the Behind the Wheel portion of training.
d) Hold a CLP for a minimum of 14 days;
e) Pass the CDL skills test;
f) Obtain a CDL; and
g) Complete a minimum of 400 hours of supervised training across
two probationary periods (including 240 hours of driving time with an
experienced driver seated in the cab of the truck) and satisfy 10
performance benchmarks outlined in the DRIVE Safe Act, before being
permitted to operate CMVs solo in interstate commerce.
Question 11. Can you expand on the importance of being able to
provide good job opportunities to 18-year-olds upon graduating high
school?
Answer. According to USA Today, ``truck-driver'' was one of the
most in-demand jobs in the country with the biggest pay hikes in
2018.\12\ According to an ATA study, private fleet drivers saw their
pay rise to more than $86,000 from $73,000--or a gain of nearly 18%--
from 2014 to 2017.\13\ Over the same period, the median salary for a
truckload driver working a national, irregular route increased to over
$53,000--for an increase of $7,000 or 15%.\14\ These significant bumps
in pay are in addition to the thousands of dollars in signing bonuses,
health insurance, and retirement benefits that most carriers offer to
recruit and retain drivers.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Paul Davidson, The most in demand jobs in 2018 with biggest
pay hikes include cashier, truck driver, USA Today, May 22, 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/
careers/2018/05/22/jobs-biggest-pay-hikes-cashier-delivery-driver/
630728002/.
\13\ American Trucking Associations, UPDATED: New Survey Data
Reveals Increases in Driver Compensation, March 27, 2018, https://
www.trucking.org/article/New-Survey-Data-Reveals-
Increases-in-Driver-Compensation.
\14\ Id.
\15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many 18-year-olds, the ability to activate one's earning
capacity immediately upon high school graduation while receiving health
and retirement benefits offers a better pathway to the middle class
than the student-debt-laden-four-year-college route, particularly since
nearly half of all students who begin college do not graduate in six
years.\16\ In addition, connecting young professionals to trucking
careers earlier would help divert individuals away from the path of
controlled substances--which, once taken, would render that individual
practically unemployable for our industry. Reaching these individuals
earlier and acculturating them through the hiring and training process
would lower the risk of that person ever taking drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ U.S. Department of Education, Fact Sheet: Focusing Higher
Education on Student Success, July 27, 2015, https://www.ed.gov/news/
press-releases/fact-sheet-focusing-higher-education-
student-success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From an industry perspective, younger drivers are sorely needed to
not only address the truck driver shortage which reached a record high
of 50,000 by the end of 2017, but also to replenish the industry's
aging workforce.\17\ As you may be aware, the median age of an over-
the-road truck driver is 49--7 years older than the average U.S.
worker--whereas the median age of private fleet drivers is even higher
at 52.\18\ In addition, 55% of the trucking workforce is over the age
of 45.\19\ Only 4 percent is between the ages of 20 and 24.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
2017, http://progressive1.acs.playstream.com/truckline/progressive/
ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20
Report%202017.pdf.
\18\ Id.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, please see the response to Question 12, below.
Question 12. What are some of the difficulties you face in trying
to recruit new truck drivers to the profession when they have been out
of high school for 3 years?
Answer. With the nation's unemployment rate hovering at historic
lows, employers across the country are having enormous difficulty
recruiting new workers. On top of this difficulty, blue-collar
professions are still stigmatized in our society and culture that place
a disproportionate emphasis on four-year-degree colleges at the expense
of vocational schools or the skilled trades. Unlike other blue-collar
professions, however, the trucking industry faces yet another barrier
to entry in FMCSA's regulations that require an individual to be at
least 21 years old in order to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.
This means that other blue collar industries essentially get at least a
three-year head start in advance of the trucking industry in the
ability to recruit, hire, and train straight out of school the already-
limited subset of students who for a variety of reasons decide to
forego a four-year-degree.
What is more, unlike other blue-collar professions, there are many
barriers to entry for new truck drivers beyond the minimum age
requirement, such as CDL testing standards, strict drug and alcohol
testing regimes, and safe and clean driving records. If motor carriers
could reach potential truck driver candidates straight out of high
school, the trucking industry would be in a better position to help
develop candidates develop skills, habits, and attitudes necessary for
a long and satisfying career in the trucking industry. Specifically,
connecting young professionals to trucking careers earlier would help
divert individuals away from the path of controlled substances--which,
once taken, would render that individual practically unemployable for
our industry. Reaching these individuals earlier and acculturating them
through the hiring and training process would lower the risk of that
person ever taking drugs.
Significantly, even though the minimum age for interstate driving
is 21, the reality is that the average age of entry-level drivers
enrolling at private truck driver training schools is actually 35.\21\
This means that many drivers entering our industry may be on the back
end of their second, third, or fourth careers. They may also be at a
point in their lives where they have accumulated unsafe driving habits
as drivers of passenger vehicles. Mid-30's is also when many
individuals start families and have young children at home, but, truck
drivers--unlike other blue collar professions--are often away from home
for long stretches as part of the job. The away-from-home aspects of
the job may be easier to deal with for drivers aged 18, 19, and 20,
rather than someone who is 35 years old.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Commercial Vehicle Training Association, 2018 Legislative
Agenda, https://cvta.org/
wp-content/uploads/CVTA-Legislative-Agenda-2018.pdf, at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibly lowering the minimum age requirement to 18 for
qualified apprentices who satisfy the requirements of the DRIVE Safe
Act would allow the industry to access and build up a pipeline of
younger workers necessary to replenish the industry's aging workforce.
As you may be aware, the median age of an over-the-road truck driver is
49--7 years older than the average U.S. worker--whereas the median age
of private fleet drivers is even higher at 52.\22\ In addition, 55% of
the trucking workforce is over the age of 45.\23\ Only 4% is between
the ages of 20 and 24.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ American Trucking Associations, Truck Driver Shortage Analysis
2017, http://progressive1.acs.playstream.com/truckline/progressive/
ATAs%20Driver%20Shortage%20
Report%202017.pdf.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Carol D. Miller for Chris Spear, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Trucking Associations
Question 13. My district of southern West Virginia was one of the
hardest hit by the recession and is still recovering from the war on
coal, which caused so many to lose their jobs.
How has the trucking industry tried to recruit new drivers and what
can Congress to do to promote hard working Americans to become truck
drivers?
Answer. According to USA Today, ``truck-driver'' was one of the
most in-demand jobs in the country with the biggest pay hikes in
2018.\25\ According to an ATA study, private fleet drivers saw their
pay rise to more than $86,000 from $73,000--or a gain of nearly 18%--
from 2014 to 2017.\26\ Over the same period, the median salary for a
truckload driver working a national, irregular route increased to over
$53,000--for an increase of $7,000 or 15%.\27\ These significant bumps
in pay are in addition to the thousands of dollars in signing bonuses,
health insurance, and retirement benefits that most carriers offer to
recruit and retain drivers.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Paul Davidson, The most in demand jobs in 2018 with biggest
pay hikes include cashier, truck driver, USA Today, May 22, 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/
careers/2018/05/22/jobs-biggest-pay-hikes-cashier-delivery-driver/
630728002/.
\26\ American Trucking Associations, UPDATED: New Survey Data
Reveals Increases in Driver Compensation, March 27, 2018, https://
www.trucking.org/article/New-Survey-
Data-Reveals-Increases-in-Driver-Compensation.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With 35,810 trucking industry jobs in West Virginia as of 2017,
trucking employs 1 in 15 jobs within the state. 5,420 trucking
companies are located in the state--primarily small, locally owned
businesses. The average annual trucking industry salary in West
Virginia in 2017 was $43,749. For many West Virginians, trucking could
offer a pathway to the middle class as the demand for freight
transportation grows in our e-commerce economy.
To better connect West Virginians and Americans to jobs like these,
Congress could do the following:
V. GIVE YOUNGER PROFESSIONALS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE A CAREER IN
TRUCKING
ATA supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate
truck driving from 21 to 18--but only for qualified apprentices that
satisfy the 400 hours of supervised training and vehicle safety
technology requirements spelled out in the DRIVE Safe Act, as well as
the new training requirements of the Entry-Level Driver Training Rule
(EDLT) Final Rule that will take effect in 2020. Driver training and
vehicle safety technologies have advanced by several orders of
magnitude since the current minimum age requirement of 21 was
promulgated decades ago.
48 states and the District of Columbia allow 18, 19, and 20-year-
olds to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce, and many of these drivers
already achieve safety levels equivalent to, if not greater than, that
of their 21, 22, 23, and 24-year-old counterparts--even without the
benefit of having trained under the enhanced training standards of the
ELDT Final Rule, without the minimum 400 hours of training required by
the DRIVE Safe Act, and without the safety technology requirements of
the DRIVE Safe Act. Despite this level of safety performance, however,
18, 19, and 20 year old truck drivers are somehow prohibited from
driving 1.5 miles from Texarkana, TX into Texarkana, AR--even though
they can drive hundreds of miles throughout Texas.
In addition, our nation's military currently allows 18, 19, and 20-
year-old service members to operate heavy duty machinery, equipment,
and vehicles--demonstrating that properly-designed training can enable
U.S. sailors (whose average age is younger than 20 years old) to
operate a $4 billion aircraft carrier.\29\ Further, according to the
Council on Foreign Relations, 20 percent of the Marine Corps is under
21, while 10 to 15 percent of the 1.29 million active duty members of
the U.S. military overall is also under 21.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ National U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Month, 2018 Talking
Points, https://aircraftcarrier.com/
wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Talking-Points-2018.pdf, at 5.
\30\ Council of Foreign Relations, Demographics of the U.S.
Military, https://www.cfr.org/
article/demographics-us-military.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country are
neither employed nor in school, even as the nation is short 50,000
truck drivers. The DRIVE Safe Act would allow trucking industry
employers to connect these young professionals-in-waiting to jobs that
pay a national median salary of $54,585, in addition to offering
potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, health insurance,
and retirement benefits.
Additionally, connecting young professionals to trucking careers
earlier would help divert individuals away from the path of controlled
substances--which, once taken, would render that individual practically
unemployable for our industry. Reaching these individuals earlier and
acculturating them through the hiring and training process would lower
the risk of that person ever taking drugs.
I. ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY BARRIERS FOR OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER CANDIDATES
ATA supports an increase in the CDL Improvement Grant Program by an
amount necessary for states to implement changes to their IT systems so
that states can better serve the growing number of driver candidates
who receive training outside their state of domicile. This will allow
drivers to (1) complete all training; (2) take all necessary tests; and
(3) obtain all necessary credentials in one state--without having to
travel back to their home state. Currently, out-of-state trainees have
to travel back to their home state every time they pass either the CDL
knowledge test or the CDL skills test just to obtain the basic
occupational licenses necessary to launch their trucking careers. This
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it
and exposes them to skills degradation.
II. ELIMINATE SKILLS TEST DELAYS FOR CDL APPLICANTS
ATA supports incentivizing states to administer the CDL skills test
within 7 days of application or utilizing 3rd party testers. A low
unemployment rate and the stigma surrounding blue-collar work makes it
difficult enough to recruit drivers into the trucking industry. States
that make applicants wait up to two months to take their skills test
contributes to this problem by discouraging applicants from following
through. It also invites skills erosion.
III. SUPPORT RESEARCH ON THE WORKFORCE IMPACTS OF AUTOMATED VEHICLES
Automated and connected vehicle technologies have the potential to
dramatically impact nearly all aspects of the trucking industry. These
technologies can bring benefits in the areas of safety, environment,
productivity, efficiency, and driver health and wellness. Automated
driving technology is the next step in the evolution of the safety
technology currently available, and will help to further improve driver
safety and productivity, as well as the safety of other motorists and
road users. Automated technology comes in many levels that will assist
the driver and in some cases, handle the driving task. The application
of automated and connected vehicle technology in the trucking industry
will center on solutions in which there remains a role for drivers,
recognizing the duties and requirements drivers have beyond operating
the vehicle.
For these reasons, ATA supports the commonsense adoption of
automated vehicle technology and data-driven efforts to better
understand and optimize the potential benefits of this technology for
the American workforce. While we recognize that the widespread adoption
of these technologies is at least 25 to 30 years away, ATA supports
increased research that will better equip policymakers and regulators
with more data to prepare the next generation of American workers for
the future of work in trucking and transportation.
Question 14. In your testimony, you highlight the difficulties that
our Customs and Border Patrol Officers face on the Southern Border, and
the dire economic impact this crisis is causing the trucking industry.
What steps does the ATA support to help facilitate important
international trade?
Answer. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for a
variety of functions at and between ports of entry, including customs,
immigration, border security, and agricultural protection. All of these
responsibilities are crucial to facilitate the legitimate flow of
international trade and travel. However, the crisis along the southern
border has forced CBP to redistribute resources to accommodate for the
unprecedented influx of migrants at and between ports of entry (POEs).
This reallocation of resources has severely impacted the trucking
industry, as approximately 33,000 truck crossings occur every day along
our northern and southern borders.
To date, CBP has reassigned 731 Officers--245 from POEs along the
southern border; and 486 from airports, sea ports, and POEs along the
northern border--to assist the Border Patrol with migrant processing
and asylum seekers. When CBP reallocates resources and personnel, it is
important to recognize that the Officers are being removed from posts
that are critically important for trade facilitation, such as cargo
processing and agricultural inspections. The resulting personnel
deficit has had a direct impact on commercial wait times at the border,
with wait times reaching 7-10 hours for commercial trucks at the peak
of the crisis. Every single day, trucks haul more than $2 billion worth
of goods across our northern and southern borders, and increased wait
times and irregular POE operations take a toll on the vitality of our
industry as well as the U.S. economy. As such, ATA supports initiatives
that help CBP address both economic security as well as physical
security at POEs. We kindly ask that you consider the following
suggestions:
a) Construction of additional commercial lanes (HTF)
b) Renovations for aging bridges that support commercial motor
vehicles (HTF)
c) Redesigning existing commercial lanes to improve efficiency
(HTF)
d) Construction of bypass roads to reduce commercial traffic (HTF)
e) Infrastructure modifications to ensure the accessibility of
Free and Secure Trade (FAST) lanes for Customs-Trade Partnership
Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) participants (HTF)
f) Infrastructure to connect highways with POEs (HTF)
g) Technology that can be adapted to handle more volume, increase
efficiency, and improve accuracy of detection efforts (GF)
h) Construction of additional facilities to enable Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) and other Partner Government Agencies (PGAs) to
carry out the functions of commercial operations, including accepting
entries of merchandise, collecting duties, and enforcing the customs,
immigration, and trade laws of the United States (GF)
HTF: Funded from the Highway Trust Fund
GF: Funded from the federal General Fund
While SAFETEA-LU set aside money for many of these types of
projects, Section 1437 of the FAST Act simply made border
infrastructure an eligible expense under the Surface Transportation
Block Grant program. Given the clear needs and federal interest in
ensuring the efficient flow of people and goods across our land
borders, ATA recommends restoring a dedicated funding program, with
money apportioned among the northern and southern border states.
Question 15 Finally, Mr. Spear, what changes can Congress make to
have the most immediate impact on improving highway infrastructure
across the United States?
What steps does the ATA support to help facilitate important
international trade?
Answer. The most critical immediate step Congress can take to
facilitate nationwide improvement in highway infrastructure is to
provide states with sufficient, long-term, dedicated revenue. According
to multiple analyses, nationwide spending on highways is roughly half
of what is needed to maintain highways and bridges, and to make the
improvements necessary to address safety and mobility needs. Given
that, on average, the federal-aid highway program represents half of
states' highway capital budget, without a significant infusion of
federal funds highways will continue to deteriorate. West Virginia
relies on federal funds for 60 percent of its capital spending.
Furthermore, the uncertainty that states have had to deal with since
2008, when the Highway Trust Fund nearly went bankrupt--an episode that
has repeated several times since--prevents states from addressing the
most serious highway deficiencies. ATA has proposed a 20 cent increase
in the federal fuel user fee. This will raise an average of $34 billion
annually over the next decade. It will provide the states with the
predictable funding streams they need to address the massive backlog in
highway funding that is preventing states from saving lives, lowering
freight transportation costs and improving quality of life for every
American.
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Todd Spencer, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Question 1. It's graduation season right now and students are
weighing their options for various careers and trades. Facilitating a
path forward to a career in trucking is a worthy pursuit, but we must
also ensure that truck driving will be a good job, as the industry
undergoes rapid transformation.
You represent a spectrum of trucking operations. How can we improve
industry conditions in order to ensure good-paying, sustainable careers
for the next generation of drivers?
Answer. There are several ways to make a career in trucking more
appealing and viable for the next generation of drivers. First and
foremost, drivers must be properly compensated for ALL the time they
spend completing a freight movement. Currently, most drivers are only
paid when the wheels of a truck are moving, rather than on an hourly
basis. Unfortunately, an increasing amount of a driver's on-duty time
is spent excessively detained at a shipper or receiver, or stuck in
traffic caused by growing highway congestion. Both situations consume
valuable time in driver's day, but result in no compensation. Congress
can take steps to better ensure all drivers are compensated during
excessive detention time at loading and unloading docks. Not only would
this result in more sustainable wages for truckers, but it would
improve efficiency at a shipper or receiver, which benefits consumers.
Congress must also repeal an exemption within the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) that prevents drivers from receiving over-time pay. This
exemption is outdated and prevents truckers from receiving adequate
compensation.
Question 2. Have you given thought to how we can equip drivers with
additional certifications (such as mechanical aptitude) that could
increase their pay meanwhile driving down overall costs in the supply
chain?
Answer. Drivers are responsible for complying with a dizzying list
of FMCSA regulations and are primarily liable for any violations
incurred. Braking systems, lighting equipment and cargo securement
regulations generate the most out-of-service violations issued today,
but few drivers entering our industry have the basic training to
properly identify and resolve these safety problems. Large motor
carriers favor the cheapest and quickest training possible, which
typically results in drivers only being taught about the handling of a
commercial motor vehicle. More robust training standards--including
requirements involving the maintenance and repair of vehicle
components--would expand the skills and capabilities of new drivers,
which traditionally leads to higher levels of compensation.
Question 3. Mr. Byrd's testimony highlights that Teamster drivers
are among the highest paid in the industry with good health benefits
and pensions, which is why the retention rate is much higher. He also
notes that Teamster contracts require pay for drivers if they are
detained, or kept waiting by shippers, for a truck to be loaded or
unloaded and that ``paying drivers for wasting their valuable on duty
time gives motor carriers and shippers and incentive to have a load
ready.''
Mr. Spencer, is this the typical experience of OOIDA members?
(Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association)
Answer. Some OOIDA members have been successful in including
detention time compensation into contracts they've negotiated with
shippers, brokers and motor carriers. These drivers are typically the
most experienced on the road, which gives them unique leverage in
reaching such agreements. However, even those operating under such
contracts often find the entities responsible for payment will avoid
upholding their end of the agreement when it comes to detention time.
It is important to note there is also strength in numbers when
negotiating for detention time compensation. Large fleets and the
Teamsters union have significantly more leverage than a single-truck
operator at the negotiating table. As a result, most drivers remain
unpaid when the wheels of the truck are not moving, especially owner-
operators and those new to the industry.
Driving Training Standards
Question 4. Do you support the current training standards for the
ELDT 2020 training program?
Answer. OOIDA supports thorough training for all entry-level
drivers and the ELDT final rule that goes into effect next year is a
step in the right direction. However, more can be done to ensure
drivers are receiving the best possible training to fully prepare them
for the challenges of operating a commercial motor vehicle at the
safest levels. Congress should consider the new ELDT requirements a
good starting point, but continue to work to develop more robust
training standards.
Question 5. Do you support current standards that do not require a
minimum BTW (Behind The Wheel) time?
Answer. The lack of any BTW minimum requirement is a critical
deficiency within the ELDT final rule. The lack of any meaningful BTW
standards fails to ensure new entrants are adequately trained for the
conditions they will face on the road, jeopardizing the safety of the
driver and those with whom he shares the road. OOIDA was extremely
disappointed no minimum BTW requirements were included in the ELDT
final rule, despite the fact a vast majority of industry stakeholders
engaged in the negotiated rulemaking agreed it was necessary. Congress
must take steps to ensure BTW training is compulsory.
Question 6. Do you believe that truck drivers should demonstrate
their driving capabilities on the streets and highways rather than in
parking lots?
Answer. Yes, absolutely. Beyond demonstrating their proficiency in
daily driving conditions, new drivers should be trained to safely
operate a commercial motor vehicle in adverse weather conditions,
extreme congestion and diverse terrain.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Lamont Byrd, Director of
Safety and Health, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Question 1. Mr. Byrd, your testimony refers to a report you will
submit for the record that looks at the state of trucking operations
across the U.S.-Mexico border, and labor practices where U.S. companies
effectively use drivers with B-1 Temporary Business Visitor visas to
deliver loads. You refer to this as a ``spider's web of ownership'',
which has impacts on U.S. jobs.
What impact is this model having on the domestic labor market and
U.S. truck drivers?
Answer. As our testimony indicated, the Teamsters Union employed
EMPOWER, LLC, a Mexico City-based research firm to investigate
irregular employment practices of U.S. domiciled trucking companies and
their use of B-1 visa truck drivers. The EMPOWER report confirmed that
in the last ten years, there has been rapid growth of the use of
tractor-trailer operators with B-1 Temporary Business Visitor visas who
are working exclusively on long-haul operations in the U.S. While it is
difficult to quantify the exact number of carriers and drivers involved
in this practice, it was found that the B-1 job market in Nuevo Laredo
is on the verge of de facto institutionalization.
While we have considerably more investigative work to do to
quantify this practice, the effect on U.S. driver wages and the
``theft'' of work through cabotage violations is real. The Mexican
Social Security Institute estimated in 2017 that tractor trailer
operators in Mexico earn an average of USD 758.73 per month. This
represents a significant savings to U.S. carriers that utilize these
outsourced B-1 driver fleets. According to the U.S. Department of
Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median hourly wage for U.S
truck drivers is $21.00/hour with an annual wage of $43,680. The union
wage scale is considerably higher than that. The use of B-1 visa
drivers represents a significant savings to U.S. carriers, both
unionized and non-union, that set up these outsourced driver fleets.
While EMPOWER was not able to obtain reliable data about the total size
of the labor market for B-1 drivers, it did find several Facebook
groups that serve as forums for them, with thousands of members each.
Online recruiting forums are used by small and large carriers alike and
also by independent employers. The largest had over 11,000 members,
leading us to believe that the use of B-1 drivers is growing
significantly and has a negative impact on the job market for U.S.
drivers.
In addition to the inequity in pay, it was found that cabotage
violations are required by many, if not most, B-1 employers. These B-1
visa truck drivers are required by law to leave from the Mexican side
of the border, but many companies have been found to require drivers to
leave from Laredo or some other U.S. city. The consequence, if caught,
can mean the loss of the driver's B-1 visa, but the practice appears to
be fairly common. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) holds
workshops with major B-1 visa employers, part of which is to emphasize
the U.S. cabotage law, but interviews with drivers confirm this
practice of violating the law. Every cabotage violation is work lost by
a U.S. driver. The Teamsters Union is in the process of reaching out to
CBP to obtain data about cabotage violations. Apparently, enforcement
is spotty and varies greatly by region at the border. Once that
information is received and quantified, we will be in a better position
to inform the Committee of impacts on U.S. jobs. In addition, we are
continuing to investigate the overall use of B-1 visa drivers in the
long-haul industry so we can better quantify the effects of this
practice on the domestic labor market. When that information is
gathered, we will be pleased to pass it on to the Committee.
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Lamont Byrd, Director of Safety and
Health, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Question 2. It's graduation season right now and students are
weighing their options for various careers and trades. Facilitating a
path forward to a career in trucking is a worthy pursuit, but we must
also ensure that truck driving will be a good job, as the industry
undergoes rapid transformation.
You represent a spectrum of trucking operations. How can we improve
industry conditions in order to ensure good-paying, sustainable careers
for the next generation of drivers?
Answer. The first step in protecting driver wages and job quality
is by addressing rampant worker misclassification and ensuring that
drivers are paid for all the hours that they work. Similar to other
sectors of the economy, trucking companies have spent the past several
decades looking to shed costs at the direct expense of drivers, often
by misclassifying them as independent contractors. This practice has
led to an increasing number of drivers who enter into sham leasing
agreements and become responsible for a majority of the operational
costs of their business, costs that lead to them earning terrible wages
and working long hours. This practice is also illegal. These costs
should be borne by their employer, but we do not have a proper legal
framework in this country to hold companies who break these laws
accountable. Until these issues are addressed, drivers will continue to
suffer. This system also impacts workers who are properly classified as
employees, as law-abiding companies are often undercut by their law-
breaking competitors. As a result, employee-drivers often face the
threat of having their work subcontracted out to misclassified drivers
so that their employers can remain competitive in certain markets. This
system creates a destructive cycle that is bad for all truckers and
must be addressed.
Driver wages in all sectors must also improve to make this industry
competitive in recruiting and retaining talent. One step is to ensure
that drivers are paid for all hours that they work. Many drivers are
only paid when ``the wheels are turning'' leading to them eating the
costs for any traffic delays or time spent held up by a shipper.
Shippers and other entities in the transportation supply chain are
directly responsible for this situation. Anyone who contributes to
delays in picking up or delivering loads should brought to the table
and if necessary, forced to improve their turn times. Mandating payment
for the time drivers spend waiting to pick up or drop off a load is one
way to address this problem. Doing so would ensure that it is no longer
cost-effective for shippers to force drivers to wait hours to pick up a
load and move onto their next location. Addressing these issues are
crucial, these delays cost the drivers both valuable working hours and
opportunities for other compensation and should not be tolerated.
The quality of the driving profession is also directly tied to the
regulations FMCSA does (or doesn't) put out. FMCSA should stop issuing
exemptions to the Hours of Service regulations that extend a driver's
work day and make the job even less attractive to new applicants. FMCSA
should also promulgate a comprehensive entry-level driving training
curriculum that is consistent with the draft negotiated rule that was
developed by stakeholders who were involved in the negotiated entry-
level driver training rule, including a minimum of 30 hours of behind-
the-wheel training time.
Finally, our crumbling infrastructure further exacerbates driver
stress and delays in delivering loads and must be addressed.
Question 3. Have you given thought to how we can equip drivers with
additional certifications (such as mechanical aptitude) that could
increase their pay meanwhile driving down overall costs in the supply
chain?
Answer. Our focus has been to ensure that we have driver/members
who are highly competent in all aspects of commercial driving. It
should be noted that LTL drivers who are Teamster members typically
possess not only the Commercial Driver's License, but also several
endorsements, e.g., hazardous materials, tank vehicle, air brakes,
double trailers, and triple trailers (in some jurisdictions). These
drivers are also proficient in dock operations that include OSHA
certification for operating powered industrial trucks, loading
trailers, unloading trailers, load segregation, load securement,
connecting and disengaging various trailer configurations, and basic
hazardous materials/emergency response. Much of the same could be said
for long-haul drivers.
Commercial drivers work a very tough job, being tasked with working
very long hours (10 to 16 hours per day/60 to 70 hours per week) while
being responsible for ensuring that they obtain sufficient rest to
operate heavy vehicles safely, complying with health/medical standards
that are increasingly rigorous, being subjected to drug and alcohol
testing, etc. In addition, many of these drivers have family
responsibilities that occupy the minimal time that they have remaining
in a typical work week. It is not likely that this group of working men
and women will have time or in some cases, the resources to pursue
additional certifications.
Question 4. Mr. Byrd, your testimony highlights that Teamster
drivers are among the highest paid in the industry with good health
benefits and pensions, which is why the retention rate is much higher.
You also note that your contracts require pay for drivers if they are
detained, or kept waiting by shippers, for a truck to be loaded or
unloaded and that ``paying drivers for wasting their valuable on duty
time gives motor carriers and shippers and incentive to have a load
ready.''
I'm a strong supporter of our nation's unions like the one you
represent. What can Congress do to ensure Teamster benefits are more
common in all segments of the industry?
Answer. Hurdles to union organizing must be addressed. Our nation's
laws are stacked against workers who want to exercise their legal right
to form a union. In trucking, the nature of the industry makes it
particularly susceptible to illegal union-busting tactics, as drivers
are often spread out, and on the road in isolation for a significant
portion of their workday. Unionization is the only way to ensure the
benefits that Teamster members have fought for are enjoyed by a greater
segment of the population.
The plague of worker misclassification mentioned earlier must also
be addressed. In addition to the terrible and often unsafe working
conditions most misclassified drivers faced, they are also prevented
from joining a union because of their independent contractor status.
This must also be addressed for there to be meaningful change across
the industry.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Rodney Noble, Senior Director
of Transportation Global Procurement, PepsiCo
Question 1. Mr. Noble, PepsiCo is an industry leader in
electrification, owning the largest commercial fleet of electric
vehicles in the U.S. as well as investing in all-electric semi-trucks
to add to your fleet.
Do you believe the Federal Government has a role in ensuring that
adequate charging infrastructure exists for electric vehicles on long
distance routes to support this investment by your company and others?
Answer. Chairman DeFazio, thank you for your question. PepsiCo is
adopting sustainability in our everyday practices and long-term
business plans by reducing emissions through efficient, new technology
and the sharing of best practices. For a number of years PepsiCo has
made significant improvements in fleet efficiency and we are proud to
have over 1,500 alternative fuel vehicles in our fleet; including a
significant number of electric vehicles. PepsiCo has a long history of
investment in electric vehicles and its associated charging
infrastructure. Part of our strategic plan in building our electric
fleet included updating our site and maintenance facilities, including
our refueling infrastructure and planning our routes to ensure our
electric vehicles remain adequately charged. PepsiCo has made
significant investments and will continue to do so in developing its
own private, on site charging infrastructure. As of right now,
PepsiCo's belief is that most of our current and future charging needs
for both delivery and over the road transport electric vehicles can be
met through charging infrastructure installed at our own facilities.
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Rodney Noble, Senior Director of
Transportation Global Procurement, PepsiCo
Question 2. It's graduation season right now and students are
weighing their options for various careers and trades. Facilitating a
path forward to a career in trucking is a worthy pursuit, but we must
also ensure that truck driving will be a good job, as the industry
undergoes rapid transformation.
You represent a spectrum of trucking operations. How can we improve
industry conditions in order to ensure good-paying, sustainable careers
for the next generation of drivers?
Answer. Representative Craig, thank you for the question and we
agree with the sentiment behind the question and believe it is
important to provide good working conditions for all our employees at
PepsiCo, including our drivers. We believe a critical component of good
working conditions for our drivers is safety. To that end, PepsiCo goes
above and beyond current federal and state safety regulations. The
majority of our new vehicles are outfitted with features including:
collision mitigation, lane departure, blind spot detection, LED
headlights, back-up cameras, antilock brakes, traction control and
electronic stability control. We are also adding forward facing cameras
and lane departure devices to our existing fleet, while continuing to
leverage telematics for proactive driver training on safe driver
behaviors.
In addition to safety we believe incorporating efficiencies for our
drivers can also lead to a better working environment. PepsiCo is
working to procure equipment that is best suited to the business,
allowing our drivers to have the most efficient trucks for our
operations. For example, PepsiCo Beverages North America is
accelerating a new and innovative delivery system, which replaces
segmented bulk and bay delivery trucks with specially designed and
specified trailers that are pre-loaded at the warehouse. This helps
ensure the right quantity and assortment of product reaches the retail
customer in a more efficient and timely manner while saving time for
our route delivery drivers and fuel by eliminating overlapping delivery
vehicles. To date, approximately 44.1 percent of routes have been
converted to this new system, resulting in a 15 percent reduction in
the number of truck days and total miles from the system. Reducing
miles also improves safety because it translates into fewer exposures
for our drivers and decreases the chances of crashes.
Finally, PepsiCo believes creating a robust pipeline of talent
coming into the professional is critical to allow individuals to have
long-term careers in trucking. PepsiCo supports the Developing
Responsible Individuals for a Vibrant Economy Act also known as the
``Drive Safe Act'' and believes this legislation would help establish a
pipeline for drivers by allowing 18-21 year olds that already have a
commercial driver's license to drive interstate pending completion of a
400 hour apprenticeship program with an experienced driver.
Question 3. Have you given thought to how we can equip drivers with
additional certifications (such as mechanical aptitude) that could
increase their pay meanwhile driving down overall costs in the supply
chain?
Answer. We have internal training for our drivers interested in
learning new skills and believe this is an area that could be further
developed.
Our Roads Our Safety
Question 4. Are you supportive of FMCSA's program Our Roads Our
Safety?
Answer. At PepsiCo we are supportive of any education and training
efforts to ensure drivers of different sized vehicles know how to
safely share the road and as we understand it, this is a key component
of Our Roads Our Safety campaign. Additionally, PepsiCo has invested in
our own internal safety, maintenance and driver training programs.
Question 5. How can this program be expanded to help truck drivers
and the public to understand how to operate around large trucks and
buses?
Answer. To the extent that funds are available, FMCSA could
consider providing information in places that it hasn't yet reached, be
it senior citizen centers, rest stops or other areas where they can
help get the message out to drivers.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Deputy Chief Mark Savage,
Colorado State Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance
Question 1. Mr. Savage, last year, the US Department of
Transportation issued guidance that allows a driver to drive beyond
daily or weekly hours of service limits under ``personal conveyance'',
even if the driver is laden with cargo. The agency also significantly
expanded the amount of time transporters of agricultural products can
drive as part of the guidance. Mr. Savage, you state that drivers will
be able to ``abuse'' this allowance, since there is no time or distance
limit placed on it, to get around hours of service rules. This seems to
be an example of this Administration making decisions to maximize
flexibility and productivity for carriers, but seemingly without
consideration of driver fatigue and the impacts on safety.
When granting administrative exemptions DOT has to demonstrate that
any change will not negatively impact safety. Do you believe this
allowance to drive indefinitely will result in an equal level of safety
on our roads?
Answer. Simply allowing commercial motor vehicle drivers to operate
over longer hours and distances without any additional safety
considerations or requirements cannot possibly result in an equivalent
level of safety. The personal conveyance and agricultural commodity
guidance are and will continue to have a negative impact on safety,
providing drivers who are so inclined with the ability to operate well
beyond the authorized number of hours. Under the revised personal
conveyance guidance and agricultural commodities guidance, a driver
could, in theory, drive hundreds of miles over the course of several
hours all under the designation of either personal conveyance or
agricultural commodity hauling. This presents the opportunity for
increased driver fatigue and negatively impacts safety. While it's true
that we cannot regulate sleep, the hours-of-service rules set forth a
framework that, if followed, allows for drivers to get the rest
necessary to operate their vehicles safely. While operating under the
personal conveyance allowance drivers may decide to travel hundreds of
miles in order to strategically relocate to an alternate location after
driving a full day. When combined with the ability to operate under
personal conveyance while laden, this new guidance provides an
opportunity for drivers to abuse personal conveyance time in order to
circumvent the hours-of-service regulations. Similarly, under the
agricultural commodity guidance, as long as a driver is transporting an
agricultural commodity, they could drive indefinitely within 150 air-
miles of their source, providing no limits on their driving time and
greatly exposing them to fatigue.
CVSA inspectors routinely see abuse of the personal conveyance
designation roadside, with drivers traveling hundreds of miles and
several hours beyond the hours of service limits in order to advance
their current load or reposition better for their next load.
Further, our inspectors are hearing from drivers that some are
being forced to use the personal conveyance designation, either by the
motor carrier or the shipper, in order to deliver the load more
quickly. Driver coercion is occurring as a result of this new guidance
and efforts to level the playing field and force all drivers to operate
in conjunction with the rules are being eroded by this loophole.
Attached to the document, please find a list of examples of personal
conveyance abuse found roadside.
Question 2. Has it been challenging to enforce this guidance given
the complete lack of parameters?
Answer. Both the personal conveyance guidance and agricultural
commodity guidance present challenges to enforcement of the hours-of-
service requirements. The allowance of laden vehicles for personal
conveyance use makes it much more difficult for a roadside inspector to
determine the intent of a driver at the time of inspection. Given that
there is not an established maximum distance or time that personal
conveyance can be used, it is very difficult for a roadside inspector
to determine if the driver is appropriately using the designation. To
alleviate this confusion, CVSA has submitted the attached petition to
FMCSA to set a quantifiable distance or time that drivers can log as
personal conveyance. A clear, maximum time or distance for the use of
personal conveyance would give both industry and enforcement clear
guidelines and reduce the abuse of this provision. The agricultural
commodities guidance not only increases safety risks due to fatigue,
but also creates excessive burden on enforcement officials. The
guidance provides various options of how drivers can record their time
within 150 air-miles of their source. The varying options create
challenges for enforcement officials that must determine if the
electronic logging devices have the appropriate annotations and
accurately reflect the status of the off-duty time or unassigned
driving miles. With this variance and lack of detail in the guidance,
the burden falls on state agencies and roadside inspectors to interpret
how to enforce the regulations, posing a threat to uniformity.
Questions from Hon. Steve Cohen for Deputy Chief Mark Savage, Colorado
State Patrol, on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
Question 3. How can the footprint of the enforcement program be
expanded to improve safety?
Answer. Given the size of the motor carrier industry, jurisdictions
do not have the resources necessary to inspect every vehicle, driver
and motor carrier operating on our roadways on a regular basis. To
maximize resources, states must prioritize enforcement activities and
utilize technology to continue to increase enforcement program
efficiency. For example, technology exists today to identify a
commercial motor vehicle electronically, while the vehicle is in
motion. This eliminates the need to stop a commercial motor vehicle to
review driver information and inspect the vehicle, improving
efficiencies for the enforcement community and the motor carrier
industry. To allow for the wide deployment of this technology, all new
commercial motor vehicles should be equipped with a universal
electronic vehicle identifier that allows them to be identified
electronically by enforcement. Deployment of this technology would
revolutionize the way commercial motor vehicle roadside monitoring,
inspection and enforcement are conducted, exponentially growing the
program and improving roadway safety.
Question 4. In your statement you mention that regulatory
activities have stalled out at FMCSA. Can you expand on what you mean
by that?
Answer. Regulatory activity at the agency--one of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA's) basic responsibilities--has
come to a near standstill, and the necessary work of maintaining the
regulations is suffering. High profile initiatives, such as
implementation of the electronic logging device rule, can consume the
agency's resources, especially when those efforts are met with a high
volume of exemption requests. In addition, certain policies currently
in place, such as the Administration's requirement that two regulations
be removed for everyone new one put into place, impede the agency's
ability to move forward with important safety improvements; such as,
clarifying and updating outdated regulatory language.
As mentioned in my written testimony, for example, in 2016, FMCSA
sent a letter to a member of the broadband service industry indicating
that wireless and broadband services qualify under the `public utility'
hours-of-service exemption. After learning of the letter, in May of
2017, CVSA petitioned the agency to update the regulations to reflect
this decision. In March of last year, the agency granted the petition,
but to date we are still waiting for the rulemaking to be initiated.
In an effort to address the growing backlog and delays, the agency
has come to rely heavily on the use of regulatory guidance to address
necessary clarifications to the regulations, using guidance documents
or frequently asked questions (FAQs) to correct technical errors in
published rules or to clarify vague regulatory language within the
safety regulations while improvements to the regulations make their way
through the rulemaking process. However, the number of full rulemakings
that can make it through the agency in any given year is limited by
staff and funding, and a number of higher profile rules tend to push
simple technical changes back in the queue, some never to be published.
As a result, a disconnect has evolved between written regulation,
regulatory guidance, interpretations and FAQs. This disconnect has
caused unintentional inconsistencies and contradictions to work their
way into the regulatory framework. These inconsistencies can lead to
confusion among both the regulated and enforcement communities.
It is imperative that FMCSA be given the resources and support to
allow the agency to prioritize the day to day maintenance of the
regulations, while also meeting obligations set forth by Congress.
Allowing this critical responsibility to lapse does a disservice to
both the motor carrier industry and the enforcement community and
undermines the agency's efforts to improve safety.
Question 5. In your testimony you refer to the need to ensure that
regulations are enforceable. What do you mean by that?
Answer. Clear, enforceable rules are the cornerstone of an
effective regulatory framework designed to ensure safety on our
roadways. Regulations must be written and maintained in a way that they
provide clear guidelines to the regulated industry and law enforcement
officials.
For example, the current hours-of-service regulations require that
drivers take a 30-minute break within the first eight hours of
beginning their day. This provision is difficult to effectively
enforce, as the inspector has no way of verifying whether or not the
driver was legitimately off duty during that time or if he/she used the
time to perform other work-related duties, such as fueling, inspection,
or loading and unloading times. This provision gives problem drivers,
and motor carriers, an opportunity to falsify their record of duty
status (RODS) in an attempt to disguise, or conceal, on-duty hours.
Enforcing this proposed rule is impossible without supporting documents
to either verify, or refute, such entries.
Or, consider the regulation that says drivers may not operate a
vehicle on an underinflated tire. While it is relatively simple to
determine when a tire is flat, because of a number of variables, it is
much more difficult to determine if a tire is `underinflated' roadside.
When inspecting tires for the correct tire inflation pressure,
inspectors must read the tire markings to determine tire size,
determine the axle load, calculate tire load, check the tire pressure,
and then adjust for cold or warm tire condition. They must then find
the appropriate Load Limit Table (generally not available to them at
roadside) in order to determine if the tire is under inflated or not.
These are two examples of regulations that may have been well
intended but are not practically enforceable roadside. Regulations must
be specific, not leaving open room for interpretation and maintained in
a way that, as they are updated, they do no conflict with other
regulations or regulatory guidance. Unclear regulations that cause room
for interpretation challenge uniformity of enforcement and make it more
difficult for the motor carrier industry to comply with a requirement.
It is imperative that those subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) understand their responsibilities and that those
tasked with enforcing those safety regulations can do so effectively to
ensure the quality and uniformity of the more than four million
roadside inspections conducted annually throughout North America.
Unfortunately, regulatory activity at the agency has come to a near
standstill, and the necessary work of maintaining clear, enforceable
regulations is suffering.
Question 6. In your testimony you mention challenges with
discrepancies in regulatory guidance. Has the agency taken any steps to
correct this issue?
Answer. U.S. DOT recently published a notice in the federal
register for feedback on regulatory guidance. However, it was a review
of all regulatory guidance at U.S. DOT. We, along with other
stakeholders from across all the transportation modes submitted
comments. While this was a good start, FMCSA should publish a part by
part review of each section of the FMCSRs to allow for a more thorough
review. In addition, the agency should conduct a review of informal
regulatory guidance that has been issued like interpretations,
electronic communications and FAQs, and officially adopt them as
regulatory guidance. This process, once complete, will help clarify a
number of inconsistencies in regulation, helping those who are subject
to the FMCSRs better understand their responsibilities and allowing
those tasked with enforcing the regulations to do so effectively. This,
in turn, will help improve the quality and uniformity of the more than
four million roadside inspections conducted annually throughout North
America. However, it is not enough for the agency to do this one
review. This process must be conducted on an ongoing basis, in order to
keep pace with ongoing changes and developments. Continued review and
updates to guidance are necessary to remove redundancies, reflect
recent changes, correct errors and eliminate contradictions in order to
provide both the law enforcement community and motor carrier industry
with clearer guidelines to follow. Regulatory guidance should be
reviewed and updated on a regular basis to ensure accuracy and clarity.
Attachments to Mr. Savage's Responses
examples of abuse of personal conveyance
The examples below provide a snapshot of personal conveyance abuse
that is being seen by inspectors when checking hours-of-service
compliance.
Commonly reported abuse:
Using personal conveyance for up to 10 hours between
dropping off loads and going to the next pick up.
Driving over 2 hours claiming they are looking for a
place to park when there are open spaces along the 2-hour drive.
Using personal conveyance to make up for time lost at
loading docks.
Switching to personal conveyance time just before
violating the 11 or 14-hour rules.
Specific examples of abuse found:
1. A driver drove over 200 miles in the direction of his
destination under personal conveyance. When asked the driver claimed he
was headed to visit family along his route.
2. A driver utilized personal conveyance to avoid violations of
the 11-hour rule. The driver often switched into personal conveyance
shortly before exceeding 11 hours of drive time.
3. A driver used personal conveyance to reposition for a new load
and avoid a 14-hour rule violation.
4. A driver drove approximately 132 miles under personal
conveyance from Florida to Georgia to reposition and pick up a load in
Georgia.
5. Within the provided logs, a driver operated several different
times under personal conveyance to reposition and pick up a new load.
6. A driver operated under personal conveyance to move their load
forward. When asked, the driver indicated that the motor carrier
instructed him to continue to drive in personal conveyance.
7. A driver traveled for 1 hour and 28 minutes under personal
conveyance to avoid a 14-hour rule violation and continue their trip.
8. A driver utilized personal conveyance several times to avoid a
14-hour rule violation. The first time the driver drove 106 miles
towards their destination under personal conveyance and on second
occurrence the driver drove 157 miles towards their destination under
personal conveyance. When asked, the driver admitted that he used
personal conveyance when he is going to run out of time.
9. A driver drove 2 hours and 30 minutes under personal
conveyance, stating he was trying to find a place to sleep. After the 2
hours and 30 minutes he parked illegally on the side of the road. The
inspector was aware of several safe, legal parking locations that the
driver passed within that 2 hours and 30 minutes of personal conveyance
time.
10. A pickup truck pulling an empty BigTex gooseneck trailer was
stopped. The driver had dropped a load in Westlake, LA. At the time of
inspection, the ELD indicated he was driving under personal conveyance
for the last 10 minutes. Prior to that it had been turned off for about
24 hours but recorded that the vehicle was on and moving in the
direction of the point of inspection. The driver said he was going to
urgent care in Houston, where he was also picking up a load. The driver
was from Georgia, did not appear to be sick, and passed several urgent
care facilities along his route.
11. During an off-site audit, logs showed travel from Denver to
Eastern Kansas in an off-duty status. The carrier was stopped in Kansas
and cited for not having a log. The driver was an owner operator and
stated he was driving under personal conveyance to pick up a trailer he
had purchased in Kansas. When questioned about the use for the trailer,
the carrier stated that it was for business use. This was a violation
of personal conveyance because he was completing this trip for the
furtherance of the business.
12. A driver of an unladen dry bulk concrete tanker was stopped
while driving between Idaho and Texas under personal conveyance. The
driver stated that she was operating under personal conveyance because
she had dropped her load in Idaho and was returning to her home in
Texas. The driver was attempting to utilize personal conveyance for the
entire return trip and not take required breaks.
13. A driver drove from Chicago, Illinois, to Tennessee with an
empty trailer with the intent of picking up a load in Tennessee. The
driver drove for 12 hours under personal conveyance.
14. A driver used personal conveyance to further his load and meet
a significant portion of his required off-duty time. The driver had 4
hours left to finish his trip and switched into personal conveyance
just before exceeding the 14-hour window. After completing the trip, he
only took 6 hours of off-duty time, utilizing the 4 of personal
conveyance drive time to make up his required 10 hours off-duty.
__________
December 17, 2018.
Hon. Raymond P. Martinez
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE, 6th Floor, West Building, Washington, DC
20590-9898
RE: Petition for Rulemaking--Add a Definition of Personal Conveyance to
Title 49 C.F.R. Sec. 395.2 and Remove all Interpretative Guidance from
Sec. 395.8 and the Agency
Dear Administrator Martinez,
Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Sec.
389.31, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) is petitioning
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to amend Sec.
395.2 by adding a definition of the term ``personal conveyance.'' To
adequately clarify what the agency means by ``personal conveyance,''
the following term needs to be defined: the maximum distance and/or
time a driver may operate for personal conveyance.
CVSA is a nonprofit association comprised of local, state,
provincial, territorial and federal commercial motor vehicle safety
officials and industry representatives. The Alliance aims to achieve
uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial motor vehicle
inspections and enforcement by certified inspectors dedicated to driver
and vehicle safety. Our mission is to improve commercial motor vehicle
safety and uniformity throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States,
by providing guidance and education to enforcement, industry and policy
makers.
justification
FMCSA guidance for Sec. 395.8, Driver's record of duty status
currently states:
Question 26: Under what circumstances may a driver operate a
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) as a personal conveyance?
Guidance:
A driver may record time operating a CMV for personal
conveyance (i.e., for personal use or reasons) as off-duty only
when the driver is relieved from work and all responsibility
for performing work by the motor carrier. The CMV may be used
for personal conveyance even if it is laden, since the load is
not being transported for the commercial benefit of the carrier
at that time. Personal conveyance does not reduce a driver's or
motor carrier's responsibility to operate a CMV safely. Motor
carriers can establish personal conveyance limitations either
within the scope of, or more restrictive than, this guidance,
such as banning use of a CMV for personal conveyance purposes,
imposing a distance limitation on personal conveyance, or
prohibiting personal conveyance while the CMV is laden.
To be able to log personal conveyance time as off-duty, commercial
motor vehicle drivers must meet several conditions as outlined in the
regulatory guidance on the agency's website and noted above. These
include being relieved of all on-duty activities and responsibilities
and ensuring that the off-duty trip is personal in nature. While these
conditions present certain parameters to drivers and enforcement, the
guidance it offers is incomplete because it does not provide a maximum
distance and/or time that a driver can travel under the ``personal
conveyance'' designation.
In reference to the revised FMCSA guidance, the term ``reasonable
and safe location'' is used in the ``Federal Register'' response to
comments to describe travel under personal conveyance. This lack of
definitive language leaves it up to the inspector's interpretation to
determine compliance. Individual inspectors will likely have different
interpretations of what is ``reasonable,'' resulting in inconsistencies
in enforcement. This will result in some commercial motor vehicle
drivers being cited for hours-of-service violations while other
drivers, who are traveling similar distances, are avoiding such
citations.
More importantly, the published guidance does not address the
underlying issue of setting a limit on how far a driver may travel
under the personal conveyance designation. Under the revised guidance,
a driver could, in theory, drive hundreds of miles over the course of
several hours all under the designation of personal conveyance. This
presents the opportunity for increased driver fatigue and risk on our
roadways, as drivers may decide to travel hundreds of miles in order to
strategically relocate to an alternate location after driving a full
day. When combined with the ability to operate under personal
conveyance while laden, this new guidance provides an opportunity for
drivers to abuse personal conveyance time in order to circumvent the
hours-of-service regulations. Further, the allowance of laden vehicles
for personal conveyance use makes it much more difficult for a roadside
inspector to determine the intent of a driver at the time of
inspection.
FMCSA should provide a clear, set distance that is permissible
under the personal conveyance designation. In setting clear guidelines
on the use of personal conveyance, FMCSA may look to the standard set
in Canada, which allows drivers to use a vehicle for personal
conveyance purposes for a maximum of 75 km per day (approximately 46
miles), unladen. FMCSA should similarly set a quantifiable distance
that drivers are allowed to log as personal conveyance, in addition to
the parameters already offered for Sec. 395.8.
By establishing a maximum allowed distance for personal conveyance,
FMCSA will not only eliminate confusion and inconsistent enforcement
among inspectors on this issue but will also ensure safer roads as
commercial motor vehicle drivers are on notice that personal conveyance
time cannot be used as a safe harbor for driving hundreds of miles
after exhausting their hours of service.
CVSA made a similar request in response to the agency's request for
comments on the proposed guidance in early 2018 (Docket Number FMCSA-
2017-0108). The agency indicated in its response that such a change
would be outside the scope of the regulatory guidance and would require
a formal rulemaking proceeding. CVSA requests the agency address the
Alliance's request for a maximum travel distance and/or time under
personal conveyance as part of the rulemaking that is underway to make
changes to existing hours-of-service regulations (Docket Number FMCSA-
2018-0248).
CVSA works to closely monitor, evaluate and identify potentially
unsafe transportation processes and procedures as well as to help
facilitate and implement best practices for enhancing safety on our
highways. CMV safety continues to be a challenge and we need the
involvement of all affected parties to help us better understand these
issues and put into place practical solutions. We appreciate the
agency's commitment to safety and stakeholder involvement.
If you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact me by phone at [redacted] or by email at [redacted].
Respectfully,
Collin B. Mooney, MPA, CAE
Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
__________
December 17, 2018.
Hon. Heidi King
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, DC 20590-9898
RE: Petition for Rulemaking--Require Commercial Motor Vehicles to be
Manufactured to Wirelessly Broadcast a Universal Electronic Vehicle
Identifier
Dear Deputy Administrator King,
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) petitions the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to publish an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in regards to amending
the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) found in Title 49
Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 571 to explore the benefits
and feasibility of establishing a new FMVSS requirement for the remote
electronic identification of heavy-duty vehicles, truck tractors, buses
and semi-trailers being operated in the United States and to inform the
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and facilitate the early
voluntary adoption of such technology.
CVSA is a nonprofit association comprised of local, state,
provincial, territorial and federal commercial motor vehicle safety
officials and industry representatives. The Alliance aims to achieve
uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial motor vehicle
inspections and enforcement by certified inspectors dedicated to driver
and vehicle safety. Our mission is to improve commercial motor vehicle
safety and uniformity throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States,
by providing guidance and education to enforcement, industry and policy
makers.
request
CVSA petitions NHTSA to initiate an ANPRM in order to facilitate a
discussion among stakeholders regarding the advantages and associated
benefits of amending the FMVSS to require all heavy-duty vehicles,
truck tractors, buses and semi-trailers to be manufactured with the
capability for quick remote identification of a commercial motor
vehicle for inspection and enforcement purposes. There are a number of
technology options through which this could be achieved. For example,
the electronic identifier could be communicated through the proposed
dedicated 5.9 GHz spectrum, or other related communication platforms,
surrounding the advancement of automated driving systems (ADS) in
conjunction with automated and connected commercial motor vehicles as
part of the basic safety message. This immediate electronic
identification of a commercial motor vehicle will aid in establishing
the vehicle to enforcement (V2E) connectivity necessary for the
wireless inspection of an automated or connected commercial motor
vehicle without impeding commerce by stopping and delaying automated or
connected commercial motor vehicles and advance the vision and guiding
principles outlined in Preparing for the Future of Transportation:
Automated Vehicles 3.0 (AV 3.0). Publishing an ANPRM would initiate
much needed discussion on this crucial step forward in commercial motor
vehicle safety technology.
justification
The federal government entrusts the states with the responsibility
of enforcing the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and
the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMRs) through the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). The states use funds through the
MCSAP to conduct enforcement activities, targeting vehicles, drivers
and motor carriers that present a safety risk to the driving public.
According to FMCSA, the agency regulates 524,058 motor carriers, 5.9
million commercial drivers and 12.1 million commercial motor vehicles.
Given the size of the industry, the states do not have the resources to
inspect every vehicle, driver and motor carrier operating on our
roadways on a regular basis. In order to maximize resources, the states
use a combination of methods to identify vehicles, drivers and motor
carriers for intervention and enforcement.
Currently, inspectors use screening technology programs and tools,
as well as inspection selection procedures and inspector observation to
identify inspection targets to be examined during a roadside
inspection. Third party screening technologies that are currently in
use help to increase the number of vehicles, drivers and motor carriers
that enforcement community comes into contact with; however, some of
these technologies are used voluntarily and others are deployed with
varying degrees of effectiveness. Since technologies exist today that
would allow automated roadside identification of nearly all commercial
motor vehicles, if this proposed concept were universally deployed,
this would revolutionize the way commercial motor vehicle roadside
monitoring, inspection and enforcement are conducted. It would improve
the effectiveness of enforcement programs while reducing costs, for
both enforcement and industry, all while improving safety. In order to
move forward with full deployment, however, enforcement must have a
universal mechanism for electronically identifying all commercial motor
vehicles. We believe this can be accomplished with minimal cost and
disruption, and we believe the safety and economic benefits will be
substantial for the enforcement community, motor carrier industry and
driving public.
While many questions still exist surrounding this concept,
establishing a universal electronic vehicle identifier requirement for
all commercial motor vehicles will have tremendous benefit.
Jurisdictions will save time and see improved efficiencies as
inspectors are able to more accurately target vehicles, drivers and
motor carriers in need of an intervention while allowing safe,
compliant vehicles to deliver their freight more quickly and
efficiently.
Most importantly, establishing a universal electronic vehicle
identifier requirement for all commercial motor vehicles would benefit
the public by improving safety, taking unsafe vehicles, drivers and
motor carriers off the roadways. As industry continues to grow and more
and more people take to the roads, it is imperative that we leverage
technology where possible to improve the efficacy of our enforcement
programs.
It is important to note that establishing a universal vehicle
identifier requirement within the FMVSS creates no additional
regulatory burden for the motor carrier. Further, for the regulated
motor carrier industry, there are no credible privacy concerns. The
universal vehicle identifier, potentially tied to the vehicle
identification number (VIN), would transmit only information that is
already required to be displayed or made available by regulation. All
this requirement would do is change how that information is presented
to the enforcement community.
Further, the need for a universal vehicle identifier becomes more
critical as the industry moves forward to implement driver assistive
truck platooning and increasingly advanced driver assistance systems
and partially or fully automated driving systems, which will require
new methods and levels of safety checks. NHTSA's vehicle to vehicle
(V2V) and vehicle to infrastructure communications (V2I), which we
understand is planned for medium and heavy vehicles, is an ideal
platform upon which to achieve this electronic identification and for
our vehicle to enforcement (V2E) initiative to become a reality. As
driver assistive technologies evolve in commercial vehicle use, the
proper identification and monitoring of these commercial motor vehicles
becomes increasingly necessary. No matter the method, this proposed
requirement would enable efficient identification and inspection/
screening of vehicle systems to help ensure safe operation of
commercial motor vehicles, including those being operated with or
without a human operator on board.
CVSA works to closely monitor, evaluate and identify potentially
unsafe transportation processes and procedures as well as to help
facilitate and implement best practices for enhancing safety on our
highways. Commercial motor vehicle safety continues to be a challenge
and we need the involvement of all affected parties to help us better
understand these issues and put into place practical solutions. We
appreciate the agency's commitment to safety and stakeholder
involvement.
If you have further questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact me by phone at [redacted] or by email at [redacted].
Respectfully,
Collin B. Mooney, MPA, CAE
Executive Director, Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
cc: The Honorable Raymond P. Martinez, Administrator, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration
Questions from Hon. Mark DeSaulnier for Andy Young, Truck Safety
Advocate
Technology Applications for Rural Communities
Mr. Young, NHTSA reported that large truck rear impacts comprised
22 percent of fatal two-vehicle collisions between large trucks and
passenger vehicles during 2017. The Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety (IIHS) crash tests demonstrated that the rear underride guards
mandated for trailers by NHTSA in 1998 performed poorly.
Question 1. Given that eight out of the top 10 leading trailer
manufacturers have developed rear underride guards that qualify for the
IIHS ToughGuard Rating, which greatly exceeds the proposed federal
standard, doesn't it make sense to mandate rear guards now for all
trailers?
Answer. Yes! The eight (8) major trailer manufacturers that have
received the IIHS ToughGuard Rating sell approximately 80 percent of
all trailers on U.S. Roadways. These trailer manufacturers are Great
Dane LLC, Hyundai Translead, Manac Inc., Stoughton Trailers LLC, Strick
Trailers LLC, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., Vanguard National
Trailer Corp, and Wabash National Corp.\1\ A mandate remains necessary
because many of these trailer manufacturers have not made the IIHS
ToughGuard rated rear impact guards standard on all new trailer
purchases. Many of the manufacturers simply sell the IIHS ToughGuard
rated rear impact guards as optional equipment. A motor carrier working
with a retail dealer may unknowingly purchase a trailer that has an
inadequate, less safe, rear impact guard. Whereas, if NHTSA mandated
the IIHS ToughGuard rated rear impact guards, then purchasers of
trailers will be guaranteed to have the safest available and
technologically feasible rear impact guards. A mandated federal
standard will ensure that 100 percent of new trailers purchased will
have the safest rated rear impact guards saving countless lives in the
future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Press Release, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway
Loss Data Institute, ``All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for
good underride protection,'' by Russ Rader, Senior Vice President,
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/all-major-trailer-makers-earn-iihs-
award-for-good-underride-protection
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Angie Craig for Andy Young, Truck Safety Advocate
Driving Training Standards
Question 2. Do you support the current training standards for the
ELDT 2020 training program?
Answer. Yes, but the proposed training standards need to include a
minimum number of behind-the-wheel (BTW) hours. Driving a commercial
motor vehicle is a safety-sensitive function. It is frequently referred
to as such in the Federal Motor Carrier Regulations. As I indicated in
my hearing testimony, I am a truck driver who actively drives a semi-
tractor pulling a 45-foot trailer. I am keenly aware of the
complexities and challenges behind driving AND backing a tractor-
trailer. Not only is a truck driver responsible for the safety of all
motorists on the road, he or she is responsible for their own safety
too. Without a doubt, the knowledge and skills required to drive a
tractor-trailer requires advanced training.
The Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT) Final Rule specifically
states that this rule ``enhances the safety of commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by establishing more
extensive entry-level training (ELDT) requirements.'' The ELDT further
responds to a Congressional mandate already imposed under Section 32304
of the ``Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21).
Presently, most anyone can simply take and pass the various written and
skills tests, completely self-taught, and obtain a Class A CDL without
ANY actual training. This is downright scary! Ask any experienced truck
driver if ELDT should be mandated and each one will likely respond with
a resounding, ``Yes!''
Question 3. Do you support current standards that do not require a
minimum BTW (Behind The Wheel) time?
Answer. No! Minimum behind-the-wheel time must be required.
Commercial trucks can weigh up to 20 times the weight of an ordinary
passenger car. It takes a much greater distance to stop a commercial
truck than to stop an ordinary car. The size, weight, and length of
these trucks make driving them very complex requiring more driving
skill than an ordinary car.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Commercial Driver's License Manual, Section 6.1 ``Driving
Combination Vehicles Safely.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this month, I was driving my tractor-trailer with a young
man sitting as a passenger. This young man is 22-years old and wants to
obtain his Class A Commercial Driver's License later this year. As I
was driving, I was pointing out to him the importance of managing space
ahead of the truck and keeping a significant following distance behind
other motorists. The most important space for a truck driver is the
space he or she is driving into. A truck driver must be able to
comfortably stop in the distance he or she is able to see. This means
controlling speed, knowing when to take your foot off the accelerator,
when to brake, and comfortably downshift allowing the engine to help
brake the truck too. Hard braking and evasive maneuvers should never
happen if a truck driver is alert, paying careful attention, driving
defensively and responsibly.
I was also talking with my young passenger about defensive driving
concepts, such as being mindful of the ``stale green light'' and
looking for environmental clues that might present hazards. This young
man was surprised to learn that I was able to spot and predict
behaviors of other motorists before the other motorists acted. I talked
him through the various clues that I saw with traffic that allowed me
to predict and anticipate other drivers' behavior and actions. I
explained to him that a truck driver must always give the right-of-way
as opposed to simply taking it, regardless of the situation. A truck
driver must not present a hazard to other motorists forcing them to
suddenly brake or take evasive action. Behind-the-wheel training and
experience will ensure that a new truck driver will not be put into
perilous situations that require choices likely resulting in reckless
decision making. Mandatory behind-the-wheel training with an
experienced truck driver as a trainer will certainly save lives. Again,
ask any experienced truck driver, particularly those who have earned a
``1 million safe miles'' driver award, if there should be a mandatory
minimum behind-the-wheel time and they will respond with a resounding,
``Yes!''
Question 4. Do you believe that truck drivers should demonstrate
their driving capabilities on the streets and highways rather than in
parking lots?
Answer. Yes! Just driving a tractor-trailer in a parking lot or
controlled environment does not give a trainee the experience required
to react responsibly to car drivers that are driving irresponsibly.
Within minutes of driving on a highway, a truck driver sees how
dangerous many motorists are on our roadways. Many car motorists drive
distracted, aggressively or without the requisite patience. Ordinary
motorists frequently present hazards to a truck when that motorist is
both merging on and off highways. Many motorists will cut-off or drive
erratically around a much larger and slower moving semi-truck. Unless a
truck driver trainee has training actually driving on real-world
streets and highways, a new truck driver will not know how to properly
respond to other motorists, putting all the motoring public at risk of
a catastrophic or fatal crash. Not meaning to sound redundant, ask any
experienced truck driver if it is important for truck drivers to
demonstrate responsible driving capabilities on streets and highways
rather than parking lots, and again each one will likely respond with a
resounding, ``Yes!'' A closed course does not provide real-life
situations. How a new truck driver responds to the pressures of real-
life driving is imperative to evaluating their ability as a safe truck
driver.
I thank both Representative DeSaulnier and Representative Craig for
these important questions. I hope that my answers have adequately
responded to their questions. Each of the items discussed here will
help achieve the goal of ``vision zero'' initiatives all over the
country. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this response be put
into the Congressional record. These important issues will not only
save lives, but also save truck driver livelihoods.
[all]